Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Bubbles on July 04, 2016, 02:07:06 PM
-
Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite against a vote by the people.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/685873/Lawyers-referendum-result-legal-bid-block-Brexit-EU-leave
I think that's disgusting!
If a small elite can over-rule any democratic vote - we no longer live in a democracy.
It isnt about what they can do legally, it's about what it's ethical to do.
I want to know who this law firm is representing so I can boycott any goods or services they offer.
They are undemocratic and dishonest if they would do this to suit themselves.
Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.
That's the issue.
Just because you can do things legally, doesn't mean it's right.
Tory MEP David Campbell Bannerman, a leading figure in Vote Leave, said the legal challenge was a “disgrace”.
The result of the referendum is not in doubt.
He said he believed that it would fail because the original European Communities Act 1972 allowed the Government to initiate changes to treaties with the EU, including departure.
But he added: “This sort of attempt to subvert a clear democratic result is disgraceful. We saw from Tony Blair today and other interventions that there is now an attempt by Remain supporters to overturn this result.
And I agree 100% with him.
It is a disgrace!
-
The case is being brought by Mishcon de Reya on behalf of a group of unnamed clients understood to be major businesses.
They should be named and shamed, the cowards!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3673422/The-resistance-begins-Legal-bid-BLOCK-new-Prime-Minister-triggering-Brexit-unless-pro-EU-MPs-agree.html
-
Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite against a vote by the people.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/685873/Lawyers-referendum-result-legal-bid-block-Brexit-EU-leave
I think that's disgusting!
This "elite" is the House of Commons, elected by us to run the country in our name.
-
The thing that was dishonourable was the was the way that democracy was perverted by the blatant lies of the Brexiteers.
-
This "elite" is the House of Commons, elected by us to run the country in our name.
No it isn't it's a bunch of faceless businessmen hiding behind lawyers.
Businessmen who are unethical in getting their own way.
Cowards who are not prepared to stand up and be counted.
>:(
-
The thing that was dishonourable was the was the way that democracy was perverted by the blatant lies of the Brexiteers.
Agreed. Many people who voted for Brexit hadn't a clue what they were voting for, imo.
-
The thing that was dishonourable was the was the way that democracy was perverted by the blatant lies of the Brexiteers.
Both sides lied!
-
Agreed. Many people who voted for Brexit hadn't a clue what they were voting for, imo.
People who voted remain didn't know either.
Because no one had ever done this before.
-
No it isn't it's a bunch of faceless businessmen hiding behind lawyers.
Businessmen who are unethical in getting their own way.
>:(
It seems to me that they are trying to determine whether Parliament has to pass an act in order to allow the PM to trigger article 50. What's wrong with that? If it is legal for the PM to trigger the article without asking parliament, they'll lose. If not, it is better that the PM doesn't do something illegal.
-
It seems to me that they are trying to determine whether Parliament has to pass an act in order to allow the PM to trigger article 50. What's wrong with that? If it is legal for the PM to trigger the article without asking parliament, they'll lose. If not, it is better that the PM doesn't do something illegal.
Who runs this country?
Our government or a bunch of cowardly businessmen hiding behind a bunch of dishonest lawyers prepared to twist the law ?
It's unethical.
I'm sure the world biggest crooks employed a good lawyer, says it all.
-
Who runs this country?
Our government or a bunch of cowardly businessmen hiding behind a bunch of dishonest lawyers prepared to twist the law ?
It's unethical.
How are they twisting the law? If the law says the PM can trigger article 50 without consulting parliament, they will lose the case.
How is it unethical to challenge something in the courts that you think is illegal?
-
How are they twisting the law? If the law says the PM can trigger article 50 without consulting parliament, they will lose the case.
How is it unethical to challenge something in the courts that you think is illegal?
They are doing it to undermine the democratic vote, while hiding behind the law.
That's unethical!
They haven't even got the nerve to be named.
Cowards!
Those lawyers are not doing it to protect the next PM from doing something illegal.
They are abusing the law to satisfy the desires of some cowardly businessmen, who think their POV should be more important that everyone else in this country.
They want to dictate to everyone else, so they can become even richer than they already are.
They are motivated by greed, and don't care a damn about democracy.
-
They are doing it to undermine the democratic vote, while hiding behind the law.
That's unethical!
They haven't even got the nerve to be named.
Cowards!
And for which side did you vote Rose?
-
And for which side did you vote Rose?
I voted remain, but am appalled at the actions of some remain supporters.
Even more appalled at this takeover bid, while abusing our law to overturn what people voted for.
It looks to me that we don't actually live in a democracy at all, because if it's unpopular with powerful and wealthy people, they will abuse the law to get their own way.
I didn't feel I knew enough about leaving the EU to vote leave, so went for the safe option.
However I feel that as the government promised the people in this country that whatever they voted, the country would do, it's up to them to honour it.
As David Cameron says, the people should have what they voted for.
Even George Osborne said it was his country right or wrong and he would do his best to support our country, both of them were remain.
But some legal petition by a few cowardly businessmen who aim to take matters into their own hands is not acceptable to me.
We either live in a democracy or we don't.
At the moment, it's starting to look like we don't.
If it had been remain who had won and a legal bid was instigated to overturn it, I would have been just as cross.
It's the principal of it.
Democracy is about us all having a say, in one way or another.
It's not perfect, but it doesn't involve an elite group of businessmen employing lawyers to go against the ordinary persons majority vote.
Especially if they are nameless and faceless, to boot.
It's not a good thing.
It's like Scotland getting a independant majority vote and being scuppered by a few invisible elitist individuals with lots of money, on some point of law.
The thing is, the parliament is supposed to represent us, the people, and no matter who you are, you get one vote.
It's just so awful, because people did bother to vote, on both sides.
If that can be overthrown by a few people abusing the law, what does that say about our democracy?
It kind of goes against what I have always thought about democracy in this country.
That no matter who you were, your vote counted in equal measure to anyone else in your regional area.
Obviously not!
-
Whatever they (the government) do or don't do, it has to be on a legal basis. After all, the government, supported by parliament and our votes, makes many of the laws in the first place and is responsible for upholding the law.
If the law is wrong, parliament can change it as required.
Obviously, no-one lives in a perfect democracy as there is no such system.
-
Whatever they (the government) do or don't do, it has to be on a legal basis. After all, the government, supported by parliament and our votes, makes many of the laws in the first place and is responsible for upholding the law.
If the law is wrong, parliament can change it as required.
Obviously, no-one lives in a perfect democracy as there is no such system.
No, but obviously there is a weakness in ours that allows a few businessmen to employ a bunch of lawyers to control our parliament.
If we need anything, we need a law to block that and prevent it happening again.
You can't have small groups of unnamed businessmen attempting to control parliament by using the law by stealth.
I'm totally opposed to that.
Just because I voted remain, doesn't mean I'm not going to object to something, if I think it's wrong.
The leave voters won, no matter it isn't what I voted for.
I'm not accepting unethical behaviours to change what they voted for.
A few anonymous businessmen trying to control parliament is wrong, I don't care if they think it's justifiable because of the outcome and they are using the law.
It isn't.
They are attempting to abuse the law to control parliament in a way that is undemocratic.
-
I thought that Mishcon de Reya were making the point that the referendum is not legally binding. This seems obvious, but it is unlikely that Parliament would over-rule it. To be constitutionally correct though, parliament must approve the decision to leave the EU.
-
Lawyers have a silver tongue, they can make anything sound reasonable.
It isn't though >:(
-
Gossip says one of the cowards is some billionaire from Zoopla.
http://order-order.com/2016/07/04/zoopla-behind-anti-brexit-legal-action/
-
The irony is, that this law firm are saying that the Commons are pre-eminent, and cannot be over-ruled. This seems obvious, since no-one else can OK the framework for withdrawal.
-
The irony is, that this law firm are saying that the Commons are pre-eminent, and cannot be over-ruled. This seems obvious, since no-one else can OK the framework for withdrawal.
Yes but they are doing it with the full knowledge that most MP's in parliament are remain.
They are sneaky and dishonest.
That's why they are anonymous, because they don't want to stand up and be counted.
They are cowards!
The law firm is just a front for a bunch of conniving cowards!
-
Rose
I think that you are confused - you are certainly confusing "the government" with "Parliament". These are not the same thing.
The prime minister appears to have decided that the result of the referendum is final. It isn't - the referendum is advisory not mandatory. It is possible that he is acting outside the constitution. It is for Parliament not the government to make the final decision.
We have discussed on this forum the fact that 63% of the electorate did not vote for leaving. The result 52% to 48% of the people voting is too close to determine whether the result is reliable or not.
This is a constitutional matter which must be decided by Parliament not by a prime minister who appears to have thrown his Teddy out of the pram. All that these petitioners are doing is protecting your interests and the interests of all voters.
-
It would be amazing if we all woke-up one morning and realised that Brexit had only been a bad dream ;D
-
So glad these heroes are ensuring due process.
-
People who voted remain didn't know either.
They were voting for the status quo.
-
Cameron did supply information about Remain, for example, that EU citizens who didn't get a job after six months would have to go home, and there was other stuff. As far as I can see, the Leave people are deciding now what they mean by Brexit. Thanks for telling us.
-
Whoops....Remember Vote leave in a Party Political Broadcast showing how immigrants would be cleared from hospital waiting rooms?
Has Leadsom gone back on this, too?
-
Vlad and his Ilk: They were voting for the status quo.
And are now in Dire Straits?
-
Rose
I think that you are confused - you are certainly confusing "the government" with "Parliament". These are not the same thing.
The prime minister appears to have decided that the result of the referendum is final. It isn't - the referendum is advisory not mandatory. It is possible that he is acting outside the constitution. It is for Parliament not the government to make the final decision.
We have discussed on this forum the fact that 63% of the electorate did not vote for leaving. The result 52% to 48% of the people voting is too close to determine whether the result is reliable or not.
This is a constitutional matter which must be decided by Parliament not by a prime minister who appears to have thrown his Teddy out of the pram. All that these petitioners are doing is protecting your interests and the interests of all voters.
Is it really just the PM who decided the result would be final? This paper was published from the Cabinet Office on 29 February 2016:
"The process for withdrawing from the European Union"
2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision. The Prime Minister made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start
straight away”.1
3.1 As the Prime Minister has said, if the vote is to leave the EU, the British
people would expect that process to start straight away. We would want to open a constructive negotiation with the rest of the EU in order to agree positive terms for the UK’s exit and the future relationship.
5.4 As the Prime Minister has said, if the vote is to leave the EU, the British people would expect the UK Government to notify the European Council straight away that it wished to leave under the terms of Article 50.
http://tinyurl.com/j496pxe
It is interesting that given the statement I've highlighted in red, Article 50 has not yet been triggered. I find the article contradictory. On one hand, it appears to be certain that the withdrawal process would start immediately. On the other hand, it highlights the immense amount of work which withdrawal involves, and the uncertainty during that period. Maybe it would have been better not to say that Article 50 would be triggered immediately (I assume that is what it means).
-
Well, that leaves out the game of pass the parcel which ensued after the Leave vote. Cameron understandably thought, you've broken it, you fix it, and passed it on to his successor. Boris went all pale and shakey at this idea, and went off to play cricket. The remaining Tory candidates are all wondering what to do, since Brexit, whatever else it was, was remarkably vague. They are currently arguing about EU nationals - let them stay or deport them. Happy days.
