Brexit Referendum Superthread

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh please, stop with the advisory referendum.

Westminster took a vote to hold the referendum in the first place, it wasn't just some arbitrary "Ohh, what do people think". It was Westminster deciding that the issue required a referendum. Westminster asked the people, the people gave their answer.

The only votes against holding a referendum came from the SNP, therefore Westminster is obliged to honour that. To do otherwise is an afront to democracy, no matter how unsavoury that is.

Legally the UK was obliged to hold an advisory referendum NOT to uphold it. The high court and the supreme court decided that the sole authority with the power to decide to trigger A50 was the Westminster parliament not the Executive (referendum didn't even come under consideration). That is because the UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This remains true no matter how often yourself and the likes of the Daily Express etc. call it an affront to democracy or call its advocates traitors, enemies of the people etc.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

she will breathing space to piss people off. She can change course, piss off the UKIPers or whoever and by the time the next election comes around, it will be forgotten.

I think this sounds like the most logical explanation. Currently, she is in thrall to extreme Euroskeptics as she can't count on the support of the likes of Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. She has a tiny majority meaning she might need the likes of the DUP which is in nobody's best interest.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What you seem to miss though, is that the majority of people who voted to leave couldn't give a flying monkey's about any of this. Does someone in Bradford who is suffering the effects of austerity really care about some over paid bankers in London losing passporting rights, or a few lawyers concerns over Intellectual property?

The problem for these people is that the UK economy made a fundamental shift away from manufacturing (in Bradford's case synthetics simply replaced the cotton they used to spin) to a service based economy, which shifted the wealth generating engine of the country south to London.

This is now the situation the UK finds itself in and the wealth now generated down south is funding services in Bradford. When the banks suffer, it will certainly be felt in Bradford. This does not seem to be understood.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Legally the UK was obliged to hold an advisory referendum NOT to uphold it. The high court and the supreme court decided that the sole authority with the power to decide to trigger A50 was the Westminster parliament not the Executive (referendum didn't even come under consideration). That is because the UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This remains true no matter how often yourself and the likes of the Daily Express etc. call it an affront to democracy or call its advocates traitors, enemies of the people etc.

Who said anything about traitors or enemies of the people?

You can argue the legalities of course and I think it was correct that Westminster had the final say, however Westminster voted to hold a referendum and therefore Westminster is obligated to respect the result.

Every MP who voted in favour, or abstained from the initial vote, can't then complain that they didn't like the response.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What you seem to miss though, is that the majority of people who voted to leave couldn't give a flying monkey's about any of this. Does someone in Bradford who is suffering the effects of austerity really care about some over paid bankers in London losing passporting rights, or a few lawyers concerns over Intellectual property?

Which is why people in Bradford or anywhere else who don't understand the long term and wider impact of what they are deciding should not be given that responsibility.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

Which is why people in Bradford or anywhere else who don't understand the long term and wider impact of what they are deciding should not be given that responsibility.

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

They should be allowed vote for people who are competent to make informed decisions. That's how representative democracy works.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I think he is saying the Brexit referendum was a horrible mistake, Cameron should not have put it to the people at all.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can argue the legalities of course and I think it was correct that Westminster had the final say, however Westminster voted to hold a referendum and therefore Westminster is obligated to respect the result.

Prior to the Article 50 vote, Westminster wasn't obligated at all, other than perhaps 'morally so' (...are we talking about politicians here? just checking ) or, to go slightly more technical, on the (rebuttable) basis of the principle of 'legitimate expectations'.

Because that's what "advisory" meant, in "advisory referendum": it was an opinion poll writ large, not an elective vote like the AV referendum was before it.

The choice to uphold the referendum outcome or not, was wholly Westminster's (thanks in good part to Gina Miller's effort), right up until the Article 50 vote outcome.

Because of the Article 50 vote, I agree with you that the "advisory" argument is redundant nowadays.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think he is saying the Brexit referendum was a horrible mistake, Cameron should not have put it to the people at all.

Oh, I agree entirely. There was barely any appetite for it. It was just a ploy to maintain peace among Tories. However, if people can't be bothered to research their votes or, as in the case of Sunderland ignore their employers' wishes then they'll get the government/result they deserve.

BoatMad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh, I agree entirely. There was barely any appetite for it. It was just a ploy to maintain peace among Tories. However, if people can't be bothered to research their votes or, as in the case of Sunderland ignore their employers' wishes then they'll get the government/result they deserve.

Referendums are not any form of ultimate practice of democracy. complex issues being boiled down to two line ballot papers, hijacked by all sorts of groups, social media etc

if anything they are a terrible idea in general

dinorebel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think he is saying the Brexit referendum was a horrible mistake, Cameron should not have put it to the people at all.

He'd be right, unfortunately that decision was made so May has to go with it.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can argue the legalities of course and I think it was correct that Westminster had the final say, however Westminster voted to hold a referendum and therefore Westminster is obligated to respect the result.

"You can argue the legalities".

Again. The legalities were argued in the high and supreme court. As the UK is a parliamentary democracy only parliament is sovereign to invoke A50.

The obligation on Westminster after voting to hold a referendum is to hold a referendum. No more no less.

Please substantiate your opinion that they are obliged to enact A50 on the basis of the referendum result.

Are you saying that ALL advisory referenda should be acted even though parliament is not legally obliged to do so? Or just this one?

Nate--IRL--

demfad wrote: »

"You can argue the legalities".

Again. The legalities were argued in the high and supreme court. As the UK is a parliamentary democracy only parliament is sovereign to invoke A50.

The obligation on Westminster after voting to hold a referendum is to hold a referendum. No more no less.

Please substantiate your opinion that they are obliged to enact A50 on the basis of the referendum result.

Are you saying that ALL advisory referenda should be acted even though parliament is not legally obliged to do so? Or just this one?

He is being unclear - they are obliged morally, but not obliged legally to enact A50.

Nate

dinorebel

demfad wrote: »

"You can argue the legalities".

Again. The legalities were argued in the high and supreme court. As the UK is a parliamentary democracy only parliament is sovereign to invoke A50.

The obligation on Westminster after voting to hold a referendum is to hold a referendum. No more no less.

Please substantiate your opinion that they are obliged to enact A50 on the basis of the referendum result.

Are you saying that ALL advisory referenda should be acted even though parliament is not legally obliged to do so? Or just this one?

So if the Scots vote for independence but the Uk parliament ignores the result you're OK with it?

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Prior to the Article 50 vote, Westminster wasn't obligated at all, other than perhaps 'morally so' (...are we talking about politicians here? just checking ) or, to go slightly more technical, on the (rebuttable) basis of the principle of 'legitimate expectations'.

There's no "Perhaps" about it.

demfad

dinorebel wrote: »

So if the Scots vote for independence but the Uk parliament ignores the result you're OK with it?

Is the Scottish referendum on independence ADVISORY? If so it can be ignored.

Let us know.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

Is the Scottish referendum on independence ADVISORY? If so it can be ignored.

Let us know.

all referendums in the UK are advisory, there is no constitutional prerogative that a UK Gov has to be constrained by such a decision

ancapailldorcha

BoatMad wrote: »

Referendums are not any form of ultimate practice of democracy. complex issues being boiled down to two line ballot papers, hijacked by all sorts of groups, social media etc

if anything they are a terrible idea in general

Of course but this doesn't allay the fact that we've had one where many people voted to either flip off politicians, to have fewer foreigners enter the country or to liberate the country from some nebulous illusion of being run by Brussels.

ancapailldorcha

BoatMad wrote: »

all referendums in the UK are advisory, there is no constitutional prerogative that a UK Gov has to be constrained by such a decision

This isn't true. The Alternative Vote referendum would have been compulsory. I think the Scottish referendum was binding as well.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Is the Scottish referendum on independence ADVISORY? If so it can be ignored.

Let us know.

The Scottish referendum is slightly different, as it is post-legislative. However, my understanding is that (as the High Courts confirmed) Westminster is sovereign, the final decision must remain with them.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't true. The Alternative Vote referendum would have been compulsory. I think the Scottish referendum was binding as well.

I'm not sure that is correct, as it would in effect be binding a future government to legislation.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't true. The Alternative Vote referendum would have been compulsory. I think the Scottish referendum was binding as well.

Only sort of. Parliament can pass a law saying that a referendum result will be binding. But then Parliament can pass another law saying it changed its mind.

