This was my understanding and those that actually had chosen to read it. Unfortunately the majority read it differently. "The European Union Referendum Act required 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 did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum."
So just because it wasn't a binding requirement the result should have been ignored? Bit pointless having a vote if you are just going to burn the results. Let's hope that some future Government doesn't decide that a GE will not be classed as binding too eh
I know full well what a protest vote is and have pointed out that in a GE (or even local election) it can be used as a pointer of dissatisfaction. The referendum was not a ward based vote but a vote of individuality where every vote counted towards the stay/leave option. Anybody stupid enough to vote against their own wishes derservers everything they get.
Nobody has said any of that. But if it had been a binding referendum then it might have been overturned by the courts because of rule breaking by the Leave campaigns
Nobody of my acquaintance believed that if the result was to leave, that the govt would not do one at least one of the following : 1. initiate the exit process during the term of Parliament 2. make a policy commitment that if re-elected, the exit would be done by the end of that term.
Over simplifying... 1) Gives us the same status as Ukraine 2) Norway 3) Switzerland 4) No example I am aware of
There is no rush for this (not a school homework assignment) . Take your time, do an "executive summary" of the key difference between the pair combos, and post them when you are ready.
So no-one actually believed the Leave campaign's stated policy that we wouldn't give notice to leave until we had negotiated terms for continued access to the single market?
Except it was an advisory referendum, so they weren't voting against their own wishes - that only happened when it suddenly became the Eleventh Commandment
I don't think it's worth the bother. But since one of the Leave campaign's main points was that Norway was in a good position it is clearly absurd that anyone who voted Leave in the hope of getting the same status as Norway was subsequently told that that was ruled out.
This is a problem caused by the EU spitefulness. Germany and France never believed we would leave and are now trying their best to make life as hard as possible for us. The thing is we are coping with all the new red tape and others are now looking at their own chances of getting out. The EU are checking our goods to make sure they comply with the standards we had to force them into in an attempt to make things awkward, you couldn't make it up. By the way, a few EU countries are ignoring this because they value our trade
They believed that something would have to happen other than some govt desktop paper shuffling antics (the prevailing opinion was that "freedom of movement" would be the first thing out) .
I think somebody did, actually. Brexit is like a religion. It cannot fail, it can only be failed or betrayed.
The thing i find odd is the ammount of EU nationals still coming here to live/work. Makes you wonder why they make that choice.
On paper, this is ( "two person" ) game theory. The players are trying to maximise the rewards from all possible outcomes of the game, Then you add in the political dimensions ( "saving face" , neither party can be seen to be better off without the other etc.) . So no surprise things are generally playing out (sic) as they are.
All the EU have done is to treat us exactly like a non-member which is what we voted for apparently. Do you think they should have ignored the vote?
You can't conceive of any reason why someone might want to move here from an EU country? The average income in Romania, for example, is around £585 per month. That's one reason.
