Brexit, for once some facts.

[trex]

I feel a sense of utter horror that you could even say that.
Are you a fascist?
Don't you believe in the manifest will of the people?
Do you hate democracy?
Do you think that the people should be in thrall to those who 'Know better?'
Shame on you.

Mike, I think you are mistaken. As other posters have already pointed out, the referendum is only advisory. David Cameron made the promise on behalf of his government, placing the result of the referendum over and above parliament's will in anticipation. My remark implies that David Cameron exceeded his powers then. As long as the current government remains in power, there is no reason to assume that parliament will cancel that promise but if we have another government, it's very possible that brexit won't be implemented. That is the normal way our democratic system works.

 

[Kudoscycles]

The Independent has a poll now which suggests that if the same referendum was held now the vote would be 61% remain,39% leave...in fact the graph reveals that since the vote even on the 24th the vote would have been remain.
The referendum was based upon a string of lies from Gove and Boris,those guys should have been put in the stocks by now but Boris was rewarded with Foreign Secretary,strange business politics.
There is a rumour that Hammond will take away the government funding to elite sports and use lottery funding to 100% fund the Olympics. His vat and corporation tax take is way down but borrowing is now so cheap that he can forget his targets and borrow more....that surely defeats the object of Osbornes austerity measures,strange business politics.
Does May/Davis/Boris and Hammond have a clue what they are doing?
KudosDave

 

[Kudoscycles]

At last some news from Liam Fox,our trade secretary....post Brexit he has done a deal with the Indians,they will allow Scotch Whisky to be imported tariff free into India,hurray!.....in return we will offer visa free access to any Indian wishing to come to the UK.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't a primary requirement of Brexit was controlling immigration?
Well done Mr Fox sure the leavers will look forward to that.
KudosDave

 

[anotherkiwi]

At last some news from Liam Fox,our trade secretary....post Brexit he has done a deal with the Indians,they will allow Scotch Whisky to be imported tariff free into India,hurray!.....in return we will offer visa free access to any Indian wishing to come to the UK.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't a primary requirement of Brexit was controlling immigration?
Well done Mr Fox sure the leavers will look forward to that.
KudosDave

But how are the Indians going to cook the curry if you throw all the Poles who pick the vegetables out?

 

[mike killay]

Mike, I think you are mistaken. As other posters have already pointed out, the referendum is only advisory. David Cameron made the promise on behalf of his government, placing the result of the referendum over and above parliament's will in anticipation. My remark implies that David Cameron exceeded his powers then. As long as the current government remains in power, there is no reason to assume that parliament will cancel that promise but if we have another government, it's very possible that brexit won't be implemented. That is the normal way our democratic system works.

I think that you are totally wrong.
The will of the people in a democracy is sovereign.
Above the Crown (as was amply demonstrated to Charles 1st)
The Conservatives included an 'In or Out' referendum in their manifesto.
The people voted for it.
The referendum was held and Brexit won.
The only mention of 'Advisory' came after the result from disappointed remainers.

 

[oldgroaner]

I think that you are totally wrong.
The will of the people in a democracy is sovereign.
Above the Crown (as was amply demonstrated to Charles 1st)
The Conservatives included an 'In or Out' referendum in their manifesto.
The people voted for it.
The referendum was held and Brexit won.
The only mention of 'Advisory' came after the result from disappointed remainers.

Actually the will of Parliament not the people was demonstrated to Charles the first as only an elite who owned land could vote in those days, universal suffrage came in much later
"Only with the 1918 Representation of the People Act did all men of 21 and older get the vote. This same Act gave the vote to all women aged 30 and over. A subsequent Act ten years later, in 1928, gave women the vote at 21, equal to men. (The voting age was lowered to 18 for both sexes only in 1969)."
Next point the advisory nature of the Referendum
According to the European Union Referendum act 2015
"The act makes no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
The result of the referendum is to be a single majority vote of all four constituent countries of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar with no super majorities, double majorities or any minimum turnout threshold required for the vote to pass which will be declared by Chief Counting Officer (CCO) Jenny Watson at Manchester Town Hall on Friday 24 June 2016.
The act does not specify any specific consequences that would follow the result of the referendum. In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide under what circumstances to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU.European Union law would remain enforceable in the United Kingdom unless the European Communities Act 1972 were repealed.

