• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
I don't think parliament should be consulted. We should be able to trust parliament to enact the will of the people, but a huge number of MPs have made it clear they want to ignore them. If parliament is knowingly acting against the will of the people then wouldn't you consider that to be unconstitutional too?

I'm not suggesting the government imposes something because they want it, I'm suggesting they impose something because the electorate wants it.
Click to expand...

"If parliament is knowingly acting against the will of the people then wouldn't you consider that to be unconstitutional too?" Undemocratic probably(representative democracy vs direct), unconstitutional probably not.

Again even if I agree with your viewpoint there is nothing to allow it to happen, we would need to change the law of the land. There is nowhere that says that this referendum is binding hence it has to go to parliament, this is what yesterdays judgment means in practice. There is no process for your solution so it is moot.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not suggesting the government imposes something because they want it, I'm suggesting they impose something because the electorate wants it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that other than leaving the EU, no one knows what the public wants. During the referendum campaign the details were willfully ignored and obscured. That is one of the reasons why we have the messy situation that we have now. Only parliament can fill that gap.
 
The Judges did not make any judgment on Article 50, they made a judgment on what can and can not be done according to law. If you think Parliament should or shouldn't have a say has little relevance. If you think this is blocking the will of the people then it is an argument you need to persuade your MPs - this is interpretation of the law, I have yet to see a compelling argument that the Judges were wrong in this respect. They do not create the laws only interpreted those that have gone through parliament.
 
Gutter Boy said:
So we debate our negotiating tactics in front of the world? Play poker holding our cards facing up?
Click to expand...

The parliamentary debate would not be any more detailed than the opening discussion with the European Council on day one of A50 negotiations.

This poker analogy is a bit hackneyed and really doesn't bear any relation to the realities of international negotiations.
 
milo said:
The problem is that other than leaving the EU, no one knows what the public wants. During the referendum campaign the details were willfully ignored and obscured. That is one of the reasons why we have the messy situation that we have now. Only parliament can fill that gap.
Click to expand...

But we are legally banded from negotiating new relationships with China, America and the rest of the world until leaving the EU starts. Everything is in limbo/completely hypothetical until that happens.
 
Gutter Boy said:
But we are legally banded from negotiating new relationships with China, America and the rest of the world until leaving the EU starts. Everything is in limbo/completely hypothetical until that happens.
Click to expand...

Based on the guarantees given to Nissan, we will probably never be in a position to negotiate own own trade deals with the US, China and the rest of the world anyway.
 
milo said:
The problem is that other than leaving the EU, no one knows what the public wants. During the referendum campaign the details were willfully ignored and obscured. That is one of the reasons why we have the messy situation that we have now. Only parliament can fill that gap.
Click to expand...
Do you think that parliament, as it currently stands, will agree on anything that even vaguely resembles leaving the EU?

As I said in an earlier post - people voting Leave were willingly going into the unknown, because any version of the unknown in their eyes was better than being in the EU. Ask around - it's still something that a lot of my employees talk about regularly and they all feel the same way: Any version of out is better than in.
 
I don't get the argument - this is not opinion it is a Judgment of Law, I would say the Judges are more qualified to make this, as will be the supreme court.

We do not have the ability (nor should we) to work outside the law, if we do it sets a dangerous precedence.
 
scaramanga said:
Do you think that parliament, as it currently stands, will agree on anything that even vaguely resembles leaving the EU?

As I said in an earlier post - people voting Leave were willingly going into the unknown, because any version of the unknown in their eyes was better than being in the EU. Ask around - it's still something that a lot of my employees talk about regularly and they all feel the same way: Any version of out is better than in.
Click to expand...

The red pill
 
r-u-s-x said:
I don't get the argument - this is not opinion it is a Judgment of Law, I would say the Judges are more qualified to make this, as will be the supreme court.

We do not have the ability (nor should we) to work outside the law, if we do it sets a dangerous precedence.
Click to expand...
Then we need to change the law to ensure that MPs cannot just override the will of the people.

I don't believe anyone ever intended for Parliament's decisions to be able to overrule referendums, I just don't believe this situation was ever foreseen.
 
scaramanga said:
Do you think that parliament, as it currently stands, will agree on anything that even vaguely resembles leaving the EU?

As I said in an earlier post - people voting Leave were willingly going into the unknown, because any version of the unknown in their eyes was better than being in the EU. Ask around - it's still something that a lot of my employees talk about regularly and they all feel the same way: Any version of out is better than in.
Click to expand...

Yes I do. The two biggest parties both support leaving the EU now. I think that the government will easily get an A50 act through parliament.
 
scaramanga said:
Then we need to change the law to ensure that MPs cannot just override the will of the people.

I don't believe anyone ever intended for Parliament's decisions to be able to overrule referendums, I just don't believe this situation was ever foreseen.
Click to expand...

Yes we do need to change the law, or make referendums binding as then Parliament has already agreed (not a lawyer but this seems correct).

On a separate note both you and Gutter Boy, Danish... have hugely different views on what Brexit should mean, if we have Swiss Brexit rather than full Brexit does that have any impact on "will of the people". Most of the leavers I spoke to pre election it was based on restricting immigration, if there is freedom of movement this disregards their will.
 
Got a great idea lets have another referendum and make it binding. this time make it clear what we hope BREXIT will entail, freedom of movement vs no Freedom of movement.

Everyone happy?

tongue in cheek but could be a way out for "the powers that be" to get their desired outcome.
 
Gutter Boy said:
So Liam Fox's entire department is a sham?
Click to expand...

I think that they will have a role in negotiating our trading terms with Europe and I understand that they are involved in the British input into EU trade deals that are currently being negotiated.
 
milo said:
Why was it made an advisory referendum then? The voting change referendum was binding.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
It's actually not that difficult to understand.

People also need to see this as an opportunity - many voted because they feel the EU is undemocratic, many as a reaction to current economics to we have sole sovereignty (and can reverse the negative impacts of the Tory's), so a vote in Parliament is the perfect opportunity to see if your MP is willing to do their job and uphold the referendum result.
If they don't and it still goes through - don't vote for them again.
If they don't and it doesn't go through, don't vote for them again and undertake whatever collective action you consider appropriate to ensure democracy is upheld.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Got a great idea lets have another referendum and make it binding. this time make it clear what we hope BREXIT will entail, freedom of movement vs no Freedom of movement.

Everyone happy?

tongue in cheek but could be a way out for "the powers that be" to get their desired outcome.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, I think there may be little enthusiasm.
Should probably have some kind of public vote first to work out if we should do that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back