-
They are doing it to undermine the democratic vote, while hiding behind the law.
How can they hide behind the law? Either the law says the PM can trigger article 50 without Parliament's say so in which case they lose or the law says the PM cannot trigger article 50 without parliament's say so, in which case they were right to raise the challenge.
That's unethical!
No it isn't. It's not unethical to challenge somebody if you think they are breaking the law.
They want to dictate to everyone else, so they can become even richer than they already are.
So you agree that leaving the EU is bad for the economy. Why the fuck are we still planning to do it then?
-
I voted remain, but am appalled at the actions of some remain supporters.
You're appalled that some people haven't given up hope of saving the country from destruction?
-
2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision.
Sorry, whatever might have been said in the cabinet paper is constitutionally incorrect.
The referendum is advisory and therefore the government is under no legal or constitutional obligation to act in accordance with its result. Also incorrect in that it needs to be parliament rather than the government that trigger the next stage.
And don't forget that the government could have made the referendum binding, rather than advisory - they chose not to, and having done so they must not act as if the referendum was binding.
The biggest problems with the process is that there is no clarity on what those who voted brexit were voting for, rather than voting against.
Coupled with the findings that up to 13% of leave voters now regret that decision the findings cannot be considered to be the clear and settled view of the electorate. And it would be unsafe to make decisions that will massively affect the lives of ordinary people for decades on such a shaky basis.
Best approach is for the government to negotiate what it considers to be the best brexit deal (ideally with a general election mandate) and then once a clear deal is on the table (not a fantasy have cake and eat it assertion) there should be a second referendum in which that agreed brexit deal is put to the people against remaining.
That way there would be a clear choice of options that can actually be delivered.
-
How can they hide behind the law? Either the law says the PM can trigger article 50 without Parliament's say so in which case they lose or the law says the PM cannot trigger article 50 without parliament's say so, in which case they were right to raise the challenge.
Didn't parliament agree to let the PM trigger article 50 when it passed the law that the referendum would happen by the end of 2016? If they agree to build an aircraft carrier do they have to pass a separate law before it can be used?
No it isn't. It's not unethical to challenge somebody if you think they are breaking the law.
So you agree that leaving the EU is bad for the economy. Why the fuck are we still planning to do it then?
Because the majority think that it is worth sacrificing some economic gain in order to take back control of our country.
-
The referendum is advisory
PD
I require a citation please.
-
Agreed. Many people who voted for Brexit hadn't a clue what they were voting for, imo.
Yes, that is the most appalling thing. I understand that one of the questions going around the social media is, 'what is the EU?'
And the number of people I heard on radio - and one I know personally - who didn't really know what to vote and who decided at the last minute that they might as well vote leave. It's enough to make anyone weep.
-
How can they hide behind the law? Either the law says the PM can trigger article 50 without Parliament's say so in which case they lose or the law says the PM cannot trigger article 50 without parliament's say so, in which case they were right to raise the challenge.
No it isn't. It's not unethical to challenge somebody if you think they are breaking the law.
So you agree that leaving the EU is bad for the economy. Why the fuck are we still planning to do it then?
It is unethical. It's driven by people " clients" who refuse to be named. They might not be entitled to a vote.
The principal of attempting to overturn the result and promises of the government is unethical. They do have their own advisors to advise them of their legal position.
They don't need some independant lawyers with unnamed " clients" to tell us all what we can do.
We don't even know the " clients " are entitled to a POV. They may not even be residents of the U.K.
Because more people wanted to leave than stay.
As I said I chose to vote remain because I thought it was the safe option, but I'm not totally convinced it is ultimately bad for our economy.
Also if I get outvoted I don't try an get my own way, like a spoilt child.
It's unethical to force remain on the majority of people in this county.
If you add the vote of those that couldn't care less enough to vote, to the 52% you get a big majority that didn't vote remain.
I'm starting to think it's remain that isn't good for our country.
With the things I have seen and heard , and the unscrupulous suggestions banded about by some..... I seriously wonder I'd we are actually better off out.
-
It is unethical.
The principal of attempting to overturn the result and promises of the government is unethical. They do have their own advisors to advise them of their legal position.
Because more people wanted to leave than stay.
Not everywhere, such as here in Scotland.
It's unethical to force remain on the majority of people in this county.
As is in the case of Scotland, and yet the UK politicians outside of Scotland are more concerned with musical chairs.
-
PD
I require a citation please.
There are tons as it is completely accepted constitutionally to be a non binding advisory referendum. So from wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
'The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, known within the United Kingdom as the EU referendum and the Brexit referendum, was a non-legally binding[1] referendum that took place on Thursday 23 June 2016 in the UK and Gibraltar[2][3] to gauge support for the country's continued membership in the European Union.
-
It's unethical to force remain on the majority of people in this county.
But there is only a snap-shot view of what people were against - i.e. membership of the EU, there is nothing on what people are for, i.e. the post Brexit settlement. Given the tiny majority in favour, I doubt any single Brexit deal (e.g. EEA vs EFTA, vs WTO - FOM vs non-FOM) would come close to a majority. So there is no mandate for any particular Brexit deal. Hence my view that once there is a agreed deal on the table there should be a second referendum to ratify (or not) that deal compared to remaining. Why is that somehow undemocratic.
Were we to remain at that stage, in say 2 years time then it would be because a majority preferred to remain against the actual Brexit deal - rather than many, many hypothetical and incompatible brexit deals that the leavers, as a broad church, thought would be the case on the 23rd June. There can only be one brexit settlement but at the moment leave voters voted for whatever brexit settlement they wished there to be, whether or not it was possible or actually negotiated by government.
If you add the vote of those that couldn't care less enough to vote, to the 52% you get a big majority that didn't vote remain.
But that's a non-sense statement as you can just as easily add the non voters to the remain pile and claim that 63% of the electorate didn't vote for Brexit. Actually in most cases if non voters are ascribed to one pile or another it tends to be for the status quo - in effect they weren't exercised enough about the current position to want to change it, and therefore didn't bother to vote.
Whatever you might say there is no clear and settled view for any particular flavour of brexit and it would be unsound to enact a particular type of brexit (there can be only one type) in the absence of a mandate for that particular deal.
-
Not everywhere, such as here in Scotland.
As is in the case of Scotland, and yet the UK politicians outside of Scotland are more concerned with musical chairs.
People need to step back a bit.
The principal is unethical Gordon.
It doesn't matter what the vote is for.
If it was Scotland's independance at stake here, it would still be unethical to find a way around the law to block a majority vote.
What happens If Scotland gets this second vote, votes independant, then is blocked because it has to get a majority vote in Westminster because to do otherwise is illegal?
If you knew most MPs in Westminster were against an independant Scotland and would use that to block you, would that be ethical?
Even worse if the whole thing was being funded by " clients" who remained faceless and might well have no connection to Scotland.
If they force this through then it could be that Scotland finds itself blocked as well should it vote for independance.
My point is that if the government implies that the majority vote will determine the outcome, an independant agency shouldn't be trying to subvert that.
As you know, I'm not someone who likes the idea of an independant Scotland, however if you have been led to believe if you get another referendum and it's a majority that you can have it, then that's what should happen.
It would be just as unethical if some faceless individuals fought it over some small point in law, to block it.
I wouldn't do it, no matter how much I wanted Scotland to remain in the UK.
I wouldn't do it, because I think it's unethical to use devious means to undermine a majority vote.
Not with the EU, not with Scotland.
I couldn't justify it to myself.
It's just plain wrong IMO.
-
How is following the law attempting to "find a way around the law" or using "devious means"?
If Scotland voted for independence in a referendum, this would, at the least, need to be supported by parliament. Even if most MPs were opposed to independence they would need to decide the issue on the principle of self-determination.
-
How is following the law attempting to "find a way around the law" or using "devious means"?
If Scotland voted for independence in a referendum, this would, at the least, need to be supported by parliament. Even if most MPs were opposed to independence they would need to decide the issue on the principle of self-determination.
Yes, I can't see how it is devious. I think there's a confusion here between legal, political and ethical. For example, parliament would be perfectly within its rights to oppose Brexit, call for a second referendum, and so on. This would probably at the moment be politically inadvisable, but later on, it might be OK, since enough people might think that the various Brexit solutions are unsatisfactory, or require further validation. Whether it's unethical or not is a personal view, but carrying out U-turns is done by all governments regularly.
-
How is following the law attempting to "find a way around the law" or using "devious means"?
If Scotland voted for independence in a referendum, this would, at the least, need to be supported by parliament. Even if most MPs were opposed to independence they would need to decide the issue on the principle of self-determination.
Because it's not following the law, it's manipulating it to get your own way.
Something lawyers do all the time, for their clients. Right and ethical doesn't necessarily come into it.
There is what is right to do, and then there is the law.
They are not always the same thing.
-
How is following the law attempting to "find a way around the law" or using "devious means"?
If you have a look back at the opening post, you'll notice that despite the fact that many reputable news agencies reported on this story the author choose to link the the daily express. A conspiracy driven rag that lacks the absorbancy to make it even remotely useful.
It's the sort of rag that fuelled the "better take a pen when you vote" idiocy, so it's hardly surprising when it's readers (?/ lookers at the picturers?) resort to shouty bollocks rather than facts.
-
But then telling lies to support one's position, as the Brexit people did, is perfectly legal, but many would suppose, unethical. It seems reasonable to me to fight back against this, especially as there are now 1001 different Brexit positions.
-
If you have a look back at the opening post, you'll notice that despite the fact that many reputable news agencies reported on this story the author choose to link the the daily express. A conspiracy driven rag that lacks the absorbancy to make it even remotely useful.
It's the sort of rag that fuelled the "better take a pen when you vote" idiocy, so it's hardly surprising when it's readers (?/ lookers at the picturers?) resort to shouty bollocks rather than facts.
It's what I happened across while on holiday, I don't normally buy papers.
-
I wouldn't do it, because I think it's unethical to use devious means to undermine a majority vote.
Yet you seem to be happy that the Brexit vote was won by unethical means. Strange. A majority vote is not always the best guide to things if the people making the vote are not well enough informed on any given subject. That is why we have representative democracy. A representative democracy that in this case abrogated its responsibilities.
-
But then telling lies to support one's position, as the Brexit people did, is perfectly legal, but many would suppose, unethical. It seems reasonable to me to fight back against this, especially as there are now 1001 different Brexit positions.
Yes telling lies to win is unethical.
But I think both sides did this.
People couldn't tell which side was lying about what.
Nobody really knew what Brexit entailed because it had never happened before.
-
Yet you seem to be happy that the Brexit vote was won by unethical means. Strange. A majority vote is not always the best guide to things if the people making the vote are not well enough informed on any given subject. That is why we have representative democracy. A representative democracy that in this case abrogated its responsibilities.
I definately think we weren't knowledgable enough to have this vote, in fact I think the government was irresponsible to hold it in the first place.
But as they pretty much promised the result would determine our future IMO it's now unethical to do anything else.
:(
If the government leads the public to believe their vote determines what happens then they should honour it.
-
Can't see how it is unethical to let people have a chance to change their minds.
-
Dear Rose,
I definately think we weren't knowledgable enough to have this vote, in fact I think the government was irresponsible to hold it in the first place.
That's definitely and knowledgeable but apart from that absolutely correct. ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Yes telling lies to win is unethical.
