Post-Brexit Thread

Calling a vote in Parliament and preparing a case in court both use up a lot of resources. They won't spend a ton of time and money on preparing something for Parliament to vote on until they know they have to.

Originally Posted by Damien

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...medium=twitter



Personally I think that's a bit unpatriotic. Why does he want the national anthem at the end of the day when no one will be watching? We should have the national anthem played on the hour, every hour, across television.

Somebody want to tell him that the BBC doesn't shut down any more

[techguyone]

Why even have a referendum if the result can't be acted on.

The powers that be must have known prior to this if this process was legal and signed off, all this is going to achieve now is that the half that voted leave will now be as peed off as the half that voted remain - what a crock.

[Kabaal]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Why even have a referendum if the result can't be acted on.

The powers that be must have known prior to this if this process was legal and signed off, all this is going to achieve now is that the half that voted leave will now be as peed off as the half that voted remain - what a crock.

It was always public knowledge that the referendum wasn't legally binding.

Originally Posted by techguyone

Why even have a referendum if the result can't be acted on.

The powers that be must have known prior to this if this process was legal and signed off, all this is going to achieve now is that the half that voted leave will now be as peed off as the half that voted remain - what a crock.

That's just it though ,they didn't know ,it's never been tested before .I don't think it's a problem anyway ,i voted to retain the ultimate authority of Parliament so as far as i'm concerned Parliament make the decisions

[Taf]

As suspected, the lawyers are lining up at the trough. How are negotiations supposed to be worked out if you have to publicly vote on your stance beforehand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

As suspected, the lawyers are lining up at the trough. How are negotiations supposed to be worked out if you have to publicly vote on your stance beforehand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

Lawyers always win. The more complex and convoluted they can make matters the more they, as a profession, have to gain from the resulting legal chaos - appeals, challenges etc. etc. etc. IMHO the legal process is, often, being abused simply to delay proceedings, stall decisions etc. and the result is that just about everything takes much longer than it needed and some things never get done at all. Heathrow expansion has and will continue to be a classic example of this problem - the lawyers will have a field day.

It seems the heart of the case is that something which impacts upon citizen's rights cannot be done via Royal Prerogative instead of Parliament. The Goverment's argument was that this isn't the case as Article 50 is covered under foreign affairs.

[nomadking]

If the rule of Parliament is meant to be so supreme, how come none of the EU treaties and directives can be overturned by Parliament? By allowing Article 50 in a treaty in the first place, Parliament has already given away its responsibility of it.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the rule of Parliament is meant to be so supreme, how come none of the EU treaties and directives can be overturned by Parliament? By allowing Article 50 in a treaty in the first place, Parliament has already derogated its responsibility of it.

They can but that would mean breaking the treaties and leaving which is sort of what we're doing now anyway.

[techguyone]

I quite liked this in another forum

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/th...6192/page-1000

Opinion

The rule of law is paramount. The law might be an ass, poorly drafted or some elements may have unduly influenced the ruling. However, it is the law.

The ruling on such an important constitutional matter should be appealed and rightly so. If the decision had gone the other way there would have been an appeal. A second opinion is vital to ensure that the laws currently in force are correctly interpreted and followed.

I would rather have legal issues defined now than midway through or after, negotiations have taken place. To provide stability for the future the law MUST be correctly interpreted and obeyed.

It is important to democracy that Parliament and politicians are independently held to account. Personally I'd like them held to account quite a lot more!

I do not see the need for negotiating positions or detailed outcomes to be voted upon. That is within the mandate of The Govt. IMO the motion should be something along the lines of "Will this House obey the will of the people as expressed in the referendum of ..."

If the vote in The Commons or HOL goes against the results of the referendum then a snap GE would IMO be required to resolve the constitutional problem of Parliament not obeying the decision of the electorate they individually and collectively represent.

Personally I support Brexit but accept that others do not. Once UK leaves the EU there will be plenty of time (presumably following an emergency bill to recognize a number of rules/laws on an interim basis), for new laws to be drafted to return primacy to Parliament and to untangle/remove laws we no longer want or that no longer wholly apply.

Opinion Ends

[nomadking]

The whole point of a referendum is that it is ABOVE Parliament. People should not have to vote on MPs solely on the basis of a single major issue, especially one that crosses party lines.

[Ramrod]

During the referendum campaign, the Government controversially spent £9.3 million on distributing a brochure to every British household making its case for remaining in the EU. That official publication contained a clear statement: “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”.

Remainers defended the leaflet on grounds that it was not simply a campaigning tool, but a formal statement of Government policy.

Not a single Stronger In campaigner, as far as I’m aware, took issue with the sentence I have just quoted. Confident that they would win, they were happy to treat the referendum as final and binding.

link

The issue isn't the Government reneging on the promise to implement Brexit but if they have the legal authority to implement it without a Parliamentary vote.

[1andrew1]

One thing's for sure - it's going to be a hard Brexit but possibly not in the way that some Leavers anticipated!