Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

Nope. Such an open ended question which meant something different to each voter was a betrayal of democracy.

Strazdas

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

I'm not saying they should simply scrap the result and pretend the referendum never happened.

But they should definitely be saying to the public "This thing if implemented is going to seriously damage the UK. The Brexit you were promised by Vote Leave is unachievable. Are you sure you want to proceed with this knowing it will weaken Britain and the economy?"

J Mysterio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

I cant believe I can be bothered to answer this but

* it was an advisory referendum * Information as to consequences was not clear * fraud on the leave side and lots and lots of lies and dishonesty (and ignorance) * question did not say how the UK would leave the EU and on what terms * where we are is based on Mays extremely faulty and ultimately dishonest interpretation of result * Britain will be poorer and worse off under any Brexit - its really dumb * Etc.

Imreoir2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

Would it be a betrayal? Maybe, but don't forget that in legal terms it was an opinion poll with no constitutional force. It was an advisory referendum, the British government is well within its rights to look at the advice the people gave it, and reject it for being really bad advice.

Nor would it be unheard of for a government not to implement the result of a referendum. I have to laugh at Irish Brexiteers who get very worked up about respecting democracy and yet never once mention that one of our own referendums, the 7th amendment back in 1979 was never properly implemented.

Zubeneschamali

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

No.


The result was tainted because the Leave campaigners broke the rules. But the result cannot be challenged and overturned in court, know why?


Because it is advisory only, and Parliament has the authority and in fact the responsibility to investigate and overturn the result, or hold another clean referendum, if needed.


If it were binding, Parliament overturning it would be a betrayal, but then there would be a legal avenue to challenge it. You can't have it both ways - loads of unchecked cheating in the campaign and no court oversight because Parliament can take that under advisement, and then claim Parliament can NOT take that into account and must do as instructed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Would it be a betrayal? Maybe, but don't forget that in legal terms it was an opinion poll with no constitutional force. It was an advisory referendum, the British government is well within its rights to look at the advice the people gave it, and reject it for being really bad advice.

Nor would it be unheard of for a government not to implement the result of a referendum. I have to laugh at Irish Brexiteers who get very worked up about respecting democracy and yet never once mention that one of our own referendums, the 7th amendment back in 1979 was never properly implemented.

Thank you all for your replies, FWIW i now live in the UK (moved after the vote) and personally think that the public should be given a choice of another referedum now that there is more information out there about the difficulties that are about to hit.

Unfortunately i think it may be too late this close to the date and come hell.or high water Brexit will go ahead. If nothing else it's certainly going to be an interesting 5 years to come.

MrMusician18

J Mysterio wrote: »

This heave is just symptomatic of the absolute clusterfock that is UK politics. A bunch of MPs from both sides of 'the political divide' coalescing together as both of their parties are so dysfunctional, led by useless leaders who refuse to make tough decisions and just hope it will all work out.

If May had faced down the idiots in her party long ago, we wouldnt be in this position. She gets a lot of credit for being stubborn and 'hanging in there' but my analysis is that she didnt have the guts to lead when she needed to. Now it's basically too late.

Both May and Corbyn talk out of both sides of their mouth and rarely - if ever - say what they mean and what they honestly believe. Neither are leaders, they are just there through circumstance. They are both useless and should shoulder a good portion of the blame for the sudden shocking downfall of the UK.

Even after these resignations, they are not altering their course or their discourse... it's steady on ahead! Same self righteous rubbish from Corbyn and same unbelievable fingers in the ears stuff from May. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.

There needs to be a massive shift for anything to change. As much as these 11 have good intentions, it will change nothing by itself. Its more symbolic and to ease their conscience.

Technically it's a split, not a heave.

RobertKK

Brexit is like being promised a Ferrari F1 car, one thinks they are getting something that appears at an F1 race, instead after all the excitement one is told all that can be delivered is a coin operated car that looks like an F1 car and is red but goes nowhere, has no engine or tyres but bobs up and down and keeps children happy.

Then we have the dissatisfied customers saying we promised a Ferrari F1 car, go back and look for one,get an agreement so we go and loosen the screws so we can move this heap of junk from outside the supermarket, so we have something to sell to the people, look at our F1 car, its either this or nothing at all.
That is Brexit, there was never a good outcome to it.

MrMusician18

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Would it be a betrayal? Maybe, but don't forget that in legal terms it was an opinion poll with no constitutional force. It was an advisory referendum, the British government is well within its rights to look at the advice the people gave it, and reject it for being really bad advice.

Nor would it be unheard of for a government not to implement the result of a referendum. I have to laugh at Irish Brexiteers who get very worked up about respecting democracy and yet never once mention that one of our own referendums, the 7th amendment back in 1979 was never properly implemented.

