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

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Very good question, short answer is Ted Heath committed treason by taking Britain into the Common Market. It's not as if the electorate had voted for this & he went against his better judgement.

Ah, but the sovereign Parliament agreed to it.

Oh my! I googled "Edward Heath Common Market" and look what I found. Seems Parliament is not sovereign after all, but the people are.

"Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'.

However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes'. But that isn't true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey's `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution' published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested'. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.' Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'.

In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn't just another Act of Parliament. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.' Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.)"

And for those of you who moan about UKIP lying - well ...

"The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath's constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson's referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued' membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.)"

"Britain's entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty.

Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate.

Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson's election tactics.) The reward of £35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome."

"But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy.

Because, officially, we never joined.

An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club."

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

I hope the guy who wrote this is still alive. He must be a very happy person to finally see the UK on its way out of the EU.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The difference is that in most other functioning democracies the second house is elected.

Really? The US and CH aside, can you give me a double-digit number of examples where the parliament is elected directly? I.e. the person is elected, rather than the party voted for.

	Quote:
	Well if that were the case how did the UK end up committed to an EU that the voters apparently did not agree with... and of course given the voters opposition to unelected bodies making their laws it would seem that it has had it's day if voters are consistent...

	Quote:
	It's supposed to be a representational democracy, only it doesn't represent.

Why are the people the monarch's subjects rather than citizens? For how long has the UK been a democracy?

[Medea Fleecestealer]

The answer to that is never. It's a constitutional monarchy. Can also be known as a Parliamentary monarchy.

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

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Really? The US and CH aside, can you give me a double-digit number of examples where the parliament is elected directly? I.e. the person is elected, rather than the party voted for.

Whether it's a transferable vote or directly elected isn't a particular concern. How many of these second house have seats that are taken for life?

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Why are the people the monarch's subjects rather than citizens? For how long has the UK been a democracy?

Personally, I'd have rid of the monarchy too.

[baboon]

I'm getting seriously worried. Loz has now written 2 posts that I agree with

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Personally, I'd have rid of the monarchy too.

Why? So we can have a sterling leader like Trump as President? No thank you! Or do you just want a nobody placeholder as so many Presidents are while the Prime Minister is the one who wields the true power?

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The undemocratic House of Lords acting undemocratically. Well if they do, there's always this. Time the House of Lords were abolished anyway. If anyone wants a good laugh have a read of this sob story in the Graun. First comment pretty much sums it up. All the Remainers were so happy when Gina Miller won her court case. "A victory for democracy" they called it. A waste of time would have been a better description. The bill is exactly the same as if it would have been put through via Royal Prerogative.

Not a waste of time.
Presidents and Prime Ministers are not above the law. If they break the law then they have to be hauled back otherwise next time they will be doing something worse.

And next time they would be able to say, no problem!, we already established the precedent.

Neither the UK nor the US want dictators (I hope)!

[marton]

	Quote:	baboon
	When we run out of fossil fuel and if renewables/fusion don't work out, there ain't going to be 7 billion people on this planet for very long if we have to go back to horse and cart.

Good point

	Quote:
	A large artificial lake in the Balkan state of Bosnia and Herzegovina totally vanished this month due to hydropower and with it an estimated 2 million fish. Normally, the lake is 30 kilometres long, around a kilometre wide with a depth of about 70 metres So it came as a surprise to local people, especially fishers, to see the lake completely drained last week, and with it all its life gone, too. The discharge was carried out largely last month by power firm Elektroprivreda BiH, which says it was needed to maintain electricity production.

Depends what you define as renewable!

Source

	Quote:	marton
	Not a waste of time. Presidents and Prime Ministers are not above the law. If they break the law then they have to be hauled back otherwise next time they will be doing something worse. And next time they would be able to say, no problem!, we already established the precedent. Neither the UK nor the US want dictators (I hope)!

You've made the mistake of assuming this court case was brought about due to concern over parliament's sovereignty

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Why? So we can have a sterling leader like Trump as President? No thank you! Or do you just want a nobody placeholder as so many Presidents are while the Prime Minister is the one who wields the true power?

I know it's an unpopular view, but I just don't see the need for them. It's such a backward concept that Brits somehow cling to for God only knows why.

