The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Legal Experts? 10 seconds on Google would have told anyone interested that under our parliamentary system (i.e. representative democracy), referenda can only ever be advisory...there is no such thing as a legally binding referendum.

The parliament could have made the Brexit poll legally binding, like they did with the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system.

[dandi]

	Quote:	Mikers
	But we didnt. We were in Situation A and we voted on staying in A or going to B. Going to B has been stopped by parliament for 3 years now

That's because "going to B" has always been presented as leaving the EU "with a deal", and in particular with a deal that would be better than what we had. This is what the majority of the population were sold and understood (even if it's pure fantasy, as the reality proves today)

Parlament never opposed "going to B" (as in leaving the EU) per se - it did trigger article 50, didn't it? Parliament opposed strongly (and rightly so) leaving without a deal. It also opposed leaving with a very crappy deal, which is what May's deal was. In that sense parliament as a whole has been quite consistent to what the general population actually expected from this whole charade.

This has been said time and time again on this thread, just some people never accept it. THERE IS NO MAJORITY IN THE UK FOR LEAVING WITHOUT A DEAL. There never was, there never will be for the foreseeable future. The parliament reflects that, and any referendum or national election will prove it as well.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Anything we put on here is opinions. I think having another referendum makes it worse, you think we wouldn't be allowed to rejoin on the same terms, which I think is BS. Its a good insight to help understand why people are so angry though. Most of the UK thought they were voting in a referendum which would be enacted. If it turns out that some legal experts triumphantly prove that it was only advisory so it didn't matter a hoot and the little people can just go back to their little lives while the important people who really understand the details of law get things done, I think they might get pretty annoyed. But you can save a post and just skip it if your only going to tell me its all BS again because you know your law just so much better than people like me.

" If it turns out that some legal experts triumphantly prove that it was only advisory", that is not the case here, Parliament announced at the time it was only advisory. Under the UK Constitution mandatory referendums are not allowed because Parliament is Sovereign, not the people.

You can read the Act of Parliament which authorised the referendum here, it clearly states the referendum is not mandatory!

	Quote:
	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. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented,

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	dandi
	That's because "going to B" has always been presented as leaving the EU "with a deal", and in particular with a deal that would be better than what we had. This is what the majority of the population were sold and understood (even if it's pure fantasy, as the reality proves today) Parlament never opposed "going to B" (as in leaving the EU) per se - it did trigger article 50, didn't it? Parliament opposed strongly (and rightly so) leaving without a deal. It also opposed leaving with a very crappy deal, which is what May's deal was. In that sense parliament as a whole has been quite consistent to what the general population actually expected from this whole charade. This has been said time and time again on this thread, just some people never accept it. THERE IS NO MAJORITY IN THE UK FOR LEAVING WITHOUT A DEAL. There never was, there never will be for the foreseeable future. The parliament reflects that, and any referendum or national election will prove it as well.

They might not represent a majority of voters, but it wouldn't surprise me if a majority of those who were persuaded to vote Leave and of those who didn't vote at all or didn't vote Leave but now support Leave could also be persuaded that leaving without a deal is the way to go. If they're driven more by gut feeling than logic, why support leaving with a deal?

	Quote:	Urs Max
	The parliament could have made the Brexit poll legally binding, like they did with the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system.

Not really - Parliament is not allowed to bind its successors. Since Cameron jumped ship immediately after effing the country up, it wouldn't have been valid.

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	Mikers
	...going to B. Going to B has been stopped by parliament for 3 years now...

The way you write it, Parliament - the whole thing - is doing their utmost to avoid Brexit and poor Johnson is a victim of it all. This is not true.

Yes, some factions do not want Brexit at all and they'll keep voting against everything. Others want no deal, which is why they kept voting down May's deal. Others want some sort of a deal and can't make up their minds what it is.

As has been pointed out many times, the current PM voted against the deal that May negotiated. Multiple times. Parliament can't make up its mind, including this PM. He keeps claiming he's got some great deal coming, but the EU says it's hot air. I cannot see how Johnson will get a deal that is better than May's AND that will satisfy enough of Parliament to get a majority. He doesn't even have a majority, and May did!

[dandi]

	Quote:	Reb77Br
	They might not represent a majority of voters, but it wouldn't surprise me if a majority of those who were persuaded to vote Leave and of those who didn't vote at all or didn't vote Leave but now support Leave could also be persuaded that leaving without a deal is the way to go.

Sure. But a new referendum or new elections would be the only acceptable way to confirm this.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Not really - Parliament is not allowed to bind its successors. Since Cameron jumped ship immediately after effing the country up, it wouldn't have been valid.

parliament (legislative) =/= goverment (executive)

Sure, Parliament can alter or void whatever law they like (to the extent it's in its power). The current government however must follow what is currently law; May was bound by the same constitution, laws, and legal precedents BoJo is (excluding whatever changed after she stepped down, obviously).

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	marton
	Under the UK Constitution mandatory referendums are not allowed because Parliament is Sovereign, not the people.