Cameron exceeded his authority in saying he would commit Parliament, then backed out and resigned!

Essentially your statement below is incorrect
"The only mention of 'Advisory' came after the result from disappointed remainers."

The advisory nature of the Referendum was there in the Act authorising it, but as in almost everything else Brexit voters thought they were being offered, Boris, Gove, Farage and co lied to you didn't they?
Even worse was Cameron's lie that he gave the Referendum an authority it didn't carry.
They knew very well that the Referendum was advisory only, and hid that from the public.
How many would have voted for Brexit had this truth been known?

The truth is as has been said so many times before, the voters were misled, not merely with false promises, but even what they thought the vote was worth.
And of course you have to ask did any of the voters do any checking?
No! is the resounding answer.

 

[mike killay]

So, the rotting, dead hand of the elites still grasps to power despite the will of the people?

 

[homemoz]

And all this illustrates why holding a referendum over such an important issue was a complete nonsense. In my view one of the cornerstones of democracy is accountability. If the decisions made by the Govt in power go pear shaped or prove unpopular then an election is held & a new Govt can be elected. In the case of a referendum if the effects of the result prove detrimental who holds "the people" to account. Referendums which are binding therefore become government without accountability. I fail say to see how this is democratic? In the case of Brexit (which I am now sick to death of), it was the failure of successive Govts to address real concerns that has lead to this polarisation. A referendum has resolved nothing & only hardened divisions.

 

[oldgroaner]

So, the rotting, dead hand of the elites still grasps to power despite the will of the people?

Alas Mike, You and I are in complete agreement on that!
And it rules though lies and false promises.
We deserve better.

 

[oldgroaner]

And all this illustrates why holding a referendum over such an important issue was a complete nonsense. In my view one of the cornerstones of democracy is accountability. If the decisions made by the Govt in power go pear shaped or prove unpopular then an election is held & a new Govt can be elected. In the case of a referendum if the effects of the result prove detrimental who holds "the people" to account. Referendums which are binding therefore become government without accountability. I fail say to see how this is democratic? In the case of Brexit (which I am now sick to death of), it was the failure of successive Govts to address real concerns that has lead to this polarisation. A referendum has resolved nothing & only hardened divisions.

Correct on all points!

 

[oldgroaner]

The Independent has a poll now which suggests that if the same referendum was held now the vote would be 61% remain,39% leave...in fact the graph reveals that since the vote even on the 24th the vote would have been remain.
The referendum was based upon a string of lies from Gove and Boris,those guys should have been put in the stocks by now but Boris was rewarded with Foreign Secretary,strange business politics.
There is a rumour that Hammond will take away the government funding to elite sports and use lottery funding to 100% fund the Olympics. His vat and corporation tax take is way down but borrowing is now so cheap that he can forget his targets and borrow more....that surely defeats the object of Osbornes austerity measures,strange business politics.
Does May/Davis/Boris and Hammond have a clue what they are doing?
KudosDave

Or more importantly, which masters they are serving?

 

[homemoz]

My other point is that the referendum was rather like 2 competing time-share salesmen. One with site unseen & plans not drawn up. The other already built but a bit rough round the edges & with high maintenance costs. We were asked to make a binding choice about one or the other based on highly charged & often spurious arguments. The decision had to be made when emotions were at their peak. The only difference is that in the time share option there is the 2 week or whatever cooling off period......only democratic way forward that I see is to hold a general election once the plans for leaving are clearer. Even then there has to be a credible opposition which arguably is somewhat lacking right now.

 

[oldgroaner]

My other point is that the referendum was rather like 2 competing time-share salesmen. One with site unseen & plans not drawn up. The other already built but a bit rough round the edges & with high maintenance costs. We were asked to make a binding choice about one or the other based on highly charged & often spurious arguments. The decision had to be made when emotions were at their peak. The only difference is that in the time share option there is the 2 week or whatever cooling off period......only democratic way forward that I see is to hold a general election once the plans for leaving are clearer. Even then there has to be a credible opposition which arguably is somewhat lacking right now.

Although with respect, only the elderly can recall when there was actually a "Credible opposition" rather than a "Different Flavour" so no change there..

 

[Kudoscycles]

I think that you are totally wrong.
The will of the people in a democracy is sovereign.
Above the Crown (as was amply demonstrated to Charles 1st)
The Conservatives included an 'In or Out' referendum in their manifesto.
The people voted for it.
The referendum was held and Brexit won.
The only mention of 'Advisory' came after the result from disappointed remainers.

Sorry Mike you are totally wrong....if you do some searching,a statute is sovereign,a statute empoyers parliament over the royals and the people.
This goes back to the Act of Proclamation,James1V,1610 when the King tried to issue a Proclamation that no houses be built in sight of his castle.It was put to parliament and decided that an act of Parliament(statute) always superseded a royal Proclamation.
This is the test case to stop Theresa May using the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50,she will lose that case in October. IMHO she knows she will lose that action but it will then be put to judicial review,to the Lords,that may take 18 months,by then everyone will have lost interest in Brexit and May can bow out gracefully. Just a shame that common sense doesn't happen now ,we will waste billions in legal fees to move to a situation that is Mays exit route and damage our trade in the meantime.
The referendum was only advisory,this was known before the vote but not mentioned,parliament can choose to ignore the vote,if the repeal of the European Communities Act was put to parliament they would reject the repeal,without that we cannot leave the EU.
Cameron did not investigate the details of leaving because he thought there was no chance we would vote leave,it is only now that the legal difficulties of leaving are apparent.
The latest difficulty for May is Gibraltar....they voted 98% to stay in the EU,we also guaranteed that they would remain UK citizens. The Spanish have said that for Gibraltar to have an open border with Spain they have to be an EU state,all these matters are contradictory. Combine this with the problem of Northern Ireland bordering Ireland and Scotland saying that they voted to stay in the EU and will seek independence if the UK leaves.
There is absolutely no chance that May can trigger Article 50 before 2020,the legal implications are too complex and then a new government will have to reject the past,the referendum will be long forgotten and a new manifesto will make some passing referral to pacify the leavers.
In the meantime it will be a complete mess,satisfying nobody.
KudosDave

 

[mike killay]

I suppose that Europe will be quite glad to be shot of us. We never did see eye to eye with them, always wanting exemptions etc.
We made bad Europeans.

 

[mike killay]

Sorry Mike you are totally wrong....if you do some searching,a statute is sovereign,a statute empoyers parliament over the royals and the people.
This goes back to the Act of Proclamation,James1V,1610 when the King tried to issue a Proclamation that no houses be built in sight of his castle.It was put to parliament and decided that an act of Parliament(statute) always superseded a royal Proclamation.
This is the test case to stop Theresa May using the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50,she will lose that case in October. IMHO she knows she will lose that action but it will then be put to judicial review,to the Lords,that may take 18 months,by then everyone will have lost interest in Brexit and May can bow out gracefully. Just a shame that common sense doesn't happen now ,we will waste billions in legal fees to move to a situation that is Mays exit route and damage our trade in the meantime.
The referendum was only advisory,this was known before the vote but not mentioned,parliament can choose to ignore the vote,if the repeal of the European Communities Act was put to parliament they would reject the repeal,without that we cannot leave the EU.
Cameron did not investigate the details of leaving because he thought there was no chance we would vote leave,it is only now that the legal difficulties of leaving are apparent.
The latest difficulty for May is Gibraltar....they voted 98% to stay in the EU,we also guaranteed that they would remain UK citizens. The Spanish have said that for Gibraltar to have an open border with Spain they have to be an EU state,all these matters are contradictory. Combine this with the problem of Northern Ireland bordering Ireland and Scotland saying that they voted to stay in the EU and will seek independence if the UK leaves.
There is absolutely no chance that May can trigger Article 50 before 2020,the legal implications are too complex and then a new government will have to reject the past,the referendum will be long forgotten and a new manifesto will make some passing referral to pacify the leavers.
KudosDave

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. King George found out who is sovereign when the Americans rebelled, so did his descendant when the Irish rebelled.
You can live in hope, I think that your reading of UK politics as they are now is fragile. The government of 2020 could well be shaped by just how far down the Article 50 road we are.
Hopefully at the end.

 

[D8ve]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. King George found out who is sovereign when the Americans rebelled, so did his descendant when the Irish rebelled.
You can live in hope, I think that your reading of UK politics as they are now is fragile. The government of 2020 could well be shaped by just how far down the Article 50 road we are.
Hopefully at the end.

I hope your not suggesting anything Mike, Sovereingnty is where it is. Rebellion is a fight against the crown and parlement. Not against the people.
Please no treason here

 

[Kudoscycles]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. King George found out who is sovereign when the Americans rebelled, so did his descendant when the Irish rebelled.
You can live in hope, I think that your reading of UK politics as they are now is fragile. The government of 2020 could well be shaped by just how far down the Article 50 road we are.
Hopefully at the end.

The Act of Proclamation was tested in the firemans strike in the 1990's.
What is not questionable is that parliament can ignore the referendum,it is specifically mentioned in the terms of the referendum,that wasn't the case with the Scottish referendum.
Look at this on a practical level...can you see any way that Theresa May is going to overcome all the legal obstacles,satisfy the NI,Scots and Gibraltar,achieve entry to the single market outside of the EU,move all the EU laws into UK statute,negotiate restrictions on free movement of people,guarantee the situation of EU citizens in the UK,look after the interests of UK citizens in the EU,replicate the EU trade deals to the UK,cope with the losses of Corporation and VAT tax take.
If you were Theresa May wouldn't you look at that lot as a mountain to climb,if you were serious about Brexit why would you put Boris as Foreign Secretary and weak Fox and Davis,they are being set up to be fall guys when this whole Brexit experiment goes pear shaped. Theresa May is looking for an exit route,she must bang the 'Brexit means Brexit' drum because it would be political suicide to U-turn so soon,but she must know that this job is impossible,don't forget she has no support of parliament to achieve all this,she is a leaver on the outside but a remainer inside.
KudosDave

 

[mike killay]

And all this illustrates why holding a referendum over such an important issue was a complete nonsense. In my view one of the cornerstones of democracy is accountability. If the decisions made by the Govt in power go pear shaped or prove unpopular then an election is held & a new Govt can be elected. In the case of a referendum if the effects of the result prove detrimental who holds "the people" to account. Referendums which are binding therefore become government without accountability. I fail say to see how this is democratic? In the case of Brexit (which I am now sick to death of), it was the failure of successive Govts to address real concerns that has lead to this polarisation. A referendum has resolved nothing & only hardened divisions.

Frankly, I think that this is a nonsense argument.
What you seem to want is that the People be accountable to you and those who think like you.
Parliamentary democracy in this country suffers from the fact that ballots do not have a 'None of the above' box. In soviet style, we are offered a list of people to whom we must give all power, they are not our delegates.
A referendum is pure democracy, accountable to the People.

 

[mike killay]

I hope your not suggesting anything Mike, Sovereingnty is where it is. Rebellion is a fight against the crown and parlement. Not against the people.
Please no treason here

There has already been plenty of treason on this forum.