Current Affairs EU In or Out

[1966efc]

No, it was advisory as they didn't ensure that the Bill made it binding, like the AV referendum was in 2011.

If they wanted it to be legally binding then they should have worded it thus, they didn't - by choice.

Exactly so. Well, apart from the word, "No".
" ... there was no clause added to it in order to make it binding.

"It became known as advisory ... " - i.e., it was discovered etc.

 

[joey_macmo]

Somebody put more than 9 million quid of our money behind a leaflet.

Or did you conveniently forget that...?

I genuinely have no idea how the cost of a leaflet effects this issue whatsoever!?

 

[Old Blue 2]

That's an incredibly simple and incorrect view of how democracy works. According to you no MP should ever vote against the sitting government on any bill ever.

Which is obviously insane

I think you are getting somewhat confused. In the democratic process, there is the opportunity to disagree with the views/opinions of others. There is also the opportunity to do one of three things when it comes to a vote: for/against/abstain. However, once the vote has been taken, and announced, the simple, correct, procedure is that the majority vote holds sway. It is no more complicated than that.

So, an MP can vote against the sitting Government (even an MP of the Government's party).

 

[Old Blue 2]

I genuinely have no idea how the cost of a leaflet effects this issue whatsoever!?

Let me clarify and explain it for you then.

You posted this: "...People still putting more weight behind a leaflet..."

Did not PM Cameron put not only his weight, but £9 million of taxpayers money BEHIND A LEAFLET?

If you cannot see the point after my above point, then there really is no point. You are throwing out posts just to try to obfuscate and confuse others. Fail...

 

[joey_macmo]

Let me clarify and explain it for you then.

You posted this: "...People still putting more weight behind a leaflet..."

Did not PM Cameron put not only his weight, but £9 million of taxpayers money BEHIND A LEAFLET?

If you cannot see the point after my above point, then there really is no point. You are throwing out posts just to try to obfuscate and confuse others. Fail...

Again mate could you explain how the cost of a leaflet effects how legally binding it is.

Thanks in advance

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Exactly so. Well, apart from the word, "No".
" ... there was no clause added to it in order to make it binding.

"It became known as advisory ... " - i.e., it was discovered etc.

It didn't 'become known' as advisory - it was always advisory, only they didn't emphasise the point. They'd had experience within that Govt of wording a referendum and made the previous one binary. The chose not to do the same with the EU one. It really is that simple.

 

[JLW]

I think you are getting somewhat confused. In the democratic process, there is the opportunity to disagree with the views/opinions of others. There is also the opportunity to do one of three things when it comes to a vote: for/against/abstain. However, once the vote has been taken, and announced, the simple, correct, procedure is that the majority vote holds sway. It is no more complicated than that.

So, an MP can vote against the sitting Government (even an MP of the Government's party).

In a nutshell

 

[edge]

we voted no, now its time to go

 

[joey_macmo]

I think you are getting somewhat confused. In the democratic process, there is the opportunity to disagree with the views/opinions of others. There is also the opportunity to do one of three things when it comes to a vote: for/against/abstain. However, once the vote has been taken, and announced, the simple, correct, procedure is that the majority vote holds sway. It is no more complicated than that.

So, an MP can vote against the sitting Government (even an MP of the Government's party).

That offers not a single retort to what I've said.

Think you need to go back and look at the context of my posts as you seem to be getting mixed up a fair bit

 

[Old Blue 2]

Again mate could you explain how the cost of a leaflet effects how legally binding it is.

Thanks in advance

Continued obfuscation. Go back and read your post to which I replied.

You simply don't like being caught out on the matter of 'behind a leaflet', which you aimed at a 'leaver'.

I'll try again.

A Remainer (Prime Minister Cameron) put his weight behind a leaflet (for your benefit, the title of which was 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK').

You poured scorn on a poster by saying 'people still putting more weight behind a leaflet'.

Well, the thing is, with the Government/Cameron putting out that leaflet advocating remain, the logical follow-on is that 'Remainers' are also behind that leaflet, because it advocates 100% what they wanted.

I do believe the expression is 'hung by your own petard', joey...

 

[joey_macmo]

Continued obfuscation. Go back and read your post to which I replied.

You simply don't like being caught out on the matter of 'behind a leaflet', which you aimed at a 'leaver'.

I'll try again.

A Remainer (Prime Minister Cameron) put his weight behind a leaflet (for your benefit, the title of which was 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK').

You poured scorn on a poster by saying 'people still putting more weight behind a leaflet'.

Well, the thing is, with the Government/Cameron putting out that leaflet advocating remain, the logical follow-on is that 'Remainers' are also behind that leaflet, because it advocates 100% what they wanted.

I do believe the expression is 'hung by your own petard', joey...

Listen that's great and everything but if you could point to the bit where it relates to my original post I'd be eternally greatful.

I'll quote the OP again seeing as you've edited it in your previous attempts

People still putting more weight behind a leaflet than an act of parliament I see.

 

[Old Blue 2]

That offers not a single retort to what I've said.

