Jump to content

Brexit (merged threads)


Urabug
 Share

Recommended Posts

@ Sacre Bleu

 

There's several bits of legislation, including the European Treaty containing Article 50 (not sure whether that's the European Communities Act 1972(?)), The European Union (Definition of Treaties Orders (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ... I didn't half have to go googling a load of that lot but do recall reading various bits of Hansard when the European Referendum Act and other stuff was debated and the relevant bills presented in parliament at the time!  It was the latter, when the bills were in parliament, that our 'adorable' MPs had the chance to bicker/debate/pick to shreds the various elements.

 

Thank you, Suffererof1crankymofo.

 

FYI, Article 50 is in the 2007 Treaty on European Union.

 

The 2015 European Referendum Act you mention could not allow for the referendum to be binding, as explained in the House of 2010 Lords Constitution Committee report on referendums"....because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion."

 

The High Court agreed with this assessment in 2016 stating "a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.

 

The practical implications of this are that Parliament is obliged to give serious consideration to the result of the referendum, which they are doing, and that Parliament must ultimately make the decision.

 

For the government and many Leave campaigners to present it as a situation by which the result of an advisory referendum in which only 37% of the electorate voted for constitutional change must immediately and unquestioningly be implemented without parliamentary due diligence is at best nieve, and has resulted in much divisive ill-feeling and muddying of constitutional waters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No point any of us voting on anything unless we are prepared to accept the results whether they are in our favour or not.

 

If we don't vote we will never get what we want.

The point is, the majority have not got what they wanted. The country voted and the result is being ignored, so what’s the sense in voting in the future. I for one will think twice about leaving the house in a night o rain and wind to go to a polling station, when I think peoples votes are being ignored anyway. I voted to stay but I fully accept our democratic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The point is, the majority have not got what they wanted. The country voted and the result is being ignored, so what’s the sense in voting in the future. I for one will think twice about leaving the house in a night o rain and wind to go to a polling station, when I think peoples votes are being ignored anyway. I voted to stay but I fully accept our democratic process.

Very true, the majority have not got what they wanted. That shows us, yet again, just how democratic the U. K. actually is. Having said that, if you don't vote then you have no complaint when it all goes wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point is, the majority have not got what they wanted. The country voted and the result is being ignored, so what’s the sense in voting in the future. I for one will think twice about leaving the house in a night o rain and wind to go to a polling station, when I think peoples votes are being ignored anyway. I voted to stay but I fully accept our democratic process.

 

Very true, the majority have not got what they wanted. That shows us, yet again, just how democratic the U. K. actually is. Having said that, if you don't vote then you have no complaint when it all goes wrong.

I think you missing my point George. Despite folk voting it has all gone wrong.!! Well that is where democracy is concerned. Perhaps if everyone decided not to vote in the next election the politicians might take notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the government and many Leave campaigners to present it as a situation by which the result of an advisory referendum in which only 37% of the electorate voted for constitutional change must immediately and unquestioningly be implemented without parliamentary due diligence is at best nieve, and has resulted in much divisive ill-feeling and muddying of constitutional waters.

 

Referendums being advisory is fine, but lets face it, governments only use them when they are faced with a thorny situation where they'd rather not become involved, and want to be able to blame the 'will of the people' when things go badly wrong.

 

The flip side of that though is having ascertained the 'will of the people', if a government does not meaningfully act upon it, they earn themselves the anger and contempt of the people who expressed the majority opinion, and that's exactly where we've been since referendum day, still are, and with no sign of it changing.

 

I would hardly term gaining or resigning EU membership as 'constitutional change', we joined a trading partnership called the EEC, it is the EU which has evolved in to something more and which now threatens to impose constitutional change on us which we, the people, have not consented to, and through the referendum we have rejected and want rid of them and their plans before it gets that far.

 

We, the people have never been asked for our opinion on those various changes the EEC has made ti itself, and it was long past time we were, as the EU as it stands is no more like the EEC we agreed to join as light is like darkness.

 

It hardly matters what percentage voted for the change in the referendum, the majority of those who chose to express an opinion on the day voted for it,and  that is the decision that stands, as that IS how democracy works. Its an established principle of democracy that those who chose not to vote, for whatever reason, accept the will of the majority who did. Attempts to belittle or discredit the 'value' of a democratic vote by imposing some arbitarily decided percentage of the entire electorate having to vote a certain way before it has 'validity' is simply subverting democracy and a contemptible tactic of the losers to gain some ground.

 

Everybody had an equal right and opportunity to cast a vote, and if some chose not to, that is their right too. In doing so they accept that their opinion can't and won't be counted one way or the other, by anyone. If you accept democracy, you accept that as being how it is, and if you don't accept that that is how it is, you don't accept democracy.  Democracy does not allow for compulsory voting, nor does it allow for those who are without opinion to be assigned one by anyone else.

 

Due diligence in implementing a decision is fine and well, but when that 'due diligence' is dressed up as appearing to heed an opinion, but in fact ignoring it and is retaining the status quo, or in the case of everything this Government has done, supposedly as a result of the referendum, of punting a 'deal' that is worse than the status quo, the muddying of the waters and hostility generated has its roots in Westminster rather than everywhere else.

 

The vote was for 'leave', break all ties, close the door, walk away, end of. So far we've had everything but that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So a vote on an informed position is a terrible, nasty and weak idea... while one based on ignorance and lies is somehow democratic and worth defending. Jesus wept.

We are currently in an informed position? First I have heard! Still tons of contradicting information and predictions flying around. 

 

Ignorance and lies? Have a read of this article;

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2019/01/31/are-brexit-supporters-ignorant/

 

Basically, both sides were as ignorant as each other. 

