Brexit

[Angua]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Whereas staying in the EU:

An update on an article does not necessarily mean new information has been included.
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-tti...atisation-nhs/

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is a ridiculous observation.

The representatives had a duty to uphold the instruction they received from the direct democracy route.

Whoever is in power or opposition has that duty.

They did their best, unfortunately they did not agree what that was, and still have not agreed.

Oh and in our adversarial democracy, the oppositions job is to scrutinise and check, not automatically agree with whoever formed the government.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is a ridiculous observation.

The representatives had a duty to uphold the instruction they received from the direct democracy route.

Whoever is in power or opposition has that duty.

And has been explained many times, that is not how the U.K. Parliamentary Democracy works - we are a representative democracy, not a delegated one.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

An update on an article does not necessarily mean new information has been included.
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-tti...atisation-nhs/

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------



They did their best, unfortunately they did not agree what that was, and still have not agreed.

Oh and in our adversarial democracy, the opposition's job is to scrutinise and check, not automatically agree with whoever formed the government.

They did their worst, not their best.

Adversarial is fine in all respects except where it comes to the application of a decision taken in the direct democracy element of our system.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And has been explained many times, that is not how the U.K. Parliamentary Democracy works - we are a representative democracy, not a delegated one.

That explanation is one that suits Remainers who wish for the Referendum result to be ignored. The representatives have a duty to deliver direct democracy element.

[RichardCoulter]

I wonder if the EU ever considered sending mailshots to all UK residents to put forward their point of view to try and garner support from the public, which in turn they would hope influenced the politicians?

Maybe there is a law preventing this or it would be viewed as bad protocol.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I wonder if the EU ever considered sending mailshots to all UK residents to put forward their point of view to try and garner support from the public, which in turn they would hope influenced the politicians?

Maybe there is a law preventing this or it would be viewed as bad protocol.

I hope that the GDPR is the applicable law in favour of residents!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

They did their worst, not their best.

Adversarial is fine in all respects except where it comes to the application of a decision taken in the direct democracy element of our system.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------



That explanation is one that suits Remainers who wish for the Referendum result to be ignored. The representatives have a duty to deliver direct democracy element.

It’s not an "explanation" - it’s a fact.

Britain is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct (delegate) Democracy - just repeating the same falsehood repeatedly doesn’t make it true.

It states so in Hansard.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...ns/reformacts/

The Reform Acts and representative democracy

Margate Thatcher stressed this in her 1984 speech to the Carlton Club.

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105799

And even if we look at the kind of representative democracy which we practice in Britain today, we realise how long has been the road from Runnymede.

Long before democracy was valued, long before we had this form of representative government, long before universal suffrage, we prided ourselves on being a free people.

We would have called herself a free people long before we had today's form of representative democracy.

You may prefer Direct Democracy, but that’s now how it’s done in the U.K.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s not an "explanation" - it’s a fact.

Britain is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct (delegate) Democracy - just repeating the same falsehood repeatedly doesn’t make it true.

It states so in Hansard.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...ns/reformacts/

You may prefer Direct Democracy, but that’s now how it’s done in the U.K.

Your link only explains Representative Democracy. It does not address the obligation falling on Parliament to deliver the outcome of a direct democracy exercise (Referendum). Accusing me of making a "falsehood" is a slur on my integrity.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I wonder if the EU ever considered sending mailshots to all UK residents to put forward their point of view to try and garner support from the public, which in turn they would hope influenced the politicians?

Maybe there is a law preventing this or it would be viewed as bad protocol.

It would be viewed as bad protocol and stand a chance of a backlash at being told what to do by the EU. They tried to keep out of the referendum for fear of making matters worse.

[Pierre]

The US will want business access to the NHS in any post-Brexit trade deal,

And? Just means they can sell American manufactured crutches, wheelchairs, ecg monitors etc.

All the panic mongers can calm down.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And has been explained many times, that is not how the U.K. Parliamentary Democracy works - we are a representative democracy, not a delegated one.

And has been explained many times before, Parliament delegated that question to the people, and then voted to enact the result.

So on that particular question and action that is exactly how Parliament should have worked.

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

You may prefer Direct Democracy, but that’s now how it’s done in the U.K.

It’s how that particular question was done. If parliament didn’t want to delegate authority to the public via the referendum then they should have voted against it.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your link only explains Representative Democracy. It does not address the obligation falling on Parliament to deliver the outcome of a direct democracy exercise (Referendum). Accusing me of making a "falsehood" is a slur on my integrity.

Parliament cannot bind itself or its successors because the ultimate exercise of power in our system is an Act of Parliament which Parliament itself can both make and repeal (or amend).

It simply isn’t possible to oblige Parliament to do anything, because Parliament can repeal any Act that attempts to do so. A referendum cannot legally oblige parliament to do something. The nearest it is possible to get is convention, which in our uncodified constitution has considerable force to restrain Parliament’s behaviour, or alternatively the threat to an MPs job via the ballot box.

On the former, referendums are still a novelty in our constitution, and most of those held so far have supported the status quo, so the convention surrounding parliament’s response to them is weak. On the latter ... well perhaps we shall soon find out.

One solution that has been proposed is for any future Referendum Act to include a clause that automatically enables the outcome. That is a fudge however because it still isn’t obliging Parliament to do anything and doesn’t stop Parliament intervening to repeal that legislation at the last minute.

[nomadking]

If one Parliament cannot bind a future one, then we could overturn all of the EU legislation quite easily.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If one Parliament cannot bind a future one, then we could overturn all of the EU legislation quite easily.

How?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How?

"Chris" claimed "Parliament cannot bind itself or its successors". If that was true then the EU related decisions could be overturned. As they can't be overturned, his statement was false.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And? Just means they can sell American manufactured crutches, wheelchairs, ecg monitors etc.

All the panic mongers can calm down.

It can mean anything including having American healthcare companies running parts of it since we already have some NHS services out for tender.

The thing is there would be nothing wrong with changing the structure of how the NHS works, France and Germany do not have a monolithic healthcare service run by the government. I think the legitimate worry is the Conservatives most keen on reform do often seem to like the American system rather than the French system, the latter having far more regulation on prices e.t.c.

Also remember the Americans will be in a far stronger position when it comes to negotiations given the size of their economy and the fact we'll really be needing that trade deal.

---------- Post added at 08:00 ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

"Chris" claimed "Parliament cannot bind itself or its successors". If that was true then the EU related decisions could be overturned. As they can't be overturned, his statement was false.

Well they could. It's just the consequences stop us from doing so. In the end nothing is stopping us doing whatever we want. What would the EU do? Invade? The reason we abide by international/supranational agreements is because to break them would carry political and economic consequences on the world stage.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

It can mean anything including having American healthcare companies running parts of it since we already have some NHS services out for tender.

The thing is there would be nothing wrong with changing the structure of how the NHS works, France and Germany do not have a monolithic healthcare service run by the government. I think the legitimate worry is the Conservatives most keen on reform do often seem to like the American system rather than the French system, the latter having far more regulation on prices e.t.c.

Also remember the Americans will be in a far stronger position when it comes to negotiations given the size of their economy and the fact we'll really be needing that trade deal.

As I've already pointed out, anything that is put out to tender can be done by a company from ANYWHERE. Nothing new.