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

[Bubbles]

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?

[jjohnjil]

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. 

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bramble]

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.'

[wigginhall]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jjohnjil]

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!

[Bubbles]

it couldn't promise to hold a General Election quickly.

True.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[wigginhall]

It's a pig in a poke, and maybe we should have a look at the pig. 

[Bubbles]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Hope]

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.