Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite

[wigginhall]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Brownie]

Vlad and his Ilk: They were voting for the status quo.

And are now in Dire Straits?

[Spud]

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).

[wigginhall]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[jeremyp]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

The referendum is advisory

PD

I require a citation please.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[wigginhall]

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. 

[Bubbles]

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.

[SqueakyVoice]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.   

[Bubbles]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.