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

[Bubbles]

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%

[Aruntraveller]

52% of the voters actually,not 37%

No 37% of the voters eligible to vote Actually.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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

[Bubbles]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Gordon]

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!

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.