Brexit Thread

[Brenus]

"I personally think the judges are wrong" Nope.
It is a point of law: "The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,"
A V DICEY, in
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm
Chapter: The Sovereignty of Parliament

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"I personally think the judges are wrong" Nope.
It is a point of law: "The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,"
A V DICEY, in
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm
Chapter: The Sovereignty of Parliament

So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum which was understood to have the purpose of settling the Question of EU Membership and then Judges set aside the result and say that, in fact, another law is needed... is this not a problem?

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?

Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?

[Montmorency]

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.

[Gilrandir]

No, we're having Brexit because, with regards to the EU, Parliament has repeatedly acted Contrary to the Will of the People. This has created a Democratic Deficit, as Sarmation says, and because we are a democracy it made a referendum on membership inevitable.

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).

[Furunculus]

Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?

Yes, of course they can. At their peril!

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.

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?

Interesting, expand on that if you would please?

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.

[Brenus]

"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!!!!!

[Beskar]

Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.

[Furunculus]

Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.

i rather think not.

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.

[Pannonian]

i rather think not.

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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.