No confidence vote against government in UK parliament

Why is Parliament agonising about having a no confidence vote against the government over Brexit. Let them sort out the mess they created. The present ministerial incumbents advocated Brexit and won an advisory referendum; there was no constitutional or legal obligation upon the UK government to invoke Article 50.

The legal process to approve the invocation of Article 50 was approved by Parliament. Parliament failed to ratify the EU withdrawal agreement and set the UK on a path to intense economic difficulties and the probable break up of the UK. Parliament, therefore , compounded the government's error.

The UK will also be faced with legal problems with its relationship with the EU. It also faces diplomatic weakness in its relations with the EU, the US and China. Young British citizens of the UK ,who do not enjoy dual nationality, will be deprived of their liberty to work, live and love in the  27 remaining countries of the EU; and this is for me the most depressing aspect of Brexit.

No-one who voted leave can provide a cogent and rational argument for how the UK can benefit from Brexit. The cost benefit analysis is heavily weighted in the cost column for diplomatic, legal, economic and social continuity and coherence. Most of the benefits are either marginal or are outweighed by the averse factors.

The best course of action would be for the UK Parliament to forget about a vote of confidence or a general election until either Brexit is revoked or delayed until a less damaging alternative is organised. I voted to remain but I would be prepared to compromise by voting for Britain to remain in the single market which I have advocated before. We could also remain in the customs union, and attempt to negotiate a say on who the union negotiate preferential trade deals with and their terms. My preference would be for a revoke decision, but I would be prepared to compromise as above. Ardent leavers have got no intention of compromising.

Staying in the single market and customs union would alleviate some of the adverse effects of Brexit but not all of them. We will still lose overseas investors and see our position as a middle ranking world power reduced. However, a disaster will be averted.

Parliament  should concentrate their time between now and October 31st on passing a law either to revoke article 50 or amend the EU Withdrawal Act - this would mean Parliament deciding and ratifying when the date of withdrawal from the EU would be effected. Amending the act would give time for a third referendum or a realistic compromise or both.

To do this, Parliamentarians need to have the courage to admit that they were wrong to invoke Article 50 in the first place.

They should explain why sensible countries require a two thirds majority to invoke a change to the status quo. They should explain why in Australia a general referendum result can only be effected if a majority of the states vote for it. In Australia voting is compulsory, so a first past the post result is truly representative of all of the electorate. These prior factors are reasons why Australia is able to hold referendums without causing division and dissension in the body politic of the whole of the federation and individual states. These are also reasons why most referendums in Australia fail to change the status quo.

The fixed Parliament Act states that the PM can only call a general election when is there is a two thirds majority in Parliament to approve it. I wonder why a two thirds majority is needed?  Also, if the opposition do not approve a vote of no confidence then the government is forced to stay in office. The government could easily be held to account to sort out the mess of their own making. Britain would remain in the EU until a sensible solution is found.

However, MP's will not have the courage to do this and we will probably leave the EU by default without a deal and our country will be the worse for it.

From a personal point of view, my wife and I have the resources and the passports to leave the UK to take up residence in one of the other 27 remaining EU countries. We both have extreme affection for the UK and its tradition of tolerance and liberty. The situation would have to get considerably worse, in our eyes, before we up sticks and left. Luckily, and as a last resort, we can emigrate; but the vast majority of our compatriots will be deprived of this right. Moving to the US or Australia is becoming increasing difficult. Voting to remove the right to free movement maybe something that leavers will regret, either for themselves or for  their children. The blue passport will end up just being that: Blue.