Brexit Referendum Superthread

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes but the AV vote was accompanied by such legislation.

but in theory, there could be a change of parliament between the legislation and the referendum and one of the golden constitutional rules is that no parliament can bind a future parliament to legislation, so it would require a further vote to ratify it. Possibly.

I would imagine this would also end up going through the courts for confirmation, just as the Brexit ruling did.

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. 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.

Agreed

demfad

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

So even after the lies expose the hidden 'dung pit' and the constituents were shown to be mislead, you still argue that the MP is morally obliged to send his constituents hurtling into a future he/she knows is disastrous? Sounds cowardly to me.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

I disagree. The best result that can be realistically achieved is the revoking of A50 with the UK staying in the EU. June 8th is a long way off yet.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

I disagree. The best result that can be realistically achieved is the revoking of A50 with the UK staying in the EU. June 8th is a long way off yet.

Who would revoke it? Jeremy Corbyn certainly won't if he wins which seems unlikely. It's also unlikely that he'd bow to pressure from the SNP and the Lib Dems if the Tories fail to win an outright majority.

BoatMad

Originally Posted by ancapailldorcha View Post
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.

+1 , The vote was advisory and the definition of " leaving " the EU is now entirely at Mays decision, no futher " consultation " is necessary or desirable in fact . The referendum did not specify any extent , or what future arrangements that might exist between the UK and the EU and May is entirely within her rights to decide in the best interests of the UK

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

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...unless you are 'one of those' who mistakenly equates legal practice and due process with "justice" and such other moral constructs?

moral obligations, legal obligations, whatever you want to call them, the simple fact is that Parliament voted to consult the people (it is actually a consultative referendum, not advisory. More semantics) and the people gave their answer. For a Parliament to ignore the clear wishes of the majority of their electorate because "They know better" is a very dangerous path to go down.

There is no "Perhaps" about Parliaments obligations, be they legal, moral, constitutional, democratic, what ever. Parliament had to vote to leave the eu.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

I disagree. The best result that can be realistically achieved is the revoking of A50 with the UK staying in the EU. June 8th is a long way off yet.

which is cloud cuckoo land

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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"?

That's the problem with referendums. Those campaigning are not accountable for the outcome.

A newspaper running an article is an issue for the press complaints commission not parliament. They can refute stories, but they can't censor them.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

moral obligations, legal obligations, whatever you want to call them, the simple fact is that Parliament voted to consult the people (it is actually a consultative referendum, not advisory. More semantics) and the people gave their answer. For a Parliament to ignore the clear wishes of the majority of their electorate because "They know better" is a very dangerous path to go down.

There is no "Perhaps" about Parliaments obligations, be they legal, moral, constitutional, democratic, what ever. Parliament had to vote to leave the eu.

Why are you deliberately conflating what is legal as defined by the Supreme court of the UK with 'moral obligations' as invented by you and others?

The only obligation was to hold a referendum. Anything else is only unsibstantiated opinion, as your posts continually demonstrate.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

The referendum did not specify any extent , or what future arrangements that might exist between the UK and the EU and May is entirely within her rights to decide in the best interests of the UK

We know May does not think Brexit is a good idea, she recommended "Remain" in the referendum before she thought she had instructions to brexit.

So May is acting against what she believes are the best interests of the UK all because the then Tory leader lost an advisory referendum, beaten by some other Tories who told a bunch of lies to the electorate.

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We know May does not think Brexit is a good idea, she recommended "Remain" in the referendum before she thought she had instructions to brexit.

So May is acting against what she believes are the best interests of the UK all because the then Tory leader lost an advisory referendum, beaten by some other Tories who told a bunch of lies to the electorate.

I agree, but thats all behind us now. as the saying goes , we are where we are.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Why are you deliberately conflating what is legal as defined by the Supreme court of the UK with 'moral obligations' as invented by you and others?

The only obligation was to hold a referendum. Anything else is only unsibstantiated opinion, as your posts continually demonstrate.

I'm not conflating anything.

What you are suggesting is akin to the Monarch not asking a party to form a government, because he or she does not agree with the outcome of a general election.

Legally it is ok, but morally/democratically/constitutionally it is wrong.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree, but thats all behind us now. as the saying goes , we are where we are.

