Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980631)

This leak from the Civil Service obtained by Sky News just shows why many MP's are so against a No Deal:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980620)

I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.

Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).

There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980633)

Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick:rofl:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35980623)

Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980634)

It really is disturbing that you are trying to argue the case that a simplistic binary vote from 37% of the electorate underwrites a structural change that will leave the country poorer and less secure when the opposite scenario was "sold" to the country in 2016 by the leave campaign.

What you are willing to accept, on behalf of all of us in the country, to achieve your ideological goals is simply staggering. In spite of your simplistic arguments, there is no mandate for No Deal and the Commons fully realises this.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980633)

Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick:rofl:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980638)

yep, the ones that Sky 'aquire' and then blatantly push into your face. Sky is more remain than any other media program IMO

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980638)

yep, the ones that Sky 'aquire' and then blatantly push into your face. Sky is more remain than any other media program IMO

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980636)

Not quite ... the Governor General acts on authority derived from the Crown, and used that authority himself to dismiss the Australian PM. So it wasn’t the Queen wot did it, even though historic crown powers were used.

Queen can sack the Governor General, but ironically she would only ever do so on advice from her Australian PM. So really the PM should’ve moved first. :D

In the U.K. the Queen is the one who appoints PMs and has the power to dismiss them, and also to dissolve Parliament, but she only does so on advice.

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------



You are legally incorrect, and based on the contents of the very thorough public debate prior to the vote you are not correct in the spirit of the law either.

The referendum was advisory because it only ever can be so in our constitution. Its mandate lies only in the precedent that what is voted for, is done. This was established in the first referendum ever held in the U.K., on our EU membership in 1974, in three devolution referendums, a Westminster election voting system referendum and one on Scottish independence.

Of these, only the Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums of 1998 have changed the status quo; in both cases, the way in which the referendum result was implemented was by consultation, forming government policy, and finally by whipped votes in Parliament. Ultimately the devolution bills presented by Blair’s government were passed. The nationalists continued to blow hard over it but that’s what happened then, and it’s what needs to happen now. Government policy must be implemented as stated in the manifestos we voted on in 2016.

And the Commons fully realises nothing - it is split as never before, because when push comes to shove MPs know that the power to legislate is theirs, not ours; because both main party leaders are the weakest in living memory; because we have now had a hung parliament for 7 of the last 9 years and the Commons has become a place where horse trading and personal preferences have begun to take precedence over the party manifestos MPs pledge to support in return for the major advantage of running as an official candidate.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980634)

It really is disturbing that you are trying to argue the case that a simplistic binary vote from 37% of the electorate underwrites a structural change that will leave the country poorer and less secure when the opposite scenario was "sold" to the country in 2016 by the leave campaign.

What you are willing to accept, on behalf of all of us in the country, to achieve your ideological goals is simply staggering. In spite of your simplistic arguments, there is no mandate for No Deal and the Commons fully realises this.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980642)

Is our Government able to hold a binding referendum if they make this clear beforehand?

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35980621)

Of the two sides Leave was the one making claims about "the easiest deal ever" and similar expectations. Not quite working out as planned and I for one feel conned by Leave and their misdirection in the name of winning.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980650)

No, because nothing is binding, ever. Even Parliament can’t pass anything binding, because Parliament has the power to repeal whatever it enacts. Everything from the Theft Act to the Fraud Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and, indeed, the European Communities Act is British Law only until Parliament chooses to repeal it.

The nearest you could get would be an Act of Parliament that authorised a referendum and specified exactly what would happen in the event of certain outcomes. But even then, Parliament could subsequently intervene to prevent it, which is exactly what is happening now. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act which made it a fact of British Law that the U.K. will cease to be a member of the EU at 11pm this 29th of March. Some Remainers have realised that that means we leave, deal or no deal, and are pursuing ever more arcane procedures - plus a few unprecedented ones - in order to get Parliament to repeal that law so that we don’t leave on 29 March, or at least, we don’t leave unless a withdrawal agreement has been concluded with the EU and ratified by Parliament.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980596)

Hugh - you seriously need to lose this consistent irritating and flippant attitude.

As usual, you're getting things in a muddle again, probably due to too much reliance on Google surfing no doubt.

There would be nothing apparent with proroguing of Parliament, as the Queen is the Constitutional Reigning and Sovereign Monarch, Head of State of the Common Wealth.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980653)

Interesting. I did a bit of research myself and, even though the Government leaflet did state "The Government will implement what you decide", this fact checking charity agrees with your post, though it does suggest that, whilst not legally binding, there is a political and moral case for enacting the referendum result:

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980665)

Actually, having been very active in local and national politics in the 80s and 90s, including a couple of years as a researcher for my local MP, not much googling was required.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980665)

Actually, having been very active in local and national politics in the 80s and 90s, including a couple of years as a researcher for my local MP, not much googling was required.

It’s strange that you seem to deride seeking out information to have an informed opinion as a bad thing - surely the more information one has, the more one learns; the older I get, the more I realise there is so much I don’t know, so I try to keep learning.

The ‘bad thing’ would be to prorogue Parliament for purely political reasons to lessen the sovereignty of Parliament - the Government is not Parliament, merely the Executive.