Brexit Referendum Superthread

FreudianSlippers

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you think there's a law in the UK which says you can't be deported if you have done nothing illegal, now would be a really good time to point to that law.

If you can't point to that law, people might think you're just making stuff up and proclaiming it to be true, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

The fact is that you can be deported from the UK (and many other countries, including Ireland) despite having broken no laws. This is a deliberate stance by the countries concerned; the want to be able to deport you without having to show that you have broken the law, which would require court proceedings, and which would give potential deportees the same rights that those accused of a crime have,

Point of clarity re UK Borders Act 2007; I'm not entirely familiar with it, but isn't the mere act of residing unlawfully in the UK illegal unless you have a defence?

Nody

djpbarry wrote: »

The Supreme Court has ruled that parliament must vote before article 50 is triggered.

And they don't need to permission of NI or Scotland to go ahead with it so pretty much exactly as expected.

An Ciarraioch

Nody wrote: »

And they don't need to permission of NI or Scotland to go ahead with it so pretty much exactly as expected.

Interesting to see how Labour react - if Corbyn enforces the whip, his MPs will revolt, yet if they join the Lib Dems in oppposing, their northern supporters may move to UKIP. On balance, given that they campaigned to remain, they're as well off to consistently maintain that position.

ArthurDayne

djpbarry wrote: »

The Supreme Court has ruled that parliament must vote before article 50 is triggered.

I guess this is where the restricted wording of a one-line referendum question on what is an incredibly complex transition becomes a legal and constitutional conundrum.

Strictly speaking, if Parliament is to defy the result of the referendum, that creates in and of itself a constitutional crisis -- as well as providing a resounding rallying cry for the jilted Brexiteers for many years to come. But the referendum question was limited to a simple question as to whether the UK should leave the EU -- the referendum said nothing about the British cabinet having the unfettered power to give effect to Brexit free from the scrutiny and consent of Parliament in the manner in which Brexit was implemented.

After all, Parliamentary supremacy was a key theme for the pro-Brexit movement --- it would therefore seem strange that this movement with all its bluster about 'elites' would advocate the concept of a small group of 'elites' (i.e. the British Cabinet) implementing what will be a tremendous amount of seismically important matters without the oversight of a Parliament which the Brexiteers seemed so concerned to liberate and strengthen.

The above only relates to the implementation of Brexit however, rather than actually blocking the triggering of Article 50. But if Parliament decides that, notwithstanding the referendum result, it is not convinced that it can say in good faith and conscience that the haphazard sweeping implementation of Brexit is in the best interests of the British people, then we are in for one hell of a debate on the nature of democracy.

I look forward to seeing this play out in the Commons for sure.

Lemming

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Strictly speaking, if Parliament is to defy the result of the referendum, that creates in and of itself a constitutional crisis

Underscoring further the lack of understanding of a great deal many people as to what constitutes democracy, what consitutes sovereignty, and what consitutes a legally binding vs. advisory referendum.

Parliament would well be within its rights - and I dare say morally obligated - to "defy" the result of the referendum if, after intense scrutiny and debate, it was deemed that Brexit was not in the best interest of the union England & Wales. And that would be democratic and it would have considered the result of the referendum, advisory that it was. Simply ignoring it [the referendum] and carrying on business as usual would have been an act of defiance. But no, what we have instead is people spilling bile and rage about how dare the judiciary force Parliament to vote, etc. etc, having mistaken the term "government" for parliament.

What I suspect the government are going to try and do is a fait accomplit by delivering a bill with a single sentence and a yes/no response, giving very little ability to argue for any merit for or against without accusation of exceeding the scope of the bill.

marienbad

ArthurDayne wrote: »

.

Strictly speaking, if Parliament is to defy the result of the referendum, that creates in and of itself a constitutional crisis -- as well as providing a resounding rallying cry for the jilted Brexiteers for many years to come.
.
.

There is no way Parliament is going to defy the referendum result . The only way that the brexit result can be overturned is by having a 2nd referendum .

Sam Russell

marienbad wrote: »

There is no way Parliament is going to defy the referendum result . The only way that the brexit result can be overturned is by having a 2nd referendum .

Even that would be seen as defying the result.