I don't blame May - it is too much to expect her to take the hard road in the UK's best interests when her own interests and her party's interests favour ruling an independent UK, even if it is a poorer and possibly smaller one.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who would revoke it? Jeremy Corbyn certainly won't if he wins which seems unlikely. It's also unlikely that he'd bow to pressure from the SNP and the Lib Dems if the Tories fail to win an outright majority.

My point was that there are many unknowns.
Three senior Tory campaign advisors have left over teh weekend leaving their campaign in disarray.
30 Tory MPs are under investigation from fraud from election 2015.
The investigation into leave.eu and possible 'subversion' in the Brexit election is finally gaining momentum in main stream media with two articles over the weekend:
Leave.EU under investigation over EU referendum spending
When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange

Robert Mercer, the billionaire hedge fund owner, bankrolled the Trump campaign and his company, Cambridge Analytica, the Observer has revealed, donated services to Leave.EU. If this issue forms part of the Electoral Commission investigation, this isn’t just a case of possibly breaking rules by overspending a few pounds. It goes to the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. Did Leave.EU seek to obtain foreign support for a British election? And, if so, does this constitute “foreign subversion”?....As Britain hurtles towards a general election to choose a government that will take us out of the European Union, this may be the moment to realise that Nigel Farage is not Widow Twankey, and that this is not a pantomime. Farage’s politics and his relationships are more complicated than we, the British press, have previously realised. His relationship to Mercer and Cambridge Analytica, the same firm that helped Trump to power, is now under official investigation. Every day, more and more questions are being asked about that administration.
Yet, here in Britain, we plunge blindly on. Real, hard questions need to asked about what exactly these relationships are and what they mean. Don’t they?

Corbyn may yet agree to a progressive alliance. Corbyn may yet step down.
Would anyone doubt that Keir Starmer couldnt close the gap enough to make a Lib Dem coalition possible even not counting the unknowns?

May can expect serious heat from a diminishing economy, bad news from the EU negotiations and more and more on Brexit interference. A weak majority might mean she is forced to have a meaningful vote on Brexit or even hold another referendum.

May has been hawkish on immigration throughout her political career. She wants a hard Brexit. A comfortable majority means she gets it.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not conflating anything.

What you are suggesting is akin to the Monarch not asking a party to form a government, because he or she does not agree with the outcome of a general election.

Legally it is ok, but morally/democratically/constitutionally it is wrong.

Now you are conflating the legalities of an advisory referendum with that of a general election. This is absurd.

dinorebel

demfad wrote: »

My point was that there are many unknowns.
Three senior Tory campaign advisors have left over teh weekend leaving their campaign in disarray. Replaced by people loyal to May
30 Tory MPs are under investigation from fraud from election 2015.
The investigation into leave.eu and possible 'subversion' in the Brexit election is finally gaining momentum in main stream media with two articles over the weekend:
Leave.EU under investigation over EU referendum spending
When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange


Corbyn may yet agree to a progressive alliance Zero Chance. Corbyn may yet step down. Less than Zero Chance of this
Would anyone doubt that Keir Starmer The left have the leadership sown up even if Corbyn goes his replacement will be hard left couldnt close the gap enough to make a Lib Dem coalition possible even not counting the unknowns?

May can expect serious heat from a diminishing economy, bad news from the EU negotiations and more and more on Brexit interference. A weak majority might mean she is forced to have a meaningful vote on Brexit or even hold another referendum.

May has been hawkish on immigration throughout her political career In words but not actions. She wants a hard Brexit not sure anyone really knows her stance I suspect as soft as is possible without single market/customs union.. A comfortable majority means she gets it.

The Tories are leading in Wales this hasn't happened since approx 1850 this will be a demolition not an election.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

moral obligations, legal obligations, whatever you want to call them, the simple fact is that Parliament voted to consult the people (it is actually a consultative referendum, not advisory. More semantics) and the people gave their answer. For a Parliament to ignore the clear wishes of the majority of their electorate because "They know better" is a very dangerous path to go down.

There is no "Perhaps" about Parliaments obligations, be they legal, moral, constitutional, democratic, what ever. Parliament had to vote to leave the eu.

Conflating representative democracy with ochlocracy in one short post?

I like your style :pac:

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree, but thats all behind us now. as the saying goes , we are where we are.

If you agree that lies we're told then a second referendum would be a good thing, right?