Think you need to go back and look at the context of my posts as you seem to be getting mixed up a fair bit

joey,

Obfuscation again, mate. Problem for you is, I can see right through all of your attempts to confuse any issue. Quite easily, actually.

Let's go over things again, step by step.

You posted:
"...That's an incredibly simple and incorrect view of how democracy works. According to you no MP should ever vote against the sitting government on any bill ever.
Which is obviously insane..."
I've put the pertinent point in bold and underlined it.

This was my reply:
"...I think you are getting somewhat confused. In the democratic process, there is the opportunity to disagree with the views/opinions of others. There is also the opportunity to do one of three things when it comes to a vote: for/against/abstain. However, once the vote has been taken, and announced, the simple, correct, procedure is that the majority vote holds sway. It is no more complicated than that.
So, an MP can vote against the sitting Government (even an MP of the Government's party)..."
Mine follows, and contradicts, your point 100%.

Now, if you think that that is not a retort, then there is absolutely nothing I can do for you. It is a matter of following a logical premise, and if you can't, or won't, then there really is no point in trying to be involved in sensible debate with you. You see your own point, and nothing else. You will not concede a point, when that point does not coincide with your own. That is not the way to conduct a discussion...

 

[The Cowboy]

This has now widened into a discussion on the democratic process in this country, and as such has shown that process for the sham it is.

The referendum itself was wrapped up in barbed wire. The narrative itself wasn't allowed to develop organically, questions from answers weren't allowed to be developed and the information provided was controlled and narrowed by the media to be 90% immigration and 10% economic and democratic/sovereignty, generally.

The quesgion asked was ridiculous given the complexity with no unequivocal margin for such a constitutional decision.
Yes/No just doesn't work when the methodology of the consequences of the vote were never discussed, presented or outlined for the public to digest.

That there are legal challenges, questions on process and binding, prior to the nonsense discussions on economic affects and trade, displays such a (deliberate imho) amateurish approach to the management of the referendum it is bordering on contempt not only for the public but for the sovereignty and democratic process of parliament itself. It has held our political class and system up to be as big a joke as possible and as detached from society as is possible.

The naive trust and faith placed into the political system to manage the referendum in a correct and proper manner, with the best interests of the British public at its core, was misplaced, our 'leaders' just aren't capable or interested enough in others to have bothered to conduct the referendum in a clear, precise and concse manner. They ballsed it up. Deliberately, in my opinion, out of disdain for the decision being made for them. Their egos won't allow joe public any credit for understanding and as such lay tripwires, mines, backdoors throughout the process.

It won't happen, but the only way of salvaging the situation is to scrap it and start again, giving more consequential information and a broader scope for decision. If we want the people to decide, unequivocally, then they must be given the correct procedure and tools to do so. Neither leave nor remain have any mandate as I see it, but neither does the existing prime minister or parliament for that matter. Our system is so far beyond redemption that it needs replacing, with erm, a more true democratic process, free from external influence of the media corporate machinery. Utopian perhaps but we are going down the plughole at this point in time.

The problem as I see it is that there's a range of opinions around the EU, from the absolute fervent supporters who think it's the greatest institution ever, through the mildly sceptical (and/or largely disinterested) to those who think it's the worst thing ever. An In/Out vote caters far more for those at the extremes: they know exactly what they want. But for the less committed (ie the vast majority), they just want to see a few changes, but voting Remain will always be seen as implicit approval of the status quo, and to vote Leave aligns you more with the extreme Right, though in reality, they voted Leave to try and twist the arm if the other EU states into reform - sadly that hasn't happened.

So I don't see what benefit a 2nd vote would bring. You can't trust the campaigns to provide frank, honest info, if that is going to hinder their chances. Also, should Remain prevail, it'll just lead to calls of a best-of-three 3rd referendum.

imo anything less than the hardest of hard brexit isn't really Leave at all, it's partial Remain. So I don't really see the point in leaving at all.

Ultimately, I'm just disappointed that the EU don't value the UK as an important member, and want to try and work with us to keep us as a member, but with some concessions.

 

[peteblue]

Lord David Neuberger of Abbotsbury finally pins down Pannick. He is holding him to task on one of the key issues surrounding this case and, indeed, the point it may hinge on.

Was Parliament not handing over its rights to make decisions or influence Government action by holding a referendum? Had they not handed that decision over to the public?

Pannick is desperately clinging onto the fact that the referendum wasn’t legally binding, but Lord Neuberger is picking him apart now.

He said: “How can it not have a legal basis? We have a flexible constitution, a Referendum Act and then we’ve had a referendum. Is it not surprising that isn’t legally binding?”

Lord Pannick, Gina Miller and the hoards of left wing sympathisers are now openly saying the overall will of the people, ultimately, means absolutely nothing and the Government has no compulsion to act on it.

 

[joey_macmo]

Well, the thing is, with the Government/Cameron putting out that leaflet advocating remain, the logical follow-on is that 'Remainers' are also behind that leaflet, because it advocates 100% what they wanted.

Just going to keep this in the locker for when you kick off again about people generalising leave voters