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

The main thinking behind the referendum was to control and pull together the Tory party. There was no real interest in running a sincere campaign or educating the public on the choices.

It was a false referendum and they all sleep walked into the result. Cameron, Johnson, Gove, Duncan Smith et al had their eyes purely on the tory party prize.

It is the exact same today and the main reason May will never get her deal over the line, and this mess will roll on.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	So how would you class the MPs, MEPs and peers running the campaigns if you don't want to acknowledge their connection to the government?

I didn't say there's no connection. I like the terms talking heads or figureheads.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	but then you shouldn't do a referendum. or would you organise a referendum about a referendum?

In the U.K. an a referendum is advisory and can never be anything else under their so called constitution. If you don’t give the government the mandate then it might as well have not happened, as we are seeing.

[aSwissInTheUS]

	Quote:
	So how would you class the MPs, MEPs and peers running the campaigns if you don't want to acknowledge their connection to the government?

First, it is an alien concept for any Swiss to have "official" campaigns. Second, I would class them as politicians. A politician does what politicians do. Lobbying, promoting their personal ideas and beliefs, getting the voting population on their side, deceive them, and screw the electorate in the end. Third, MPs, MEPs, and other peers are not the government if they are not part of the executive branch (Prime Minister and its Cabinet members).

In a Swiss vote the official stance of the government can be found in the official leaflet. All other opinions, those from parties, MP, and campaigns are solely the private opinions of those. On the other hand a member of the government, a federal council member, must represent and defend the governments point of view even if it is against his own or its party's opinion. In addition to that, the governments view and opinion is separate from the view of any campaign even if the government agrees with the motion per se.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	In the U.K. an a referendum is advisory and can never be anything else under their so called constitution. If you don’t give the government the mandate then it might as well have not happened, as we are seeing.

Actually not the case - the 2011 AV referendum was binding (or as binding as it can be under the UK "constitution"*). Basically you write the legislation in advance of the referendum and include a provision enacting it in the event of a yes vote.

However this was definitely not the case for the EU referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ign-parliament

* - even if the legislation were enacted, there is nothing to stop the government proposing legislation to amend or repeal it straight afterwards if they so choose thus limiting the binding nature in theory

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	SponPlague
	He said it repeatedly during the post-2015 negotiations on a better deal with the EU, whenever the press asked him about recommending leave in the event of a bad negotiation result. During the referendum itself, his deal was never mentioned again, because everyone knew it was laughable...

I can't find a single documented occasion when he said that between the 2015 G.E. and him leaving office on 24 June 2016. Not one.

[curley]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	In the U.K. an a referendum is advisory and can never be anything else under their so called constitution. If you don’t give the government the mandate then it might as well have not happened, as we are seeing.

And who gives the governement the mandate in GB? The queen?

[YuropFlyer]

That ends season 1

Hope season 2 won’t be that silly..

[marton]

	Quote:	curley
	And who gives the governement the mandate in GB? The queen?

Magna Carta innit!

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	curley
	And who gives the governement the mandate in GB? The queen?

The public via a General Election. If the public return enough Conservative MPs to Parliament, they have (supposedly and usually) the voting power i.e. mandate, to get their legislation, etc, through. In the 2017 G.E., May lost the clear Conservative majority in the House of Commons and therefore, lost her mandate.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The public via a General Election. If the public return enough Conservative MPs to Parliament, they have (supposedly and usually) the voting power i.e. mandate, to get their legislation, etc, through. In the 2017 G.E., May lost the clear Conservative majority in the House of Commons and therefore, lost her mandate.

And in walked Arlene..

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The public via a General Election. If the public return enough Conservative MPs to Parliament, they have (supposedly and usually) the voting power i.e. mandate, to get their legislation, etc, through. In the 2017 G.E., May lost the clear Conservative majority in the House of Commons and therefore, lost her mandate.

The Cameron government had the mandate and promised to implement the outcome of the referendum.
Now there is a coalition government which has a majority and also has the mandate.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	The Cameron government had the mandate and promised to implement the outcome of the referendum. Now there is a coalition government which has a majority and also has the mandate.

Cameron had a coalition agreement with the Lib Dems, then he had a mandate by a clear majority in the 2015 GE. May took over that mandate / majority and totally fecked it up in the 2017 GE which led to a confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP, which is not a coalition and they do not have a majority in Parliament. I hope I've made that clear, but am happy to be corrected by someone who has all the legal terminology stored in their noggin.

Anyway, a little light relief from my favourite feline reporter...

	Quote:	Swisstree
	And in walked Arlene..

Sounds like a Dexy's Midnight Runners tribute band.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Cameron had a coalition agreement with the Lib Dems, then he had a mandate by a clear majority in the 2015 GE. May took over that mandate / majority and totally fecked it up in the 2017 GE which led to a confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP, which is not a coalition and they do not have a majority in Parliament. I hope I've made that clear, but am happy to be corrected by someone who has all the legal terminology stored in their noggin. Anyway, a little light relief from my favourite feline reporter... Attachment 136461

But both are massive -holes.

[Blueangel]

Just for clarification, this is the difference between a coalition and a confidence and supply agreement.

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

	Quote:
	Sounds like a Dexy's Midnight Runners tribute band.

If only..

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I can't find a single documented occasion when he said that between the 2015 G.E. and him leaving office on 24 June 2016. Not one.

He said it, but not with that wording - my oops

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34654797

	Quote:
	Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, he said: "If we don't get what we need in our negotiations I rule nothing out, but I do think it's important that as we have this debate as a nation that we are very clear about the facts and figures of the alternatives.

[higgybaby]

My last opportunity to vote in elections in the UK the local and EU elections (after 15 years you are ineligible) :

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	The Cameron government had the mandate and promised to implement the outcome of the referendum. Now there is a coalition government which has a majority and also has the mandate.

Cameron wasn't authorised to make the promise in the first place.