We talk about privilege, and this family is the most privileged of them of all. "It's a hard job, I don't know if I could do it" I hear you say. Well good! Thanks to the bygone system that's in place, you'll never get the chance.

Then there's all the unnecessary pomp of it all. The world looks on with bemused fascination when the old bag is dragged out for Trooping the Colour every year. Was there ever a bigger waste of money? And there's supercilious gestures to the plebs, "Oh there's a royal wedding so you're entitled to a day off work". And what's worse is the entire population falls for it hook, line and sinker, every. single. time.

They release family photographs and the nation goes all warm and gooey. WHY?! There's a legion of journalists that follow them around everywhere to report what they had for breakfast. I just don't get it.

"Well they're awfully good for tourism". Well France cut off the head of their king and they receive more tourists than anyone.

Britain still has a dreadful class system that the rest of Europe managed to do away with long ago. A good proportion of this problem stems from the monarchy and the feudal system that still exists to this day (don't even get me started on land ownership). Until there's radical change then Britain will continue to be ruled by these elites.

	Quote:	baboon
	I'm getting seriously worried. Loz has now written 2 posts that I agree with

Haha, you think I'm some sort of hard right radical. I'm really not.

[Sandgrounder]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I know it's an unpopular view, but I just don't see the need for them. It's such a backward concept that Brits somehow cling to for God only knows why.

You realise that the UK isn't the only country on earth with a monarchy, don't you?

Maybe it's because the UK monarchy is so popular (or is it the obsessive media making such a big song and dance about them every other day? ) that everyone sees them as fair game to pull to pieces for "god knows why".

The kings and queens of the other European countries (or even the handful of ROW monarchies) don't really come in for such intense international criticism, do they?

Can you imagine telling another country that they should just shut down hundreds of years of tradition which has shaped the history and present day life of society?

[Rob]

	Quote:	baboon
	I'm getting seriously worried. Loz has now written 2 posts that I agree with

A stopped clock is right occasionally.

[baboon]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Haha, you think I'm some sort of hard right radical. I'm really not.

Do you ever read your own posts?

[baboon]

	Quote:	Sandgrounder
	You realise that the UK isn't the only country on earth with a monarchy, don't you? Maybe it's because the UK monarchy is so popular (or is it the obsessive media making such a big song and dance about them every other day? ) that everyone sees them as fair game to pull to pieces for "god knows why". The kings and queens of the other European countries (or even the handful of ROW monarchies) don't really come in for such intense international criticism, do they? Can you imagine telling another country that they should just shut down hundreds of years of tradition which has shaped the history and present day life of society?

Apart from Liechtenstein I don't think any of the others have the power the UK monarchy has (whether exercised or not - and it is to a geater extent than many believe).

And the reason for its apparent popularity is the massive brainwashing most Brits receive as children.

[Sandgrounder]

	Quote:	baboon
	And the reason for its apparent popularity is the massive brainwashing most Brits receive as children.

The sycophantic (or vicious, depending on your view) press is pretty much up there, too. If the tabloids stopped commenting on every time the Duchess of Cambridge wore a dress or William flies his helicopter or Harry puts on another friendship bracelet in Africa, it would soon die back to the dull roar that is afforded of other monarchies.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You've made the mistake of assuming this court case was brought about due to concern over parliament's sovereignty

Umm no, if you read my post I clearly stated "Presidents and Prime Ministers are not above the law."
In this case May tried to use Royal Prerogative when she was not entitled to.

Of course you are entitled to make as many false assumptions as you want to

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	baboon
	I'm getting seriously worried. Loz has now written 2 posts that I agree with

It's Ok this once, it's Friday

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	The answer to that is never. It's a constitutional monarchy. Can also be known as a Parliamentary monarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

I think a parliamentary monarchy (PM) is different. AFAIK in these countries (Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands) with PM the nobility has very limited to no real power and only representational duties.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	How many of these second house have seats that are taken for life?

What are "these"?
If you have CH and US in mind the answer is "none". Though some have their seats for a very long time by getting elected repeatedly, personally I'd welcome a limit on the number of terms.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Whether it's a transferable vote or directly elected isn't a particular concern.

I disagree. If you vote for a party (e.g Germany) you agree to all their bullet points even though you probably don't agree to all, let alone their prioritizing. Voting for the representative directly gives you much more choice, unfortunately it also requires much more knowledge.