Based on what, you say?
Theresa May said in 2007 MPs should have veto on EU negotiations
My reading is that May had once said that parliament should have a say on any changes to EU involvement (not just the unimagined Brexit) and now she says the opposite.
Whether that's because:
1) she has matured her opinion dince then (like Trump now no longer habitually grabs women in rude places(!)),
2) it was only an argument ever to be used whilst in opposition, and/or
3) Brexit isn't a mere 'change to EU involvement' and the rule that kicked in for significant changes stops applying again at some higher threshold...
...it's still a rather interesting thing to know about.
I don't actually understand "May supported UK even before Leave existed", but the above might cover what my best guess is about your (I think) complaint.
I'm gonna forgive you for insulting May with a comparison to Trump, least of all to to put lewdness and May in the same sentence, or that right there is salt farming simulator current year +1 Lol
Now back in 2007, Eurosceptic Tories were a significant faction within the Tory party that held no real power in the Tory HQ or in Parliament. Worse still, this was all under the Labour party which was at that time entirely dominated by New Labour (which fit together with the EU like finely aligned tetris blocks). Thus back then, when the EU was enlargening with the Lisbon Treaty, Theresa May was searching for the answer that retained British sovereignty. What was significant about the Lisbon Treaty was that for pretty much everything that makes a nation state, the notion of unanimity votes on
stealing appropriating sovereign powers was replaced with majority, as otherwise every Wallonia across Europe would keep the EU as a nice free trade bloc, instead of a bureaucratic empire keen on world hegemony. This meant that the EU could override the UK on whatever, because fuck you that's why - thus Theresa May sought veto power for the Lisbon Treaty negotiations in an effort to halt the rise of the European Union as we know it today. We would perhaps be able to squeeze concessions with each new treaty, but each concession would signal to folks like me that another piece of sovereignty has been lost that we'll never get back - the trend is downwards, and the only way out is out.
If for example it was apparent that she had a track record of supporting the European Union in policy before she was in the spotlight, before it was relevant to her meteoric rise in public office - it is a demonstration of sincerity that their views were constant before and after they were world-relevant. Hence why I would not trust a capable Tory minister that I know has been supporting the EU until only after the election result, I don't doubt that it is possible they had a sincere change of heart, it's just you can't afford to be wrong. If you're wrong, then we'll likely still be de facto a member of the Union and thus the fight will still have to go on for a very long time.
Why the hell would we give Parliament 'a say'? We elect Parliament to do the boring business of everyday government because we're all too busy doing real jobs. For something important like Brexit we voted on it directly ourselves, and a decision was made.
Parliament already had their say, they were up and down the country, on radio, television, morning shows, papers and spam ads campaigning for Remain and were decisively defeated. Now they want to be able to just ignore the fact that their constituents disagree with them :
P
Reminds me of an old conversation I had with a Labour MP, after he professed great virtue on how he only deserves office for as long as he listened to his constituents and acted according to his will. Amusingly, this was all before Brexit, so I asked him about how then he would respond to the majority of Britons supporting Leave, whilst he supported Remain - he told me the story of how he helped end fox hunting even though most Britons couldn't really be bothered either way. The subtext was clear, act according to conscience, and maintain the pretense of legitimate mandate - thus pleasing both crowds. Don't think it'll work this time :
D
The idea of Parliament overturning Brexit is like an important businessman telling his secretary that Joe Bloggs can't have a raise, but the secretary decides to give him one anyway. Later that week, as the secretary is being sacked and unceremoniously escorted out of the office by security, their wailing and cries of 'But I normally handle the payroll for you! Why are you sacking me?' echo up and down the office, as a warning to the rest of the secretaries lest they start thinking they're running the company.
The secretary later goes home to their apartment and slits their wrists in the bathtub. The obituary is short, and merely reads 'Ed Milliband tragically committed suicide after losing his job for gross incompetence. Again.'
I'm not so sure in this case if Parliament has legs to stand on or not, apart from sad Miliband :[
Just cos this really is a rather unique event. I am rather conflicted on the matter, as Parliament overrepresents Remain far beyond their democratic mandate allows, but I also want to hear what Remain wants to say in regards to Brexit now that everyone has calmed down. Help avoid that civil war Remain is edging towards lol
My main issue would be if the overrepresented Remain MPs seek a veto, which they inevitably would use to override Brexit. This would be against the wishes of the majority of the UK, against the wishes of the European Commission, and would cause the most hurt for both the sovereign nations of Europe and the United Kingdom. Saltiness would be understated if the Remain camp, having enjoyed unrivaled control of our media, treasury, parliament and cabinet, still managed to emerge victorious from their most crushing rejection by British voters.
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 192646 times)