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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Bubbles]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.'

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[Udayana]

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...

[L.A.]

A referendum with more than two options? We'll be here till doomsday quibbling over the results...

That is the danger.