Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Joey66]

Eh?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/727379/david-attenborough-brexit-vote-referendum-mess-interview

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Most people voted to leave, but, in the absence of any agreement as to what Brexit meant, many of those voted for the Norway model. 48 % voted to stay in. It seems to me that Parliament can properly obtain, as a price of approving Article 50 notice, the government's commitment in legislation to go for Norway/soft Brexit, as that is closer to what the majority of voters wanted. Plainly they cannot please all the people all the time.

Agreed. Even I would have considered voting for the Norway or Swiss models.

 

[joey_macmo]

I understand the process, but it's going to be a farce because it gives MP's who may have an agenda (who voted to remain) to vote everything down that doesn't match their position on Brexit that is put forward by the Government, it could end up going round in circles.

When you say "it gives" do you mean the law? The law that was in place before the referendum.

I presume you pointed this out before June then as well.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/727379/david-attenborough-brexit-vote-referendum-mess-interview

I've only read the first few lines, but I feel he's spot on.

There's a reason we don't vote on everything.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I'm not campaigning for votes for 16 year olds. My point is that the majority of the nation did not vote Leave, and given the ramifications, I don't think the leave vote should be deemed a mandate from the masses.

That's fine. Would you have had the same philosophy had the result gone the other way though?

 

[Joey66]

TBF, there was also a lot of conflicting information out there too, plus the likes of money experts saying it would be impossible to predict the outcome of a leave vote as it was un chartered territory and something we had never encountered before.

The top and bottom of it is, I don't think there should have never even have been a referendum in the first place, should there?

It was in the tory manifesto?
They got into government that may be the main reason!

 

[Old Blue 2]

Re my earlier comments on it should only ever be Parliament that decides changes to the rights of British citizens, and that is what the High Court has essentially considered, is confirmed here:

Very interesting, what you quoted from Twitter, Esk.

If I may quote a certain part of it:
"...The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent on the question of what happens to EU rights in domestic law if the Crown seeks to take action on the international plane to undo them. Either the Act reserves power to do that, including by giving notice under Article 50, or it does not. In our view, it clearly does not..."

Now the above may be legal dynamite. Legal dynamite for the Judges, I might add.

For the following reasons (and I'm not being flippant when I put this together):
1. Direct reference is made to undoing rights if the Crown seeks to take action on the matter (i.e. overturn what has previously been enacted by Parliament via an Act of Parliament).
2. Three thing happen/can happen to an Act of Parliament: 1. it is enacted when finally passed; 2. it is changed by subsequent amending Regulations; and 3. it is repealed.
3. Now I come to the crux of the matter. This sentence: "Either the Act reserves power to do that, including by giving notice under Article 50, or it does not." And the crux is this: if Article 50 is enshrined in a present, ongoing, Act of Parliament, then it is for the Government of the day to determine if that legal enshrinement should be acted upon. While that Act is current, it is for the Government to decide whether to act on it, or not (NOT Judges).
4. And this is where I see the legal problem. What has been said, on the Judges's say-so, is that the Government does not have the legal clout or authority to go along the road of implementing Article 50, which Article is current and legal. In saying "In our view, it clearly does not." they are saying that Article 50 cannot be invoked to undo EU rights in domestic law by taking action on the international plane (to withdraw from the EU, in other words).
5. By what I have explained in '4' above, Judges are interfering directly with the operations of the State. Nothing less. They may seek to claim that they are simply making a legal ruling on the interpretation of the wording of an Act of Parliament. However, it is one thing to rule on the wording of an Act, it is another thing altogether to interfere with the intent.
6. I haven't read the full decision of the Judges (but am interested in doing so), but I believe they would have to show that a part or parts of the Act they have examined are considered to be ultra vires for their decision to carry legal weight. It is only by saying that what is presently contained in the relevant legislation has gone beyond what is legally permissible, that their judgement today will carry the day in a subsequent appeal to a higher court.

It's gonna be a very interesting next few months, either way.

Apologies, also, for the long post.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It's nothing to do with giving kids votes, it's the fact that only about a quarter of the population voted Leave.

Oh dear! At the risk of repeating myself, all eligible voters had the opportunity to vote. Voting goes three ways: For, Against, Abstentions. Those who elected not to vote are in the 'Abstentions' category, which is every bit as legal as those in the other two categories. End of...

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Most people voted to leave, but, in the absence of any agreement as to what Brexit meant, many of those voted for the Norway model. 48 % voted to stay in. It seems to me that Parliament can properly obtain, as a price of approving Article 50 notice, the government's commitment in legislation to go for Norway/soft Brexit, as that is closer to what the majority of voters wanted. Plainly they cannot please all the people all the time.

The problem with the referendum and it's aftermath, was that the Govt of the day was campaigning against Leave.

There was therefore no plan set out by said Govt for what happened if Leave won.

The Leave campaign itself told a load of whoppers and then ran away from them and scattered the following day, wiping it's website of the evidence in the process. They had no authority or mandate to promise anything and yet many took their hollow promises to equate to what would happen if Leave won.

The vote itself was in or out, the Govt has since tried to guess what the priorities were to the electorate, and settled on immigration.

Brexit means Brexit was born, but the trouble is that Brexit meant different things to different people. If there was a vote now on whether Brexit should mean no free movement even if that cost us single market access, which would win? The answer is we don't know. That's the problem with this whole sorry mess. We've ended up with politicians trying to second guess what is acceptable or unacceptable to the electorate now things are maybe a tad clearer based on a yes / no poll back in June.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It's absolutely bizarre.

These people who voted Brexit pretended to do so on the basis of "getting back power" and being sovereign again, yet the moment parliament is tasked with making a sovereign decision, it's "undemocratic".

Idiots. All of them. Every last one.

Wrong mate. See my post 11653.

I'm not an idiot. Far from it. But if it makes you feel better

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

When you say "it gives" do you mean the law? The law that was in place before the referendum.

I presume you pointed this out before June then as well.

I voted remain mate, and I know it's law, but what happens if everything the Government proposes is slapped down by Parliament at every turn, and no consensus can be reached on triggering article 50, where does it end?

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

For anyone with concern (genuine or feigned) that this could stop Brexit:

421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies voted to Leave. I can't see a big proportion of that 421 voting to lose their jobs.

 

[Thomasc]

It was in the tory manifesto?
They got into government that may be the main reason!

Yes it was, but they were always going to get into government again, they really didn't need that.

 

[Toffeelover]

You do realise that one of the claimants who brought the case was a Leave voter don't you?

Yes, an MP was it not?

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

66.1% turned out at the GE. There was a choice of several parties to vote for.

The tories, as the only party to offer a referendum, won. Nobody questioned the rules then.

There was a two-way choice in the referendum, and 72.2% turned out to vote leave.

About the same amount of people voted leave as voted for the four biggest voted-for parties after the tories.

That suggests the broader political spectrum wanted out. It wasn't exclusively from a certain section - it was from every type of political field.

People wanted it. We got it. Those that don't like it - Hard bun. Deal with it.