You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
This leak from the Civil Service obtained by Sky News just shows why many MP's are so against a No Deal:
Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
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.
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.
---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick
Let's put the childish remarks to one side? What is incorrect in this report?
Denial is not a practical solution for facing reality ..
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,918
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
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
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.
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
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.
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.
yep, the ones that Sky 'aquire' and then blatantly push into your face. Sky is more remain than any other media program IMO
It's news for the gullible i'm afraid.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
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.
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.
Is our Government able to hold a binding referendum if they make this clear beforehand?
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.
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.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,918
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
Is our Government able to hold a binding referendum if they make this clear beforehand?
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.
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.
It would have been very easy to do deals, if there had not been a Brexit Sabotage from the get-go - the EU have played a blinder, keeping their cards close to their chest, while we, because of Remainer MPs trying to sabotage Brexit, have demanded to know every turn, making our hand public.
Blame the Remainer MPs not the Ambitious Brexiteers who wanted to put our country first, surely the reason you actually voted for Brexit in the first place - we have not been conned at all and far from it.
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.
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:
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.
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.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,918
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
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:
Yes, that’s kind of what I was driving at earlier. Beneath statute law in British tradition lie all sorts of other things like legal precedent (aka case law), parliamentary precedent and common law*. What these things have in common is the idea that there is a fundamentally fair and moral way to conduct ourselves and our governance that applies even in the absence of a specific Act of Parliament to enable or criminalise something.
We behave fairly and consistently towards one another and there is then no need for Parliament to write endless reams of new laws, acting only where there is a clear and pressing need. The imperative upon Parliament to respect the referendum result is very clear on that basis. Just because it is sovereign and can do whatever it wants, does not mean that it should. If our parliamentarians start picking away at the seam, all sorts of things might start to fall apart.
* For example, there is no statute law against murder in England and Wales. A defendant in court is charged with murder “contrary to common law”. Murder is wrong because it just is, and always has been, and there has never been a pressing need for Parliament to further define it in statute law.
---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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.
Anyone who has known you via this forum for any great length of time knows this, and TBH it makes your (I think deliberately) simplistic one-liners all the more frustrating. You know that the phrase “Parliamentary sovereignty” is an enormously loaded phrase ... I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts on it.
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.
No it would not be a bad thing. It would only only be bad for the Remainers, trying to over turn the 2016 result, because it stops them getting their own way like a spoilt child. You need to remember, Remainers lost the vote in 2016 and the UK voted to leave the EU.
Perhaps you should tell these pesky Remainer MPs trying to abuse their position, trying to thwart the Democratic will of the Electorate that there is still checks and balances and this would be a check on the system trying to overturn a Legitimate Democratic Mandate, surely your 80's and 90's experience should tell you this.
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).
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Join CF
You are here: 
