Timeline for Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2019 at 21:13 | comment | added | Paul Palmpje | So you had a yes/no vote on leaving the EU. But now what? Dictate your terms or come to an agreement? And who's going to agree with whatever agreement? No is an easy answer but prepare to what you say no to. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 20:22 | comment | added | Valorum | For the record, there's a long tradition of MPs voting in both lobbies for .... reasons. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:56 | comment | added | Steve Melnikoff | @Time4Tea Note that matters of procedure are normally dealt with by changes to the Commons standing orders, not by legislation. The house can do this by a simple majority vote, and changes can be permanent or for a defined amount of time. The most common form of this is for specified standing orders to be suspended for a particular motion before the house. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:26 | comment | added | origimbo | @Time4Tea In theory parliament can do anything except irrevocably binding the hands of a future parliament. In practice it's very unlikely a parliament would move to allow statute to be created by a minority of its members, due to the unfortunate precedent it would create. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:12 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @Time4Tea (re your earlier comment) I think it depends on the type of vote. If you vote for something (even if that says we shall not do X) it might make a law. Voting something away means a bill doesn't pass and isn't made into law. So a bill that didn't pass is as if it doesn't exist (unless for the purposes of bringing the bill up again and again), however, a bill that does pass exists in the record (e.g. as a law). | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:10 | comment | added | Time4Tea | This is an interesting answer, thanks. But, couldn't MPs in theory vote in favour of a bill that would allow a binding plurality vote between more than two options (effectively overriding the core voting mechanism)? I guess I'm surprised there hasn't more talk about such an option, given the predicament we seem to be in. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:09 | comment | added | pjc50 | @Time4Tea yes, you have to actually take action for the outcome you do want, especially after having already sent out an Article 50 two years ago | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 17:08 | comment | added | Time4Tea | @JJJ is there a difference between voting that you do not want something and not voting that you do want it? | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 16:28 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Yes, but no-deal is the only option they voted for not wanting. The other options they just voted away. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 16:25 | comment | added | origimbo | @JJJ At one point or other options 1 and option 4 have met that standard. Both rather heavily. | |
| Mar 20, 2019 at 16:24 | history | edited | origimbo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 264 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2019 at 16:23 | comment | added | JJJ♦ |
(excepting option 3 which could essentially happen by accident at this point.) Ironically, that is the only of the four options MPs could agree they don't want.
|
|
| Mar 20, 2019 at 16:19 | history | answered | origimbo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |