Brexit, for once some facts.

[Woosh]

if the vote had gone the other way I suspect that the word 'Advisory' would never have been mentioned

if it went the other way, we wouldn't need to do anything so the word 'advisory' is not applicable nor needed.

 

[50Hertz]

50 hertz, you are a newcomer to this forum, so cannot be expected to have followed all the subtleties of 45000 posts. . The legal position in the UK is that Parliament is supreme. Therefore no one can instruct Parliament. Even your highest court can only advise on constitutional issues. In that way the UK is almost ,maybe even totally unique amongst civilised countries. The vast majority of civilised countries have written constitutions which limit the power of the parliament.
In that context the referendum had to be advisory. Even the statements before and after about implementation of the will of the people were only the statenents or opinions of prominent People. Just as the intention of Mrs May can only be to put an Act before Parliament.
So Tommie, if the UK parliament were to vote down Mrs Mays Deal, and to crash out, it would not be Advisory. The UK Government has already conceded to Parliament that they would have a meaningful vote on exiting .. remember it was your supreme court which advised the Cabinet they needed it. Voting no on the deal would be that meaningful vote.

Danidl, I understand the legal position, now. However, as an average Joe, the referendum was sold to the British public as being their decision and a decision which parliament would carry out. It was almost those exact words which the then Prime Minister used. Never once was the word advisory used or inferred.

The British people were clearly told that parliament would carry out their decision, so carry it out they must. I understand that politicians have no legal obligation to do so, but given the promises made pre referendum they must stick to their word and not renege in the most cowardly and treacherous way possible.

 

[Danidl]

Na, what we cant do is bribe people - the EU couldn`t be seen doing such a thing at this important stage of negotiations ... prob only a pure coincidence

Five 'shared space' projects get £29.1m offer from EU body

A total of €32.4m (£29.1m) of EU funding is being offered to create five new "shared space" projects in Northern Ireland and County Monaghan.

Four of the projects that have been selected are in Northern Ireland.

They are based in south Belfast, Ballycastle, County Antrim, the Waterside area of Londonderry, and Pomeroy, County Tyrone.

The project in the Republic of Ireland is based in Monaghan town.

The money is being offered by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).

. Interesting that you omitted the last sentence fron that BBC website message.. the one which shows that the EU is not petty and vindictive... And I quote

"In May last year, the European Commission indicated it would continue funding cross-border projects in Northern Ireland after Brexit. "
Now since I have already stated on a number of occasions, and nothing has happened subsequently to gainsay it, as far as the EU (and Ireland) are concerned the terms for exiting are already negotiated.,so rather than sweetening a deal, it is simple decency and seeking to maintain services for all those in the NI region who wush to renain EU citizens.

 

[Danidl]

Danidl, I understand the legal position, now. However, as an average Joe, the referendum was sold to the British public as being their decision and a decision which parliament would carry out. It was almost those exact words which the then Prime Minister used. Never once was the word advisory used or inferred.

The British people were clearly told that parliament would carry out their decision, so carry it out they must. I understand that politicians have no legal obligation to do so, but given the promises made pre referendum they must stick to their word and not renege in the most cowardly and treacherous way possible.

Understood..and in exactly the same logic, Mrs May has honoured that committment.

 

[50Hertz]

As I've already explained and I see Danidl has too, any referendum has to be advisory in our system.

And 50Hertz, the referendum was stated to be advisory at the outset in the Referendum Act of 2015 which authorised it.

And Tommie, the promise to implement has no force in law in our system, parliament is sovereign.
.

No flecc, the statement was that we will ask the British people and we will carry out their decision. Never was it stated that we will hold a referendum and then have a think about the result. That would have caused outrage.

Regardless of the legal position, what was promised must be delivered. Anything less is treachery and betrayal on a scale beyond anything seen in modern times. If they didn’t want the U.K. to leave they should not have held the referendum in the first place and faced the music. They have totally betrayed the public and showed total contempt for their opinion. The recent abuse is just the first buds of the boiling anger.

 

[50Hertz]

Mrs May has honoured that committment.

Really? Do you really believe that?

 

[oldgroaner]

if the vote had gone the other way I suspect that the word 'Advisory' would never have been mentioned

And a great deal of loss and roble would have been avoided, and by now the whole thing forgotten
Instead look a the mess we are all in, and all for nothing.

 

[Danidl]

Ah, a bit of foreign intervention there to educate the natives -
well i really can`t agree Dan..

View attachment 28412

Tommie ,you cannot really be that thick, so I am assuming you are being obtruse. The Government is not Parliament. The Prime Minister speaks for the Government, ..ie the group of people elected or selected by Parliament to sit in the Cabinet Room , but only speaks for Parliament after an Act has been voted on. Now PM is a privileged position because they get to propose legislation,but it is always your Parliament which disposes .

 

[Danidl]

Really? Do you really believe that?

"Well you might think so, but I couldn't possibly comment. "

 

[oldgroaner]

Absolutely. A statement was made that the British public would be asked and their decision implemented. That was when they thought the result would be remaining though. It all went tits up for them when the result was leave. The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

Actually it was used, but nobody bothered to check did they and David Davis who actually wrote the bill itself made darned sure never to mention he had written "Advisory only" in it
By the laws of this country no referendum can be anything else than advisory as Parliament is supreme

 

[flecc]

No flecc, the statement was that we will ask the British people and we will carry out their decision. Never was it stated that we will hold a referendum and then have a think about the result. That would have caused outrage.

