May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[SheungWan]

On 12/30/2016 at 6:46 PM, 7by7 said:

The 1975 referendum was also not legally binding, but everyone accepted that the result would be the final say on the matter; which it was. The difference between then and 2016 being that the terms for the UK's continued membership of what was then the EEC had already been negotiated and agreed by Parliament before the referendum was held. Whereas in 2016 the terms of the UK's relationship with the EU should the vote be to leave would not be negotiated until and unless the vote was to leave.

 

In their 2015 manifesto the Tories promised a referendum and having won the general election assured the people that they would accept the referendum result and act upon it.

 

Parliament approved the referendum bill, which became the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and Parliament made it clear at that time that the decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum should, and would,  settle whether the UK remained in the EU or left.

 

So, even though the referendum result is not legally binding, May and her government not only have a clear mandate from the British people to trigger Article 50, but also a mandate, given before the referendum was even held, from Parliament to respect and act upon the referendum result.

 

That is democracy and should not, in my view, be sabotaged by the courts due to a constitutional technicality.

 

Since then, an Opposition motion in early December to trigger Article 50 by the end of next March was passed with a majority of nearly 400.

 

Having said that, I do believe that the final agreement reached between the UK and the EU should be put to, and agreed by, Parliament.

 

 

 

'Constitutional technicality' is a favoured phrase used by those who neither understand the constitution nor the technicalities.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

Let's just  exclude the sheep, then ask ourselves,do the thinking people still take any notice of the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

 

This reminds me of the beeb's "impartial" coverage of the Scottish Independence referendum

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as a reply:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

What happened to fair use?

 

Is this The Express again?

 The research grant amounts to 1 part in a 1000 of their annual funding (0.1%). Big deal ?

[7by7]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

There would never have been a court case if the correct constitutional procedure had been followed in the first place.

 

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

'Constitutional technicality' is a favoured phrase used by those who neither understand the constitution nor the technicalities.

 

You are both missing the point.

 

The Tories promised in their manifesto that they would hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if elected.

 

They were elected and Parliament subsequently passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

So, even though the referendum was, as UK referenda usually are, advisory,  the government had a mandate from both the electorate and Parliament to hold the referendum and then act upon the result.

 

The referendum was held and the people voted to leave the EU.

 

I firmly believe the electorate made the wrong decision; but make it they did. I also believe that the government should now be allowed to get on with the job of negotiating the best possible post Brexit deal with the EU and not have those negotiations delayed by pointless court cases, which wont change anything, and long debates in Parliament, which also won't change anything.

 

Once those negotiations have been completed the proposed deal should then be put to Parliament for it's approval.

 

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

You are both missing the point.

 

The Tories promised in their manifesto that they would hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if elected.

 

They were elected and Parliament subsequently passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

So, even though the referendum was, as UK referenda usually are, advisory,  the government had a mandate from both the electorate and Parliament to hold the referendum and then act upon the result.

 

The referendum was held and the people voted to leave the EU.

 

I firmly believe the electorate made the wrong decision; but make it they did. I also believe that the government should now be allowed to get on with the job of negotiating the best possible post Brexit deal with the EU and not have those negotiations delayed by pointless court cases, which wont change anything, and long debates in Parliament, which also won't change anything.

 

Once those negotiations have been completed the proposed deal should then be put to Parliament for it's approval.

 

....  and so says everyone who actually is paying attention to what's going on.   The best deal is all that matters now and anyone diverting resources into diversionary tactics is mocking democracy. 

[Srikcir]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I firmly believe the electorate made the wrong decision; but make it they did.

But knowing that the referendum result would not be binding on Parliament - was that made clear before the referendum vote?

So it would seem that the narrow vote in favor of Brexit was not a legal "mandate" but only a political preference -really no different than if a sampling poll were conducted but much more expensive, time consuming and very derisive by both political factions.

Why didn't the "Tories" in Parliament as part of the EUR Act make its results legally binding, especially if they were confident the majority of the electorate would vote for Brexit?

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

But knowing that the referendum result would not be binding on Parliament - was that made clear before the referendum vote?

So it would seem that the narrow vote in favor of Brexit was not a legal "mandate" but only a political preference -really no different than if a sampling poll were conducted but much more expensive, time consuming and very derisive by both political factions.

Why didn't the "Tories" in Parliament as part of the EUR Act make its results legally binding, especially if they were confident the majority of the electorate would vote for Brexit?

You're still missing the point made.  The referendum is based on a manifesto promise prior to the last GE.  It also has the promise of the PM to be enacted.  That's how democracy works - for everyone.  AFAIK there has never been a referendum that has been "legally" binding, but all have been acted on

Edited January 2, 2017 by jpinx

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

But knowing that the referendum result would not be binding on Parliament - was that made clear before the referendum vote?

 

All the information given to the electorate before the referendum was that the government would act upon the result; whatever that result was.

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

All the information given to the electorate before the referendum was that the government would act upon the result; whatever that result was.

 

The government ARE acting upon the result. They will recommend that parliament passes a law to take us out of the EU and agree an as yet unspecified new relationship. Am I missing something?

[7by7]

35 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

The government ARE acting upon the result. They will recommend that parliament passes a law to take us out of the EU and agree an as yet unspecified new relationship. Am I missing something?

 

They wanted to get on with triggering article 50 by next March, carry out the negotiations and then seek Parliament's approval of the subsequent deal.

 

If successful, this court case will force them to delay triggering Article 50, possibly for over a year depending on how long it takes the required Bill to pass through Parliament, and reveal their negotiating position and aims in advance.

 

 

[nontabury]

29 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

They wanted to get on with triggering article 50 by next March, carry out the negotiations and then seek Parliament's approval of the subsequent deal.

 

If successful, this court case will force them to delay triggering Article 50, possibly for over a year depending on how long it takes the required Bill to pass through Parliament, and reveal their negotiating position and aims in advance.

 

 

 

Agree,this just goes to show,all those behind these so called legal shenanigigans, do not believe in peoples democracy. 

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

You're still missing the point made.  The referendum is based on a manifesto promise prior to the last GE.  It also has the promise of the PM to be enacted.  That's how democracy works - for everyone.  AFAIK there has never been a referendum that has been "legally" binding, but all have been acted on

Briefing paper 7212

' This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. 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.'

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212

 

An amendment to make the referendum legally binding was defeated

 

The Conservative manifesto . apart from the in/out referendum. also included protecting and expanding the single market,  , amending CAP . New rules for the financial industry and EU money for jobs and growth

 

The AV referendum was legally binding.

Edited January 2, 2017 by rockingrobin

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Briefing paper 7212

' This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. 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.'

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212

 

An amendment to make the referendum legally binding was defeated

 

The Conservative manifesto . apart from the in/out referendum. also included protecting and expanding the single market,  , amending CAP . New rules for the financial industry and EU money for jobs and growth

 

The AV referendum was legally binding.

Did the PM make his famous promise to act on the result of the referendum before or after that amendment was rejected?

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Did the PM make his famous promise to act on the result of the referendum before or after that amendment was rejected?

I understand his promise was indeed after. The real question is was D.Cameron in a position to make that promise, was it within his gift to give.

The Con manifesto promised a referendum but required an Act of Parliament to bring it to fruition 

[jpinx]

21 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I understand his promise was indeed after. The real question is was D.Cameron in a position to make that promise, was it within his gift to give.

The Con manifesto promised a referendum but required an Act of Parliament to bring it to fruition 

Did anyone in Westminster contradict Cameron's statement? 

[SheungWan]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

You are both missing the point.

 

The Tories promised in their manifesto that they would hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if elected.

 

They were elected and Parliament subsequently passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

So, even though the referendum was, as UK referenda usually are, advisory,  the government had a mandate from both the electorate and Parliament to hold the referendum and then act upon the result.

 

The referendum was held and the people voted to leave the EU.

 

I firmly believe the electorate made the wrong decision; but make it they did. I also believe that the government should now be allowed to get on with the job of negotiating the best possible post Brexit deal with the EU and not have those negotiations delayed by pointless court cases, which wont change anything, and long debates in Parliament, which also won't change anything.

 

Once those negotiations have been completed the proposed deal should then be put to Parliament for it's approval.

 

 

19 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

'Constitutional technicality' is a favoured phrase used by those who neither understand the constitution nor the technicalities.

 

'Pointless court cases'. And a red bus turns up immediately to illustrate the point with all flags flying.

[rockingrobin]

12 hours ago, jpinx said:

Did anyone in Westminster contradict Cameron's statement? 

Conservative peer Lord Astor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/brexit-is-not-deliverable-says-david-camerons-father-in-law/

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Conservative peer Lord Astor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/brexit-is-not-deliverable-says-david-camerons-father-in-law/

Interesting, no MP's contradicted him, only his father-in-law?  That would not carry any weight with anyone.    Basically it's safe to say that the pm's promise of fulfillment of the referendum result was unchallenged by any elected MP,  so why would any member of the public query it?  Maybe a new court action should be brought forward?

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

You are both missing the point.

 

The Tories promised in their manifesto that they would hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if elected.

 

They were elected and Parliament subsequently passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

So, even though the referendum was, as UK referenda usually are, advisory,  the government had a mandate from both the electorate and Parliament to hold the referendum and then act upon the result.

 

The referendum was held and the people voted to leave the EU.

 

I firmly believe the electorate made the wrong decision; but make it they did. I also believe that the government should now be allowed to get on with the job of negotiating the best possible post Brexit deal with the EU and not have those negotiations delayed by pointless court cases, which wont change anything, and long debates in Parliament, which also won't change anything.

 

Once those negotiations have been completed the proposed deal should then be put to Parliament for it's approval.

 

It is you that is missing the point, completely. The referendum did not give the PM a mandate to invoke Article using prerogative powers, there is a legitimate process in place to act upon the result. Referendums do not overrule parliamentary democracy. If she loses the appeal, she will have to do what should have been done in the first place and if she wins, every chance that Article 50 will end up in the ECJ.

Nothing to do with morality, all to do with legality.

[rockingrobin]

54 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Interesting, no MP's contradicted him, only his father-in-law?  That would not carry any weight with anyone.    Basically it's safe to say that the pm's promise of fulfillment of the referendum result was unchallenged by any elected MP,  so why would any member of the public query it?  Maybe a new court action should be brought forward?

There was no requirement for MPs to contradict him , as they  had been informed by minister

D. Lidington on 16th June 2015 

'  Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year '

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150616/debtext/150616-0002.htm

[Guest]

On a bit lighter side. <deleted> is Brexit?

Sorry if this has been here before.

 

 

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

There was no requirement for MPs to contradict him , as they  had been informed by minister

D. Lidington on 16th June 2015 

'  Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year '

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150616/debtext/150616-0002.htm

Yes - we already know the amendment was voted down, but *after* that vote the PM went on record to say the opposite, that the referendum result would be acted upon.  This smacks of contempt of Parliament.  There is a case currently under appeal with the supreme court which addresses a similar action.  This is making a mockery of democracy and parliamentary process.  Either it is sacrosanct or not.  The voters have to rely on their MP's, and the PM in particular to lead the way through the byznatine labyrinth of Westminsters procedures.  If people want to be ruled by the courts, that's fine, but let *everyone* be ruled by the courts.

[Srikcir]

8 minutes ago, jpinx said:

the referendum result would be acted upon

Such as a vote by the Parliament to approve Article 50 action? That would smack of respect for Parliament.

[jpinx]

56 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Such as a vote by the Parliament to approve Article 50 action? That would smack of respect for Parliament.

If that is the decision of the supreme court, then definitely !!!!   But where is the action for misleading the electorate about acting on the referendum result? 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Such as a vote by the Parliament to approve Article 50 action? That would smack of respect for Parliament.

 

42 minutes ago, jpinx said:

If that is the decision of the supreme court, then definitely !!!!   But where is the action for misleading the electorate about acting on the referendum result? 

Apologies , but I dont follow the reasoning on misleading the electorate.

Parliament is sovereign and thus if the government are required to put forward a bill, and do ,  then have they not acted upon the result.

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

Apologies , but I dont follow the reasoning on misleading the electorate.

Parliament is sovereign and thus if the government are required to put forward a bill, and do ,  then have they not acted upon the result.

The electorate was misled by the PM who contradicted the wishes of Parliament who had voted down the amendment.  Where is the court action for that?

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The electorate was misled by the PM who contradicted the wishes of Parliament who had voted down the amendment.  Where is the court action for that?

Legally the referendum was advisory , an opportunity for the public to voice an opinion and influence government policy. It may be the government stance the result would form a decision in regard to its policy on the EU.

Government policy is just that , it does not make it  law without further action. To take an example , the Conservative manifesto pledged an in/out referendum, this was Conservative policy, however it required safe passage through parliament .If parliament had voted against the bill then no referendum could take place. 

As for the PM making statements, he may have believed that the use RP is correct and no Act of Parliament is required.

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Legally the referendum was advisory , an opportunity for the public to voice an opinion and influence government policy. It may be the government stance the result would form a decision in regard to its policy on the EU.

Government policy is just that , it does not make it  law without further action. To take an example , the Conservative manifesto pledged an in/out referendum, this was Conservative policy, however it required safe passage through parliament .If parliament had voted against the bill then no referendum could take place. 

As for the PM making statements, he may have believed that the use RP is correct and no Act of Parliament is required.

The electorate do not want technical apologies.  The country is now riven over this issue and no-one is being taken to task over it.  How is that Just, Democratic, Fair, or anything else?  It might be technically correct, but it doesn't stop the bad feeling that now exists.

 

History is full of "governments" who have pushed their agendas and then been surprised by the eventual backlash.  With so many question marks hanging over the future of the EU, especially in the form of the various country-by-country elections this year, only a fool would ignore the direction the UK is heading in, lead by UK MP's who are all committed to the EU.  What chance does the electorate have?

 

As for  PM who makes statements without checking his facts -- he should be in court

Edited January 3, 2017 by jpinx

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What chance does the electorate have?

Vote them out?

Isn't that how democracy works?