Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Robertj21a said:
To answer the original post, I'm sure that they could attempt to do a U-turn, but they won't succeed. It would be a massive blow to democracy and even the attempt would simply ensure that sufficient Remainers and Leavers joined together to block it as blatantly undemocratic.

I can't believe how deluded many posters on this thread have become.
I'd say most remainders would be happy for the government to go their job & ignore the referendum popularity contest. I'd imagine a fair chunk of the Brexit voters would also be happy. Bearing in mind they believed the lies & must have been most upset when they realised that the NHS didn't get that extra non existent 350m & the European migrants are still here contributing to the economy.
So much for 'take control' and the other nonsense that is now clear for all to see

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
kurt535 said:
Frankfurt houses have gone bid in anticipation of financial services moving out that way
I guess that answers my question!

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
grumbledoak said:
Fittster said:
What if the winner of next election said we should remain? Would the parties democratic mandate trump the referendum result.
Theresa May, today:
"First, Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that. ..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ther...
1) she has to toe the party line to get elected, and Brexit is now the party line
2) even if it wasn't party line, the markets need to be calmed. Future potential leader going on TV saying "well, we're not sure" does not calm.

Let's be clear, democratic mandate from a referundum that had no legal standing or not, if in 6 months time when we're looking to trigger A50, it's plainly obvious that doing so would screw the UK for the remotely predictable future, our parliament has an obligation *not* to go ahead. They are there to do the right thing for us as a country according to their beliefs and the knowledge they have, not be popular.

grumbledoak

31,499 posts

232 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario, it's pretty clear that you see what you want to see regardless of the facts.

Have a nice night.

Robertj21a

16,475 posts

104 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Jimboka said:
I'd say most remainders would be happy for the government to go their job & ignore the referendum popularity contest. I'd imagine a fair chunk of the Brexit voters would also be happy. Bearing in mind they believed the lies & must have been most upset when they realised that the NHS didn't get that extra non existent 350m & the European migrants are still here contributing to the economy.
So much for 'take control' and the other nonsense that is now clear for all to see
So, once and for all times, R I P to democracy ?. Absolutely no way if we want to have any standing in the world.

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
grumbledoak said:
Mario, it's pretty clear that you see what you want to see regardless of the facts.

Have a nice night.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming my opinion on her motives/actions is unbiased or even the truth! smile I'm just offering an alternative explanation based on the starting point that she was Remain and still fundamentally is.

She might well be balls deep into Brexit now, but if she wasn't, her speech today would have been exactly the same. You won't get elected leader if you say you're going to backtrack on the ref, it's political suicide at this point.

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Robertj21a said:
So, once and for all times, R I P to democracy ?. Absolutely no way if we want to have any standing in the world.
It's a glorified opinion poll! If we'd had a referendum on giving us all £1K per month for free, you wouldn't expect Parliament and the PM to go "yup, no worries, tick VG, we'll be right on it even if it screws our finances"

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
It's a glorified opinion poll! If we'd had a referendum on giving us all £1K per month for free, you wouldn't expect Parliament and the PM to go "yup, no worries, tick VG, we'll be right on it even if it screws our finances"
Was the referendum on Scotland's independence a glorified opinion poll? Would a future one be a glorified opinion poll? If the SNP won a referendum to leave would all these reasons against Brexit be valid for that?



Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Oakey said:
Mario149 said:
It's a glorified opinion poll! If we'd had a referendum on giving us all £1K per month for free, you wouldn't expect Parliament and the PM to go "yup, no worries, tick VG, we'll be right on it even if it screws our finances"
Was the referendum on Scotland's independence a glorified opinion poll? Would a future one be a glorified opinion poll? If the SNP won a referendum to leave would all these reasons against Brexit be valid for that?
Scottish referendum was legally binding, EU one was not.

marshalla

15,902 posts

200 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
Scottish referendum was legally binding, EU one was not.
Was it ?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/14/contents... doesn't contain any provision for action to be taken as a result, merely lays down the procedure for the referendum - just like the act used for the one that everyone's now arguing about.



All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
grumbledoak said:
Fittster said:
What if the winner of next election said we should remain? Would the parties democratic mandate trump the referendum result.
Theresa May, today:
"First, Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that. ..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ther...
Nice sound bites, however :

Blurb also said:
The home secretary, who failed in her campaign for the UK to remain in the EU
Politicians will say anything to get you to vote them in..

Mario149 said:
You won't get elected leader if you say you're going to backtrack on the ref, it's political suicide at this point.
Exactly.

Edited by All that jazz on Thursday 30th June 22:30

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
marshalla said:
Mario149 said:
Scottish referendum was legally binding, EU one was not.
Was it ?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/14/contents... doesn't contain any provision for action to be taken as a result, merely lays down the procedure for the referendum - just like the act used for the one that everyone's now arguing about.
Happy to be corrected if the Scots one was not. My understanding is that it was. Either way it doesn't matter. If the Scots one wasn't "enforceable" it makes no difference to the fact that the EU isn't.

thinkofaname

280 posts

132 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
If we'd had a referendum on giving us all £1K per month for free, you wouldn't expect Parliament and the PM to go "yup, no worries, tick VG, we'll be right on it even if it screws our finances"
But the holding of such a referendum would never be supported by a major party. The Tories didn't hold this one because they thought it would be a bit of a laugh. It was because there were persistent demands for it, which Cameron caved into. You may argue he shouldn't have, but is was real political pressure that brought it about.

tarnished

13,601 posts

95 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
It's a glorified opinion poll! If we'd had a referendum on giving us all £1K per month for free, you wouldn't expect Parliament and the PM to go "yup, no worries, tick VG, we'll be right on it even if it screws our finances"
If the PM said he would go with the result, then yes, of course. Obviously, it's not likely the PM would pose that in a referendum though and this absolutely isn't the same.

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
thinkofaname said:
But the holding of such a referendum would never be supported by a major party. The Tories didn't hold this one because they thought it would be a bit of a laugh. It was because there were persistent demands for it, which Cameron caved into. You may argue he shouldn't have, but is was real political pressure that brought it about.
Really? I don't recall their being persistent demands, happy to be proved wrong.

marshalla

15,902 posts

200 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
Happy to be corrected if the Scots one was not. My understanding is that it was. Either way it doesn't matter. If the Scots one wasn't "enforceable" it makes no difference to the fact that the EU isn't.
It wasn't. No sane parliament or assembly would ever pass a referendum act which created a requirement for them to act on the outcome as it would put them under pressure to act quickly and possibly to take action for which they had no plan. It could also result in them being prevented from trying again if they got the outcome they didn't want and would set a dangerous precedent by moving power explicitly into the hands of the voters instead of leaving it in the chamber.

There was a "promise" from Westminster that the outcome of the Scottish referendum would be respected, and I believe Cameron even used the word "binding" himself, but it had no backing in legislation - just like there was a promise on the EU one.

All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
marshalla said:
and would set a dangerous precedent by moving power explicitly into the hands of the voters instead of leaving it in the chamber.
You seem to be forgetting that they are only in the positions they're in because we voted them there to ensure what the majority of voters want, happens.

marshalla

15,902 posts

200 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
All that jazz said:
marshalla said:
and would set a dangerous precedent by moving power explicitly into the hands of the voters instead of leaving it in the chamber.
You seem to be forgetting that they are only in the positions they're in because we voted them there to ensure what the majority of voters want, happens.
But once they've won the popularity contest, they follow the party line, or do what their conscience tells them, or the voices inside their heads - they don't ask their constituents to decide everything for them. From their point of view, letting the people actually make a decision which is binding on Parliament is a step too far. It removes the power and security of the position of the MPs.

If they allow it once, they have to answer awkward question about why they don't allow it more and more often, and allow a few more each time until there's no role for MPs and the voters spend all their time answering binding referendum questions about important issues without sufficient background information.

All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
marshalla said:
But once they've won the popularity contest, they follow the party line, or do what their conscience tells them, or the voices inside their heads - they don't ask their constituents to decide everything for them. From their point of view, letting the people actually make a decision which is binding on Parliament is a step too far. It removes the power and security of the position of the MPs.

If they allow it once, they have to answer awkward question about why they don't allow it more and more often, and allow a few more each time until there's no role for MPs and the voters spend all their time answering binding referendum questions about important issues without sufficient background information.
I'm aware of all that but my point still stands.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/membe...

Blurb said:
The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and can propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. This includes asking government ministers questions about current issues including those which affect local constituents.
Edited by All that jazz on Thursday 30th June 22:51

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 30th June 2016
quotequote all
All that jazz said:
marshalla said:
But once they've won the popularity contest, they follow the party line, or do what their conscience tells them, or the voices inside their heads - they don't ask their constituents to decide everything for them. From their point of view, letting the people actually make a decision which is binding on Parliament is a step too far. It removes the power and security of the position of the MPs.

If they allow it once, they have to answer awkward question about why they don't allow it more and more often, and allow a few more each time until there's no role for MPs and the voters spend all their time answering binding referendum questions about important issues without sufficient background information.
I'm aware of all that but my point still stands.
Re-read mashalla's post, and it really doesn't. At all.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED