If they word the referendum to be binding then it is binding because that becomes law. They happened not to do that this time.
Stopped reading here, you don't have a clue. No one is saying the decision won't be implemented, its how it's implemented. In accordance with existing law or not. According to your position, why even bother with Article 50? Send the president of the EU a text message saying "We out biatch #referendum" and suspend all European laws at midnight after the result was announced. That's the will of the people right?
But the thing is, it would appear our ****ing PM doesn't have a clue either. Stating "I'll trigger article 50 (insert latest date)" has got this whole "will we ever leave?" debate going in the first place - as the High Court have ruled "no you won't, love" EDIT: and yes you probably should have read Franks entire post as your reply is completely out of context to it
It's blatant that none of the Brexit campaigners had any idea what they would do if they won, which is why they all ran away and left it to May, who didn't bother to #readtherules either
There'll be a general election before article 50 is activated, if three judges can override the democratic will of the majority of people(who bothered to vote)they can also keep us in the EU with loopholes in the law and any future government after the next general election will have between then and now to tell us the plusses of having another referendum on the issue. As astro points out there's more to leaving than brexiteers knew or were told, even MP's never knew the complications that lay ahead if the country voted leave, Boris and Farage made it sound like we'd be independent of the EU the day after the vote.
Yes...as I said (you appeared to actually read my post) the govt was incorrect to not put it before parliament. I outlined why I believed they didn't but they were still incorrect. My main point (ignored by the imbecile) was that the court case and it's celebration have absolutely nothing to do with upholding parliamentary democracy. The main plaintiff of the case has openly admitted that. it was to stop Brexit. That's in my opinion the truly undemocratic thing here. the other is a misguided decision to do something technically undemocratic to paradoxically attempt to uphold a democratic principle... As usual...politicians can't organise a piss up in a brewery.
Agree frank, we have no democratic rights if the voice of the people can be overruled by judges, basically the law outguns the upper and lower houses as well as the electorate.
Then don't comment on the post and call me clueless. Same way I, up to this point haven't commented on your inane "banter". Not the first time you've replied to me; clearly having not read what I posted and suggested I don't have a clue. . I'm quite, quite sure I have both the knowledge and intelligence to state an informed opinion.
Back in June, shortly after the vote I did a quick wiki of referendums and quickly learned that what we had was an "advisary referendum" and that technically we could have a parliamentary vote on this. So on the PL board I posted the question whether we should/would have one? My motivation for doing so, I won't lie, was because I felt that most of the MPs were genuinely surprised by the result and perhaps parliament should "save us from ourselves". There was also lots of talk of people voting brexit as a protest vote but NOT actually wanting brexit, if you recall. BUT I also asked another question which follows on from the above... The advisary referendum was NOT done along constituency borders! It was done by regions. So to simply say that MPs should fulfil the will of their voters is actually incorrect as the vote does not directly reflect the consitituancy of ANY MP. Yes you could argue that certain areas are very likely to show X or Y constituency should vote "leave" or "remain" BUT it's still only supposition. WHY? Because the public were NOT making a vote for their parliamentary MP. They voted for their MP in the last GE for a whole host of reasons. And IF they wanted to vote for an MP on ONE single issue they should've voted for UKIP which they didn't. So there is no owness on MPs to vote based on which way Joe Bloggs voted. They sometimes have a duty of care where they have to save us from ourselves in the greater interest of this country. I also agree with the earlier point made. The agreement that a parliamentary vote is required following an advisary referendum is part of our democracy. To argue that ignoring the processes for democracy is somehow being democratic, is complete bollox. You don't ignore the rules because you didn't know they existed, or you made the mistake of ignoring them, or not doing your research. It's like me robbing a house and saying "sorry guv I didn't know it was illegal to rob houses in this country".
The referendum was about leaving the EU, not granting the Prime Minister dictatorial powers to leave the EU in a way that makes her job as convenient as possible. What kind of precedent would that set? If a party says they'll solve homelessness in their manifesto and win an election then the PM has the power to execute all homeless people and judges who dare to say she can't are "undemocratic"?
Which is a weakness of not having what Mito was describing: a single constitution that outlines the separation and limits of powers. Although ironically the three judges would say the courts decision was just a statement of fact and doesn't take into account the motives of those that brought the case before them. This would be true. parliament is sovereign. then it's open to interpretation: was sovereignty upheld when parliament agreed to the referendum under the parameters set out by the Cameron govt? I think so...not in a contractual lawyer way but in a way the people accepted because they participated; in higher numbers than a general election. Again, (not wanting to help the Tories but I doubt they are reading lol) the easiest way out of this for May is to table a motion for parliamentary debate that the passing of the decision to hold the referendum was the very act of parliamentary sovereignty...this would force those hiding behind that cloak to propose how it wasn't and yet justify why they voted it through anyway. not one of them can say they were on the record as stating that the outcome of the referendum was only "advisory". As I said; both campaigns are on record multiple times stating that the outcome would be ratified. It's why Cameron scarpered . .he realised that using immediate ratification as a threat if he lost backfired and couldn't follow through with immediate "pushing of the button" Personally I think he believed he was going to leave it to Gove or Johnson in a form of "your bed lie in it revenge" but they still each other and May glided through....
Who was supposed to implement article 50 if its not the UK PM? Parliament is there(supposedly)for the voices of the people to be heard through members of the house elected by the people. So who should activate article 50?, 3 high court judges?
The author of Article 50 didn't even consider that the UK would ever use it, so it was ****ed from the start. Anyway why are Leavers so upset. Surely worst case there's an additional election or something to do it all legally. Surely they don't believe they fluked it and another vote would #fail otherwise their claim of respecting the will of the people would be a #joke
The problem is you can't argue on the basis of assumption. The rules are quite clear, parliament at the time could have stipulated it as a "compulsory referendum" and job done. They didn't so it becomes "advisory" by default. It's their own fault for not following the rules. A bit like accidentally fielding an ineligible player in a European football game and then arguing afterwards it was a mistake but UEFA had accepted your team sheet at the time so the result should stand.
All technically true. just as the judges decision was today about Mays executive decision to not put it before parliament. But... Parliament voted the referendum in its format through: parliamentary sovereignty. All MP's had a duty to go back to their constituency during the referendum campaigning and both listen to their constituents and put forward their own personal arguments in favour of a position. remember how all those horrified Labour MP's kept coming on tv saying the Labour party wasn't doing enough because their constituents were hammering them on the door steps about immigration??? So while the ref didn't mirror GE boundaries that did not stop and shouldn't have stopped MP's talking to the people they actually represent. So yes, saying you're ignoring the technical process for the greater good is wrong. just as accepting and participating in a process and then striving to find any and all technicality to thwart the decision because it went against you is wrong. They all come up smelling of **** here based on their motivations...
They're not activating, advocating or arguing against article 50. They're simply pointing out that the government HAS to honour the legal framework of an advisory referendum. IF parliament had wanted a "compulsory referendum" they should have stipulated that BEFORE going to a vote but they categorically did not. It's completely the fault of government so no point blaming the judges for doing their job.
