Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980636)

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 papa smurf (Post 35980640)

It's news for the gullible i'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980648)

Here we go again with the 37% figure rubbish.

Also is the rubbish that the country will be poorer but we've been over this many times with this negative fantasy.

I will say it again and keep on saying it when you keep bringing up this nonsensical and misleading rubbish.

The people ineligible to vote, could not be arsed to vote, do not come in to final % calculations, it wasn't 37% of the electorate anyway, as not every single person in the UK is eligible to vote and therefore not part of the Electorate.

I am not sorry to be pedantic but it was actually 72.2% of the Electorate who turned out to vote in 2016. That is the one of the biggest turn out to any Democratic event in political history.

Way more people voted in this referendum than the one in the 70's to join the Common Market, more people voted to leave in 2016, than they did Remain in 1975.

So it is more staggering that you're advocating the 2016 figures as invalid when the figures in 1975 were much less.

UK Population in 1975 was 56 Million, compared to 66 Million in 2016/2018.

17.3 Million said yes in 1975 Referendum, based on your erroneous calculations and thought process regarding the figures, only 31% of entire UK opted to stay in Commons Market in 1975, so based off your Modus Operandi and other Remainers demanding a second vote, the vote in 1975, should have been held again. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980678)

The ‘check and balance’ would them being voted out of their seat at the next election - that’s how our system works, just like in the 80’s and 90s (especially in the 97 General Election).

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980688)

The Queen Proroguing Parliament is part of a valid system. Perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980680)

The Leavers did not detail or articulate that if you voted Leave there was a significant chance that we would leave the EU with No Deal and that you, personally and the country as a whole, would be worse off as measured by a variety of metrics.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980694)

The Queen isn’t meant to act as a check on Parliament. If she did then that’s going to radically change the relationship between the Monarchy and the electorate...which is why she won’t get involved.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980696)

I think that she serves as an important safety valve for preventing any ridiculous legislation. No bill can become law without her signature, so i'd say that she does keep a (very important) check on Parliament.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980696)

I think that she serves as an important safety valve for preventing any ridiculous legislation. No bill can become law without her signature, so i'd say that she does keep a (very important) check on Parliament.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980700)

I believe this is pretty much automatic. Even when the Queen is doing what the government asks of her its assumed that they have the support of Parliament. I don't know how anyone can think the Queen acting on behalf of the Government against Parliament, explicitly to remove Parliament's power from challenging the Government, wouldn't spark a constitutional crisis far worse than Bercow allowing an amendment.

I don't think she'll touch it, she has been pretty savvy at protecting the Monarchy, and I don't think May would want to put her in that position. PM's typically have also understood the importance of it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980704)

You’re forgetting the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, it was a private member's bill that sought to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

In fact, 39 bills have been subject to the Queen’s veto power, bit of an eye opener for those thinking the Queens role is only a ceremonial one.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980710)

Reading about that is different to refusal to grant Royal asset in that that bill wasn't debated by Parliament. It also seems she was asked to do so by the Government.

I am not sure if any of the other 39 were. I must admit I didn't not know she did that. I still think it would be something else entirely if Parliament has expressed a will only for it to be overridden.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980680)

You misunderstand. When i said "underwrite", I was not referring to the legal aspect. Rather, I was talking about the mandate that the vote delivered. The vote was based on a campaign where Leave only promised a positive outcome. The Leavers did not detail or articulate that if you voted Leave there was a significant chance that we would leave the EU with No Deal and that you, personally and the country as a whole, would be worse off as measured by a variety of metrics.

To suggest that the vote delivered a democratic mandate for No Deal, with various negative scenarios, would be disingenuous.<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980704)

You’re forgetting the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, it was a private member's bill that sought to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

In fact, 39 bills have been subject to the Queen’s veto power, bit of an eye opener for those thinking the Queens role is only a ceremonial one.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35980697)

Surely the House of Lords is the experienced overseer?