Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
tarnished said:
Mario149 said:
My ideal outcome to all of this would be if we stayed, but managed to get some sort of genuine, substantial concession out of the EU once they'd seen how close we were to pulling the trigger.
Pull the other one! 
jonnyb said:
A large proportion of the population were ineligible to vote, that just means we have disenfranchised a large amount of people. Not really democracy is it? One man, one vote and all that.
I wish I was on the EU payroll, I would be a lot richer than I am now.
Who are you referring to that was ineligible to vote?I wish I was on the EU payroll, I would be a lot richer than I am now.
jonnyb said:
So you want to make a huge constitutional change based on roughly a 3rd of the population allowed to vote in this referendum.
Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Roughly one third or the population allowed to vote?Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Do you realise how much nonsense you are talking? And they try and claim that the 'thickos' were on the 'leave' side of the debate...
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 30th June 12:53
sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
So you want to make a huge constitutional change based on roughly a 3rd of the population allowed to vote in this referendum.
Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Roughly one third or the population allowed to vote?Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Do you realise how much nonsense you are talking?
Mario149 said:
wc98 said:
why in gods name would you want to remain embroiled in this ? http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-tic... link kindly provided by fblm.
Several reasons, but among them: we're not actually in the Eurozone, and if it is a real risk I'd rather be in the EU trying to help stop it happening, and finally if it does go t*ts up us sitting there on our Norway+/- option isn't going to save us.That article is also 5 years old.
Camoradi said:
jonnyb said:
It it appears the whole thing was a complete waste of time anyway, as the lawyers seen to think that triggering article 50 would be illegal.
The article you are quoting does not say that. It says that the decision to trigger Article 50 is governed by National, not EU law, and therefore could be subject to judicial review in a UK court. The piece suggests that the referendum itself was held to further the interest of the Conservative party, (nothing more than opinion of the writer) and not in the interest of the nation. The court would have to decide on that in order to come to a conclusion.With respect, I believe you are misrepresenting what the article says, notwithstanding the source.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...
jonnyb said:
Surely the fact there needs to be a Parliamentary vote before Article 50 can be implemented is not new news?sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
Surely the fact there needs to be a Parliamentary vote before Article 50 can be implemented is not new news?In theory, if the EU decide we haven't followed an appropriate process, they could reject the notice or at least push it to the ECJ for review and a ruling about EU law.
sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
So you want to make a huge constitutional change based on roughly a 3rd of the population allowed to vote in this referendum.
Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Roughly one third or the population allowed to vote?Like I said, hardly a resounding out vote was is?
Do you realise how much nonsense you are talking? And they try and claim that the 'thickos' were on the 'leave' side of the debate...
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 30th June 12:53
marshalla said:
sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
Surely the fact there needs to be a Parliamentary vote before Article 50 can be implemented is not new news?In theory, if the EU decide we haven't followed an appropriate process, they could reject the notice or at least push it to the ECJ for review and a ruling about EU law.
To be fair to all sides, this is a huge mess. It's going to take years to sort it out. Then it's going to be subject to legal challenge on numerous subjects for years to come. Anyone of them could stop the whole thing in its tracks.
There's going to be at least one more General election before anyone leaves anything, what if parliament is then pro EU as it is now? Would that then trump the referendum result?
Edited by jonnyb on Thursday 30th June 13:11
jonnyb said:
you said it, not me
No, you said it.You claimed that only a third of the population were allowed to vote (which is clearly b
ks), yet you've refused to explain your claims. You also keep spouting on about the size of the UK population, as if there was expected to be a big turnout from the 'informed' under 10s....wc98 said:
So what makes you think continued uk membership would have any significant bearing on the outcome ?
The same reason why Leavers think that if we leave we'll do well - we're British and can make things happen when we really try. It's always seemed odd to me that people can think we're strong enough to walk away on our own but not strong enough to stay and help.Mario149 said:
The same reason why Leavers think that if we leave we'll do well - we're British and can make things happen when we really try. It's always seemed odd to me that people can think we're strong enough to walk away on our own but not strong enough to stay and help.
Which part of the EU's message of 'there will be no negotiation' are you struggling with?sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
you said it, not me
No, you said it.You claimed that only a third of the population were allowed to vote (which is clearly b
ks), yet you've refused to explain your claims. You also keep spouting on about the size of the UK population, as if there was expected to be a big turnout from the 'informed' under 10s....sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
Also you have the removal of rights and obligations from citizens that may be don't want their rights removed.
It's a democracy, the rules are set by the majority...550 out of 650 MP's I think, dont want it so lets see what actually happens.
Not much in the end I reckon.
p1stonhead said:
sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
Also you have the removal of rights and obligations from citizens that may be don't want their rights removed.
It's a democracy, the rules are set by the majority...500 out of 600 MP's I think, dont want it so lets see what actually happens.
Not much in the end I reckon.
marshalla said:
sidicks said:
jonnyb said:
Surely the fact there needs to be a Parliamentary vote before Article 50 can be implemented is not new news?Or to give another example: if Labour had won the last election on a manifesto promise to hold a ref whereby we could all vote on whether we'd be given £1K tax free every month, and we voted yes, you wouldn't automatically expect MPs to vote it through in Parliament. We might as a majority want our £1K every month, but if MPs thought it would be to the detriment of our country overall, they'd be remiss (and in breach of their responsibilities) to approve it. We might be pissed off, but then we'd exercise our democratic power and bin them at the next election and vote in the "Give Me £1K Party".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff