[Politics] Brexit

[Neville's Breakfast]

From the bill. Think the legal challenge may be a non starter?

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions.

A technicality which is very important legally but ultimately irrelevant. Would you want to be responsible for a far right backlash by hiding behind this view however much it is technically correct ? You may be holding up your legal piece of paper but I'm not sure it will help in governance of the country. This pathway of 'anything goes' in reversing the Referendum result would backfire badly and responsible politicians (as opposed to internet commentators) would not take it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

A technicality which is very important legally but ultimately irrelevant. Would you want to be responsible for a far right backlash by hiding behind this view however much it is technically correct ? You may be holding up your legal piece of paper but I'm not sure it will help in governance of the country. This pathway of 'anything goes' in reversing the Referendum result would backfire badly and responsible politicians (as opposed to internet commentators) would not take it.

The Lord Chief Justice didn't think it irrelevant. Why will The Supreme Court think differently?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

The Lord Chief Justice didn't think it irrelevant. Why will The Supreme Court think differently?

CLUTCHING AT STRAWS AGAIN, we're out live with it
regards
DR

 

[ManOfSussex]

CLUTCHING AT STRAWS AGAIN, we're out live with it
regards
DR

I didn't say we weren't leaving The EU.

Wanting proper due process for doing so, with parliamentary scrutiny is hardly clutching at straws.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I understood your logic but remember the same could be said for the 1975 Referendum when the long
term implications were similarly not made clear. This did not stop pro EU politicians forging ahead with closer integration by treaty. Using your argument (and it is oft repeated on the Remain side) these treaties did not have a mandate as political integration etc was not what was offered in the referendum. I am not saying that everything is clear but I am
saying that the precedent of forging ahead after a simple in/out vote was set in 1975 and
since by the pro EU side. I hope that the issue will be resolved amicably but if not then advocates of the EU project will only have themselves to blame after taking the 1975 vote as freedom to integrate as they pleased.

I agree completely that the 1975 vote did not have a clear plan of what would happen longer term but the difference being that what would happen immediately following that referendum was clear.

As we stand at the moment, it's not clear where our exit strategy is going to put us and the two extremes haven't been ruled out and are being advocated by individuals within the government. I also suspect that this won't be clear for at least another 18 months to 2 years.

I'm just glad i'm retired as trying to run businesses with this level of uncertainty would have probably killed me

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

i didn't say we weren't leaving the eu.

no but you're clinging on like a piece of shit on a loo roll
regards
DR

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The Lord Chief Justice didn't think it irrelevant. Why will The Supreme Court think differently?

They won't. I was talking about any attempts to avoid leaving the EU. I have no problem with parliament discussing the issue.

 

[ManOfSussex]

no but you're clinging on like piece of shit on a loo roll
regards
DR

A bit like a sad troll on the internet, you mean?

 

[Sorrel]

From the bill. Think the legal challenge may be a non starter?

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions.

It's probably worth looking at what has happened with referendums in the UK for the past 41 years. There have been over 50 of them, though obviously the vast majority were not national referendums (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom).

All of them except the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 were implemented according to the result, the closest being the Welsh Assembly referendum of 1997, where 49.7% of the voters were against it. In the case of 1979 Scotland there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote for change (introduced before the referendum took place) and so the results were not implemented.

Therefore to argue about the "advisory" nature of the EU referendum is somewhat pointless. All advisory referendums within the UK have been enacted according to the results. To argue that this is a special case is never going to be able to rest on anything other than a dislike of the result by those whose side were not in the majority.

Those who wish to remain would be much better off putting their energies into ensuring the softest of soft-Brexits rather than using the "advisory" angle as that angle has no precedent to stand on.

 

[ManOfSussex]

They won't. I was talking about any attempts to avoid leaving the EU. I have no problem with parliament discussing the issue.

I agree with you.

 

[Triggaaar]

The part where I call a (very clearly) advisory referendum, an 'advisory referendum', or the part where I describe a public vote of 51-49% to be 'far from conclusive'?

Seriously, which of those two points can possible be argued?

Well it's pretty easy to argue with the second point. Firstly, it wasn't 51-49%, that's just plain wrong. Secondly, gaining more than half the votes wins the election, so 8% more people voting to leave was way more than needed. It's like you'd suggest a winning football team doesn't get all 3 points because their 4-3 win wasn't conclusive.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

A bit like a sad troll on the internet, you mean?

poor effort
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Well it's pretty easy to argue with the second point. Firstly, it wasn't 51-49%, that's just plain wrong. Secondly, gaining more than half the votes wins the election, so 8% more people voting to leave was way more than needed. It's like you'd suggest a winning football team doesn't get all 3 points because their 4-3 win wasn't conclusive.

1 MILLION voters
regards
DR

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I am going to assume that you voted Leave.

This is exactly what you voted for.

The primacy of the British parliamentary system and British rule of law.

The governments approach to leaving the EU was proved to be wrong on a point of law. It is not a political decision, although the ramifications are political. This is the governments fault NOT the justice system.

The government will still pursue Brexit as per the (advisory) referendum result.

All this rubbish that the EU hating newspapers are spouting about the judges is laughable, especially by the American owned Sun.

Please read up on English parliamentary history before repeating the ill-informed views of 4-5 newspaper owners.

Cheers.

PS. We will still leave the EU, however we will do it lawfully.

It's not just laughable, it's dangerous.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

No idea where they would have got that idea from ....

.... astounding.

We were also promised £350m a week into the NHS, but not all of us believe what we read.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

We were also promised £350m a week into the NHS, but not all of us believe what we read.

You know that not to be true. At risk of repetition, the point was made by the Leave campaign that 350 million would be saved to be spent on projects to be decided at a General Election. An example of this is the NHS. If you wish for this to happen then vote for a party that will make it come true.
Whether the claim is true or not does not invalidate the result anymore than the claims on the other side would have done if the result had been reversed.
By contrast, the quote you refer to comes from Government (not campaign) literature explaining the process of the referendum.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

We were also promised £350m a week into the NHS, but not all of us believe what we read.

Erm .. you didn't believe the government would implement the majority view then?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The simple fact of the matter is that the referendum had two options. One option has been clearly defined in lots of detail over the last 40 years and the other option had no definition whatsoever.

Everyone who voted leave all had a very clear view of what they THOUGHT they were voting for, but since there was no definition it was not possible to know WHAT they were voting for.

Give it 2 years and they may have a better idea of what they voted for, which could be any one of a large number of options.

Not so. One option was staying in an organisation that has changed beyond all recognition over the last 40 years. An organisation initially sold to the UK population as being good for trade that morphed into an unwavering commitment for ever closer political union. Continually, inevitably reducing the decision making power and sovereignty of member states. Also causing huge economic and political instability which many seem oblivious to.

The other was ending this relationship and regaining the powers already ceded and existing as a largely independent nation state like the vast majority of countries around the world. Our future relationship with the EU is open for negotiation and the people that lost the vote may have some legitimate input but they shouldn't dictate what these terms should be.

 

[JCL666]

The other was ending this relationship and regaining the powers already ceded and existing as a largely independent nation state like the vast majority of countries around the world. Our future relationship with the EU is open for negotiation and the people that lost the vote may have some legitimate input but they shouldn't dictate what these terms should be.

Pretty sure the referendum question didn't include that as an answer.

Which is the point i think the other poster was making. As can be seen on this thread and elsewhere, those who voted for "Leave" cover a wide range of people, with varying motivations for voting the way they did.

As for who should dictate the terms. An important attribute of the democracy that we have is that parliament consider the implications for the whole nation albeit it could be argued they do so with a mandate of "Leave" (even though no one has actually defined what that will entail).

The likelihood is that there will be a compromise of some sort hence the soft Brexit that's being suggested. That may appear frustrating for some of the 17.4 million who voted for Leave, however the 16.1 million who voted Remain are having to compromise a great deal more.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Pretty sure the referendum question didn't include that as an answer.

Which is the point i think the other poster was making. As can be seen on this thread and elsewhere, those who voted for "Leave" cover a wide range of people, with varying motivations for voting the way they did.

As for who should dictate the terms. An important attribute of the democracy that we have is that parliament consider the implications for the whole nation albeit it could be argued they do so with a mandate of "Leave" (even though no one has actually defined what that will entail).

The likelihood is that there will be a compromise of some sort hence the soft Brexit that's being suggested. That may appear frustrating for some of the 17.4 million who voted for Leave, however the 16.1 million who voted Remain are having to compromise a great deal more.

I think many Brexiteers are getting a tad annoyed at many remainers deciding what we did and didn't vote for.

The referendum question didn't include an option for Remainers to have a Brexit light option.

An even more important attribute of democracy is accepting the democratic choice of the majority.

Yes there will be compromise on our future relationship with the EU but that negotiation will/should at the very least be based on the desires and wishes of the majority.

The 16.1 million who voted Remain should have to compromise a great deal more ... they lost.