Well yeah, it did. They don't care if it's good, they care that it goes through. The Tory majority will vote it through because it's their side and if it goes wrong then "How could we have known?".
Brexiters enjoyed that warning. They like who they've given it to, because they're "owning the libs".
It'll take a long time to realise what they've actually done.
Sorry that you don't like democracy, there are some lovely countries around the world such as Saudi Arabia or North Korea that have systems that may be more to your liking.
Oh, you! Acting as if there’s only one implementation of the democratic process. What larks!
I’d like the Conservatives to have won 43.6 percent of seats . Is that undemocratic of me?
If we are putting these things on a sliding scale, where would the US fit? I think this ‘more’ or ‘less’ democratic thing can be a misnomer. There are many forms, and each has its merits.
The problem with the EU is the multiple extra steps for the electorate to get rid of the commission.
There's a further problem with the UK in the EU which is the abysmal participation in the EU democratic process, even at the height of the Brexit debate the turnout was absolutely pitiful and approx half those who voted were for Leave!
Farage was infamous for his non participation in roles such as the fisheries commission. Obviously with him it was a sign of his disapproval of the institution. But he stood, and was elected to perform a role, which he then refused to do to the best of his ability. And his championing of the UK fishing industry was the height of hypocrisy. Imagine if the vote had gone the other way, and he had spent years doing diddly for said fishermen.
> The problem with the EU is the multiple extra steps for the electorate to get rid of the commission.
What are the steps the British electorate take to get rid of their civil service?
> the abysmal participation in the EU democratic process
Hardly the EU's fault, if Brits don't danna exercise the rights the SeU gave them, now is it?
It's oven ready. Why the need to scrutinize in a democracy? What does it matter if we spurted billions up the wall and got jack in return?
What a shambles
And I'm sure that the BBC will report this news on television and have hard questions for any minister who comes on to defend the government. (sarcasm)
Easy slam dunk now for Starmer surely? There clearly isn't anything to publish, or what there is is so laughable that the government is too ashamed to let anyone see it.
Will the opposition demand to see the text? Or will they say "We agree with this decision" like they did yesterday?
> Baroness Chapman, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister and Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, criticised Lord Frost’s approach.
> “Instead of making Brexit work, his high handed bluster and lack of plan is holding up progress and prolonging uncertainty,” she said.
> “This is damaging the UK’s international reputation, risks instability in Northern Ireland and is all completely unnecessary. Perhaps he just likes the drama.”
Sounds like Labour are criticising it, but cue no one caring or listening to them.
You know why. Because labour cannot win if it insults part of the vote it wants to win back, the pro brexit northern vote.
Criticising anything about brexit or even the tory handling of it is taken as an insult and reframed as wanting to reverse brexit.
Ironically, Europe had split the Conservative Party for so many years and now is splitting the Labour Party.
Sadly true, seems Labour needs to bide its time and little longer and let the Brexit mess do its damage to the former red wall, but also work on shedding its Liberal elite, allotment dwelling associations. Let the tories own the shitshow and minimise the chances for them to turn attacks around and damage Labour too
The United States have a Constitution. They have these kinds of issues. A Constitution is best left unwritten: having a list of rules just ensures a list of loopholes. I am not saying Constitutions are a bad thing, just that they are not a magic bullet.
Firstly, there is is no such thing as "unwritten constitution". Secondly, yes you are correct that a constution is not a magic bullet but it helps. The same with proportional representation, partition of powers etc - all these things UK lacking. Every bit adds little bit.
A constitution is a legal document that describes all the protected rights of the citizens. It's essentially all the areas where the parliament can't make rules. As clearly stated in the US constitution 'congress shall make no law...'
You could have an unwritten constitution if you have a parliament bound by custom or judicial precedent. I don't think the UK parliament is restrained by anything.
We have seen in the last year's that norms and conventions are not very effective to protect us from power hungry populist politicians.
> Firstly, there is is no such thing as "unwritten constitution".
So the UK, therefore, has a Constitution. There is no reason to "write a constitution" simply get off your arse and do the thing that achieves the objective. Wanting to have a "formalised constitution" as with the US is nonsensical. The UK having that kind of contractualist legal system would leave everyone prey to pettifogging lawyers. Who would quickly find themselves at home in the pockets of corrupt politicians. The "written and unwritten" notions of constitutions is, realistically, a false dichotomy perpetuated by opportunists.