But I think both sides did this.
People couldn't tell which side was lying about what.
Nobody really knew what Brexit entailed because it had never happened before.
Well, I would think that when Brexit eventually materializes in some shape or form, then we should be able to validate or invalidate that. The Tory candidates are already arguing about whether EU nationals should be able to stay, showing how Brexit can mean anything. There is soft Brexit, very soft Brexit, hard Brexit, very hard Brexit, and so on. Why can't we vote on the final outcome?
-
We've heard a great deal about how this referendum result was a revolt by the masses against a loathsome elite but it seems to have pushed politics further to the right and was apparently supported by the hedge fund industry. I doubt if this was what most Brexit voters had in mind. The new elite that seems poised to take over could well make us all pine for the days when we were governed by Dave. Strangely, Leave voters are still crowing about their triumph, apparently oblivious of the direction we could now be heading. Perhaps in time they will join the calls of Remainers for another chance to vote on the sort of future we really want.
-
We've heard a great deal about how this referendum result was a revolt by the masses against a loathsome elite but it seems to have pushed politics further to the right and was apparently supported by the hedge fund industry. I doubt if this was what most Brexit voters had in mind. The new elite that seems poised to take over could well make us all pine for the days when we were governed by Dave. Strangely, Leave voters are still crowing about their triumph, apparently oblivious of the direction we could now be heading. Perhaps in time they will join the calls of Remainers for another chance to vote on the sort of future we really want.
Yes, I was wondering what people in a place like Oldham, which voted Leave, will feel if a right-wing Tory government takes over? Oldham is one of those places which possibly voted as a protest at being ignored by successive governments, a kind of post-industrial wasteland. Or possibly voted against austerity and globalization.
-
It has been said that the Brexiteers wanted to give the establishment a bloody nose.
What they didn't notice was that they were having both legs amputated to achieve their aim.
In other words cutting your nose off to spite your face.
-
I saw a guy on TV say, 'I'm voting against the elite'. Well, yes, you are about to get the proletarian wing of the Tory party in power.
-
Didn't parliament agree to let the PM trigger article 50 when it passed the law that the referendum would happen by the end of 2016? If they agree to build an aircraft carrier do they have to pass a separate law before it can be used?
I have no idea. The leal argument seems to be that the 1972 EEC act can't be overridden without further legislation. I'm not an expert in constitutional law, so I don't know if the argument has merit. I'd put money on the legal challenge failing though.
Because the majority think that it is worth sacrificing some economic gain in order to take back control of our country.
We never lost control of our country, and if PD is right many of those people are now having second thoughts.
What we have here is an utter shambles.
-
The idea of taking back control in a globalized economy seems quite strange, as if the nation state can over-ride this. How would it do this? For example, my local water company is owned by an Australian/Chinese consortium. I suppose the British government could demand that this reverts to British ownership - but I don't think the Tories will be doing this soon.
-
I have no idea. The leal argument seems to be that the 1972 EEC act can't be overridden without further legislation. I'm not an expert in constitutional law, so I don't know if the argument has merit. I'd put money on the legal challenge failing though.
All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.
-
It is unethical. It's driven by people " clients" who refuse to be named. They might not be entitled to a vote.
All that matters is that they are entitled to use the courts. It's unethical to deny people legal redress.
The principal of attempting to overturn the result and promises of the government is unethical.
Nonsense. If people were not allowed to overturn the result by any legal means, that would be undemocratic.
We don't even know the " clients " are entitled to a POV. They may not even be residents of the U.K.
Everybody is entitled to a point of view.
Because more people wanted to leave than stay.
You don't know that. More of the people that could be bothered to vote wanted to leave than stay on June 24th. You don't know if that is true of all people entitled to vote and you don't know if the same result would happen today.
As I said I chose to vote remain because I thought it was the safe option, but I'm not totally convinced it is ultimately bad for our economy.
The Remain option is the status quo. The Leave option was always looking like it was going to be worse for the economy in comparison Remain. Current events seem to be confirming that.
It's unethical to force remain on the majority of people in this county.
Even though Leave looks like being a train wreck?
If you add the vote of those that couldn't care less enough to vote, to the 52% you get a big majority that didn't vote remain.
I would argue that those who didn't vote are content with the status quo and so should be added to the Remain side.
I'm starting to think it's remain that isn't good for our country.
What?! Look at the state of the place. The country may not even exist in five years time as a result of this deeply stupid decision.
With the things I have seen and heard , and the unscrupulous suggestions banded about by some..... I seriously wonder I'd we are actually better off out.
What unscrupulous suggestions? More unscrupulous than saying we can spend an extra £350 million per week on the NHS and then reneging? More unscrupulous than running away from the mess you have caused like Nigel and Boris?
-
All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.
If you are correct, then the legal challenge will win, in which case we owe the people making it a debt of gratitude. It would be better to find out now before the PM triggers article 50 that doing so without parliamentary approval is illegal than afterwards.
Imagine the following scenario: Andrea Leadsom wins the leadership contest and immediately triggers article 50. We start negotiating with the EU but then a legal challenge happens it it is found she did it illegally. Could it be any worse?
-
Dear Political overload,
Not to worry, Mark Carney has loadsadosh and Theresa May is on a submarine, finger on the button, ready to crush the Ruskies and defeat Daesh.
It's fun time all the way :( :( :(
Gonnagle.
-
If you are correct, then the legal challenge will win, in which case we owe the people making it a debt of gratitude. It would be better to find out now before the PM triggers article 50 that doing so without parliamentary approval is illegal than afterwards.
I'm not entirely sure exactly what the legal challenge is. There isn't any doubt that legally and constitutionally that the referendum is advisory and that parliament is sovereign so parliament can chose to ignore the referendum result if it wishes.
Imagine the following scenario: Andrea Leadsom wins the leadership contest and immediately triggers article 50. We start negotiating with the EU but then a legal challenge happens it it is found she did it illegally. Could it be any worse?
Which I guess is the point, while parliament can legally and constitutionally ignore the referendum does the government or PM have the authority to trigger article 50 without the authority of parliament. That, I guess is what is being considered legally.
But there is also the politics of the matter - surely any PM triggering article 50 without approval of parliament where is was clear that were they to be asked they would not approve would be a dead man (or more likely woman) walking. And if it was clear that parliament did approve then surely ant sensible PM would strengthen their hand by getting parliamentary approval.
-
It's fun time all the way :( :( :(
I liked it better when it was boring.
-
I'm not entirely sure exactly what the legal challenge is. There isn't any doubt that legally and constitutionally that the referendum is advisory and that parliament is sovereign so parliament can chose to ignore the referendum result if it wishes.
Many people are of the opinion that the Prime Minister can use his or her prerogative powers to trigger article 50. Many other people are of the opinion that an act of parliament is required. This is the legal question.
Which I guess is the point, while parliament can legally and constitutionally ignore the referendum does the government or PM have the authority to trigger article 50 without the authority of parliament. That, I guess is what is being considered legally.
Exactly.
But there is also the politics of the matter - surely any PM triggering article 50 without approval of parliament where is was clear that were they to be asked they would not approve would be a dead man (or more likely woman) walking. And if it was clear that parliament did approve then surely ant sensible PM would strengthen their hand by getting parliamentary approval.
Certainly. However, in two or three months time, that approval might not be forthcoming. Parliament is generally pro-EU, but if asked today, would pass the motion because of the referendum. In two or three months with all the bad news washing over us and leading Leavers deserting the sinking ship like rats, parliament might vote down article 50.
-
So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?
You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?
-
So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?
Yep.
You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?
Well, we would not be up shit creek without a paddle, so it's hard to tell.
I think, if it had been 52% to 48% the other way, we would have to accept that the Leavers would not be silenced.
-
So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?
If it is an advisory referendum, yes of course they can. The referendum is there to gain a snap-shot of the opinion of the electorate. If it is an advisory referendum, then parliament then needs to decide what course of action it should take in the best interests of the country. That is why parliament is sovereign - wasn't that one of the siren calls of the Brexiters, that the UK parliament is sovereign.
You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?
Well of course they were - don't forget that Farage pronounced that a 52/48 in favour of remain would be unfinished business.
But there is another point here, where there is a change and a no-change option. I think that there needs to be a greater requirement to be convinced that the change option is the clear and settled view of the electorate than the no change. This is why many organisations either have a higher threshold for change (e.g. 60%), or require the change option to be agreed by simple majority but in more than one place - e.g. acts of parliament requiring passing by both HofC and HofL.
So in this case, given that there was no higher than 50% threshold I think it holds true (given that this was an advisory referendum) that the change decision should be agreed by both the electorate in the referendum and also by parliament with each decision made independently.
And this is where the whole process has been the wrong way around. Parliament should have voted to leave, decided on the nature of that brexit settlement and then put that option to the electorate. That's the way around it is in most referendums, but not in this one where parliament didn't (and I suspect still doesn't) want to leave but is now boxed into a corner created by the ineptitude of our out-going PM.
-
All that matters is that they are entitled to use the courts. It's unethical to deny people legal redress.
Nonsense. If people were not allowed to overturn the result by any legal means, that would be undemocratic.
Everybody is entitled to a point of view.
You don't know that. More of the people that could be bothered to vote wanted to leave than stay on June 24th. You don't know if that is true of all people entitled to vote and you don't know if the same result would happen today.
The Remain option is the status quo. The Leave option was always looking like it was going to be worse for the economy in comparison Remain. Current events seem to be confirming that.
Even though Leave looks like being a train wreck?
I would argue that those who didn't vote are content with the status quo and so should be added to the Remain side.
What?! Look at the state of the place. The country may not even exist in five years time as a result of this deeply stupid decision.
What unscrupulous suggestions? More unscrupulous than saying we can spend an extra £350 million per week on the NHS and then reneging? More unscrupulous than running away from the mess you have caused like Nigel and Boris?
We don't even know who they are. They might not be eligible for a say.
-
Can't see how it is unethical to let people have a chance to change their minds.
We arn't giving them a chance to change their minds.
We can't keep voting until you get a result you agree with.
-
So glad these heroes are ensuring due process.
Who the unnamed ' clients' of the law firm, who we don't even know if the were entitled to a vote in the first place?
-
Didn't parliament agree to let the PM trigger article 50 when it passed the law that the referendum would happen by the end of 2016? If they agree to build an aircraft carrier do they have to pass a separate law before it can be used?
Because the majority think that it is worth sacrificing some economic gain in order to take back control of our country.
Exactly :)
-
The fact is the terms of the referendum were wrong.
An actual alternative should have been laid before the British people.
As for your Unethical, undemocratic dishonourable diatribe - all this can be applied with much greater certainty to the Brexit side.
Unethical - they lied. So far, much more so than the Remain side have been proved to have done.
Undemocratic - we are changing someting that has been a major pillar of our economy on the say so of just 37% of voters - that my dear is undemocratic. It should have been a compulsory vote.
Dishonourable - let me count the ways, Et Tu Gove. Farage fandango - insulting the whole of the EU parliament including the guy sat behind him who was a Cardiac Surgeon (aka not a proper job). Bonking Boris running just as fast as he can to stay ahead of the you know what he has created.
You are going to have to come up with better reasons than the ones you have so far to convince me that there shouldn't at least be a confirmation of the decision by the British public.
-
You're appalled that some people haven't given up hope of saving the country from destruction?
I'm appalled at how undemocratic they are, and applaud attempts by faceless individuals to interfere by manipulating our system.
We don't know if the individuals and businesses even qualify for a say.
It might be none of their business.
They might not be British businesses.
Hence a very good reason for not standing up and being counted.
-
The fact is the terms of the referendum were wrong.
An actual alternative should have been laid before the British people.
As for your Unethical, undemocratic dishonourable diatribe - all this can be applied with much greater certainty to the Brexit side.
Unethical - they lied. So far, much more so than the Remain side have been proved to have done.
Undemocratic - we are changing someting that has been a major pillar of our economy on the say so of just 37% of voters - that my dear is undemocratic. It should have been a compulsory vote.
Dishonourable - let me count the ways, Et Tu Gove. Farage fandango - insulting the whole of the EU parliament including the guy sat behind him who was a Cardiac Surgeon (aka not a proper job). Bonking Boris running just as fast as he can to stay ahead of the you know what he has created.
You are going to have to come up with better reasons than the ones you have so far to convince me that there shouldn't at least be a confirmation of the decision by the British public.
52% of the voters actually,not 37%
-
52% of the voters actually,not 37%
No 37% of the voters eligible to vote Actually.
-
All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.
That's the problem, they didn't. The prime ministers stance shows it quite clearly.
People have been told from the outset that what they voted is what the country would do.
At no time before or during the referendum did anyone say it was advisory.
It's only after when remain lost, that came into the picture.
This bit about it all being advisory, has been brought up after by the remain supporters, when they lost.
It's called being a bad loser.
It's lies, and sour grapes on behalf of remain.
-
The idea of taking back control in a globalized economy seems quite strange, as if the nation state can over-ride this. How would it do this? For example, my local water company is owned by an Australian/Chinese consortium. I suppose the British government could demand that this reverts to British ownership - but I don't think the Tories will be doing this soon.
Well they wouldn't, but the Labour Party if they got in could nationalise it.
It's happened before. Compulsory purchase.
-
If you are correct, then the legal challenge will win, in which case we owe the people making it a debt of gratitude. It would be better to find out now before the PM triggers article 50 that doing so without parliamentary approval is illegal than afterwards.
Imagine the following scenario: Andrea Leadsom wins the leadership contest and immediately triggers article 50. We start negotiating with the EU but then a legal challenge happens it it is found she did it illegally. Could it be any worse?
Our parliament decides what's legal and illegal.
If ( whoever is claiming it's illegal ) they are not entitled to vote they should not be meddling in the affairs of this country. If it has been agreed that the result of the vote would determine the outcome and parliament went along with it ( and there was no objection at the time) then it isn't illegal.
I'm sure they can pass another bill acknowledging it.
Plus if these firms are not British and it's leaders not British they they shouldn't be able to hold our government to ransom.
It would be none of their business what British people chose to do.
They shouldn't be trying to impose their own will.
It's one of these sorts of things that caused the leave vote in the first place.
Being dictated to by the EU.
Who are these businessmen stirring up trouble ? What is their agenda? And do they have the UK interests at heart? Or have they got someone else's interests at heart?
They obviously don't want us to find out.
I suspect the companies and businessmen behind this, are not British and have no right to a say, which is why they are not upfront, in coming forward.
Like I say, many voters voted leave because they didn't want to be ruled from Brussels.
Well perhaps that's what this legal bid is. Foreign companies and outside interests.
Those from outside the uk who have interests in the uk staying in, interfering in what is purely a British decision.
-
That's the problem, they didn't. The prime ministers stance shows it quite clearly.
People have been told from the outset that what they voted is what the country would do.
At no time before or during the referendum did anyone say it was advisory.
It's only after when remain lost, that came into the picture.
This bit about it all being advisory, has been brought up after by the remain supporters, when they lost.
It's called being a bad loser.
It's lies, and sour grapes on behalf of remain.
Cameron is gone. Actually Major's "bastards" nagged and whined on for over 40 years. Being called a "bad loser", or acting out of "sour grapes" attitude is beside the point when trying to prevent the country making a major error due to inadequate consideration.
-
Our parliament decides what's legal and illegal.
If ( whoever is claiming it's illegal ) they are not entitled to vote they should not be meddling in the affairs of this country. If it has been agreed that the result of the vote would determine the outcome and parliament went along with it ( and there was no objection at the time) then it isn't illegal.
I'm sure the can pass another bill acknowledging it.
Plus if these firms are not British and it's leaders not British they they shouldn't be able to hold our government to ransom.
It would be none of their business what British people chose to do.
They shouldn't be trying to impose there own will.
It's one of these sorts of things that caused the leave vote in the first place.
Being dictated to by the EU.
Who are these businessmen stirring up trouble ? What is their agenda? And do they have the UK interests at heart? Or have they got someone else's interests at heart?
They obviously don't want us to find out.
I suspect the companies and businessmen behind this, are not British and have no right to a say, which is why the are not upfront in coming forward.
It doesn't matter who they are, it is a point of law that needs investigation. The whole point of it is to allow the new PM and parliament to be in control of what happens and not be bound by the claimed intentions of a PM who has resigned because of the result.
-
Cameron is gone. Actually Major's "bastards" nagged and whined on for over 40 years. Being called a "bad loser", or acting out of "sour grapes" attitude is beside the point when trying to prevent the country making a major error due to inadequate consideration.
He doesn't go until September/October
But you arn't preventing the country making a major error, you are ignoring what people in this country have democratically voted for.
It's what a dictator does.
Ignores what people want, and does what he thinks best.
-
It doesn't matter who they are, it is a point of law that needs investigation. The whole point of it is to allow the new PM and parliament to be in control of what happens and not be bound by the claimed intentions of a PM who has resigned because of the result.
It does matter who they are, that's probably why they are faceless and nameless.
If it was seen to be outside foreign interests interfering with the results of the referendum, there would be a ruckus.
The next government should honour the majority vote, not overturn it at the slightest excuse.
Either we live in a democracy where a democratic vote by a majority is respected or we don't.
If we don't then it's a dictatorship, where more than half the population don't want to be in the EU.
-
No 37% of the voters eligible to vote Actually.
Dont be silly, you are making it up.
There was a 72.2 % turnout
The majority of those voted leave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
-
Yep.
Well, we would not be up shit creek without a paddle, so it's hard to tell.
I think, if it had been 52% to 48% the other way, we would have to accept that the Leavers would not be silenced.
If they were trying to overturn your majority, saying they were only doing what was best for the country because you had voted out of ignorance, perhaps you wouldn't have been so accepting and recognise just how patronising that attitude is.
Because you can't see it ATM.
-
Dear Rose,
No, the important part of Trent's post was, it should have been a compulsory vote, not everyone who had a vote did vote.
Gonnagle.
-
I can't see anyone "dictating" that we stay in the EU or anyone suggesting that we stay in the EU without this being agreed by parliament and validated by "the people" through a GE or 2nd referendum.
However, before any final decisions or actions people should at least be told what the "divorce settlement" or any deal the UK will try to negotiate, looks like. Currently the most likely scenario is that we would get the "Norway deal", if we left with that - many from the "leave" side would carry on complaining and campaigning for another referendum.
For the "remain" side, it probably makes sense to cut the losses by invoking Article 50 ASAP (to minimize uncertainty) and push for the Norway type deal, claiming that it meets the terms of the referendum.
In my view, it is best to hold off (we will have to live with some period of uncertainty anyway) and make sure all the alternatives have been fully considered before the final decision is agreed by parliament with democratic validation.
-
Dear Rose,
No, the important part of Trent's post was, it should have been a compulsory vote, not everyone who had a vote did vote.
Gonnagle.
i don't agree with compulsory votes Gonnagle.
What punishments are you going to impose on those that don't vote, to force them?
Some don't vote because of their religion, others because they are mentally disabled and not really interested in politics.
Others can't be bothered.
Am I going to see some of my JW relatives victimised because they choose not to vote?
Or my son because he isn't well enough to be interested?
It's all very well to talk about compulsory votes, but what does that really entail?
If people care about something they will vote, if not you just tally up the ones that do.
I don't believe in force.
-
We don't even know who they are. They might not be eligible for a say.
Who is not eligible to bring a court case in the UK?
-
I'm appalled at how undemocratic they are, and applaud attempts by faceless individuals to interfere by manipulating our system.
You haven't demonstrated that anybody is manipulating the system.
They might not be British businesses.
So what? If I was the CEO of Nissan, I'd want to be absolutely certain that everything possible was being done to stop Brexit because the alternative might be to have to close the factory and move production to some other part of Europe and that is going to be expensive. If I suspect that the PM might do something illegal that is detrimental to the company, I am duty bound to try to stop it.
-
Who is not eligible to bring a court case in the UK?
It's not so much about a court case where something is unfair and of resolving it, but of interfering with the politics of our country to block a majority vote.
-
Rose,
It is you who can't see it.
The Court is doing its proper job. It is doing the job that Parliament set it up to do. It is making sure that the government is acting lawfully.
The government appears to be acting as though the referendum was a mandate. ... And you seem to think that it was a mandate .. it was not - it was a glorified opinion poll with no more force than an opinion poll. That is all. For the government to treat this opinion poll as a mandate is not lawful ... that is dictatorship.
It does not matter who is asking the court to review this, the important fact is that a review should take place.
You seem very excercised that these people might not all be British citizens. Does that matter if - because of their action ... say ... 50,000 people do not lose their jobs?
-
It's not so much about a court case where something is unfair, but of interfering with the politics of our country to block a majority vote.
Sorry but if you suspect that the primer minister is about to do something illegal and that alleged illegal thing is going to cost your company money, what else should you do but test the thing in the courts? That is what they are for.
-
It's not so much about a court case where something is unfair, but of interfering with the politics of our country to block a majority vote.
The majority vote wasn't UK wide though - and like it or not in terms of this referendum the position of Scotland is not represented by the rest of the UK, which is also the case in terms of the two political parties in Westminster who at present seem more concerned it seems with their internal arrangements: they have just one seat each.
If you guys continue with this madness then we need to get out!
-
You haven't demonstrated that anybody is manipulating the system.
So what? If I was the CEO of Nissan, I'd want to be absolutely certain that everything possible was being done to stop Brexit because the alternative might be to have to close the factory and move production to some other part of Europe and that is going to be expensive. If I suspect that the PM might do something illegal that is detrimental to the company, I am duty bound to try to stop it.
Not when it's a decision that has been put in the hands of the people in that country to make a choice, it's not up to foreign businesses to interfere in politics.
-
The majority vote wasn't UK wide though - and like it or not in terms of this referendum the position of Scotland is not represented by the rest of the UK, which is also the case in terms of the two political parties in Westminster who at present seem more concerned it seems with their internal arrangements: they have just one seat each.
If you guys continue with this madness then we need to get out!
Scotland is part of the U.K.
Therefore they were bound by the majority vote too.
-
Not when it's a decision that has been put in the hands of the people in that country to make a choice, it's not up to foreign businesses to interfere in politics.
No decision has been put into the hands of the people. The referendum carried no legal authority. It was, as HH said, a glorified opinion poll.
A foreign business has as much right to expect the government to operate within the law as anybody else.
-
Scotland is part of the U.K.
Therefore they were bound by the majority vote too.
