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

	Quote:
	Edit - by your own argument parliament should clearly decide on Article 50 but possibly not on any negotiated settlement arising out of it.

Because they can't. Art 50 is a one way street. Once it's triggered there's no turning back. A deal can't be negotiated a deal until Art. 50 is triggered. What exactly is there for Parliament to vote on? If they start debating every single point of the UK's exit strategy before Art. 50 then this process will be dragged out for years, which is not good for the UK or the EU.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	"why they made it advisory and not binding" The British constitution does not allow for a binding referendum; read the House of Commons briefing paper on this topic.

Given that this is only the 3rd nationwide referendum in the UK's history I doubt there's anything in the British constitution that says one way or the other. It's simply Parliament deciding for itself whether a referendum should be binding or not. Given their wariness over holding any referendum is it any wonder they're not brave enough to hold one that would be binding. They could if they wanted to, it simply needs to pass legislation to allow it. But they won't. Now there's a surprise.

	Quote:	marton
	"why they made it advisory and not binding" The British constitution does not allow for a binding referendum; read the House of Commons briefing paper on this topic.

Read the what's in the red box. Slowly and out loud.

Whatever legal loopholes Remain wish to use, it doesn't change the fact that the British people were under the impression this was a binding referendum. These cowardly tactics won't change the eventual outcome.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Read the what's in the red box. Slowly and out loud. Whatever legal loopholes Remain wish to use, it doesn't change the fact that the British people were under the impression this was a binding referendum. These cowardly tactics won't change the eventual outcome.

"the British people were under the impression this was a binding referendum."
No, only the subset who failed to read the small print

Sadly most people just read the headlines and never dig deeper to get the facts.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Read the what's in the red box. Slowly and out loud.

As per today's ruling (which of course isn't the final word) the government didn't have the authority to make such a promise.

It's as if I asked EF members what should happen to your house, adding "what you decide will happen". I have no authority over you or your possessions hence the promise is worthless.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Read the what's in the red box. Slowly and out loud. Whatever legal loopholes Remain wish to use, it doesn't change the fact that the British people were under the impression this was a binding referendum.

I'm a British person.

I was never, for one moment, under the impression that the referendum was legally binding.

I was never, for one moment, under the impression that Theresa disMay was able to invoke Article 50 without either winning a General Election of having a Parliamentary vote on the matter.

I did take legal counsel on the matter and had that much confirmed a few days after Cameron resigned.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	As per today's ruling (which of course isn't the final word) the government didn't have the authority to make such a promise.

Yet they spent 9 million making it. And none of these were brought up during the campaign.

Nevertheless the outcome will remain the same. All that's been confirmed today is that Parliamentary representative democracy is not democratic.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	James says the court had no option as Parliament are the people we elected to run the country. Speaking on his LBC show following the verdict, James said: "When she came up with Brexit means Brexit, she even got that wrong. "The idea that she could trigger it, using the royal prerogative, without talking to our sovereign elected democratic parliament, the seat of democracy in this country. She even got that wrong.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...brexit-ruling/

[amogles]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	As per today's ruling (which of course isn't the final word) the government didn't have the authority to make such a promise. It's as if I asked EF members what should happen to your house, adding "what you decide will happen". I have no authority over you or your possessions hence the promise is worthless.

In that case, the entire referendum was just a massive opinion poll, and the likes of Junker and Merkel have no right to demand Britain invoke article 50 soon, or indeed at all.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Yet they spent 9 million making it. And none of these were brought up during the campaign. Nevertheless the outcome will remain the same. All that's been confirmed today is that Parliamentary representative democracy is not democratic.

Bollocks!

This would most likely have not been the case if Cameron had stayed in office, because then it would have been a democratically elected PM triggering Article 50. This has mainly come about because, as I keep telling people but they didn't believe me, Theresa disMay IS NOT a democratically elected PM. She is in power by Royal prerogative and as such, does not have the power to change the laws of a sovereign nation.


There are only two courses of action open now that I can see. Either, have a General Election or have a Parliamentary vote on the matter. At this point in the whole sorry saga, those are the only ways that duly elected MPs and a PM can legally trigger Article 50.


If you wanted all UK sovereignty to return to the UK, then get used to this because that's how the law works in a sovereign nation. British judges upholding British law and the British constitution. You wanted it! You've got it!

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	amogles
	In that case, the entire referendum was just a massive opinion poll, and the likes of Junker and Merkel have no right to demand Britain invoke article 50 soon, or indeed at all.

thats exactly what it was, a non binding referendum that they said they would respect the result, of course 'they' didn't think they would lose so no plans where ever made

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Theresa disMay IS NOT a democratically elected PM.

Ermmmm WTF you on about, we don't elect the PM of the UK, we only elect our local MP, the political parties elect there own leaders so she IS democratically elected

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	amogles
	In that case, the entire referendum was just a massive opinion poll, and the likes of Junker and Merkel have no right to demand Britain invoke article 50 soon, or indeed at all.

Come on!!!

You're not thick and there's no way you can pin this on Merkel and Junker! It always was a massive opinion poll. Didn't you see the several hundred posts in this thread saying the same?

I'm not saying "We told you so", but why did it take so long to join the dots?

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	bigblue2
	Ermmmm WTF you on about, we don't elect the PM of the UK, we only elect our local MP, the political parties elect there own leaders so she IS democratically elected

She wasn't leader of the party at the time of the last General Election and only became PM because her opponent dropped out. Therefore, she wasn't elected by the people or her party. It might seem like a minor nuance, but when it comes to making legal decisions affecting the entire future of the country, it's vital that she is legally and duly elected for the role she currently fills. All she has to do is have a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, and we can all carry on as normal until the next GE.

To have someone in power by Royal prerogative making such a hefty legal decision is way too close to the throne and cannot happen in a sovereign democracy.

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	She wasn't leader of the party at the time of the last General Election and only became PM because her opponent dropped out. Therefore, she wasn't elected by the people or her party. It might seem like a minor nuance, but when it comes to making legal decisions affecting the entire future of the country, it's vital that she is legally and duly elected for the role she currently fills. All she has to do is have a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, and we can all carry on as normal until the next GE. To have someone in power by Royal prerogative making such a hefty legal decision is way too close to the throne and cannot happen in a sovereign democracy.

she was elected by the people in her constituency, she was elected by her party, the fact her only remaining opponent dropped out before the last round of voting is neither here not there, she would have won even if they had the vote, probably why she dropped out (and of course her stupid interview)

she is the prime minister, there is no blurred lines, half measure

yes, she could call another election, but what a waste of time, effort and money that would be, the last thing the UK needs is an even weaker opposition

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	bigblue2
	she was elected by her party, the fact her only remaining opponent dropped out before the last round of voting is neither here not there, she would have won even if they had the vote, probably why she dropped out (and of course her stupid interview)

Legally, it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

I'm not a solicitor, but my brother was for his entire career. He and his former colleagues all say, from the moment Cameron resigned, the game changed, and that's been borne out by the High Court judges today. Read the full statement regarding their decision.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Read the what's in the red box. Slowly and out loud. Whatever legal loopholes Remain wish to use, it doesn't change the fact that the British people were under the impression this was a binding referendum. These cowardly tactics won't change the eventual outcome.

Yes, they were also told 350m a day would be given to the NHS !

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Legally, it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

no it doesn't

not one bit

Good ole gordon brown didn't even have an opponent for his leadership / pm election, didn't mean he was only half a pm (ok he was, but for different reasons)

[Blueangel]

But he didn't try to do something that would change the country to such an effect without a Parliamentary vote. He just got on with the job of running the country.

Take it up with the High Court judges if you disagree.

[bigblue2]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	But he didn't try to do something that would change the country to such an effect without a Parliamentary vote. He just got on with the job of running the country. Take it up with the High Court judges if you disagree.

the high court isn't saying SHE can't do it, they are saying NO PM can do it without a parliament vote, would have been the same if Dave was still PM