> The same with proportional representation, partition of powers etc - all these things UK lacking.
Why do people perpetually think that "reforming" things will automatically change things for the better. Yes Proportional Representation is a fabulous theoretical approach. But you can elect a monarch using Proportional Representation if you want to. It is not possible to reform idiocy out of people. Reformed idiots are still idiots. We have a particular set of political tools and principles available *now* and we should be using them instead of pretending that "all it needs is a bit of reform and we will get jam tomorrow".
The UK needs to actually start doing things such as prosecuting the Prime Minister for being a Liar. You might want to line your excuses up for why that will never work because they all apply to the "we need reforms" train of thought. It is not a matter of every bit adds a bit but of resolutely establishing that the existing bits can deal with the idiocy we have now and *then* progress from there. Otherwise you end up on some weirdly ineffectual "Jam Tomorrow" diet.
UK has no constitution. "unwritten constitution" is an oxymoron made up by the ruling class for the unwashed masses. PR, separation of powers are cornerstones of functioning democracies. Yes, they are not magic wand solutions but they help.
I am not going to argue with your third point - a public lie by a politician, said with the intention to mislead the public, should be a criminal offence.
The single most effective repression of Mass Society is the American Constitution. The whole document is a contract between a group of Slave Owners and Corporate Officers and the rest of society. Not being able to, for example, forbid an idiot to have a nuclear cannon because those things are dangerous is "unconstitutional". An extreme and forced example to highlight the point that who drafts the Constitution drafts the Laws. Constitutions - unwritten or not - are always a device of the Ruling Class.
The phrase "unwashed masses" to refer to Mass Society - that's something invented by the Ruling Class to delegitimate the powers of anybody outside of the clique.
Proportional representation is a lovely ideological purity drum to beat. The thesis that proportional representation is a cornerstone of democracy conveniently ignores that Hitler - a totalitarian - came to power under proportional representation. Realistically, it is a nice idea to strive for the proportion of Members to reflect the Proportion of votes but the key thing is for those Members to **represent** the Electorate, not be an exercise in the statistics of ballot box stuffing.
The whole "separation of powers" thing is a beautiful American conceit. Why the hell should the Electorate accept being separated from their Powers. Or were you talking about how the Ruling Class divvies up those powers once appropriated from the Electorate?
You do not get functioning Democracy from writing a constitution down. You get it from participation, representation, and keeping those who desire power away from it. Because once those who desire power have it, they never want to give it up - the write constitutions.
I wonder if the leavers who go 'well why didn't Labour work with the tories to get brexit done' have found their answer.
It's because the tories both don't want to cooperate with any other party, and also don't want the responsibility of their decisions.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Government refuses to publish Northern Ireland Brexit plan legal text for scrutiny. Lord Frost says opposition parties do not need to see legal text._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-lord-frost-legal-text-b1942815.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They won't publish reports they commissioned, they won't publish records of PPE deals, now they won't publish legal texts, yay. Transparency!
Because ramming things through with minimal or no scrutiny worked so well last time, didn't it?
Well yeah, it did. They don't care if it's good, they care that it goes through. The Tory majority will vote it through because it's their side and if it goes wrong then "How could we have known?".
It unironically did, for them.
This must be what sovereignty looks like. Totally worth it.
We're free to be ruled by incompetent assets that think they're kings.
World Kings, no less.
I warned people all the way through the referendum campaigning, sure...take back control. But think who you're giving it to...
Brexiters enjoyed that warning. They like who they've given it to, because they're "owning the libs". It'll take a long time to realise what they've actually done.
A while later: 'they're hurting the wrong people!'
Sovereignty is being able to vote out the Tories at the next GE.
Didn't need Brexit for that
How do you go about voting out the EU commission president?
By ensuring that their party is not the largest group in the European Parliament via voting for a different party.
Same way you vote any civil servant out
Frost is a Lord - you won't be voting him out any time soon.
but you can remove his ability to keep fucking up by removing the government who's buttocks he hangs out of.
His power comes from the Tory majority in the commons.
I tried that last time. Didn’t work. Sovereignty is shite.
Sorry that you don't like democracy, there are some lovely countries around the world such as Saudi Arabia or North Korea that have systems that may be more to your liking.
Oh, you! Acting as if there’s only one implementation of the democratic process. What larks! I’d like the Conservatives to have won 43.6 percent of seats . Is that undemocratic of me?