Which is why people like Gordon are advocating independence. The people of Scotland, as a group voted strongly for Remain and yet they are being dragged into the farcical mire of Brexit. He wants to change it so that the Little Englanders can't fuck his country up any more.
-
One of the ironic things about this, already pointed out by somebody I think, is that the Brexit people kept going on about sovereignty, well, it's parliament that is sovereign, or technically, the Crown in Parliament, and this legal action seems to be pointing this out. It seems unlikely that parliament would reject the referendum, unless there was an emergency situation, but presumably, they need to ratify it.
-
Rose,
It is you who can't see it.
The Court is doing its proper job. It is doing the job that Parliament set it up to do. It is making sure that the government is acting lawfully. ( but this isn't instigated by the courts, this is stirring by a private law firm and it's hidden clients)
The government appears to be acting as though the referendum was a mandate. ... And you seem to think that it was a mandate .. it was not - it was a glorified opinion poll with no more force than an opinion poll. That is all. For the government to treat this opinion poll as a mandate is not lawful ... that is dictatorship.
(No one said anything about opinion polls until remain lost, suddenly it became an opinion poll, it's just dishonest to make it out to be an opinion poll now)
It does not matter who is asking the court to review this, the important fact is that a review should take place.
You seem very excercised that these people might not all be British citizens. Does that matter if - because of their action ... say ... 50,000 people do not lose their jobs?
-
If Theresa was to pledge to hold a general election, saying she would hold another referendum if she won, I'm pretty sure most would vote for her and then vote for Remain afterwards.
A good proportion of the Leave voters have now seen through the lies and deceit of Boris & co and realise what was called the fear agenda was actually the truth.
The young who didn't bother to vote would also get the wake-up call.
-
If Theresa was to pledge to hold a general election, saying she would hold another referendum if she won, I'm pretty sure most would vote for her and then vote for Remain afterwards.
A good proportion of the Leave voters have now seen through the lies and deceit of Boris & co and realise what was called the fear agenda was actually the truth.
The young who didn't bother to vote would also get the wake-up call.
Labour could also do this, it's not confined to the Tories.
Leave and remain was spread across the parties.
-
I can't see how we can get out of this mess. It reminds me of Mencken's definition of democracy - 'the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.'
-
I can't see how we can get out of this mess. It reminds me of Mencken's definition of democracy - 'the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.'
It seems likely that a right-wing Tory government will steam ahead, deregulating everything, and turning the UK into a tax haven, where the rich will do very nicely, thank you. Happy days!
-
If Theresa was to pledge to hold a general election, saying she would hold another referendum if she won, I'm pretty sure most would vote for her and then vote for Remain afterwards.
A good proportion of the Leave voters have now seen through the lies and deceit of Boris & co and realise what was called the fear agenda was actually the truth.
The young who didn't bother to vote would also get the wake-up call.
Last poll I showed slightly more Remain regretting than Leave. Also indications are that youth vote was higher than originally thought. I don't approve of the vote till you get it right approach and I am unsure how it would play.
-
Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are substantively and procedurally "fair," i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed enabling them to vote according to their own interests.[17][18]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.[20]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
:(
How to shatter people's belief that they live in a democracy.
Tell them their vote is not equal to say a foreign businessman and his interests, and or overturn a majority vote and tell them after the event, it was only ever advisory really.
-
Labour could also do this, it's not confined to the Tories.
Leave and remain was spread across the parties.
it couldn't promise to hold a General Election quickly.
-
Labour could also do this, it's not confined to the Tories.
Leave and remain was spread across the parties.
The problem there is, Rose, I don't believe there are any Labour MPs liable to vote in the Tory leadership contest and become PM!
-
it couldn't promise to hold a General Election quickly.
True.
-
:(
How to shatter people's belief that they live in a democracy.
Tell them their vote is not equal to say a foreign businessman and his interests or overturn a majority vote and tell them after the event, it was only ever advisory really.
It wasn't hidden that it's only advisory, that you didn't know proves nothing about what was said.
-
The problem there is, Rose, I don't believe there are any Labour MPs liable to vote in the Tory leadership contest and become PM!
I know, but I was thinking in a GE both parties could agree to hold a second referendum.
-
I know, but I was thinking in a GE both parties could agree to hold a second referendum.
I think a hold a second referendum as a promise would split the Tory party completely. I don't think it's a feasible strategy for May.
-
All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.
The last page of the remain brochure specifically says, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." That must be why a lot of MPs are saying there can be no going back.
-
It wasn't hidden that it's only advisory, that you didn't know proves nothing about what was said.
Just been on the parliament site and it doesn't say it was only advisory.
Parliament has also acknowledged the reality is the result is what drives the outcome.
Parliament itself says its binding.
2. In practice the forthcoming referendum outcome will bind the government. In theory it is advisory but in reality its result will be decisive for what happens next.
3. Having regard to the referendum question recommended by the Electoral Commission and the binding nature of that result, there would be no alternative but to engage in the Article 50 TEU negotiating process in the event of Brexit.
In reality it's result will be decisive for what happens next.
There would be no alternative but to engage in the article 50 TEU ...........
So forgone conclusion according to parliament then...........
It's what it says.
I think remain supporters are grasping at straws like a drowning man.
-
The last page of the remain brochure specifically says, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." That must be why a lot of MPs are saying there can be no going back.
Exactly.
That's pretty much what the parliament website itself says.
-
I think a hold a second referendum as a promise would split the Tory party completely. I don't think it's a feasible strategy for May.
She's stuffed then as regards to Brexit, and wanting to remain.
-
The last page of the remain brochure specifically says, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." That must be why a lot of MPs are saying there can be no going back.
But the government cannot implement 'what you decide' because there was nothing in the referendum about what the of brexit should be implemented.
Hence, surely the next stage should be to negotiate with the EU on an agreed post-brexit arrangement, so we'd know definitively what is proposed in terms of access to single market vs freedom of movement. Then once we have a clear post brexit agreement (that's going to take perhaps 2 years) we have a second referendum which asks the public either to approve the agreed deal, in which case we leave, or to reject that deal and remain in the EU.
Why is that in any way undemocratic - seems eminently sound to me as we would be clear that there is a majority in favour of what is proposed rather than currently where we have a majority that are against something (membership of the EU) but no clarity that we have a majority in favour of any actually deliverable post-brexit deal.
-
It's a pig in a poke, and maybe we should have a look at the pig.
-
But the government cannot implement 'what you decide' because there was nothing in the referendum about what the of brexit should be implemented.
Hence, surely the next stage should be to negotiate with the EU on an agreed post-brexit arrangement, so we'd know definitively what is proposed in terms of access to single market vs freedom of movement. Then once we have a clear post brexit agreement (that's going to take perhaps 2 years) we have a second referendum which asks the public either to approve the agreed deal, in which case we leave, or to reject that deal and remain in the EU.
Why is that in any way undemocratic - seems eminently sound to me as we would be clear that there is a majority in favour of what is proposed rather than currently where we have a majority that are against something (membership of the EU) but no clarity that we have a majority in favour of any actually deliverable post-brexit deal.
It can implement article 50 though because the parliament website says a Brexit vote is binding, given the results.
-
I have read through this thread a couple of time s and been uynsure as to whether to laugh or to cry. There is nothing undemocratic about delaying or even not implementing a slim margin for a particular action as voted for in a referendum. As I've said before, a referendum differs from an election in that only the latter is binding on a legislative body. As such, this isn't "Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite", but the responsible and legally required behaviour of a legislature that is required to take public opinion (clearly pretty evenly split) into account when creating and voting on the Act of Parliament that is necessarily required to action such public opinion.
-
Just been on the parliament site and it doesn't say it was only advisory.
Parliament has also acknowledged the reality is the result is what drives the outcome.
Parliament itself says its binding.
In reality it's result will be decisive for what happens next.
There would be no alternative but to engage in the article 50 TEU ...........
So forgone conclusion according to parliament then...........
It's what it says.
I think remain supporters are grasping at straws like a drowning man.
Note the 'in theory' bit - what that means is legally. The rest of it is politics. And please note I think they do need to follow it through politically, and they should morally. I also think that if the Scottish Govt want to hold a second referendum on independence then they should morally be allowed to do so and they were elected on that mandate and manifesto in May.
That it is advisory is a simple legal fact. That a parliament site is badly written or a leaflet went out incorrectly does not change that. That you didn't know makes no difference to that fact. And as made clear above I am not pointing this out because I think it should be ignored. Simply pointing out the fact that it was advisory.
And even were parliament have passed the legislation staying that it was binding, still wouldn't be because it cannot bind itself. A future parliament can always change previous law. Simple facts about the UK 'constitution' that should not have to be told to anyone in individual cases.
That we have such atrocious teaching of our constitutional framework is not the fault of this referendum.
-
Hence, surely the next stage should be to negotiate with the EU on an agreed post-brexit arrangement, so we'd know definitively what is proposed in terms of access to single market vs freedom of movement. Then once we have a clear post brexit agreement (that's going to take perhaps 2 years) we have a second referendum which asks the public either to approve the agreed deal, in which case we leave, or to reject that deal and remain in the EU.
But aren't the EU leaders saying that we can have no negotiations until we have officially disentangled ourselves by triggering Article 50?
-
I have read through this thread a couple of time s and been uynsure as to whether to laugh or to cry. There is nothing undemocratic about delaying or even not implementing a slim margin for a particular action as voted for in a referendum. As I've said before, a referendum differs from an election in that only the latter is binding on a legislative body. As such, this isn't "Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite", but the responsible and legally required behaviour of a legislature that is required to take public opinion (clearly pretty evenly split) into account when creating and voting on the Act of Parliament that is necessarily required to action such public opinion.
It doesn't make sense to talk of an election being binding on a legislative body.
-
Just been on the parliament site and it doesn't say it was only advisory.
Thisd, from wikipedia, makes interesting reading:
Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
I think remain supporters are grasping at straws like a drowning man.
If anything, its the Vote Leave campaign, which seems to be falling apart at present, are the ones grasping at straws. Whilst it is true that Cameron said that he would regard the outcome as binding, what he says doesn't overrule the legal requirement for an Act of Parliament to enact that outcome - and, of course, a majority of MPs could chose to vote against such a Bill.
-
It doesn't make sense to talk of an election being binding on a legislative body.
Parliaments words " binding" not mine.
-
It doesn't make sense to talk of an election being binding on a legislative body.
Except that, in the case of a by-election, Parliament has to accept the person who wins the vote.
I am aware that the phrasing of my post wasn't perfect, but I was trying to show Rose, and others, the fundamental difference between a referendum and an election.
-
She's stuffed then as regards to Brexit, and wanting to remain.
I don't think May is that committed to Stay - but if she wanted to, she does what she is doing now and says she won't implement Article 50 immediately on her election, but that she will put in place a proper team to negotiate and then trigger. This takes till about spring 2017. Article 50 triggered. 2 years of tough negotiations and they end up with a passable deal but the time has caused problems. We may have ended up in recession, not necessarily to do with this but it will look like it. It's only a year to the election but May says time for strong leadership. This deal does not work. There has been a ' material change in circumstances'. For the good of the country I will have an election and we will fight to stay on economic grounds because the deal cannot be made good enough. I call upon the Tory Party to realise that above all their duty is to Britain, cry Harry, once more into the breach etc etc.
And that might work..