Regardless of the legal position, what was promised must be delivered. Anything less is treachery and betrayal on a scale beyond anything seen in modern times. If they didn’t want the U.K. to leave they should not have held the referendum in the first place and faced the music. They have totally betrayed the public and showed total contempt for their opinion. The recent abuse is just the first buds of the boiling anger.

You can say No flecc as much as you like, it doesn't make you right . I understand why you take the moral position, but in the circumstances it's wrong.

Firstly that is because you are saying in effect that no matter how much harm parliament perceives might or will be done, they must still go ahead and do that harm. Clearly that would be untenable and a dereliction of duty.

Secondly because parliament made no promise, only three party leaders did and they cannot bind parliament, not the House of Commons and certainly not the House of Lords.

Only today a number of MPs and Ministers have said that there must not be a No Deal departure due to the immense damage it will do, so how could they possibly support that? Even if each one who has spoken out did change their mind, there is a very large majority in parliament opposed to No Deal so there would still be no support for it.

Of course this is all hypothetical anyway and I'm of the opinion that parliament will vote for May's deal following her final statements and clarifications on the role MPs will have in future stages.

Remember, we've only reached approval for stage 3 this week. There's still the four stages of the trade talks to come, so if MPs feel they will have much greater control then, it could sway what they do this week to get to that.
.

 

[oyster]

Theresa May suffers Commons defeat over no-deal Brexit
MPs voted 303 to 296 in favour of amendment to finance bill to curb government powers in event of no deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/theresa-may-suffers-commons-defeat-over-no-deal-brexit

 

[flecc]

Theresa May suffers Commons defeat over no-deal Brexit
MPs voted 303 to 296 in favour of amendment to finance bill to curb government powers in event of no deal

Excellent news to restrain those who would wreck our country on a point of principle or for personal gain.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Absolutely. A statement was made that the British public would be asked and their decision implemented. That was when they thought the result would be remaining though. It all went tits up for them when the result was leave. The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

It was in fact carefully concealed, wasn't it?

 

[Fingers]

And a great deal of loss and roble would have been avoided, and by now the whole thing forgotten
Instead look a the mess we are all in, and all for nothing.

So remainers won a vote in Parliament this evening with less than 1 percent of the vote.

Should we re run it?

 

[oldgroaner]

Danidl, I understand the legal position, now. However, as an average Joe, the referendum was sold to the British public as being their decision and a decision which parliament would carry out. It was almost those exact words which the then Prime Minister used. Never once was the word advisory used or inferred.

The British people were clearly told that parliament would carry out their decision, so carry it out they must. I understand that politicians have no legal obligation to do so, but given the promises made pre referendum they must stick to their word and not renege in the most cowardly and treacherous way possible.

Why must they, when they can ask the public to confirm the decision now that they know the damage we will take as a result?
If it is truly still the "will of the people" acceptance should be a foregone conclusion after all.
If the "will of the people no longer wants Brexit, then that is their democratic right to express.
After all at the time of the referendum four things were not widely understood

1. What the EU actually is
2. What the consequences of leaving would be
3. How incompetent our Government would be in negotiating with the EU
4. How the Government even now hasn't a clue what to do next

 

[Fingers]

Excellent news to restrain those who would wreck our country on a point of principle or for personal gain.
.

I demand a re run!

 

[50Hertz]

Why must they, when they can ask the public to confirm the decision now that they know the damage we will take as a result?
If it is truly still the "will of the people" acceptance should be a foregone conclusion after all.
If the "will of the people no longer wants Brexit, then that is their democratic right to express.
After all at the time of the referendum four things were not widely understood

1. What the EU actually is
2. What the consequences of leaving would be
3. How incompetent our Government would be in negotiating with the EU
4. How the Government even now hasn't a clue what to do next

Fine, I’d be ok with another vote. I think it would return the same result, leave. Then what?

 

[oyster]

Seaborne Freight also seem to have had the possibility of starting a service by brexit denied - by Ostend.

Apologies to Stevie smith: Not sailing but grayling.

'Impossible' for Seaborne's Brexit port to be ready for March
The mayor of Ostend has told the BBC the Belgian port will not be ready for a new ferry line in time for Brexit.

Bart Tommelein was asked about the UK government's award of a £13.8m contract to Seaborne Freight for a service between Ramsgate and Ostend.

He said it was "impossible" that Ostend would be ready and that he was going to Ramsgate next week to discuss the situation with "all the stakeholders".

His remarks came as Transport Secretary Chris Grayling again defended the deal.

Mr Grayling, appearing in the Commons to answer an urgent question tabled by Labour, said no money would be spent unless the service operated correctly.

Mr Grayling said there were "no reasons to believe any of those involved in this business are not fit to do business with government".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46799136

 

[Woosh]

Fine, I’d be ok with another vote. I think it would return the same result, leave. Then what?

if there is another vote, brexit alone is not enough, it should be which brexit or remain.
As some brexiters do not want to pay any money to the EU and if they have their way, it will have much more serious consequences such as we cannot even negotiate a Canada type FTA until we agree to settle the divorce bill.
that's why for a second referendum, it's not easy to find a fair question or set of questions to brexiters.