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

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	marton
	Even the Telegraph is getting worried! "Parliament must not prevent Brexit', says David Davis amid growing unrest in the Conservative Party as pro-Europe Tories side with Labour and SNP MPs" Source

Nonetheless due course should be followed, otherwise invoking article 50 will certainly be challenged before court.

And no, the EU has no say on what Brexit actually means, that's a national decision. They do have a say of course on the framework and conditions that will follow, but that's a different thing.

[Sbrinz]

	Quote:	marton
	<< snip >> Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said there were likely to be economic risks and a “legal nightmare” caused by Brexit, as he argued there was a longstanding convention that major treaty changes must be approved by parliament rather than royal prerogative.

Today is the legal challenge for Brexit in the High Court, London.

'Does the Cabinet have the power under the royal prerogative to call out clause 50, or must Parliament decide'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37639307

[marton]

Corbyn actually made some good points during PMQ in Parliament yesterday.

Meanwhile in the real world "German trade bodies back Angela Merkel's tough stance over Brexit".
Source

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Even the Telegraph is getting worried! "Parliament must not prevent Brexit', says David Davis amid growing unrest in the Conservative Party as pro-Europe Tories side with Labour and SNP MPs"

If parliament agreed to a non binding referendum, there is clearly an argument to suggest that they fully expected to be the ones making the final decision, one assumes however that they expected to be confirming a vote to remain!

Now we have the crazy situation where an elected parliament might over rule a referendum versus a PM who seems to want ignore parliament and act on a non binding referendum... So much for the sovereign parliament style democracy.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	If parliament agreed to a non binding referendum, there is clearly an argument to suggest that they fully expected to be the ones making the final decision, one assumes however that they expected to be confirming a vote to remain! Now we have the crazy situation where an elected parliament might over rule a referendum versus a PM who seems to want ignore parliament and act on a non binding referendum... So much for the sovereign parliament style democracy.

I dont understand what the referendum was for if parliament are going to vote on it anyway. If MP's are now going to vote on whether we actually do it, why didnt we just do that in the first place because what the people think is just an opinion ? we should have saved a load of money by just hiring a few people with clipboards outside tube stations to get a feeling instead.

	Quote:	Mikers
	we should have saved a load of money by just hiring a few people with clipboards outside tube stations to get a feeling instead.

We'd have gotten a better result that way anyhow

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I dont understand what the referendum was for if parliament are going to vote on it anyway. If MP's are now going to vote on whether we actually do it, why didnt we just do that in the first place because what the people think is just an opinion ? we should have saved a load of money by just hiring a few people with clipboards outside tube stations to get a feeling instead.

Invoking article 50, as mentioned in article 50 itself, is to be disregarded unless it happens lawfully.

The vote was held due to a law created by parliament; however the law contains no provision to follow up on the result. If you think this was the correct procedure (if not the vote's result is immaterial anyway), it follows that it takes an additional law to have government lawfully invoke article 50.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Invoking article 50, as mentioned in article 50 itself, is to be disregarded unless it happens lawfully. The vote was held due to a law created by parliament; however the law contains no provision to follow up on the result. If you think this was the correct procedure (if not the vote's result is immaterial anyway), it follows that it takes an additional law to have government lawfully invoke article 50.

so roughly translated, its was pointless and you should have just let the MP's vote it down in the first place. it can be dressed up as a wolf all you want by talking about additional laws being needed and the correct procedure being followed but ultimately everyone knows, even a student could tell you, that getting a vote in parliament is to stop the process because more MP's are against it than for it. If thats what you want, then you shouldnt have had the thing in the first place, you should have just said "your right, we need to vote on leaving europe and your democratically elected MP's will vote on that". they'd vote it down and that would have been the end of it.

we could have given all the cash spent on the referendum to charity.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Mikers
	so roughly translated, its was pointless and you should have just let the MP's vote it down in the first place.

Before the vote the clear majority of PMs were Remainers. It seems to me that has changed by quite a bit, and I doubt Leave can be ignored, especially after May's "Brexit means Brexit". But that doesn't change due procedure.

Actually I think it's in Leaver's best interest as well: Otherwise the creation of a law may be forced by the judges. And that would create additional uncertainty, and perhaps either delay the process or leave less time to bargain with a certain starting point.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	If parliament agreed to a non binding referendum, there is clearly an argument to suggest that they fully expected to be the ones making the final decision, one assumes however that they expected to be confirming a vote to remain! Now we have the crazy situation where an elected parliament might over rule a referendum versus a PM who seems to want ignore parliament and act on a non binding referendum... So much for the sovereign parliament style democracy.

It could get even more complicated yet. Suppose after all the preparatory work has been done, parliament decides not to invoke article 50, or even worse, decides to invoke it with conditions or modifications attached and the EU decides to reject that modified invocation. the UK could be in a limboesque situation as to whether or not they are still members.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Before the vote the clear majority of PMs were Remainers. It seems to me that has changed by quite a bit, and I doubt Leave can be ignored, especially after May's "Brexit means Brexit". But that doesn't change due procedure.

Ya Ya DE blah Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya DE blah Reverse Brexit Ya DE Ya Ya blah.

In other words.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Before the vote the clear majority of PMs were Remainers. It seems to me that has changed by quite a bit, and I doubt Leave can be ignored, especially after May's "Brexit means Brexit". But that doesn't change due procedure.

Some MPs may have shifted from the remain camp into the leave camp, or at least into the "I don't agree but let's respect the will of the people" camp.

But I don't know if sufficient MPs will have made that shift. I think there is a real probability they could still vote to reject the whole thing.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	amogles
	Some MPs may have shifted from the remain camp into the leave camp, or at least into the "I don't agree but let's respect the will of the people" camp. But I don't know if sufficient MPs will have made that shift. I think there is a real probability they could still vote to reject the whole thing.

For a laugh run through it. Judge rules mps must vote. Mps vote to remain. What do you do next given 52% of the people voted to leave?

It's a real question.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Mikers
	For a laugh run through it. Judge rules mps must vote. Mps vote to remain. What do you do next given 52% of the people voted to leave? It's a real question.

I don't know.

A massive upturn in UKIP support maybe?

[Mikers]

	Quote:	amogles
	I don't know. A massive upturn in UKIP support maybe?

it doesnt work. the government put in the referendum the line "the government will implement what you choose". so it has to, even if its worse for the country.

If they had put "The government will implement what you choose, but be aware at each stage they will vote on every aspect and if defeated might not implement it, it sort of depends on what gets defeated and when and whether we can come up with an alternative." then it would all have been a lot clearer I expect to your average man in Bolton.

Well done this man

http://www.lbc.co.uk/…/repentant-lea...voter-chokes…/

[amogles]

	Quote:	Mikers
	it doesnt work. the government put in the referendum the line "the government will implement what you choose". so it has to, even if its worse for the country. If they had put "The government will implement what you choose, but be aware at each stage they will vote on every aspect and if defeated might not implement it, it sort of depends on what gets defeated and when and whether we can come up with an alternative." then it would all have been a lot clearer I expect to your average man in Bolton.

But in that case, if the judge says that parliament must have a vote, he is effectively saying they can vote but the outcome must be yes, and by extension if it isn't they will simply ignore that and pretend they have a majority anyway.

Sounds like Soviet-era democracy.

Otherwise they might say the question was mis-stated and misleading and that the government didn't have the right to formulate the question that way and therefore the entire vote is invalid.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I dont understand what the referendum was for if parliament are going to vote on it anyway. If MP's are now going to vote on whether we actually do it, why didnt we just do that in the first place because what the people think is just an opinion ?

We need to do it to reinforce the legality of the situation, which is on very unstable ground at the moment.

	Quote:	Mikers
	we should have saved a load of money by just hiring a few people with clipboards outside tube stations to get a feeling instead.

Then the opinion would have been remain. I don't believe many, if any of the Leave areas have tube stations. How very London-centric of you.

	Quote:	Mikers
	For a laugh run through it. Judge rules mps must vote. Mps vote to remain. What do you do next given 52% of the people voted to leave? It's a real question.

I have absolutely no shadow of a doubt that if the referendum was run again now, knowing what we do now, the result would be Remain, and by a reasonable margin.

Repeating myself here, but in the constituency where my vote was cast, the MP was part of the Leave campaign, but the result was 44,086 Remain and 37,706 Leave.

This conflict of interests cuts both ways.

	Quote:	Mikers
	For a laugh run through it. Judge rules mps must vote. Mps vote to remain. What do you do next given 52% of the people voted to leave? It's a real question.

You give them a new and binding referendum but this time with the requirement that any campaigner caught lying or wilfully misleading does 20 years in the pokey.

Or something like that.

Think how many politicians we wouldn't have to bother about any more....we could start with anyone that ever set foot in that bus....

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Mikers
	it doesnt work. the government put in the referendum the line "the government will implement what you choose". so it has to, even if its worse for the country.

No it doesn't! I'll repeat again... They omitted the word 'majority'. We can speculate on whether that omission was deliberate or not, and I strongly suspect the former because it's a classic 'get out' clause. There will have been an very expensive team devising the exact and precise wording of the ballot paper, and I'm not inclined to believe this was an oversight on their part. As the wording stands, the government also has to act upon what 48% of the voting populace chose.

Now do you begin to see why the legality of this situation is rocky at best?