But I don't think she is that bothered about stay or leave, rather about what the next address is.
Not that I hasten to add I think she is being duplicitous here. I just think it's not that central to her politics.
-
Except that, in the case of a by-election, Parliament has to accept the person who wins the vote.
I am aware that the phrasing of my post wasn't perfect, but I was trying to show Rose, and others, the fundamental difference between a referendum and an election.
Not even then. Bye Elections can be overturned by law or should parliament decide to vote that the person is not elected, it could. It just doesn't, and is highly unlikely to do so.
-
I have read through this thread a couple of time s and been uynsure as to whether to laugh or to cry. There is nothing undemocratic about delaying or even not implementing a slim margin for a particular action as voted for in a referendum. As I've said before, a referendum differs from an election in that only the latter is binding on a legislative body. As such, this isn't "Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite", but the responsible and legally required behaviour of a legislature that is required to take public opinion (clearly pretty evenly split) into account when creating and voting on the Act of Parliament that is necessarily required to action such public opinion.
The public were led to believe by both remain and brexit camps, politicians of various stripes and even the parliament website itself, that the result of the referendum would be binding.
Most MP's are saying there is no going back.
It seems to me, the public has been misled and lied to all along, especially if those in Westminster don't now deliver.
They promised it, to the British people, and that includes parliament if you read their website.
I'm amazed how other remain voters can carry on lying if the evidence is in the back of their own brochures.
:(
-
Parliaments words " binding" not mine.
No, a website's words. And a website that used the words 'in theory' that it's not binding - which is talking about the law.
Parliament cannot bind its successors.
-
The public were led to believe by both remain and brexit camps, politicians of various stripes and even the parliament website itself, that the result of the referendum would be binding.
Most MP's are saying there is no going back.
It seems to me, the public has been misled and lied to all along, especially if those in Westminster don't now deliver.
They promised it, to make the British people, and that includes parliament if you read their website.
I'm amazed how other remain voters can carry on lying if the evidence is in the back of their own brochures.
:(
It does not matter if they lied, were honestly wrong, were misinterpreted. This is not an issue of that, it's an issue of law. That you don't, or they didn't understand the constitution does not change it.
-
Rubbish!
The whole debate was opened by some faceless people, hiding behind an independant law firm, and supported by remain voters who accuse others of lying while being complete hypocrites.
-
It does not matter if they lied, were honestly wrong, were misinterpreted. This is not an issue of that, it's an issue of law. That you don't, or they didn't understand the constitution does not change it.
Don't give me that, the greatest criminals have used the law to escape justice and carry on lying.
Are you telling me that the experts on the parliament website and the whole of our political system don't understand our own constitution, that it has to be told what it is by some mysterious businessmen who are anonymous?
We have our own experts.
http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Brexit-PDF.pdf
Link above from the parliament web site
Pull the other one!
-
Rubbish!
The whole debate was opened by some faceless people, hiding behind an independant law firm, and supported by remain voters who accuse others of lying while being complete hypocrites.
Sorry, what is this a reply to? The whole question of whether a referendum is advisory was well understood before the possible legal case. The legal case is based on the fact that the referendum is de iure advisory. The question that might be raised should it progress is nothing to do with the referendum being advisory or not. It's about whether article 50 can be triggered by the PM as leader of the govt, or needs an act of Parliament.
-
Don't give me that, the greatest criminals have used the law to escape justice and carry on lying.
Are you telling me that the experts on the parliament website and the whole of our political system don't understand our own constitution, that it has to be told what it is by some mysterious businessmen who are anonymous?
http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Brexit-PDF.pdf
Link above from the parliament web site
Pull the other one!
No, I'm not saying that. I am pointing out that do not understand the constitution. That's why you don't understand the impact of the phrase in theory
That you think parliament is bound by your misunderstanding of some words on a website is the issue.
And just to point out again the issue of the possible legal case is not to do about the referendum being binding it's about what it takes to trigger Article 50. This is not a related issue.
-
Rubbish!
The whole debate was opened by some faceless people, hiding behind an independant law firm, and supported by remain voters who accuse others of lying while being complete hypocrites.
I haven't been following the case particularly carefully, but I assumed that the debate and the legal case was brought about as a result of some people argueing that the referendum was legally binding and therefore didn't need an Act of Parliament to action it.
-
I haven't been following the case particularly carefully, but I assumed that the debate and the legal case was brought about as a result of some people argueing that the referendum was legally binding and therefore didn't need an Act of Parliament to action it.
No, the entire question is about what it takes to trigger Article 50. To do so, a govt would not necessarily need a referendum, but should it do so without an act of Parliament, it might be challenged as in the possible legal case.
-
Rose,
It is you who can't see it.
The Court is doing its proper job. It is doing the job that Parliament set it up to do. It is making sure that the government is acting lawfully.
.... but this isn't instigated by the courts, this is stirring by a private law firm and it's hidden clients)
You clearly do not understand what the courts do.
Courts NEVER instigate procedures. To do so would be extremely dangerous. Courts are REACTIVE, cases are ALWAYS brought to them by other people. The courts do not go looking for cases. The CPS brings criminal cases to the criminal courts, plaintiffs bring civil cases - the job of the court is apply the law WHEN ASKED.
.
-
:(
How to shatter people's belief that they live in a democracy.
Tell them their vote is not equal to say a foreign businessman and his interests, and or overturn a majority vote and tell them after the event, it was only ever advisory really.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you. You have the zealotry of a convert.
I have explained many times that this is not about the vote but about the legality of implementing its recommendation without an act of parliament.
Let's try to take simple steps. Answer the following question. A yes or no will be sufficient.
Should the prime minister be allowed to break the law?
-
Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you. You have the zealotry of a convert.
I have explained many times that this is not about the vote but about the legality of implementing its recommendation without an act of parliament.
Let's try to take simple steps. Answer the following question. A yes or no will be sufficient.
Should the prime minister be allowed to break the law?
He won't be breaking the law, because parliament make the laws and they have said the referendum is binding and the PM has no choice but to put forward article 50.
-
The public were led to believe by both remain and brexit camps, politicians of various stripes and even the parliament website itself, that the result of the referendum would be binding.
No they weren't - anyone who bothered to check it out would have been clear that the referendum was advisory.
Parliament and the government could have decided to hold a binding referendum (as they did in the AV/FPTP referendum), but they didn't. It also was an advisory referendum.
-
He won't be breaking the law, because parliament make the laws and they have said the referendum is binding and the PM has no choice but to put forward article 50.
My question was posed in general terms.
Should the prime minister be allowed to break the law? Yes or no.
-
He won't be breaking the law, because parliament make the laws and they have said the referendum is binding and the PM has no choice but to put forward article 50.
Rose I voted Brexit and I think you are wrong on this.
-
Rose I voted Brexit and I think you are wrong on this.
Ok.
So what do you think is going to happen now you have a majority?
-
But aren't the EU leaders saying that we can have no negotiations until we have officially disentangled ourselves by triggering Article 50?
This is not part of the treaty but a position adopted by Juncker for political reasons and that can be undermined.
The UK negotiators (if we have any) need to start talking to the individual governments of the other countries where possible. Junker is responsible for much of the rigidity of the Commission and opposition to his stance is building.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/angela-merkel-to-oust-jean-claude-juncker-as-europe-splits-deepe/
-
Just been on the parliament site and it doesn't say it was only advisory.
Can you provide a link to this apparently official parliamentary view on the matter please. The one including the following quote:
'2. In practice the forthcoming referendum outcome will bind the government. In theory it is advisory but in reality its result will be decisive for what happens next.
3. Having regard to the referendum question recommended by the Electoral Commission and the binding nature of that result, there would be no alternative but to engage in the Article 50 TEU negotiating process in the event of Brexit.'
-
This is not part of the treaty but a position adopted by Juncker for political reasons and that can be undermined.
It's already happening. The Dutch PM has been highly critical of the EU leadership in this whole affair.
-
Can you provide a link to this apparently official parliamentary view on the matter please. The one including the following quote:
'2. In practice the forthcoming referendum outcome will bind the government. In theory it is advisory but in reality its result will be decisive for what happens next.
3. Having regard to the referendum question recommended by the Electoral Commission and the binding nature of that result, there would be no alternative but to engage in the Article 50 TEU negotiating process in the event of Brexit.'
It was a link from the parliament website on the referendum and I copied it word for word.
I no longer have it on my tabs.
I'll look later.
-
Interesting article
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/lawyers-leading-coup-democracy/
I'm not of the same politics as him but he sees what I see.
It's undemocratic.
-
Interesting article
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/lawyers-leading-coup-democracy/
You have to love Brendan. A pithy writer, with a clear opinion. But just lots of emotion which overwhelms his logic quite often.
Also irrelevant to the question of the referendum being advisory de iure.
As already covered and indeed argued on here prior to result, de facto he and you are in my opinion correct. But de facto I think Nicola is then right about a second referendum in Scotland. Until Brendan and you realise that, it's just simply good writing in his case.
-
Don't give me that, the greatest criminals have used the law to escape justice and carry on lying.
Are you telling me that the experts on the parliament website and the whole of our political system don't understand our own constitution, that it has to be told what it is by some mysterious businessmen who are anonymous?
We have our own experts.
http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Brexit-PDF.pdf
Link above from the parliament web site
Pull the other one!
I think Gove made up a bit of the constitution when a Labour minority was still a possible future prior to the actual result of the 2015 election to the effect that Milliband could never get into government even if they had the support of the Lib-dems and had a majority. These people have form on pulling stuff extra rectally.
-
Another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674789/EU-commission-staffer-writes-Tory-MP-demanding-votes-BLOCK-leaving-despite-country-backing-Brexit-historic-referendum.html
-
Another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674789/EU-commission-staffer-writes-Tory-MP-demanding-votes-BLOCK-leaving-despite-country-backing-Brexit-historic-referendum.html
Another what? Someone arguing something? Is this you on your whole dissent is anti democratic position again?
-
Another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674789/EU-commission-staffer-writes-Tory-MP-demanding-votes-BLOCK-leaving-despite-country-backing-Brexit-historic-referendum.html
Another what, Rose? Another Daily Fail joke article?
-
It's undemocratic.
What would be undemocratic, Rose, is for the UK's normal practice regarding referenda to be discarded in order to for this one to be treated differently from other ones.
-
Interesting article
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/lawyers-leading-coup-democracy/
I'm not of the same politics as him but he sees what I see.
It's undemocratic.
Please answer the question I posed earlier. Do you think it is OK for the prime minister to break the law? I'm asking the question in general terms for now.
-
No they weren't - anyone who bothered to check it out would have been clear that the referendum was advisory.
Parliament and the government could have decided to hold a binding referendum (as they did in the AV/FPTP referendum), but they didn't. It also was an advisory referendum.
By stating in their information leaflet that they would implement the decision made by the public, they misled us. Not many people would go to the trouble of checking out the legality of it. Perhaps they were assuming that remain would win. If they knew it was not legally binding they should have made it clear. They certainly should explain why they said it.
-
By stating in their information leaflet that they would implement the decision made by the public, they misled us. Not many people would go to the trouble of checking out the legality of it. Perhaps they were assuming that remain would win. If they knew it was not legally binding they should have made it clear. They certainly should explain why they said it.
Jeremy p
What spud said.
Because if remain and the PM lied to the public about the actions on outcome of the vote, they should explain.