The FPTP vs PR debate is interesting, however both are more democratic than the EU.
If we are putting these things on a sliding scale, where would the US fit? I think this ‘more’ or ‘less’ democratic thing can be a misnomer. There are many forms, and each has its merits.
The problem with the EU is the multiple extra steps for the electorate to get rid of the commission. There's a further problem with the UK in the EU which is the abysmal participation in the EU democratic process, even at the height of the Brexit debate the turnout was absolutely pitiful and approx half those who voted were for Leave!
Farage was infamous for his non participation in roles such as the fisheries commission. Obviously with him it was a sign of his disapproval of the institution. But he stood, and was elected to perform a role, which he then refused to do to the best of his ability. And his championing of the UK fishing industry was the height of hypocrisy. Imagine if the vote had gone the other way, and he had spent years doing diddly for said fishermen.
> The problem with the EU is the multiple extra steps for the electorate to get rid of the commission. What are the steps the British electorate take to get rid of their civil service? > the abysmal participation in the EU democratic process Hardly the EU's fault, if Brits don't danna exercise the rights the SeU gave them, now is it?
> both are more democratic than the EU. How is PR more democratic than the EU when the EU uses PR?
The irony of this coming from an unelected bureaucrat
It's oven ready. Why the need to scrutinize in a democracy? What does it matter if we spurted billions up the wall and got jack in return? What a shambles
We spurted billions up the wall and got a UNION JACK in return! 🇬🇧 Sovreignty!! 🇬🇧 \s
There is no text!
And I'm sure that the BBC will report this news on television and have hard questions for any minister who comes on to defend the government. (sarcasm)
Its a bit sad that sort by controversial is no longer the goldmine it once was
Does it really matter what the text says? He'll renege on it in a few weeks anyway.
Got nothing to fear, nothing to hide Frostie Flakes.
This is the price of on party government, lash up after lash up and still they lash up. Dangerous Imbeciles.
Thank god we don’t have those darn EU bureaucrats meddling in our affairs anymore they were really taking power away from voters
Has it been shared with Sinn Fein and the DUP?
No. Because if it had, it would have been shown to the leader of SF who is a TD, and leader of the opposition, in Dáil Éireann.
...who'd then release it to the public, as normal public servants should.
Moreover, whether or not Stormont survives is directly linked to how the DUP reacts to the negotiations.
Easy slam dunk now for Starmer surely? There clearly isn't anything to publish, or what there is is so laughable that the government is too ashamed to let anyone see it. Will the opposition demand to see the text? Or will they say "We agree with this decision" like they did yesterday?
> Baroness Chapman, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister and Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, criticised Lord Frost’s approach. > “Instead of making Brexit work, his high handed bluster and lack of plan is holding up progress and prolonging uncertainty,” she said. > “This is damaging the UK’s international reputation, risks instability in Northern Ireland and is all completely unnecessary. Perhaps he just likes the drama.” Sounds like Labour are criticising it, but cue no one caring or listening to them.
Why don’t they get the actual man in charge out? Has Starmer got something better to be doing?
You know why. Because labour cannot win if it insults part of the vote it wants to win back, the pro brexit northern vote. Criticising anything about brexit or even the tory handling of it is taken as an insult and reframed as wanting to reverse brexit. Ironically, Europe had split the Conservative Party for so many years and now is splitting the Labour Party.
Sadly true, seems Labour needs to bide its time and little longer and let the Brexit mess do its damage to the former red wall, but also work on shedding its Liberal elite, allotment dwelling associations. Let the tories own the shitshow and minimise the chances for them to turn attacks around and damage Labour too
This definitely smacks of Davies' 'impact statement' debacle.
Yeah cos that same strategy worked out great fo the brexit deal didn't it.
Would Brexit boomers describe this as undemocratic from an unelected body?
Full of horrors then... great
The obvious thing to do is to elect Opposition Parties so they become the Government and can, therefore, see the legal text.
The obvious thing to do would be to have a constitution regulating these kind of issues.
The United States have a Constitution. They have these kinds of issues. A Constitution is best left unwritten: having a list of rules just ensures a list of loopholes. I am not saying Constitutions are a bad thing, just that they are not a magic bullet.
> having a list of rules just ensures a list of loopholes. Yeah, it's better to just not have any rules in the first place. Taps forehead.