Otherwise Parliament could never change any law, since all previous laws are also literally acts of parliament.

BoatMad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't true. The Alternative Vote referendum would have been compulsory. I think the Scottish referendum was binding as well.

referendums are only binding post legislation that makes them so

demfad

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

He is being unclear - they are obliged morally, but not obliged legally to enact A50.

Nate

Can you substantiate how they are obliged morally?
Are they 'morally' obliged to legally enact the result of every advisory referendum?

The parliament is sovereign to enact law. An MP is elected to be a representative of his constituents. That means she/he votes based on what is believed is best for his constituents not necessarily what is most popular with his constituents.


Lets use a hypothetical example to illustrate how a 'moral obligation to enact advisory referendum' argument might fall down:

The constituents are told that there is a bar of gold behind a door if they vote YES in an advisory referendum. They vote yes. Their MP knows that they have been deceived and behind the door instead is trapdoor into a pit of dung. Due to teh referendum result, the MP feels they have a moral obligation to vote 'yes', he does and his constituents fall into the pit.
If he was a delegate he would ofcourse be correct in that his role is just to enact his constituents will. The MP is NOT a delegate, she is a representative and should have voted NO, knowing it was what was best for her constituents.
In fact, on such an important issue as Brexit, it could be argued by some that voting for something that you believe will hurt your constituents shows moral cowardice.

The 'moral obligation', 'will of the people' argument is a fallacy abused by some to undermine parliamentary democracy in order to get their way.

ancapailldorcha

BoatMad wrote: »

referendums are only binding post legislation that makes them so

Yes but the AV vote was accompanied by such legislation.

Anyway, I think that this is neither here nor there. The government had decided to act on it's "consultation" with the public. Unless the Lib Dems either win outright or are able to force concessions out of a Labour/SNP coalition then I think that this is done and that the best result which can realistically be achieved is Theresa May winning enough of a majority to make remaining in the single market a pragmatic option.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Can you substantiate how they are obliged morally?
Are they 'morally' obliged to legally enact the result of every advisory referendum?

The parliament is sovereign to enact law. An MP is elected to be a representative of his constituents. That means she/he votes based on what is believed is best for his constituents not necessarily what is most popular with his constituents.


Lets use a hypothetical example to illustrate how a 'moral' argument might fall down:

The constituents are told that there is a bar of gold behind a door if they vote YES in an advisory referendum. They vote yes. Their MP knows that they have been deceived and behind the door instead is trapdoor into a pit of The MP feels they have a moral obligation to vote 'yes', he does and his constituents fall into the pit.
If he was a delegate he would ofcourse be correct in that his role is just to enact his constituents will. The MP is a representative and should have voted NO, knowing it was what was best for his constituents.
In fact, on such an important issue as Brexit, it could be argued that voting for something that you believe will hurt your constituents shows moral cowardice.

The 'moral obligation', 'will of the people' argument is a fallacy abused by some to undermine parliamentary democracy in order to get their way.

unfortunately, politicians telling blatant lies is part and parcel of democracy, that is why there are always at least two sides so that those lies can be exposed.

If they can't, then that's tough

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anyway, I think that this is neither here nor there. The government had decided to act on it's "consultation" with the public.

Just to correct you: The parliament decided. I do believe the Government scorned the courts decision by forcing the parliament to vote Brexit but technically, the parliament decided.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

unfortunately, politicians telling blatant lies is part and parcel of democracy, that is why there are always at least two sides so that those lies can be exposed.

If they can't, then that's tough

Yes but we're now seeing casual dismissals being deployed everywhere in Politics. How many times were studies dismissed in the referendum because "European elites" or "The Euro"?

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's no "Perhaps" about it.

Of course there is.

3 tons of it, to be precise: a moral obligation is non-binding and its lack of observance is without legal effect or consequences (but, for sure, plenty of consequence at a next ballot). So you can talk of a political obligation to the exact same extent as a moral obligation, but neither hold any candle to the factuality of the advisory character of the EU referendum and its total lack of any formal or objective binding upon Westminster at the time.

Whence the non-semantic difference between an advisory referendum like the EU one, and the full-fat version like the AV vote one.

I'm confident that non-semantic difference did not escape you, then or now...unless you are 'one of those' who mistakenly equates legal practice and due process with "justice" and such other moral constructs?