The country is divided, and the nations are divided. Scotland and NI voted decisively to remain, and England and Wales to leave.

marienbad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Even that would be seen as defying the result.

The country is divided, and the nations are divided. Scotland and NI voted decisively to remain, and England and Wales to leave.

Indeed,but if after all the options had been discussed and properly analysed - both pro and con - and a remain vote secured an overwhelming victory in a rerun , then I think it would be accepted .

You would always have a sizeable minority saying antidemocratic bla bla as here with Nice etc . But if the margin is big enough they could be faced down .

The Tory civil war would probably continue though .

ArthurDayne

Lemming wrote: »

Underscoring further the lack of understanding of a great deal many people as to what constitutes democracy, what consitutes sovereignty, and what consitutes a legally binding vs. advisory referendum.

Indeed, but the constitutional crisis lies in the fact that to many, if not the majority of everyday working people* in the UK, the referendum is the ultimate expression of democratic will. And, though it is perfectly legitimate to delve into the facts as you outline them, we all know that the Brexiteers will revert to populism and savage this as a sleazy lawyerly intelligentsia attempt to derail a democratic vote.

Unfortunately, human nature will also come into play in what should for every Parliamentarian be a simple case of objectively making a call on the best interests of the people. Keeping a hold of their seats will somewhat depressingly be a factor for certain MPs and they will seek convenient refuge in interpreting their role as one which is intended to give effect to the voice of their constituents, rather than one in which they are entrusted and empowered by the people to make their own decision based on their own knowledge and conscience as to the public interest. Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, such concerns of one's job being at the whim of the electorate do not hold such sway in the Supreme Court.



*this is not meant in a pejorative sense, though I appreciate it can come across as such. For the sake of conciseness however, I just take it that people get what I mean by it.

Lemming

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Indeed, but the constitutional crisis lies in the fact that to many, if not the majority of everyday working people* in the UK, the referendum is the ultimate expression of democratic will.

No argument with the rest of what you wrote, but the above is not a constitutional crisis; it's ignorance, owing to what some of the population think democracy is; or more to the fact, what Rupert Murdoch and his ilk of non-resident, tax-avoiding, possibly non-national, media mogul has told them to think it is. The tabloid press in the UK really are something to behold. It's either blatant dishonesty or manic hysteria depending on the topic du jouer, on a good day ... any article about Johnny Foreigner becomes a diatrabe worthy of being a footnote in the appendix of Mein Kampf. edit: that's a bit harsh; worthy of wiping one @rse with for its factual integrity.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

No argument with the rest of what you wrote, but the above is not a constitutional crisis; it's ignorance, owing to what some of the population think democracy is; or more to the fact, what Rupert Murdoch and his ilk of non-resident, tax-avoiding, possibly non-national, media mogul has told them to think it is. The tabloid press in the UK really are something to behold. It's either blatant dishonesty or manic hysteria depending on the topic du jouer, on a good day ... any article about Johnny Foreigner becomes a diatrabe worthy of being a footnote in the appendix of Mein Kampf. edit: that's a bit harsh; worthy of wiping one @rse with for its factual integrity.

Indeed. The "Enemies of the People" headlines the day after the first court decision wouldn't have looked out of place in an issue of Pravda.

Foghladh

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Indeed, but the constitutional crisis lies in the fact that to many, if not the majority of everyday working people* in the UK, the referendum is the ultimate expression of democratic will. And, though it is perfectly legitimate to delve into the facts as you outline them, we all know that the Brexiteers will revert to populism and savage this as a sleazy lawyerly intelligentsia attempt to derail a democratic vote.

Lemming wrote: »

No argument with the rest of what you wrote, but the above is not a constitutional crisis; it's ignorance, owing to what some of the population think democracy is; or more to the fact, what Rupert Murdoch and his ilk of non-resident, tax-avoiding, possibly non-national, media mogul has told them to think it is. The tabloid press in the UK really are something to behold. It's either blatant dishonesty or manic hysteria depending on the topic du jouer, on a good day ... any article about Johnny Foreigner becomes a diatrabe worthy of being a footnote in the appendix of Mein Kampf. edit: that's a bit harsh; worthy of wiping one @rse with for its factual integrity.