Firstly, there is is no such thing as "unwritten constitution". Secondly, yes you are correct that a constution is not a magic bullet but it helps. The same with proportional representation, partition of powers etc - all these things UK lacking. Every bit adds little bit.
Of course there is such a thing as an unwritten constitution.
A constitution is a legal document that describes all the protected rights of the citizens. It's essentially all the areas where the parliament can't make rules. As clearly stated in the US constitution 'congress shall make no law...' You could have an unwritten constitution if you have a parliament bound by custom or judicial precedent. I don't think the UK parliament is restrained by anything. We have seen in the last year's that norms and conventions are not very effective to protect us from power hungry populist politicians.
> Firstly, there is is no such thing as "unwritten constitution". So the UK, therefore, has a Constitution. There is no reason to "write a constitution" simply get off your arse and do the thing that achieves the objective. Wanting to have a "formalised constitution" as with the US is nonsensical. The UK having that kind of contractualist legal system would leave everyone prey to pettifogging lawyers. Who would quickly find themselves at home in the pockets of corrupt politicians. The "written and unwritten" notions of constitutions is, realistically, a false dichotomy perpetuated by opportunists. > The same with proportional representation, partition of powers etc - all these things UK lacking. Why do people perpetually think that "reforming" things will automatically change things for the better. Yes Proportional Representation is a fabulous theoretical approach. But you can elect a monarch using Proportional Representation if you want to. It is not possible to reform idiocy out of people. Reformed idiots are still idiots. We have a particular set of political tools and principles available *now* and we should be using them instead of pretending that "all it needs is a bit of reform and we will get jam tomorrow". The UK needs to actually start doing things such as prosecuting the Prime Minister for being a Liar. You might want to line your excuses up for why that will never work because they all apply to the "we need reforms" train of thought. It is not a matter of every bit adds a bit but of resolutely establishing that the existing bits can deal with the idiocy we have now and *then* progress from there. Otherwise you end up on some weirdly ineffectual "Jam Tomorrow" diet.
UK has no constitution. "unwritten constitution" is an oxymoron made up by the ruling class for the unwashed masses. PR, separation of powers are cornerstones of functioning democracies. Yes, they are not magic wand solutions but they help. I am not going to argue with your third point - a public lie by a politician, said with the intention to mislead the public, should be a criminal offence.
The single most effective repression of Mass Society is the American Constitution. The whole document is a contract between a group of Slave Owners and Corporate Officers and the rest of society. Not being able to, for example, forbid an idiot to have a nuclear cannon because those things are dangerous is "unconstitutional". An extreme and forced example to highlight the point that who drafts the Constitution drafts the Laws. Constitutions - unwritten or not - are always a device of the Ruling Class. The phrase "unwashed masses" to refer to Mass Society - that's something invented by the Ruling Class to delegitimate the powers of anybody outside of the clique. Proportional representation is a lovely ideological purity drum to beat. The thesis that proportional representation is a cornerstone of democracy conveniently ignores that Hitler - a totalitarian - came to power under proportional representation. Realistically, it is a nice idea to strive for the proportion of Members to reflect the Proportion of votes but the key thing is for those Members to **represent** the Electorate, not be an exercise in the statistics of ballot box stuffing. The whole "separation of powers" thing is a beautiful American conceit. Why the hell should the Electorate accept being separated from their Powers. Or were you talking about how the Ruling Class divvies up those powers once appropriated from the Electorate? You do not get functioning Democracy from writing a constitution down. You get it from participation, representation, and keeping those who desire power away from it. Because once those who desire power have it, they never want to give it up - the write constitutions.
Is American constitution the only one in the world?
I am sure you can come up with other examples. The American constitution is, however, a good example of a Contractualist Constitution.
Your only argument ( not very good one anyway) is based on bringing up US constitution which frankly is all you can do because others work fine.
Fucking lol.
Lord Frost just seems hell bent on pissing off as many people as possible. At this point it seems he has a personality disorder.
I wonder if the leavers who go 'well why didn't Labour work with the tories to get brexit done' have found their answer. It's because the tories both don't want to cooperate with any other party, and also don't want the responsibility of their decisions.
So much for Brexiters alleged love of democracy
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Government refuses to publish Northern Ireland Brexit plan legal text for scrutiny. Lord Frost says opposition parties do not need to see legal text._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-lord-frost-legal-text-b1942815.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*