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

[Bubbles]

It doesn't make sense to talk of an election being binding on a legislative body.

Parliaments words " binding" not mine.

[Hope]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[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.

.... 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.




.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[Bubbles]

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?

[Udayana]

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/

[ProfessorDavey]

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.'

[jeremyp]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.