Brexit (Old)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

or facts for the open minded

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

Your pedantry does not make you right I am afraid but facts, however, do make you wrong:

https://www.electoralcommission.org....nt-information

Leave: 17,410,742 / Total Electorate: 46,500,001 = 37%

I do agree with you re: the 1975 vote. It was invalid as it was not run as a Supermajority-based referendum where a meaningful quorum e.g. 60% is required to enact a structurally significant national change.

[jfman]

I think the death total from 1976 is too high for the results to be comparable.

Originally Posted by Hugh

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).

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

I hate to make predictions about Brexit but I honestly don't think that scenario will happen!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

You're quite correct Leave didn't do that, it was the Remain side that did that. It was the Remain side that said we would leave the SM and CU, it was the remain side that said there would be financial Armageddon, job losses, etc if we left.

There was no such thing as Hard Brexit or No deal Brexit. There was just Brexit. The population had the facts and the scare stories.

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

No, just true

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.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

Surely the House of Lords is the experienced overseer?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

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 Damien

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.

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 Mick

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.

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 Damien

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.

The Electorate has expressed a will over parliament. Parliament overriding her people should bother her more.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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>

Did you really mean "disingenuous" when you consider the definition of that word?

All this nonsense about "No Deal" not being on the ballot paper is merely a contrivance to support an undemocratic argument to defeat the Referendum.

A law can be passed in Parliament by a majority of 1 vote - that would be around 0.2% margin. Nobody would argue that the margin was so close that there would have to be a rerun.

Likewise the Referendum. In this case the leave margin was 4%. Given the guvmin's commitment to deliver the Referendum result, this margin should not be treated differently from a vote in Parliament.

Also you've concentrated on what Leave said/promised - a positive outcome. But Remain promised the exact opposite. Those voting Leave can't be said to have been unaware of the perils being claimed were we to Leave. The words "Remain" and "Leave" are very clear, especially when considered against the respective campaigns.

I do wish that the Remainers in this thread to a properly balanced view of this and not contrive arguments for remaining.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

There wasn't a veto to a final Parliamentary approved bill. It was just a government advised block on progressing it further when it would probably never have succeeded anyway.


Parliament overturning a referendum result is as clear a case as you can get where Royal Assent should be refused.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely the House of Lords is the experienced overseer?

They are, but they can only ever delay a bill at worst, whilst the Queen can block it entirely.