Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[rscott]

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan Pan said:

repeated attempts to block Brexit

Really? Can you actually identify anyone in charge of something important who has said they will work to ensure that we remain in the EU?

Or is your complaint really "politicians aren't doing precisely what I want them to be doing RIGHT NOW!"?

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

It doesn't matter, the political reality is they have to carry through the referendum result or there will be carnage at the next general election. This decision isn't going away and the politicians know it.

[rscott]

jsf said:

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

It doesn't matter, the political reality is they have to carry through the referendum result or there will be carnage at the next general election. This decision isn't going away and the politicians know it.

Not disagreeing with that at all. It was a comment on Pan (x3) 's point about why vote.

[FiF]

rscott said:

jsf said:

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

It doesn't matter, the political reality is they have to carry through the referendum result or there will be carnage at the next general election. This decision isn't going away and the politicians know it.

Not disagreeing with that at all. It was a comment on Pan (x3) 's point about why vote.

But but but, surely as we technically live in and elected dictatorship, the general election isn't legally binding, in that a government can be elected with an overall majority on the basis of a manifesto, which they then completely fail to implement and do things which were not in the manifesto. Of course they're going to be in trouble come the next election and probably before then, but it's not as black and white as you are trying to make out imo.

[Pan Pan Pan]

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

There you go again trying to downgrade what the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. if referenda are not legally binding, why are we deemed to be members of the EEC/EU following the 1975 referendum on joining the EEC? Surely as a referendum, that was only `advisory', and therefore we are not really members of the EU? Or do referenda only have validity when the going in a certain direction?
If it had been made clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, I wonder how many people would have bothered to vote. Only it wasn't made clear was it? What the government did make clear, (as was stated IN WRITING) was that the result of the 2016 referendum WOULD BE ABIDED BY, The UK voted to leave the EU, but now the non democratic who did not like the result, are trying to block, delay or change that.

[Funkycoldribena]

Not only that,but 9 million on leaflets,months of debates etc for basically an opinion poll?

[Pan Pan Pan]

jsf said:

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

It doesn't matter, the political reality is they have to carry through the referendum result or there will be carnage at the next general election. This decision isn't going away and the politicians know it.

This goes beyond Brexit. If those in the UK who voted to leave, see their democratic wish twisted, delayed, or subverted by judicial gerrymandering, or quasi legal challenges to the result, they will learn that there is no point in voting for anything any more, because their vote will just be ignored or twisted to suit those, for whom a referendum or election, did not deliver the result `they' wanted.

[rscott]

Pan Pan Pan said:

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

There you go again trying to downgrade what the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. if referenda are not legally binding, why are we deemed to be members of the EEC/EU following the 1975 referendum on joining the EEC? Surely as a referendum, that was only `advisory', and therefore we are not really members of the EU? Or do referenda only have validity when the going in a certain direction?
If it had been made clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, I wonder how many people would have bothered to vote. Only it wasn't made clear was it? What the government did make clear, (as was stated IN WRITING) was that the result of the 2016 referendum WOULD BE ABIDED BY, The UK voted to leave the EU, but now the non democratic who did not like the result, are trying to block, delay or change that.

Nope - not trying to downgrade it, just stating a fact. Some referenda are legally binding - it's all down to the act responsible for each one. For example, the 2011 UK Alternative Vote referendum was legally binding.

Let me make it clear again, I voted to remain, but accept the result of the referendum and that we will be leaving. I also want the Supreme Court to confirm the procedure to make sure this, and future decisions, are implemented in a way that can't later be challenged in the courts.

Had our politicians (of all parties) done their job properly last year, the EU Referendum Act would have been legally binding and also contained details of the procedure required to implement the decision. However, some were, I'm sure, vague as they thought it would never happen and others were so busy celebrating that they'd finally got the referendum that they didn't bother checking details.

[FiF]

Pan Pan Pan said:

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.
Now we are seeing repeated attempts to block Brexit by those who do not believe in democracy, or who only believe in democracy AFTER they have twisted and bent the issue to suit `their' position.
What possible point is there in voting in any future issues, from general elections, to referenda, if those that don't like the result democracy provides can twist, or bend the results to suit themselves, and not the democratic majority vote in the UK?

Er, simple answer to the bold part. General elections are legally binding. This referendum wasn't. Whether it should have been is a different discussion.

There you go again trying to downgrade what the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. if referenda are not legally binding, why are we deemed to be members of the EEC/EU following the 1975 referendum on joining the EEC? Surely as a referendum, that was only `advisory', and therefore we are not really members of the EU? Or do referenda only have validity when the going in a certain direction?
If it had been made clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, I wonder how many people would have bothered to vote. Only it wasn't made clear was it? What the government did make clear, (as was stated IN WRITING) was that the result of the 2016 referendum WOULD BE ABIDED BY, The UK voted to leave the EU, but now the non democratic who did not like the result, are trying to block, delay or change that.

But but but in 1975 we were already legally members of the EEC, and the referendum confirmed that so it's somewhat different.

Of course the point about the legalality of the subsequent transitions into membership of the EU, Maastricht etc etc is a good one, unfortunately suspect still legal albeit devious.

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If those in the UK who voted to leave, see their democratic wish twisted, delayed, or subverted by judicial gerrymandering,

Here we go again.

[rscott]

Pan Pan Pan said:

There you go again trying to downgrade what the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. if referenda are not legally binding, why are we deemed to be members of the EEC/EU following the 1975 referendum on joining the EEC? Surely as a referendum, that was only `advisory', and therefore we are not really members of the EU? Or do referenda only have validity when the going in a certain direction?
If it had been made clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, I wonder how many people would have bothered to vote. Only it wasn't made clear was it? What the government did make clear, (as was stated IN WRITING) was that the result of the 2016 referendum WOULD BE ABIDED BY, The UK voted to leave the EU, but now the non democratic who did not like the result, are trying to block, delay or change that.

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

[Mrr T]

Pan Pan Pan said:

With some of the talk about plans for Brexit, the real culprit was Camoron, because the arrogant smug f*ckwit was so sure the people of the UK would not vote to leave (especially after all the lies used by the remain campaign in project fear) he made no provision for that outcome, and knowing this, jumped ship, to leave someone else to deal with the situation he had left behind.

Its quite amusing seeing team leave blame Cameron for not having a plan for exit. Knowing if he had come up with a plan team leave would just have said it was part of project fear.

I have discovered from secret sources team leave did have a plan on how to leave that gave the UK everything it wanted. Unfortunately, after a night out for some beers they all went back to M Grove’s for a night cap and someone left it under a sofa cushion and Grove is refusing to give it back. I understand MI6 has been instruct to recover it. So should be back on track soon.

[Deptford Draylons]

rscott said:

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

That's the problem when you listen to the PM and every MP who agreed to result would be enacted, but lets have a Remain pretend game he and they never said that or mentioned anything about the single market going out the window on a leave vote, or the need for a second referendum to approve the result of the first.

[rscott]

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

That's the problem when you listen to the PM and every MP who agreed to result would be enacted, but lets have a Remain pretend game he and they never said that or mentioned anything about the single market going out the window on a leave vote, or the need for a second referendum to approve the result of the first.

Could we have that in English please?

[Deptford Draylons]

rscott said:

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

That's the problem when you listen to the PM and every MP who agreed to result would be enacted, but lets have a Remain pretend game he and they never said that or mentioned anything about the single market going out the window on a leave vote, or the need for a second referendum to approve the result of the first.

Could we have that in English please?

I think you can understand it. You may not want to address the points made though.

[rscott]

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

That's the problem when you listen to the PM and every MP who agreed to result would be enacted, but lets have a Remain pretend game he and they never said that or mentioned anything about the single market going out the window on a leave vote, or the need for a second referendum to approve the result of the first.

Could we have that in English please?

I think you can understand it. You may not want to address the points made though.

What points? Random claim of a second referendum which no-one's made on here lately.

I want the process carried out correctly (whatever the Supreme Court decree that is) so it can't be challenged and further delayed. Had the politicians of all parties done their job properly last year, we'd have avoided the Supreme Court altogether, but none of them did.

[Elysium]

rscott said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

There you go again trying to downgrade what the UK voted for in the 2016 referendum. if referenda are not legally binding, why are we deemed to be members of the EEC/EU following the 1975 referendum on joining the EEC? Surely as a referendum, that was only `advisory', and therefore we are not really members of the EU? Or do referenda only have validity when the going in a certain direction?
If it had been made clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, I wonder how many people would have bothered to vote. Only it wasn't made clear was it? What the government did make clear, (as was stated IN WRITING) was that the result of the 2016 referendum WOULD BE ABIDED BY, The UK voted to leave the EU, but now the non democratic who did not like the result, are trying to block, delay or change that.

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

Every single MP was aware that the referendum was not legally binding. It was clearly set out in the briefing papers prepared by the House of Commons library prior to the second reading of the referendum act. Any MP who suggests otherwise is lying.

The paper also dealt with the point regarding the 1975 referendum, which took place AFTER the way forward had been agreed by both Houses of Parliament:

House of Commons Library said:

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting
without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act
2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the
re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and
agreed by both Houses.64

Paper can be downloaded here:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...

In hindsight, it would have been far far better to follow the 1975 process with this referendum. With parliament agreeing a position first and then the public vote ratifying it.

[Deptford Draylons]

rscott said:

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

Deptford Draylons said:

rscott said:

You'd think that the likes of UKIP would have noticed it wasn't legally binding and have raised merry hell before the vote...

That's the problem when you listen to the PM and every MP who agreed to result would be enacted, but lets have a Remain pretend game he and they never said that or mentioned anything about the single market going out the window on a leave vote, or the need for a second referendum to approve the result of the first.

Could we have that in English please?

I think you can understand it. You may not want to address the points made though.

What points? Random claim of a second referendum which no-one's made on here lately.

I want the process carried out correctly (whatever the Supreme Court decree that is) so it can't be challenged and further delayed. Had the politicians of all parties done their job properly last year, we'd have avoided the Supreme Court altogether, but none of them did.

I only countered your cheap point on Ukip by saying that the PM and MPs had already agreed to make the vote binding.
I guess you are still suffering the big red bus lie rage ? More concerned about this lie, than the fact you were lead to believe the result would be binding by the PM and every MP saying. Where was the second approval referendum talk then ? You also don't think Remain people on here aren't praying for a second referendum to try and veto the first before the result have even been allowed to stand ? Come on fella...

Some of the Remain stance here is laughably sad by wanting to ignore all what the PM promised and told us what would happen the day after a leave vote, but with you still stamping your feet about the big red bus and posting Open Britain propaganda that tries to make out no one mentioned leaving the single market, while arguing for a second referendum because the SM issue wasn't on the ballot paper.

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan Pan said:

This goes beyond Brexit. If those in the UK who voted to leave, see their democratic wish twisted, delayed, or subverted by judicial gerrymandering, or quasi legal challenges to the result, they will learn that there is no point in voting for anything any more, because their vote will just be ignored or twisted to suit those, for whom a referendum or election, did not deliver the result `they' wanted.

Really? What is this "judicial gerrymandering, or quasi legal challenges"? What boundaries are being changed and how would they affect the result? What quasi legal challenges?