 

 

 

 

We would be in an informed position come any subsequent vote i.e. this is The Deal and this is how prepared we are for it. IMHO, 2 votes should've been in the offing from the start:

  1. Do you want to leave the EU?
  2. OK, here's what's on offer. Do you still want to leave the EU?

But no. Here we are; a polarised nation with the movers and shakers rubbing their hands and tugging our strings. I do not believe, in a matter of this importance, we should be forced to take whatever we're given. Where the majority [do | don't] want whatever the deal ends up being then that needs to be known, proven and subsequently accepted.

 

When you're looking to buy a house you may see one you like the look of and stick in a noted interest. That doesn't mean you have to buy the house before reviewing the properties particulars to determine whether it's a good buy or not. I see little difference between that and Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I would dispute that, Windwalker. If you don't vote then you have no choice, and if you have no choice then you will only get what they choose to give, or what they choose to take from you. We need to go Indy and leave them behind.

But George the people choice is being ignored despite them voting.. we are only getting what they choose despite the majority voting otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So a vote on an informed position is a terrible, nasty and weak idea... while one based on ignorance and lies is somehow democratic and worth defending. Jesus wept.

We are currently in an informed position? First I have heard! Still tons of contradicting information and predictions flying around. 

 

Ignorance and lies? Have a read of this article;

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2019/01/31/are-brexit-supporters-ignorant/

 

Basically, both sides were as ignorant as each other. 

 

 

 

 

We would be in an informed position come any subsequent vote i.e. this is The Deal and this is how prepared we are for it. IMHO, 2 votes should've been in the offing from the start:

  1. Do you want to leave the EU?
  2. OK, here's what's on offer. Do you still want to leave the EU?

But no. Here we are; a polarised nation with the movers and shakers rubbing their hands and tugging our strings. I do not believe, in a matter of this importance, we should be forced to take whatever we're given. Where the majority [do | don't] want whatever the deal ends up being then that needs to be known, proven and subsequently accepted.

 

When you're looking to buy a house you may see one you like the look of and stick in a noted interest. That doesn't mean you have to buy the house before reviewing the properties particulars to determine whether it's a good buy or not. I see little difference between that and Brexit.

 

 

We voted to leave, we didn't vote for a 'deal'.

 

Leave, as in terminate everything that has anything to do with the EU as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 

There was no 'Leave, but only if we get a good deal' option on the ballot.

 

When you leave any organisation, you stop paying your your dues, and you no longer have access to any of that organisation's facilities/services, and they have no control over you or rights to any facilities/services you may have. End of, and anybody trying to say things should be different is just disingenuously trying to hold on to any scrap of membership of that organisation they can in defiance of the democratically established will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We voted to leave, we didn't vote for a 'deal'. 

 

 

 

Leave, as in terminate everything that has anything to do with the EU as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 

There was no 'Leave, but only if we get a good deal' option on the ballot.

 

When you leave any organisation, you stop paying your your dues, and you no longer have access to any of that organisation's facilities/services, and they have no control over you or rights to any facilities/services you may have. End of, and anybody trying to say things should be different is just disingenuously trying to hold on to any scrap of membership of that organisation they can in defiance of the democratically established will.

 

Mansplaining at its finest!

 

If you thought leaving the EU would (not "should") result in a clean breakaway... then I don't really know what to say. There was always going to be some give and take and consequences thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We voted to leave, we didn't vote for a 'deal'. 

 

 

 

Leave, as in terminate everything that has anything to do with the EU as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 

There was no 'Leave, but only if we get a good deal' option on the ballot.

 

When you leave any organisation, you stop paying your your dues, and you no longer have access to any of that organisation's facilities/services, and they have no control over you or rights to any facilities/services you may have. End of, and anybody trying to say things should be different is just disingenuously trying to hold on to any scrap of membership of that organisation they can in defiance of the democratically established will.

 

Mansplaining at its finest!

 

If you thought leaving the EU would (not "should") result in a clean breakaway... then I don't really know what to say. There was always going to be some give and take and consequences thereof.

 

 

No, there wasn't. That option wasn't put to the people. You're making an unstated claim, an assumption, a wishful thinking invention of remainers.

 

The question was 'Remain' or 'Leave'. About as simple and as unambiguous of a choice as could have been put to anyone.

 

Either continue as you are, or walk away. Nothing there about strings attached whatsoever.

 

If they came to us with an offer or a deal that was to our advantage, fine, talk about it. Otherwise not our problem, let them stew in their own juices, there's a whole big world out there beyond the EU to talk to, most of whom as far easier to haggle with and get along with than continentals.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you thought leaving the EU would (not "should") result in a clean breakaway... then I don't really know what to say. There was always going to be some give and take and consequences thereof.

 

 

No, there wasn't. That option wasn't put to the people. You're making an unstated claim, an assumption, a wishful thinking invention of remainers.

 

The question was 'Remain' or 'Leave'. About as simple and as unambiguous of a choice as could have been put to anyone.

 

Either continue as you are, or walk away. Nothing there about strings attached whatsoever.

 

If they came to us with an offer or a deal that was to our advantage, fine, talk about it. Otherwise not our problem, let them stew in their own juices, there's a whole big world out there beyond the EU to talk to, most of whom as far easier to haggle with and get along with than continentals.

 

 

I was merely making what I consider to be a pragmatic observation but you can call it whatever derisive name you like. No wonder you're p*ssed off if you thought a successful leave result would get you what you describe above!

Edited by Roachmill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sacre Bleu

 

Really not sure why you've felt the need to post about the referendum not being binding; I merely replied to you posting your quoted text below, together with you enquiring as to which legislation:-

"The fundamental problem is that there were no clear processes put in place that would be enacted by the result of the referendum, and the government have been 'making it up as they go along' since then."

Are you insinuating that timelines, how to trigger the notice, etc., aren't processes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...