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who would revoke it? Jeremy Corbyn certainly won't if he wins which seems unlikely. It's also unlikely that he'd bow to pressure from the SNP and the Lib Dems if the Tories fail to win an outright majority.

A coalition of the LibDems and SNP would, in a heartbeat.

Hey, this GE may soon start to take the traits of a certain 'second' referendum, about an EU constitutional matter, on an island not so far away, in a past not so distant, that eventually got the 'right' result... :pac:

Here's to dreaming anyway. I'll get my EU immigrant coat.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Now you are conflating the legalities of an advisory referendum with that of a general election. This is absurd.

ok, so rather than being constantly obtuse, what do you propose should have happened?

steddyeddy

In fairness it would be political suicide to ignore the outcome of a referendum.

dinorebel

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness it would be political suicide to ignore the outcome of a referendum.

Especially when you have such a small majority I think everyone can agree the mistake was in having the referendum.

Fratton Fred

dinorebel wrote: »

Especially when you have such a small majority I think everyone can agree the mistake was in having the referendum.

it was, but in fairness, no one saw this coming

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ok, so rather than being constantly obtuse, what do you propose should have happened?

I was refuting your false assertion that Parliament was obliged to implement article 50 based on the result of the advisory referendum.
Legally, it was for parliament to decide on A50 invokation and they did. If parliament decides to revoke A50 because it would be detrimental to the UK (or any reason) that would seem to be equally legitimate also.
This is important because the role of the judiciary, law and parliament has been constantly undermined by populists since the Brexit/Trump elections.
This advocating of an advisory referendum as some kind of permanent 'will of the people' that law and parliamentary democracy must bow and submit to is as dangerous as it is ludicrous.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

I was refuting your false assertion that Parliament was obliged to implement article 50 based on the result of the advisory referendum.
Legally, it was for parliament to decide on A50 invokation and they did. If parliament decides to revoke A50 because it would be detrimental to the UK (or any reason) that would seem to be equally legitimate also.

So you were arguing for the sake of arguing?

Parliament not respecting the outcome of the referendum would have been an insult to democracy.

oscarBravo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We know May does not think Brexit is a good idea...

I don't think we know that at all. All we know is that she advocated a Remain vote. Her reasons for doing so could have had as much or more to do with internal Tory politics as with her views on the EU.

There's absolutely nothing May has done or said since the referendum that gives the slightest hint that she has any regrets about leaving the EU.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you were arguing for the sake of arguing?

Parliament not respecting the outcome of the referendum would have been an insult to democracy.

As a British citizen you should take some time to understand the workings of your own parliamentary democracy.
If you make false statements other posters will refute them. Frame it any way you like.
The Express called the legal verdict on Parliaments sovereign right to decide on A50 as made by 'enemies of the people'. By calling anything but parliament invoking A50 'an insult to democracy' you are in your small way are also attacking parliaments sovereignty and the judiciary who defends it.
This is why it is most important to call the referendum what it was. No more no less.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it was, but in fairness, no one saw this coming

Polls close to the day did show a leave vote.

I know we have the benefit of hindsight but it's mad that nobody thought to set some sort of threshold on what the minimum winning margin must be or on turnout.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

As a British citizen you should take some time to understand the workings of your own parliamentary democracy.
If you make false statements other posters will refute them. Frame it any way you like.
The Express called the legal verdict on Parliaments sovereign right to decide on A50 as made by 'enemies of the people'. By calling anything but parliament invoking A50 'an insult to democracy' you are in your small way are also attacking parliaments sovereignty and the judiciary who defends it.
This is why it is most important to call the referendum what it was. No more no less.

yes, you are correct, I am a British citizen. I am also one that voted remain and I believe strongly that the UK is doing the wrong thing. I also know exactly how the Parliament works.

That makes me 100% entitled to ascertain that Parliament had no choice but to invoke article 50.

Now, please move on. your pedantry is becoming tiresome.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Polls close to the day did show a leave vote.

I know we have the benefit of hindsight but it's mad that nobody thought to set some sort of threshold on what the minimum winning margin must be or on turnout.

late in the day though. early doors it looked like a 60 to 70% vote in favour of remain.

The fact that there was no plan B is shocking and why, I believe, David Cameron had to resign. He ****ed up, big time.