Not actually true. The amendment made provision for the Senate franchise to be extended to other higher education institutions by law. Just because this law has not been passed doesn't mean that the amendment wasn't properly implemented. If the amendment wasn't properly implemented, it would be unconstitutional.

The purpose of this amendment was that in any reorganisation or splitting of the NUI, the NUI Senate constituency couldn't be used to prevent it from happening.

blanch152

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Not actually true. The amendment made provision for the Senate franchise to be extended to other higher education institutions by law. Just because this law has not been passed doesn't mean that the amendment wasn't properly implemented. If the amendment wasn't properly implemented, it would be unconstitutional.

The purpose of this amendment was that in any reorganisation or splitting of the NUI, the NUI Senate constituency couldn't be used to prevent it from happening.

The purpose of the amendment was to extend the rights to other graduates - the then Regional Technical College graduates, now mostly IoTs and one Technological University.

All of them are disenfranchised by the refusal of the Oireachtas to implement the constitutional amendment. But we digress, so I will leave it there.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

I cant believe I can be bothered to answer this but

* it was an advisory referendum * Information as to consequences was not clear * fraud on the leave side and lots and lots of lies and dishonesty (and ignorance) * question did not say how the UK would leave the EU and on what terms * where we are is based on Mays extremely faulty and ultimately dishonest interpretation of result * Britain will be poorer and worse off under any Brexit - its really dumb * Etc.

And to completely make a bad situation worse, you cannot challenge the decision in court because the referendum was only advisory. Parliament still has the power to ignore the result because of irregularities but they have this mantra of following the will of the people, even when the courts say that this is their own personal choice. The state of the UK at the moment.

Just as an aside, I see there are claims that one of the IG MPs accessed Labour member data after leaving the party. Obviously the attack dogs (Owen Jones etc.) are on to this terrible illegal activity. The absolute joke of it is that they are quiet when news keeps dribbling out about the referendum and the illegal activity of the Leave campaigns, but because the supreme leader doesn't want to stop Brexit they are selling their souls on the alter of Corbyn. It really is sad to watch what is happening.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.


The result was tainted because the Leave campaigners broke the rules. But the result cannot be challenged and overturned in court, know why?


Because it is advisory only, and Parliament has the authority and in fact the responsibility to investigate and overturn the result, or hold another clean referendum, if needed.


If it were binding, Parliament overturning it would be a betrayal, but then there would be a legal avenue to challenge it. You can't have it both ways - loads of unchecked cheating in the campaign and no court oversight because Parliament can take that under advisement, and then claim Parliament can NOT take that into account and must do as instructed.

I think that shows a lack of understanding of the British Constitution. The referendum was presented to the people as politically binding.

Anyway, both main political parties campaigned on manifestos to respect the result in a subsequent election. In effect, they've already had the second referendum. The electorate could have voted lib Dem.

They didn't.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think that shows a lack of understanding of the British Constitution. The referendum was presented to the people as politically binding.

Anyway, both main political parties campaigned on manifestos to respect the result in a subsequent election. In effect, they've already had the second referendum. The electorate could have voted lib Dem.

They didn't.

Politically binding is meaningless.

No Parliament is bound by the decisions of a previous Parliament.

As for a mandate - no party was given a majority in the last GE so there was no mandate for any party's Brexit plan.

MrMusician18

lawred2 wrote: »

Politically binding is meaningless.

No Parliament is bound by the decisions of a previous Parliament.

As for a mandate - no party was given a majority in the last GE so there was no mandate for any party's Brexit plan.

Both the conservatives and labour pledged to honour the referendum result. True, there was no mandate for a particular plan, but there is a mandate to implement Brexit in some form.

There is none for a second referendum

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Both the conservatives and labour pledged to honour the referendum result. True, there was no mandate for a particular plan, but there is a mandate to implement Brexit in some form.

There is none for a second referendum

Politicians pledge to do a lot of things they never do so again the statement "politically binding" is meaningless.

And there absolutely is a mandate for a 2nd referendum since many prominenet brexiteers, mogg and farage to highlight 2 major ones, suggested prior to the original ref that it made sense to have a second to one to decide on the deal that was on the table and whether it made sense to take it or not.

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Both the conservatives and labour pledged to honour the referendum result. True, there was no mandate for a particular plan, but there is a mandate to implement Brexit in some form.

There is none for a second referendum

"Politically binding" would mean the result would have to be implemented no matter what the consequences, not even if 90% of Leave voters changed their minds and were now against implementation.

How on earth would that work? A political decision that can not be reversed by anyone, not government, Parliament nor the electorate.....that would be bringing Britain into authoritarian dictatorship territory

downcow

Anyone know why the 11 defectors are not having a by election? Is it not very ironic that these people are demanding another referendum because (as they say) people didn’t know what they were voting for. Snap - they were elected by people who thought they were voting for labour and Tory mps.
They could kill two birds with the one stone by accepting a by-election.
1) they would be removing the hypocrisy of their position and practicing what they preach
2) they have the power to have 11 mini referendums to compare to the previous results in their constituencies. If there is more than a 2% swing towards their position then I would be willing to contimplate a 2nd referendum

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/nedsimons/status/1098188339436572672

MrMusician18

VinLieger wrote: »

Politicians pledge to do a lot of things they never do so again the statement "politically binding" is meaningless

Imagine this was Ireland for a second. The recent referendum to repeal the eighth didn't actually make abortion legal here, just said it would be regulated by law.

Just imagine for a moment that if FG decided not to implement the proposed legislation, or made access more restricted than what was in the white paper. There would have been war, and the government would've collapsed (even if it had a 20 seat majority). This is a hot button issue over there, just like abortion was here.

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Imagine this was Ireland for a second. The recent referendum to repeal the eighth didn't actually make abortion legal here, just said it would be regulated by law.

Just imagine for a moment that if FG decided not to implement the proposed legislation, or made access more restricted than what was in the white paper. There would have been war, and the government would've collapsed (even if it had a 20 seat majority). This is a hot button issue over there, just like abortion was here.

We have had this discussion before referendum in ireland are legally binding so they would not be allowed to do this.

You are wrong

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

Anyone know why the 11 defectors are not having a by election? Is it not very ironic that these people are demanding another referendum because (as they say) people didn’t know what they were voting for. Snap - they were elected by people who thought they were voting for labour and Tory mps.
They could kill two birds with the one stone by accepting a by-election.
1) they would be removing the hypocrisy of their position and practicing what they preach
2) they have the power to have 11 mini referendums to compare to the previous results in their constituencies. If there is more than a 2% swing towards their position then I would be willing to contimplate a 2nd referendum

Where in british electoral law is it stated a by election is required?

Anyone voting solely for the party and not the candidate is an idiot

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

downcow wrote: »

Anyone know why the 11 defectors are not having a by election? Is it not very ironic that these people are demanding another referendum because (as they say) people didn’t know what they were voting for. Snap - they were elected by people who thought they were voting for labour and Tory mps.
They could kill two birds with the one stone by accepting a by-election.
1) they would be removing the hypocrisy of their position and practicing what they preach
2) they have the power to have 11 mini referendums to compare to the previous results in their constituencies. If there is more than a 2% swing towards their position then I would be willing to contimplate a 2nd referendum

These people were just voted into their offices recently. Why would they want to run again?

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Anyone know why the 11 defectors are not having a by election? Is it not very ironic that these people are demanding another referendum because (as they say) people didn’t know what they were voting for. Snap - they were elected by people who thought they were voting for labour and Tory mps.
They could kill two birds with the one stone by accepting a by-election.
1) they would be removing the hypocrisy of their position and practicing what they preach
2) they have the power to have 11 mini referendums to compare to the previous results in their constituencies. If there is more than a 2% swing towards their position then I would be willing to contimplate a 2nd referendum

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/11763688769?s=19.

MrMusician18

VinLieger wrote: »

We have had this discussion before referendum innireland are legally binding so they would not be allowed to do this.

You are wrong

The only thing that was binding was that the 8 was to be deleted and the new text inserted. The government is entitled to restrict access tomorrow as Termination is only permitted in accordance with the law. The government could restrict on-demand access tomorrow and it would be constitutional. There is no right to access it in the Constitution, it's in the termination of pregnancy act.

I digress, but you can see how a political promise can become binding?

downcow

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

These people were just voted into their offices recently. Why would they want to run again?

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The only thing that was binding was that the 8 was to be deleted and the new text inserted. The government is entitled to restrict access tomorrow as Termination is only permitted in accordance with the law. The government could restrict on-demand access tomorrow and it would be constitutional. There is no right to access it in the Constitution, it's in the termination of pregnancy act.

Nope you are incorrect the referendum had very specific text that it was proposing to use to replace the 8th amendment, if they had chosen to use text completely at odds with what was in the referendum proposal text they would have been taken to court and lost badly.

And if they had introduced laws at odds with the proposal text in the constitution they would also have been taken to court and lost badly.

Again you are wrong, its kind of a trend your starting

MrMusician18

SNIP. No more insults please.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

So you then would also agree a second referendum should be held?

Or are you a hypocrite and therefore hate yourself?

Hurrache

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not, but it's convention. Recently established granted.

Recently established by who, and why therefore is it now 'convention' because of whatever example you're going to provide?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

downcow wrote: »

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

The situation hasn't changed - they still believe and are following through on what their electoral platform stated.