Printable View
Not really. If it is understood to be binding, then that should be explicit in the first place. You said it was not specified either way when the referendum was granted.
Will of the people is irrelevant in the first place, and in the second place as well since the referendum was on "Leave or Remain", not any specific procedural sequence. How the state goes about it has no bearing on the will of the people via the referendum, nor vice versa.
You give the reason why you had a REFERENDUM. I gave the reason why it (the referendum) turned out the way it did (i.e. with Brexit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, of course they can. At their peril!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
We have just had Nov5th if you'll recall, a warning for a parliament that fails to represent as much as a celebration of the survival of our parliament from existential threat.
Interesting, expand on that if you would please?Quote:
The Argument is legal positivism vs legal negativism. I.e. if it was understood that the government would follow the Referendum result when Parliament passed the Act is that sufficient, or does the requirement have to be written into the Act?
A Sarmation - I always admire a chap who quotes A.V. Dicey. ;)
He was incidently, grudgingly accepting of referenda as a valid mechanism to decide matters of deep constitutional importance that cut across party lines - in a way that no party is likely to oppose the other allowing normal parliamentary democracy to decide the issue.
"Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?" To oppose the Parliament (foundation of the democratically elected representation of the people) is a path you don't want to take: it is the open way to Dictatorships where the secret will of the people (that suddenly only few know) is opposed to the openly democratically elected representation.
The UK is a parliamentary Monarchy. You elect representatives who themselves choose the Prime Minister.
In France, our Constitution makes a referendum executive and law. Which didn't stop Zarkolland to ignore the result of the last one against the Euro-Constitution...
Cameron didn't expect to lose the referendum, and the Brexiters didn't expect to win, None of them thought about how to deal with it really.
Fault is on Cameron and his party when they pledged to have a referendum on the question and ignoring how to do it, in following the law and the English Constitution.
"So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum " Did it? Referendum in UK are not binding... I don't think you need to pass a law to organise a general consultation... But, I might be wrong on this one...
Me think the only way out is general election with clear indication from MPs what they will vote. And if Media are to be believed, May should win easily as all agree Corbyn can't win elections.
We should see how Boris will come with his bus and the hundred of Pounds saved for the NHS...
And this time, I will be allowed to vote!!!!!
Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.
i rather think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
how many of the 48% voted to remain out of love for the EU, and how many of the rest simply to avoid what project fear promised?
but there won't be one. there might be a general election, and i'll lay a crisp .org tenner on may returning with a majority at least five times the size of current.
stick that in your mandate and smoke it, as corbynites might say.
The tragedy of Europhiles who argued against Corbyn. May has a free run to do whatever she likes, as Corbyn has no interest in parliamentary democracy, or any kind of democracy outside the Labour party and his affiliates. His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success." Still, May doesn't do it... Why?
You could think she had a boulevard in front of her let's have elections and Labour in in History for a long long time... So why doesn't she do it? :yes:
The tragedy of the Europhiles who argued (plotted) is they still refused the result of the Labour elections. They want to change the people. Bad Labour voters who didn't vote for what they were told by Tories and Media...
For the most part, there won't be another vote for the European Union referendum. That's pretty much clear.
However, a clear path to Brexit is not there because MPs will still oppose it, and a significant portion of Remainers will still fight against Brexit.
Plus - economic problems.
By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't? I'm not going to go via other avenues to oppose him, but neither am I obliged to support him. In a democracy, I'm free to continue to think how I wish, even as I accept the electoral result and the right of the electorate to get what they voted for. In the case of Labour, it is the right of the Labour members to see their party get driven into irrelevance by the British electorate. Just as it's the right of the British electorate to see their country decline as a result of the Euro referendum. They voted, and they have to accept the result of their vote. And I'm not obliged to think that either was a good decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
What would have been a constitutional issue is if a party with a platform of remaining in the EU, or at least a clear platform on what kind of Brexit to pursue, wins a general election. Does the referendum, which according to Brexit campaigners does not commit them to any concrete promises, hold sway, or does a manifesto with concrete promises hold sway?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
It doesn't matter anyway, as Corbynite Labour have no intention of appealing to the British electorate, with the result that May's Tories will win any general election on any manifesto they care to print.
Incidentally, Corbyn was recently asked by an ITV journalist for his view if May were to call a general election. Corbyn's response was to accuse the journalist of harassment. If he's not prepared to answer a simple question about parliamentary politics, what is he doing as Labour leader? Is he planning to turn the Labour party into something that exists outside parliamentary democracy?
"By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't?" :laugh4: No. Democracy is not the concensus, but the confrontation of idea by peaceful means... It is a social contract, a regulation. In democracies, we decide that 50.01 as the power of decision even if 49.99 are against. Does not mean the 49.99 have to agree, that means they have to accept the decision until they can change it by vote.
"what is he doing as Labour leader? " He was elected. What is the part you don't understand?
She didn't asked his view: She asked: “Would you be happy if Theresa May called a general election?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7400621.html
This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37989728
Essentially, the vast majority of Britons want to remain part of the Single Market and a very strong majority want curbs on EU migration. If you read all the way through it looks like the result of the Referendum just came down to which one of those people thought was more important.
Which makes you wonder about Labour's position, which is pro-Brexit but also pro-freedom of movement. It's as though Corbyn and McDonnell sift through the options, but instead of dreaming of being allowed all the good bits, they somehow cherry pick all the bits that are unpopular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The people wanted the EEC. And hence the people have not been asked their opinion as things changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
~:smoking:
“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.”
The Brexit White Paper
IIRC PFH argued that his Brexit involved regaining sovereignty but remaining part of the single market. The government reckons we'd never lost sovereignty during our membership, and we're leaving the single market.
:laugh4:Quote:
It is more important than ever that we face the future together, united by what makes
us strong: the bonds that unite us, and our shared interest in the UK being an open,
successful trading nation.
3.1 We have ensured since the referendum that the devolved administrations are fully
engaged in our preparations to leave the EU and we are working with the administrations in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver an outcome that works for the whole of the
UK. In seeking such a deal we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England. A good deal will be one that works
for all parts of the UK.
Come on, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should get their sovereignty back.
Keeping Ireland artificially divided is a terrible idea, it leads to ethnic mixing with a lot of tension and problems such as terrorism, murder and other crime. And ever since Hadrian's wall was rendered inoperable, the Picts caused trouble of all sorts in England, it should be returned to its former glory. And Scotland should pay for it. :2thumbsup:
There are two things that brexit's win was supposed to secure; soverignty and immigration controls, the single market is a worthy prize and bargains should be attempted but if europe insists that access is only for those that sacrifices one or both of those principles Britain will choose to do without.
1. We've never lost control of our sovereignty, as the white paper explicitly states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
2. We've always had control of immigration from non-EU countries. It's that our governments haven't enforced existing controls. That's Westminster's choice, not Brussels. And even EU immigrants are limited, as they have to be within a job within 3 months or their stay here is revoked. There are certain key infrastructure areas that are heavily dependent on EU migrants, so even with control, the government isn't going to reduce their number.
In exchange for not much change in the above, we're leaving the single market.
1. We werent able to dictate our own policy without being overruled by the EU in multiple areas. Parliament's soverignty was only absolute in that it had the ability to cancel the EU's influence in an "I reject all and choose nothing" act, as it just did.
2. You havent refuted that we didnt have total control over our immigration policy.
You ever get tired of losing this argument?
But your sovereignty will still be constrained. You would have to proceed by pulling out of the United Nations and any international treaties and organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Much less, and by our consent, that's the point.
Last I checked the UN hasnt drastically expanded it's influence on our domestic policy since it's inception without our consultation.
And GB continues to (probably intentionally) miss the fact that the UK government has always had more control over all these things than it has chosen to exercise. Once the UK government has even greater control, it will continue to do the same as before, for the same reasons as before (ie. the economy and infrastructure are dependent on them), except without access to the single market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
That is and isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
For example - weights and measures - we were briefly forced to adopt metric and Imperial was banned until mass-revolt forced the EU to soften the regulation.
Port Talbort Steel - the UK Government cannot take it into public ownership without violating EU regulations on unfair state support for private business. The same regulations that enforced mass-privatisation in Bulgaria and Romania, creating new opportunities for graft.
The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.
And when nothing changes because the practicalities demand current solutions? How do you resolve sectors that employ a disproportionate number of non-UK citizens? Do you close hospitals because Asian nurses and doctors aren't welcome any more? Do you let OAPs rot in their homes because eastern European carers aren't wanted any more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was talking about EU regulation making UK regulation inflexible, you are talking about the UK becoming Xenophobic.
What's the next excuse?Quote:
The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.
You've listed a couple of instances where the UK overturned or did not implement EU regulations, in keeping with the white paper's statement that the UK had never actually lost sovereignty. In return for not having those disagreements which had ended in the UK's favour, we've left the single market, meaning we will no longer be competitive in the market where 50% of our exports go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And note that by far the biggest reason voters have cited as the reason for Leave is immigration, ie. they want less of it. The reason we are leaving the single market is because the government recognises this as a non-negotiable point. If you disagree, and freedom of movement isn't as important a point as flexibility of regulations, then perhaps you can write to the PM and explain that FoM is actually negotiable after all, and thus access to the single market is possible. Perhaps we can have another referendum clarifying this point. Perhaps this second referendum will clarify that, yes, the UK is indeed xenophobic after all, and we're willing to wreck our economy if it means fewer of these nasty foreigners will be here. As it is, the government takes this as a given.
Foreigners who are already here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The Commonwealth included?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency