Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Chunketh]

6 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Ah, so we were being naive all along!! Naive to believe there was still a little bit of honesty in the system.

 

What next? GE results declared unsafe? National emergency declared - elections suspended? It's all resting on a bit of naivety we're still clinging desperately on to.

Very, very dangerous ground ...

 

 

I think the problem is that "leave" was pretty much undefined. Probably because its (to some/most people) pretty complex.

People on facebook were commenting that the ballot boxes used pencils, which speaks volumes about their previous voting experience. Do you suppose that a non-binary choice would have been easy for them?

[Sheeple Splinter]

14 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I probably can't point you to someone in official capacity that made that clear. But that failing doesn't change the legal situation. As a consumer of goods and services in the UK you do get certain protections against naivety, but not as a company and not as a voter.

The key point is that Parliament didn't vote to give the Executive the Power to modify treaties, it merely passed an act saying it would hold an in-out referendum.  It might place a moral obligation on MPs, but it certainly doesn't place a legal one on them.

My view, and I am trying not to be a bigoted leaver is that there are only 2 democratic solutions - one involves a vote of current MPs on article  50 and the other involves a vote of future MPs and a future Parliament on article 50 (i.e. a General Election).  Parliament is Sovereign, and a future Parliament is always Sovereign over a previous Parliament, i.e. Parliament can't bind a Future Parliament.

There were a lot of naive MP's as well as David Dimbleby in the early hours of June 24th:

https://youtu.be/CEWiMzC6GNg

Worth listening to the 180 seconds to hear both sides' comments. 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

11 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Ah, so we were being naive all along!! Naive to believe there was still a little bit of honesty in the system.

 

What next? GE results declared unsafe? National emergency declared - elections suspended? It's all resting on a bit of naivety we're still clinging desperately on to.

Very, very dangerous ground ...

No, not at all.

The only dangerous ground seems to be people not understanding how the system works.

I am perfectly happy with a valid Parliamentary decision - what I am more worried about is the rabid part of the Brexit lobby trying to skips steps in the democratic process. It is fairly obvious to me that May either needs to pass a bill through the current parliament, or hold an immediate general election.

What is undemocratic about that?

[Principia]

41 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

The government IS parliament! It's not an individual or a committee, or a group of ministers.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-government/

[thecrashingisles]

47 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

" the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU.^[10] European Union law would remain enforceable in the United Kingdom unless the European" 

...not Parliament ...this says it all..................

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia if I were you.  The act doesn't say that.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted/data.htm

[DiggerUK]

I suggest that people use the time between now and the appeal to the Supreme Court, to swat up on anything they can find on UK constitutional history and law, and just shut up for now.

You will find that laws can only be enabled or dissolved by the legislative body. Referendums count for nothing under the legislative process.  The legislative assembly rules the roost not you.

I can only repeat my argument that the referendum counted for nothing beyond a giant opinion poll..._

[warpig]

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

4 minutes ago, DiggerUK said:

I suggest that people use the time between now and the appeal to the Supreme Court, to swat up on anything they can find on UK constitutional history and law, and just shut up for now.

You will find that laws can only be enabled or dissolved by the legislative body. Referendums count for nothing under the legislative process.  The legislative assembly rules the roost not you.

I can only repeat my argument that the referendum counted for nothing beyond a giant opinion poll..._

Well said.

 

[billybong]

Quote

" In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU.[10] European Union law would remain enforceable in the United Kingdom unless the European Communities Act 1972 were repealed."

It seems that Parliament was consulted and agreed to allow the electorate to decide whether to Leave the eu - and if a Leave vote it was agreed by Parliament in the Referendum Act that the decision was advisory and non binding on the government (not Parliament).

The government would then decide "whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union".

1. Whether to invoke Article 50 - yes the government will invoke Article 50.

2.  When to invoke Article 50 - the government says before the end of March 2017.

3. Under what circumstances - the government says it's currently discussing the circumstances.

A description of government

https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom

Government is separate to Parliament but government is accountable to and responsible to Parliament.  Some would say government performed those accountabilities and responsibilities with Parliament's involvement with the Referendum Act.

So May seems to have a reasonable case and maybe should appeal.  I'm not sure that the judges decision is correct under the circumstances but if the legalities say it has to go to Parliament then take it to Parliament - then just take it from there.  The sooner the better.  If it comes to a general election then the people can decide again - nobody said it was going to be easy and straightforward or that the bats would be straight.

Edited November 3, 2016 by billybong

[onlyme2]

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-binding.shtml

Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary said:-

 

"Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House." (emphasis added)

 

[Chunketh]

3 minutes ago, onlyme2 said:

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-binding.shtml

Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary said:-

 

"Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House." (emphasis added)

 

What he said (happily) does not define law.

Our elected representatives will get to decide this, then we get to decide what to do with them. I hate to say it, but Brexit means Brexit means the square root of zero.

[South Lorne]

21 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia if I were you.  The act doesn't say that.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted/data.htm

...this was quoted to me by a 'trougher' who stated the link quoted 'parliament' should 'decide' when it clearly states 'the government' should decide when to invoke article 50 after a leave vote ..which is in line with parliament 6:1 majority vote for the government to accept the outcome of the referendum before the referendum to act accordingly ....your link which you clearly have not read involves about 20 pages of how to conduct the referendum with detail upon detail about expenses and donations permitted ...have a look for yourself ..a clear 'red herring' worthy of Red Ed.....just as bad as the 'Judges' pro remain stance pushed through by hidden VI's flying the standard  through some publicity starved 'front' persona...where are the people who put up the money for this VI troughers charter ?....and do they think they can take on the people........?.....

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, South Lorne said:

...this was quoted to me by a 'trougher' who stated the link quoted 'parliament' should 'decide' when it clearly states 'the government' should decide when to invoke article 50 after a leave vote ..which is in line with parliament 6:1 majority vote for the government to accept the outcome of the referendum before the referendum to act accordingly ....your link which you clearly have not read involves about 20 pages of how to conduct the referendum with detail upon detail about expenses and donations permitted ...have a look for yourself ..a clear 'red herring' worthy of Red Ed.....just as bad as the 'Judges' pro remain stance pushed through by hidden VI's flying the standard  through some publicity starved 'front' persona...where are the people who put up the money for this VI troughers charter ?....and do they think they can take on the people........?.....

I linked to the text of the referendum act itself.  That is the only thing that counts in law.

[South Lorne]

14 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

What he said (happily) does not define law.

Our elected representatives will get to decide this, then we get to decide what to do with them. I hate to say it, but Brexit means Brexit means the square root of zero.

...BREXIT means breaking away from our slavery  governance under the unelected ....you may live with this slavery ...I will not.....

[South Lorne]

11 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I linked to the text of the referendum act itself.  That is the only thing that counts in law.

 

11 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I linked to the text of the referendum act itself.  That is the only thing that counts in law.

...have you read the link ...I don't think so ..there is nothing in your link to define how the process moves forward ...if you can find it ..quote it...very high and mighty "That is the only thing that counts in law." ....define it before you make such statements....and why  imply the law should protect 'troughers' in a club  ruled by the  'unelected' ..there are many fishy smells here....  ..

Edited November 3, 2016 by South Lorne

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

..there is nothing in your link to define how the process moves forward

Has the penny not dropped?  There is nothing that defines how the process moves forwards.

[South Lorne]

46 minutes ago, DiggerUK said:

I suggest that people use the time between now and the appeal to the Supreme Court, to swat up on anything they can find on UK constitutional history and law, and just shut up for now.

You will find that laws can only be enabled or dissolved by the legislative body. Referendums count for nothing under the legislative process.  The legislative assembly rules the roost not you.

I can only repeat my argument that the referendum counted for nothing beyond a giant opinion poll..._

...there speaks a true 'trougher' ......any MP who does not back the will of the people will be finished....Government and parliament pass laws....a General Election will decide the true way forward.....the self appointed delusional elites have had their day...... 

[Confusion of VIs]

34 minutes ago, billybong said:

It seems that Parliament was consulted and agreed to allow the electorate to decide whether to Leave the eu - and if a Leave vote it was agreed by Parliament in the Referendum Act that the decision was advisory and non binding on the government (not Parliament).

The government would then decide "whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union".

1. Whether to invoke Article 50 - yes the government will invoke Article 50.

2.  When to invoke Article 50 - the government says before the end of March 2017.

3. Under what circumstances - the government says it's currently discussing the circumstances.

A description of government

https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom

Government is separate to Parliament but government is accountable to and responsible to Parliament.  Some would say government performed those accountabilities and responsibilities with Parliament's involvement with the Referendum Act.

So May seems to have a reasonable case and maybe should appeal.  I'm not sure that the judges decision is correct under the circumstances but if the legalities say it has to go to Parliament then take it to Parliament - then just take it from there.  The sooner the better.  If it comes to a general election then the people can decide again - nobody said it was going to be easy and straightforward or that the bats would be straight.

I think in this instance the judges bats were straight. Not sure about anyone else's, or your qualifications as a legal eagle capable of dissecting 3 high court judges considered opinion.

Anyway while it won't effect the Brexit outcome, it's throwing some light on the governments incompetent handling of the issue which surely would be welcomed by any objective person.

[Byron]

PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Gina Miller

[Digsby]

On 01/11/2016 at 8:58 AM, Riedquat said:

I am not Riedquat but I am a reflection in Riedquat's mirror. I am the shadow that looms in the corner in those quiet moments of reflection when just for a second anything seems possible, the real and the imaginary merge into one, then suddenly, as if in revulsion, a spasm wakes one from that reverie like a bolt of lightning permeating every nerve of the body for just the slightest fraction of a second.

Or, one might be stuck in the HPC quote box from hell, unable to reply but only edit somebody else's post, no voice of your own: a prisoner.

Sort it the ****** out fubra

[South Lorne]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Has the penny not dropped?  There is nothing that defines how the process moves forwards.

....you are avoiding the issue ..you suggested it was in the link (good to read it first)  ..why send the link and not quote from it.....the 'process' under discussion is who invokes article 50...Parliament voted 6:1 it should be the Government before the referendum took place ....to state "There is nothing that defines how the process moves forwards" is not very helpful , when it is not true ....the judges are challenging the power of Parliaments 6:1 majority ...that is a serious matter......

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, South Lorne said:

....you are avoiding the issue ..you suggested it was in the link (good to read it first)  ..why send the link and not quote from it.....the 'process' under discussion is who invokes article 50...Parliament voted 6:1 it should be the Government before the referendum took place ....to state "There is nothing that defines how the process moves forwards" is not very helpful , when it is not true ....the judges are challenging the power of Parliaments 6:1 majority ...that is a serious matter......

I'm sorry but it is true.  The referendum, legally speaking, was just a big opinion poll.

[South Lorne]

6 minutes ago, Byron said:

PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Gina Miller

...no ..she is front for the people who put up the challenge to protect their vested interests....

[Confusion of VIs]

4 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

...there speaks a true 'trougher' ......any MP who does not back the will of the people will be finished....Government and parliament pass laws....a General Election will decide the true way forward.....the self appointed delusional elites have had their day...... 

 

25 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

...this was quoted to me by a 'trougher' who stated the link quoted 'parliament' should 'decide' when it clearly states 'the government' should decide when to invoke article 50 after a leave vote ..which is in line with parliament 6:1 majority vote for the government to accept the outcome of the referendum before the referendum to act accordingly ....your link which you clearly have not read involves about 20 pages of how to conduct the referendum with detail upon detail about expenses and donations permitted ...have a look for yourself ..a clear 'red herring' worthy of Red Ed.....just as bad as the 'Judges' pro remain stance pushed through by hidden VI's flying the standard  through some publicity starved 'front' persona...where are the people who put up the money for this VI troughers charter ?....and do they think they can take on the people........?.....

Why are you devoting all this effort and bile defending May's incompetent handling of Brexit.

She knew that the referendum was advisory and would have to be confirmed by parliament (because it was advisory, the clue's in the word advisory) yet she tried to push it through without a vote relying on a centuries old view of Royal prerogative.

She should just get on with it, state what a successful Brexit will look like and have the vote which will easily pass. The reason she doesn't want to do this is because it will give us, the people, a measure by which to assess whether she has succeeded or failed in the negotiations.

 

[South Lorne]

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

I'm sorry but it is true.  The referendum, legally speaking, was just a big opinion poll.

 

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

I'm sorry but it is true.  The referendum, legally speaking, was just a big opinion poll.

...legality ..like economics ...is a matter of opinion...you stick to yours ..I'll stick to mine....