That looks like a nonsequitur. Parliament could have made the result binding beforehand by ordering the government to invoke article 50 in case of a "Leave" result. As things stand PMs did so after the poll, with the same effect.

Which, come to think of it, makes the poll's non-mandatoriness moot as Parliament has decided to act on the result anyway. However, that forces the conclusion that PM's can change their collective mind again, for the time being at any time, and order an extension or revoke the invoking of article 50 whenever they so decide.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Anything we put on here is opinions. I think having another referendum makes it worse, you think we wouldn't be allowed to rejoin on the same terms, which I think is BS.

You can think whatever you like. But the treaty is very clear on what happens in the event of a member deciding to rejoin. And the only way that that can be changed if all 27 plus any new member that join in the meantime agree to it. That means referenda in Denmark, France and Ireland.

This is the basic weakness of the entire BREXIT strategy - the expectation that the EU member will disadvantage themselves and break or twist everything to accommodate the UK.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Holding another referendum until the current result has either been executed or declined doesn't make sense.

Well if the parliament decides to hold another then the previous one is irrelevant at that point.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Well if the parliament decides to hold another then the previous one is irrelevant at that point.

Technically yes, morally no.

Could be an interesting move for BoJo though. A new Brexit referendum with the following options:
1. Leave with a terrible deal
2. Leave with no deal

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	It only seems to be the main war-cry from the right wing press that there will be civil unrest and the UK will descend into anarchy, but will it?

I'm pretty sure there would be riots if a 2nd Referendum overturned the result of the 1st. The difference is, nearly every major city in the UK voted remain the first time, so protesters/rioters would be coming in from outside the cities. Liverpool have a recent proud history of not even letting these people out of Lime St station, and who's going to care about a riot in Padiham! Maybe I'm playing it down, but a short spell of a few people kicking off is far preferable to the entire country suffering.

[Castro]

	Quote:
	I'm not so sure it WILL make things much worse TBH. It only seems to be the main war-cry from the right wing press that there will be civil unrest and the UK will descend into anarchy, but will it?

The national grid could be brought down.. there will be some furious boiling of kettles.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Castro
	The national grid could be brought down.. there will be some furious boiling of kettles.

This might not be far from reality, at least for NI. The Irish grid is in the process of being hooked up directly to France to maintain the internal electricity market. In the event of a no deal the surplus that used to go north will start heading south.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Technically yes, morally no. Could be an interesting move for BoJo though. A new Brexit referendum with the following options: 1. Leave with a terrible deal 2. Leave with no deal

There are very little morals in the HOC these days and Boris no longer has the numbers to call a referendum never mind one with such a loaded agenda.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I'm pretty sure there would be riots if a 2nd Referendum overturned the result of the 1st. The difference is, nearly every major city in the UK voted remain the first time, so protesters/rioters would be coming in from outside the cities. Liverpool have a recent proud history of not even letting these people out of Lime St station, and who's going to care about a riot in Padiham! Maybe I'm playing it down, but a short spell of a few people kicking off is far preferable to the entire country suffering.

there are already a number of these booked for 2019 by Extinction Rebellion so some sort of City Riot rota would need to be set up so that each week only the right country bumpkins turned up to protest in cities and not their lovely villages which are paid for by taxes from city workers.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	parliament (legislative) =/= goverment (executive) Sure, Parliament can alter or void whatever law they like (to the extent it's in its power). The current government however must follow what is currently law; May was bound by the same constitution, laws, and legal precedents BoJo is (excluding whatever changed after she stepped down, obviously).

Parliament would have had to vote for constitutional change (if that's even possible) to make referenda binding. That clearly isn't on the cards, therefore as I mentioned before, without constitutional change, Cameron could never bind his successors with a legally enforceable referendum.

The best you can get is what happened / is happening now, where the incumbent government has said it will follow the referendum results. In the extremely unlikely event of a Lib Dem election win though, they would tear it up and revoke article 50, and would be entitled to do so, legally.

	Quote:	Mikers
	there are already a number of these booked for 2019 by Extinction Rebellion so some sort of City Riot rota would need to be set up so that each week only the right country bumpkins turned up to protest in cities and not their lovely villages which are paid for by taxes from city workers.

What do you feel is subsidised in lovely villages? I grew up in such a place and you still had to pay council tax for local services, which were virtually zero. There wasn't ANY form of public transport, no public services (e.g. library) and your bins were emptied every two weeks if I remember correctly (back in the days before separate bins for recycling etc).

In fact, I'd be amazed if the place wasn't a massive net contributor to the taxman.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	What do you feel is subsidised in lovely villages? I grew up in such a place and you still had to pay council tax for local services, which were virtually zero. There wasn't ANY form of public transport, no public services (e.g. library) and your bins were emptied every two weeks if I remember correctly (back in the days before separate bins for recycling etc). In fact, I'd be amazed if the place wasn't a massive net contributor to the taxman.

Roads, Police, Ambulances, Firemen, Telephone lines, streetlights, Hospital Services, Schools etc etc

A third of all tax comes from London.