I'd argue that a referendum is actually the ultimate expression of democracy. You would of course be correct in saying that as part of a parliamentary democracy the citizens have devolved their votes regarding governance to a representative, however this was a specific question asked of the people. What differentiates a referendum result in Ireland as opposed to the UK other than the fact that the Act didn't contain a sentence stating force in law?

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Indeed. The "Enemies of the People" headlines the day after the first court decision wouldn't have looked out of place in an issue of Pravda.

The government's reaction wouldn't have looked out of place in an issue of Pravda, never mind the shameful headline ...

Lemming

Foghladh wrote: »

I'd argue that a referendum is actually the ultimate expression of democracy. You would of course be correct in saying that as part of a parliamentary democracy the citizens have devolved their votes regarding governance to a representative, however this was a specific question asked of the people. What differentiates a referendum result in Ireland as opposed to the UK other than the fact that the Act didn't contain a sentence stating force in law?

Let me answer your question with a question to you: what is the difference - do you think - between the words "advisory" and "legally-binding", in the context of a referendum?

hint: one is a very expensive opinion poll, the other an enforceable expression of public will.

Foghladh

Lemming wrote: »

Foghladh wrote: »

I'd argue that a referendum is actually the ultimate expression of democracy. You would of course be correct in saying that as part of a parliamentary democracy the citizens have devolved their votes regarding governance to a representative, however this was a specific question asked of the people. What differentiates a referendum result in Ireland as opposed to the UK other than the fact that the Act didn't contain a sentence stating force in law?

Let me answer your question with a question to you: what is the difference - do you think - between the words "advisory" and "legally-binding", in the context of a referendum?

hint: one is a very expensive opinion poll, the other an enforceable expression of public will.

Let me ask you a question. Do you recall the words "advisory" or "legally binding" appearing in the context of the referendum question?

Lemming

Foghladh wrote: »

Let me ask you a question. Do you recall the words "advisory" or "legally binding" appearing in the context of the referendum question?

Here is the exact text of the cabinet briefing paper for the European Union Referendum Bill, 2015-16, dated 3rd June 2015. House of Commons library reference is 07212.

5. Types of referendum wrote:

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. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution

Bold emphasis is mine. In short, conduct a very expensive opinion poll.

Foghladh

quote=Lemming;102394368]

Foghladh wrote: »

Let me ask you a question. Do you recall the words "advisory" or "legally binding" appearing in the context of the referendum question?

Here is the exact text of the cabinet briefing paper for the European Union Referendum Bill, 2015-16, dated 3rd June 2015. House of Commons library reference is 07212.

5. Types of referendum wrote:

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. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution

Bold emphasis is mine. In short, conduct a very expensive opinion poll.[/quote]
I'm not asking you to prove to me that the referendum was "advisory". I'm fully aware that the Act didn't set out that the result was to enforced. I'm asking you if you recalled the "not legally binding" reference in the question asked in the referendum. I'm responding to your assertion that the public are being steered in their ignorance by the Murdoch led press and their inability to understand the definition of democracy.
I don't recall very much emphasis during the campaign on this distinction, in fact the Government issued argument to the masses specifically told the people that the result would be enforced. Is it very surprising that some would feel as if they are being circumvented on a technicality, given that they were unaware that they were only taking part in a very expensive opinion poll?

Calina

Yes. David Allen Green wrote specifically about how the referendum was not binfing in advance of it. It is clear from the legislation that it is not binding.

The argument of 'we didn't know it wasn't binding' is not an argument in favour of blindly following the outcome.

Better arguments are practical arguments in favour of Brexit. They are thin on the ground leading to the screeching and terror that Article 50 notification won't be issued. In short Brexit supporters have no better argument other than it's agin democracy. Looking btl it is obvious many Brexit supporters had and often still do not have any understanding of the practical impact of their vote.

But the information that this referendum was advisory was available. I knew about it and I was in Dublin.

Lemming

Foghladh wrote: »

I'm not asking you to prove to me that the referendum was "advisory". I'm fully aware that the Act didn't set out that the result was to enforced. I'm asking you if you recalled the "not legally binding" reference in the question asked in the referendum. I'm responding to your assertion that the public are being steered in their ignorance by the Murdoch led press and their inability to understand the definition of democracy.
I don't recall very much emphasis during the campaign on this distinction, in fact the Government issued argument to the masses specifically told the people that the result would be enforced. Is it very surprising that some would feel as if they are being circumvented on a technicality, given that they were unaware that they were only taking part in a very expensive opinion poll?

I cannot recall seeing words to the effect of "advisory" on the ballot paper itself, but then again why would anyone expect to find legal minutiae printed on a ballot paper? David Cameron's government did state that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding in advance. Several times. In fact, it was stated so far in advance as to have been reported first six years ago when ministers agreed that such a referendum would be non-binding.

So yes, the tabloid media have had an incredibly strong hand in leading 37% of the voting population up the garden path.

Yourself isit

Lemming wrote: »

Let me answer your question with a question to you: what is the difference - do you think - between the words "advisory" and "legally-binding", in the context of a referendum?

hint: one is a very expensive opinion poll, the other an enforceable expression of public will.

I doubt if the terms legally binding would have made it legally binding either.

Al moot anyway as parliament will now vote for article 50. Anything rise would be suicide for most (though not all) labour MPs.

And labour will lose the next election anyway enemy of they keep their working class votes so they aren't rushing to the exit doors.

Yourself isit

Lemming wrote: »

David Cameron's government did state that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding in advance. So far in advance as to have been reported first six years ago when ministers agreed that such a referendum would be non-binding.

So yes, the tabloid media have had an incredibly strong hand in leading 37% of the voting population up the garden path.

I find this nonsense inherently anti democratic.

Lemming

Yourself isit wrote: »

I find this nonsense inherently anti democratic.

It usually helps discussion when you explain the 'why'.

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

I find this nonsense inherently anti democratic.

Tell that to the country without a written constitution. Makes it exceptionally difficult to have binding referenda, because you're not voting on anything specific.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yourself isit wrote: »

I find this nonsense inherently anti democratic.

Do you find the way the UK has a Government ruling with an overall majority on 37% of the vote 'anti-democratic'

djpbarry

Foghladh wrote: »

I'm asking you if you recalled the "not legally binding" reference in the question asked in the referendum.

The first of many complexities omitted from the ballot paper.

Foghladh wrote: »

I'm responding to your assertion that the public are being steered in their ignorance by the Murdoch led press and their inability to understand the definition of democracy.

I think the point is that the “definition” of democracy is rather vague and can have wildly different interpretations. For example, you believe referenda are the purest form of democratic expression, whereas I would be of the opinion that they are almost always a terrible idea. But, we can both hold those opinions and still both be staunchly pro-democracy.

The Daily Mail today expresses the opinion that The Supreme Court verdict threatens to reduce the referendum to nothing more than an opinion poll, but that is all it ever was - a pretty major journalistic faux pas, given that the article in question referenced the constitutional and legal subtleties of the Brexit process.

Foghladh wrote: »

I don't recall very much emphasis during the campaign on this distinction…

I don’t recall very much emphasis during the campaign on facts of any sort.

djpbarry

Yourself isit wrote: »

I find this nonsense inherently anti democratic.

Because?

CMOTDibbler

Calina wrote: »

But the information that this referendum was advisory was available. I knew about it and I was in Dublin.

Likewise. And I also was equally detached from the debate.

So effectively, people seem to have voted without realising that it wouldn't become law without the Government's imprimatur and the Government apparently didn't know that they'd have to get Parliament's.

Talk about the blind leading the blind. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

...the Government apparently didn't know that they'd have to get Parliament's.

Of course they knew. They just tried to do an end run around Parliamentary sovereignty, and got caught.

CMOTDibbler

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course they knew. They just tried to do an end run around Parliamentary sovereignty, and got caught.

Well I just applied the cock-up rule. In any situation where there's a choice between a cock-up or a conspiracy, the cock-up usually turns out to be the correct one. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well I just applied the cock-up rule. In any situation where there's a choice between a cock-up or a conspiracy, the cock-up usually turns out to be the correct one. :rolleyes:

Yeah, my version goes: "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" - but I don't think May's government has done much to earn the benefit of the doubt, do you?