May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[StefanBBK]

What is all that fuss about. Just get out. Simple as that.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

The bickering is blinding --  the reality is that the government set up a referendum, didn't set a margin of the win to make it valid, and then ran away from the result. 

What do you mean by "valid"? Legally it has no binding force.  

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

What do you mean by "valid"? Legally it has no binding force.  

If the government had no intention of acting on the result, why was the referendum held?

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, jpinx said:

If the government had no intention of acting on the result, why was the referendum held?

Politically , but not legally binding 

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Politically , but not legally binding 

Either way -- why did they set up a referendum and not accept the result?

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Politically , but not legally binding 

I think that's most likely a pretty fair characterization.

[cumgranosalum]

Here is the HoC briefing on the referendum in June 2015 - MPs should have had no doubts about what they were voting for (or against)...

 

"It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion, which then influences the Government in its policy decisions." - HoC - june 2015

 

 

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think that's most likely a pretty fair characterization.

 

 -- but it does not answer the question of why the referendum was set up and the result not accepted?

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, cumgranosalum said:

Here is the HoC briefing on the referendum in June 2015 - MPs should have had no doubts about what they were voting for (or against)...

 

"It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion, which then influences the Government in its policy decisions." - HoC - june 2015

 

 

 

so ...  at the risk of becoming boringly repetitive -- why did the government set up a referendum when it has no significance other than some nebulous form of guidance which every MP should have been getting from his constituents anyway?

[Johnyo]

 

 -- but it does not answer the question of why the referendum was set up and the result not accepted?

Because the Torys were in danger of losing votes to UKIP unless they promised a referendum at the last election. Had they not done that I think labour would have been elected as the xenophobic vote would have been divided between UKIP and the Torykip.

Not accepted because it's not legally binding .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

so ...  at the risk of becoming boringly repetitive -- why did the government set up a referendum when it has no significance other than some nebulous form of guidance which every MP should have been getting from his constituents anyway?

As a sop to conservatives who might otherwise have voted for Ukip.

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, Johnyo said:

Because the Torys were in danger of losing votes to UKIP unless they promised a referendum at the last election. Had they not done that I think labour would have been elected as the xenophobic vote would have been divided between UKIP and the Torykip.

Not accepted because it's not legally binding .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

......but it wasn't even accepted politically - why?

[rockingrobin]

16 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Either way -- why did they set up a referendum and not accept the result?

I fail to see ' not accept the result ' 

The issue is how to implement the result. The UK has an obligation to issue Art 50 lawfully

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, jpinx said:

 

......but it wasn't even accepted politically - why?

What do you mean that it wasn't accepted politically?  The odds are that the conservatives will go ahead with Brexit.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As a sop to conservatives who might otherwise have voted for Ukip.

That's ridiculous, but if true, it demonstrates how low politicians will go.

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I fail to see ' not accept the result ' 

The issue is how to implement the result. The UK has an obligation to issue Art 50 lawfully

 

As was mentioned earlier in this thread -- sometimes the law is an ass.  The simple solution would have been for a motion to be tabled - "to enact article 50 in accordance with the results of the referendum".  The terms of Brexit would not need to be debated, only the trigger of Article 50.  The motion would merely be to enact the result of the referendum -- however badly established that had been.

Edited November 6, 2016 by jpinx

[jpinx]

The fact that an ineffective referendum can be held with the terms outlined in the briefing quoted earlier demonstrates the almost total disconnect between the MPs and the electorate, and the totally sheep mentality of the same MPs in following party orders.  It make one wonder about the competence of westminster post-brexit.........

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

As was mentioned earlier in this thread -- sometimes the law is an ass.  The simple solution would have been for a motion to be tabled - "to enact article 50 in accordance with the results of the referendum".  The terms of Brexit would not need to be debated, only the trigger of Article 50.  The motion would merely be to enact the result of the referendum -- however badly established that had been.

Please explain which part of the relevant law you regard as being incorrect with regards to Art 50 and referendum

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Please explain which part of the relevant law you regard as being incorrect with regards to Art 50 and referendum

 

Enacting Article 50 appears to legally require a debate on a motion and an act of parliament.  The technicalities appear to have been decided, but the political will appears to be lacking - demonstrating (yet again) how self-serving politicians really are.  If they were feeling honour-bound to follow the will of the result, they could have had a short debate and vote and the thing would have been done by now.  The terms can be debated at length once the process is under way since separation will not happen instantly

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Enacting Article 50 appears to legally require a debate on a motion and an act of parliament.  The technicalities appear to have been decided, but the political will appears to be lacking - demonstrating (yet again) how self-serving politicians really are.  If they were feeling honour-bound to follow the will of the result, they could have had a short debate and vote and the thing would have been done by now.  The terms can be debated at length once the process is under way since separation will not happen instantly

It is the Executive preventing such debate not the law 

[jpinx]

The continuing confusion over the technical, legal obligations on the one hand, and the moral, political obligations on the other is what is causing so much friction on this and other threads, and presumably in the electorate in UK.  The legal obligation could easily have been met by a quick motion, debate and act -- as other fast-tracked motions have been dealt with on other topics. 

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The continuing confusion over the technical, legal obligations on the one hand, and the moral, political obligations on the other is what is causing so much friction on this and other threads, and presumably in the electorate in UK.  The legal obligation could easily have been met by a quick motion, debate and act -- as other fast-tracked motions have been dealt with on other topics. 

There is no confusion.

Parliament is sovereign and makes, amend and repeal UK law.When Parliament enacted the referendum act it did not abrogate its authority to the Executive. 

A politician statements, declaration or party policy written in pamphlets are not UK law.

 

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

There is no confusion.

Parliament is sovereign and makes, amend and repeal UK law.When Parliament enacted the referendum act it did not abrogate its authority to the Executive. 

A politician statements, declaration or party policy written in pamphlets are not UK law.

 

The confusion exists between what the politicians could legally have done immediately after the result, and the long delay and then feeble attempt to circumvent the law.    This and other threads are being bulked out because of this confusion.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That's 51.9% - more properly "we by a thin majority"

Fortunately, the 49.1% will still have their voice heard in the parliament vote that May witness a different majority.

 

It was actually 48.1%.

 

Surely there's a 'hilarious' joke in the mistake I've just pointed out, for posters of a certain ilk?

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Alex I think you underestimate peoples ability to understand what they believe, choose or want. I like all my friends know that, forty plus years of strangling the UK and taking away, bit by bit, its ability to feed itself, manufacture many products and  has made it become a service country. Of course I knew it wouldn't be a 'walk in the park' especially the way the EU has been set up, to control and punish anyone who dares question it. This is the great thing since the referendum. People can see the EU exactly what it is about. A group of unelected, undemocratic bunch of non British people dictating and forming a federalized Europe, telling the UK what and when to do that. the people of the UK have had enough. The EU, is so pne way thinking, it can't even see it. It arrogance will be its demise. It can't reform because it has a hidden agenda and that agenda is becoming more and more obvious. It is about taking sovereignty away and identities from the people and creating a united states of Europe.

 

I don't care what it takes to get out. We, my friends and I, who all voted out was very much aware of the EU and we were took into it, on  a lie and want out. 17 plus million also knew the same. Don't use the 'they didn't understand or know the consequences. They did. This whole post referendum has just highlighted how bad the EU is. It has not come out favourably and in fact, its reputation is even worse than before.

 

Too many falsehoods and misunderstandings to deal with. Excellent example of why we have a representative parliamentary democracy rather than rely upon referendums

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, the original quote was from an interview conducted by a source that is banned here. But it's easy enough to look up.  And it's a quote, not a paraphrase. And you can pretty much tell that someone doesn't have much of an argument when they need to use an emoji to bolster their argument. 

As for Cameron being in power then, I guess if Farage said 2+2=4 back then, with Cameron being out of power, that no longer is necessarily the case?  What possible relevance does it have that Cameron was in power when Farage said that.

 

Correct, Farage said what he said back then. Can you point out what role he has had in any decision-making since then?

 

By the way, if you don't like the smileys, complain to forum management. This is a message forum, not a site for posting university theses.

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

It was actually 48.1%.

 

Surely there's a 'hilarious' joke in the mistake I've just pointed out, for posters of a certain ilk?

Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. 

England voted strongly for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%, as did Wales, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%.

Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Too many falsehoods and misunderstandings to deal with. Excellent example of why we have a representative parliamentary democracy rather than rely upon referendums

 

Oh - go on -- have a try -- I've got nothing else to do this morning :)  Switzerland does ok with all it's referendums :)

 

fwiw - -I'd still vote to join the Common Market - as per 1972, but with some mechanism to not allow it to morph into what the EU has become. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by jpinx
Adding smilies ;)

[jpinx]

EEC membership referendum was a referendum held on 5 June 1975

The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a national turnout of 64%. The referendum result was not legally binding due to the concept of Parliamentry sovereignty. This was the first referendum held throughout the entire United Kingdom, and remained the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011 referendum on alternative voting was held thirty-six years later.

 

 

The history of getting into the EU is interesting reading and well worth the effort. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

As a once proud Labour supporter I am now embarrassed that this silly little man Corbyn, who hasn't got the moral conviction to stand up and be a man and say his personal views on Europe. That isn't a man I want as an MP and certainly not a leader. This man is ensuring that we have another 20 years of conservatives in power. The Labour of old (before Blair) was about the working class and workers. This man   has no morals in my opinion, if he can't have the courage and say he was for out of the EU as he had always said up until the referendum was announced. As it has been stated here many working class people voted for Brexit. Whether they have university degrees or not is irrelevant. My concern is that if n election is called then labour will lose more seats or if they don't and the conservatives had to rely on other MP's. for a majority in the house. The worst case would be 'sucking up' to the SNP and that horrible Nichola Surgeon.

 

Thanks to Corbyn there is no party that can actually challenge the Conservatives. He is about as good an opposition than a chocolate fireguard. He has sold himself out, lost any respect from me as well as many of his MP's and has a huge part to blame, for the shambles the Labour Party of today is in. I am surprised Grouse that you like or even support the man.

 

I do not support Corbyn. I can't abide all that Militant Tendancy stuff. I am much happier with the Hillary Benn faction. But I also like the Ken Clarke end of the Torys. I guess I'm a Lib Dem 

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I am sorry I don't read anything anymore from the BBC. I find it quite ironic you just quoting credible facts and then you mention the Bias BBC.

As much as I am sure you would love another referendum because you didn't get the result you wanted  or can't accept it (which I think you would lose again) the PM has stated numerous times, that Brexit will happen. I will be waiting to quote you on this in the future. If the PM does not  then she has committed political suicide for her, the conservatives and the country. Something that I just can't see happening.

 

That article was in May whilst then David Camreon was prime minister. A lot has happened since then and Nigel Farage has stated several times that Brexit means Brexit

 

Parliament will decide NOT May