Anyway, it's all beside the point because generally, (apart from on this messageboard ) the government seems to be determined to push through the countries vote.
No one in government appears to be even mentioning the legal challenge.
It looks like it might be just a storm in a teacup.
It won't be illegal if parliament back the PM.
Plus if the parliament votes it out, given many of their regions voted leave, it could be political death for any one of them to not back the majority vote.
People will just not vote for them in the next election, and remove them permanently.
-
Because if remain and the PM lied to the public about the actions on outcome of the vote, they should explain.
But Rose, implementing the outcome of a referendum on a constitutional issue involves one of two things. Either one does nothing, if the vote is for the status quo or one initiates a Parliamentary process that ends with a Bill and - potentially - an Act of Parliament. This was made clear from the very start, as far as I'm aware.
The non-binging nature of a referendum was certainly pointed out here a number of times in the run-up to the vote - and mentioned in a number of media reports.
If anyone has misled us, its the Vote Leave campaign whose claims and promises seem to unravel on a daily basis.
-
You have to love Brendan. A pithy writer, with a clear opinion. But just lots of emotion which overwhelms his logic quite often.
Also irrelevant to the question of the referendum being advisory de iure.
To me the fundamental problem is this:
Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?
It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.
-
It was a link from the parliament website on the referendum and I copied it word for word.
I no longer have it on my tabs.
I'll look later.
Still waiting for this official parliamentary document that contains those words.
Interesting however that those exact words appear in the following research paper, which you actually previously linked to:
http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Brexit-PDF.pdf
But this is, of course, merely the opinions of the authors, not in any way an official parliamentary or government view. So I suggest you misunderstood what you were reading.
There is certainly no doubt no, and never was from the point at which the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was drafted and passed in parliament that there referendum is advisory. Indeed the authors of the paper you cite are clear in this - this being a direct quote from the very opening section of the report:
'If the forthcoming referendum were to result in a vote to leave the EU a prior question of law arises which is whether or not the referendum result is legally binding on the government. As it happens, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 contains no provision as to its effect in law. This means that as a matter of constitutional theory the referendum verdict has no consequential legal effect. It is, like many other referendums, devoid of consequential legal effect. Its result is advisory rather than mandatory. So, the government could, in strict law, choose to ignore it.'
-
To me the fundamental problem is this:
Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?
It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.
I tend to agree. Not south on the financial uncertainty more on political grounds, though over the mid term they are intertwined.i'd see the initial financial reaction as being broadly good but then a stronger UKIP would emerge and look like a possible govt in waiting at which point the uncertainty would return
-
Jeremy p
What spud said.
Because if remain and the PM lied to the public about the actions on outcome of the vote, they should explain.
Anyway, it's all beside the point because generally, (apart from on this messageboard ) the government seems to be determined to push through the countries vote.
No one in government appears to be even mentioning the legal challenge.
It looks like it might be just a storm in a teacup.
It won't be illegal if parliament back the PM.
Plus if the parliament votes it out, given many of their regions voted leave, it could be political death for any one of them to not back the majority vote.
People will just not vote for them in the next election, and remove them permanently.
And again, the possible legal challenge is irrelevant to the question of whether the referendum was advisory, which it was.
-
To me the fundamental problem is this:
Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?
It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.
It would lead to a general election - and that would be seen (whether rightly or wrongly) as the more recent electoral mandate and would negate the earlier referendum if (as would seem likely if brexit was the trigger for the general election) the key election issue was brexit.
-
And again, the possible legal challenge is irrelevant to the question of whether the referendum was advisory, which it was.
That's right.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the referendum is advisory - so it is entirely down to government to decide what to do next.
The legal challenge is to determine whether triggering article 50 requires parliamentary approval or not.
-
It would lead to a general election - and that would be seen (whether rightly or wrongly) as the more recent electoral mandate and would negate the earlier referendum if (as would seem likely if brexit was the trigger for the general election) the key election issue was brexit.
Would that actually work? The Tories would still presumably be split on the issue, so it might not be easy to demonstrate a mandate to discard to referendum result.
It sounds very messy.
-
To me the fundamental problem is this:
Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?
It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.
Quite a lot of "ifs" there, but I essentially agree. We would then have a GE. A quick agreement/vote in parliament for a Norway type deal would meet the referendum commitments and minimize the business and financial uncertainty - but many "leavers" would still be left discontented.
-
Quite a lot of "ifs" there, but I essentially agree. We would then have a GE. A quick agreement/vote in parliament for a Norway type deal would meet the referendum commitments and minimize the business and financial uncertainty - but many "leavers" would still be left discontented.
I'm becoming convinced that a Norway deal is the only way forward. That won't please the xenophobes who just want 'to get rid of all those bloody foreigners' but at least it will give us good access to the single market and allow all those entrepreneurs who claimed that they need to access the world market form doing so.
-
I'm becoming convinced that a Norway deal is the only way forward. That won't please the xenophobes who just want 'to get rid of all those bloody foreigners' but at least it will give us good access to the single market and allow all those entrepreneurs who claimed that they need to access the world market form doing so.
But we would be totally at the mercy of the EU with no power to challenge anything ... and paying for the privilege.
Better in than than sitting on the doorstep like this.
-
But we would be totally at the mercy of the EU with no power to challenge anything ... and paying for the privilege.
Yes, that was pretty obvious before the referendum, but we are where we are.
Better in than than sitting on the doorstep like this.
But if we get bogged down in a complex legal process we might be sitting there for a very long time.
-
I'm becoming convinced that a Norway deal is the only way forward. That won't please the xenophobes who just want 'to get rid of all those bloody foreigners' but at least it will give us good access to the single market and allow all those entrepreneurs who claimed that they need to access the world market form doing so.
You may well be right, but the question then is whether there is a mandate for such a deal, given that the brexit voters were a broad church.
So were you to put Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK which would win.
Or even including more choices, e.g. Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK vs WTO w/o freedom of movement (for the xenophobes).
This is the problem we have a 'negative' mandate on the basis of what a majority are against, we have no 'positive' mandate for the nature of a post brexit settlement.
-
You may well be right, but the question then is whether there is a mandate for such a deal, given that the brexit voters were a broad church.
So were you to put Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK which would win.
Or even including more choices, e.g. Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK vs WTO w/o freedom of movement (for the xenophobes).
This is the problem we have a 'negative' mandate on the basis of what a majority are against, we have no 'positive' mandate for the nature of a post brexit settlement.
I seem to recall Brexiteers holding up Norway as a shining example of what Britain might achieve before they actually looked into the details. The referendum did leave a hell of a lot of things undefined but it's not going to be easily reversed. Maybe a Norway style deal is going to be the least-bad option.
-
You may well be right, but the question then is whether there is a mandate for such a deal, given that the brexit voters were a broad church.
So were you to put Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK which would win.
Or even including more choices, e.g. Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK vs WTO w/o freedom of movement (for the xenophobes).
This is the problem we have a 'negative' mandate on the basis of what a majority are against, we have no 'positive' mandate for the nature of a post brexit settlement.
A referendum with more than two options? We'll be here till doomsday quibbling over the results...
-
A referendum with more than two options? We'll be here till doomsday quibbling over the results...
That is the danger.
-
Maybe a Norway style deal is going to be the least-bad option.
For some people - certainly it is the most acceptable brexit option for remainers.
But it perhaps the least acceptable model (possible of all) for those driven by concerns over freedom of movement. I can see that those people might actually prefer to be in the EU rather than be like Norway.
Why - well because Norway has to accept free movement from all EU countries but has no say in whether a new country can join. So look at Turkey, which was a big focus for the anti-migrant crowd. As a member of the EU we would have to allow free movement from Turkey if they join, but as a member we can veto Turkey joining. If we are like Norway we would still to allow free movement from Turkey if they join but would have no ability to block their entry.
So it certainly isn't clear to me that were we to put a clear choice to the electorate of Norway style EEA membership vs EU membership that there would be a mandate for the Norway model. And we cannot know, in reality as this choice has not bee put before the electorate.
-
A referendum with more than two options? We'll be here till doomsday quibbling over the results...
I agree and unless we have AV we'd probably not get over 50% supporting any, plus there is a tendency for the middle option to be most preferred.
Hence my views on the way forward. The government (probably after a general election mandate) negotiates a clear brexit deal which is agreed on both sides (UK and EU) and can therefore be delivered. Once this is agreed (no fantasy have cake and eat it stuff) this is put to the electorate in a second referendum providing 2 choices.
1. The negotiated and agreed brexit deal
2. Remaining in the EU
So we would then be comparing what people are in favour of not having an unbalanced referendum of in favour one one side, and against on the other.
Providing the two options are completely clear, and are able to be delivered by the UK government, then the second referendum could be binding (like the AV vs FPTP referendum) rather than advisory (like the EU referendum).
It would then be clear that whichever settlement was taken forward was supported by a majority of the voting electorate - unlike now where it is entirely unclear that any 'real' post brexit settlement actually has support from the majority of the electorate.
-
For some people - certainly it is the most acceptable brexit option for remainers.
But it perhaps the least acceptable model (possible of all) for those driven by concerns over freedom of movement. I can see that those people might actually prefer to be in the EU rather than be like Norway.
Why - well because Norway has to accept free movement from all EU countries but has no say in whether a new country can join. So look at Turkey, which was a big focus for the anti-migrant crowd. As a member of the EU we would have to allow free movement from Turkey if they join, but as a member we can veto Turkey joining. If we are like Norway we would still to allow free movement from Turkey if they join but would have no ability to block their entry.
So it certainly isn't clear to me that were we to put a clear choice to the electorate of Norway style EEA membership vs EU membership that there would be a mandate for the Norway model. And we cannot know, in reality as this choice has not bee put before the electorate.
The problem is that there isn't a good option. That was fairly obvious before the referendum but the electorate chose to ignore the obvious facts and believe the Brexiteer fantasies.
But we have to start from where we are and a Norway style deal with all it's shortcomings appears to be the only way out of the mess (even if it's a bit hard on xenophobes)
-
The problem is that there isn't a good option. That was fairly obvious before the referendum but the electorate chose to ignore the obvious facts and believe the Brexiteer fantasies.
But we have to start from where we are and a Norway style deal with all it's shortcomings appears to be the only way out of the mess (even if it's a bit hard on xenophobes)
But I cannot see how we can actually enact a Norway style EEA agreement without a direct mandate - no-one has voted for this and there is no mandate for it other than what it isn't, i.e. EU membership.
-
By stating in their information leaflet that they would implement the decision made by the public, they misled us.
No they haven't. All it needs is for Parliament to have a vote and to vote in favour of triggering article 50. Nobody has yet said it is not going to happen. I suspect, if a vote happened to day, most MPs would respect the result of the referendum.
Not many people would go to the trouble of checking out the legality of it. Perhaps they were assuming that remain would win. If they knew it was not legally binding they should have made it clear.
You mean the referendum? It was clear to me.
-
But I cannot see how we can actually enact a Norway style EEA agreement without a direct mandate - no-one has voted for this and there is no mandate for it other than what it isn't, i.e. EU membership.
When we once again have a functioning government, we will activate Article 50 and send over a team from the Department of Brexit (or whatever the official title is to be) to negotiate a deal that parliament will vote on.
I don't suppose it will please everyone, but as long as it gets through parliament, that's the way it will be.
-
You mean the referendum? It was clear to me.
And me, and anyone else who actually bother to make an effort to find out the facts.
The referendum was advisory - that was clear prior to the referendum and remains clear now.
-
Jeremy p
What spud said.
Because if remain and the PM lied to the public about the actions on outcome of the vote, they should explain.
What has this got to do with Remain? The Remain campaign never said anything about triggering article 50, why would it?
No one in government appears to be even mentioning the legal challenge.
They probably think it would come to nothing, or, they were planning to put the decision to parliament but expect it to pass.
Plus if the parliament votes it out, given many of their regions voted leave, it could be political death for any one of them to not back the majority vote.
This is true, unless it becomes even more obvious in the next two months that leaving the EU is a really bad idea.
What's your answer to my question?
The reason I ask is because I think it is obvious that the PM should not be allowed to do anything illegal and therefore, if there is any doubt that his/her triggering article 50 unilaterally is legal, it needs to be clarified before he/she does. Otherwise there is the possibility of triggering article 50 and then finding out it is illegal after the fact. That would make the current chaos look like a picnic.
-
To me the fundamental problem is this:
Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?
It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.
If there was a free vote now, I would expect enough MPs to respect the referendum that it would not be defeated.
If there was a vote in say two months after companies start announcing their exit strategies, prices have gone up due to the pound's crash and people start losing their jobs and the vote defeats the referendum result, we would be back where we were on June 22nd.
Personally, if I were an MP, I would have no problem with voting to defeat the motion.
-
They probably think it would come to nothing, or, they were planning to put the decision to parliament but expect it to pass.
That's right.
I think that politically it is recognised that triggering article 50 without parliamentary approval would be political suicide, so the notion of whether it is, or is not, a legal requirement is moot. The government will put it to a vote in parliament on the basis that to trigger when parliament would not approve would immediately trigger a vote of no confidence in the government. And it massively strengthens the hand of the government if they want to trigger to be able to point to a majority in favour in parliament.
-
Or even including more choices, e.g. Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK vs WTO w/o freedom of movement (for the xenophobes).
What if no one of the options got an absolute majority?
-
If there was a free vote now, I would expect enough MPs to respect the referendum that it would not be defeated.
If there was a vote in say two months after companies start announcing their exit strategies, prices have gone up due to the pound's crash and people start losing their jobs and the vote defeats the referendum result, we would be back where we were on June 22nd.
Personally, if I were an MP, I would have no problem with voting to defeat the motion.
But where would we go from there? Another referendum, a GE?
There is no obvious way to extract ourselves from this mess.
-
But where would we go from there? Another referendum, a GE?
There is no obvious way to extract ourselves from this mess.
Yes there is. A general election that returned a pro-EU parliament would nullify the referendum. A general election that returned a pro article 50 parliament would reinforce the referendum.
Also, Prof Davey came up with a plan that would work whereby we trigger article 50, do the negotiating and then put the result to another referendum: "should we accept this deal or stay in the EU". It does require that the other EU members agree that article 50 is revocable.
-
Yes there is. A general election that returned a pro-EU parliament would nullify the referendum. A general election that returned a pro article 50 parliament would reinforce the referendum.
I would say that is impossible. Labour are unelectable and the Tories are split on the EU.
Also, Prof Davey came up with a plan that would work whereby we trigger article 50, do the negotiating and then put the result to another referendum: "should we accept this deal or stay in the EU". It does require that the other EU members agree that article 50 is revocable.
As you say, that assumes that article 50 is revocable, which seems highly doubtful.
-
I would say that is impossible. Labour are unelectable and the Tories are split on the EU.
As you say, that assumes that article 50 is revocable, which seems highly doubtful.
I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.
-
I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.
I suppose that will become obvious as things progress, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
I suppose that will become obvious as things progress, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much. I think they are just fed up with the whniging Brits (and when I say Brits - I mean predominantly the English constituents thereof) and now think it is time to move on.
I can't say I blame them.
-
I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much. I think they are just fed up with the whniging Brits (and when I say Brits - I mean predominantly the English constituents thereof) and now think it is time to move on.
I can't say I blame them.
Maybe we could offer them Farage's head on a platter?
-
Maybe we could offer them Farage's head on a platter?
The taste of stale beer and fags on a silver platter - hmm tempting, but I think I'd still pass.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.
Ah yes!! But I think it is to the EU we should all be looking, our exit has sent shock waves through the EU, already we have had mutterings, if Britain can do it.
The Farage/Jack Knave plan is to bring the whole edifice crashing down, to wrestle power away from a so called elite ( who ever they are ??? ).
In the EU it is not business as usual, they are all looking at us and asking, what next, what are we going to do, I would imagine that questions are being asked, how did we allow this to happen? why did all of Britain's problems land at the feet of the EU?
Mr Cameron has pulled a real fast one, it is not my fault, it is those EU johnnies, unemployment, well to many migrants are to blame, NHS in crisis, again that is the fault of migrants. ( My little dig at the Tories )
Cracks are appearing in the EU, how will the EU handle this, bend over backwards to help us, or will they blame us for all their ills, our leaving has given them a whole new headache, I think it is worth watching what is happening within the EU.
Gonnagle.
-
Mr Cameron has pulled a real fast one, it is not my fault, it is those EU johnnies, unemployment, well to many migrants are to blame, NHS in crisis, again that is the fault of migrants. ( My little dig at the Tories )
Cameron took a huge risk and screwed-uo. Presumably he thought he could settle the issue for a generation or more, but unfortunately (being a public school type) he played it with a 'straight bat' while there were no depths that his opponents would not stoop to.
That's what happens when you play fair in a dirty game.
-
Cameron took a huge risk and screwed-uo. Presumably he thought he could settle the issue for a generation or more, but unfortunately (being a public school type) he played it with a 'straight bat' while there were no depths that his opponents would not stoop to.
That's what happens when you play fair in a dirty game.
Nonsense. The problem was that he did not seem to believe in it at all. There were many ludicrous claims by Remain as well. This idea of Cameron as honourable, when his first actions following a vote resigning and not triggering Article 50 then meant that he had lied on those, is astounding.
(BTW Do you think that all the other Articles are testing pished off at 50's fame? Article 1 will be shouting 'but I'm Numero Uno')
-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/brexit-can-go-ahead-without-parliament-vote-article-50-government-lawyers-say
A round up of much of the speculation on this thread.
In summary
1 - Government lawyers believe article 50 can be triggered using the royal perogative
2 - there would still need to be a vote in Parliament before exit (to repeal the European Communities Act 1972)
3 - the French government's lawyers are advsing the French government that article 50 can be revoked
4 - joining the EEA would be difficult as there are 31 different vetoes that could stop the UK joining
-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/brexit-can-go-ahead-without-parliament-vote-article-50-government-lawyers-say
A round up of much of the speculation on this thread.
In summary
1 - Government lawyers believe article 50 can be triggered using the royal perogative
2 - there would still need to be a vote in Parliament before exit (to repeal the European Communities Act 1972)
3 - the French government's lawyers are advsing the French government that article 50 can be revoked
4 - joining the EEA would be difficult as there are 31 different vetoes that could stop the UK joining
. 1 sounds so democratic
-
Dear Lapsed,
Who luvs ya baby :P well I do old son ;) It's nice that you are sticking up for Mr Cameron, public school type, playing a straight bat, I would imagine that Mr Cameron learned every dirty trick under the sun whilst at public school, in fact that is where most dirty tricks were invented!!
But thank you, I just had a wee listen to the Jam "Eton Rifles".
What chance do we have against a tie and a crest
It is also reminds me of our very own Wigs signature at the bottom of his posts ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Nonsense. The problem was that he did not seem to believe in it at all. There were many ludicrous claims by Remain as well. This idea of Cameron as honourable, when his first actions following a vote resigning and not triggering Article 50 then meant that he had lied on those, is astounding.
I suppose we will never know what was going on in his head, but I can't off-hand think what those "ludicrous claims by Remain" might be? - most of their campaign was pretty honest and accurate.
As for his resignation, it's difficult to judge at the moment whether that might turn out to be a good or a bad thing.
-
I suppose we will never know what was going on in his head, but I can't off-hand think what those "ludicrous claims by Remain" might be? - most of their campaign was pretty honest and accurate.
As for his resignation, it's difficult to judge at the moment whether that might turn out to be a good or a bad thing.
Well let's start with Dave - if any of the claims that economageddon were to be believed, they were undermined by his previously stayed position that the UK could do quite well outside the EU. Which time was he lying?
-
Both of these could be true depending on time scales and actual events. There is little doubt that the UK has sufficient resources and worldwide investment and trade capability to do well outside the EU in the long term.
It is also true that the process of disconnecting from the EU with its negative effects on existing investments, trade and the labor market will be devastating for many people.
-
Both of these could be true depending on time scales and actual events. There is little doubt that the UK has sufficient resources and worldwide investment and trade capability to do well outside the EU in the long term.
It is also true that the process of disconnecting from the EU with its negative effects on existing investments, trade and the labor market will be devastating for many people.
I can see the argument but I don't think the idea that we can do well outside maps easily to 'devastating for many people'
-
Well let's start with Dave - if any of the claims that economageddon were to be believed, they were undermined by his previously stayed position that the UK could do quite well outside the EU. Which time was he lying?
I'm loathed to defend Cameron because he undoubtedly bears a great deal of responsibility for the screw-up, but if I recall, he said that long-term Britain could prosper either in the EU or out, which is probably true. If he had said that there was no future outside the EU he would rightly have been accused of scaremongering.
The problems in the short/medium term were predicted quite accurately.
-
Cameron took a huge risk and screwed-uo. Presumably he thought he could settle the issue for a generation or more, but unfortunately (being a public school type) he played it with a 'straight bat' while there were no depths that his opponents would not stoop to.
That's what happens when you play fair in a dirty game.
Ironically, the 'Leave' players who played dirtiest were also 'public school types'. Just shows that you can't stereotype people because f their education.
-
Ironically, the 'Leave' players who played dirtiest were also 'public school types'. Just shows that you can't stereotype people because f their education.
I think some people live-up to their stereotypes. Cameron is 'Head Boy' while Boris is a Bit of a Bounder.
-
I think some people live-up to their stereotypes. Cameron is 'Head Boy' while Boris is a Bit of a Bounder.
Which stereotype does Jeremy C. live up to? :)
-
Which stereotype does Jeremy C. live up to? :)
He's your archetypal 'Militant' straight out of the 70's. He always looks as if he should be standing by a brazier wearing a Donkey Jacket addressing the 'Comrades'.
(I even think that is how he sees himself)
-
I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much.
Of course they want us to stay. The UK is one of the richest and most powerful states in the EU. Our leaving will only weaken it.
-
Well let's start with Dave - if any of the claims that economageddon were to be believed, they were undermined by his previously stayed position that the UK could do quite well outside the EU. Which time was he lying?
Well to my eye it looks pretty much like economogeddon is actually happening.
-
I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much. I think they are just fed up with the whniging Brits (and when I say Brits - I mean predominantly the English constituents thereof) and now think it is time to move on.
I can't say I blame them.
At no time has she, or any other leader said that they want to see the back of us; rather, they have said that - following the vote - they would like to see us acting sooner than later, as any on-going uncertainty damages their economies as much as it does ours.
-
Well to my eye it looks pretty much like economogeddon is actually happening.
I fear you are correct.