REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[thehistorymakers]

What are your views on those who have come out and said they voted Leave based on the "facts and promises" that have since been withdrawn, leaving those who believed them feeling conned?

It's votes that count not views. I would say the same if remain had won. There were lies and scaremongering on both sides.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I disagree, there's obviously a legal problem here in that the referendum's result is not legally binding and therefore the PM has no authority to trigger Article 50.

I think that it's better to get the constitutional argument out of the way as quickly as possible rather than complicate things later.

The real problem would be if Parliament decided not to trigger as their legitimacy would be undermined. You might then have all sorts of upheaval, the likes of which only a GM could sort out in order to get that legitimacy back.

They should have done that before the referendum. It's trying to change the democtatic will and result of the people, with technicalities. We are the UK not some banana republic.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

They should have done that before the referendum. It's trying to change the democtatic will and result of the people, with technicalities. We are the UK not some banana republic.

No we aren't which is why the rule of law must be followed.

 

[thehistorymakers]

No we aren't which is why the rule of law must be followed.

It was a free vote put to the British electorate and leave won. If you are suggesting that the will of the people shouldn't be carried through, When Cameron, Corbyn and even Clegg said the will of the British people should be carried out, then that is affront to our respected democracy.

 

[thehistorymakers]

This is what clegg said before the referendum.

In an event attended by Business Insider on Wednesday night at the University of Westminster, former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that he would not support a motion to ignore the will of the public, in spite of his strong pro-EU convictions.

 

[Jolemai]

It was a free vote put to the British electorate and leave won. If you are suggesting that the will of the people shouldn't be carried through, When Cameron, Corbyn and even Clegg said the will of the British people should be carried out, then that is affront to our respected democracy.

So you don't think it should be discussed in the Commons/Parliament?

 

[thehistorymakers]

So you don't think it should be discussed in the Commons/Parliament?

How we leave, timing and conditions yes. If we leave, definitely not. The people have spoken.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'd say the time for avoiding looking like a banana republic has passed when you've already held a ridiculous referendum on a key constitutional issue, which is of course one of the hallmarks of a banana republic.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

It was a free vote put to the British electorate and leave won. If you are suggesting that the will of the people shouldn't be carried through, When Cameron, Corbyn and even Clegg said the will of the British people should be carried out, then that is affront to our respected democracy.

No, what I'm saying is that the referendum was not legally binding and therefore if the PM triggers Art 50 without consulting Parliament he may be, at a later date, deemed to have acted unlawfully.

Can you imagine if, after being triggered, this decision was legally challenged, and if said challenge won? Where would that put the exit negotiations? Would the PM have to resign? What would happen next?

It sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

 

[thehistorymakers]

No, what I'm saying is that the referendum was not legally binding and therefore if the PM triggers Art 50 without consulting Parliament he may be, at a later date, deemed to have acted unlawfully.

Can you imagine if, after being triggered, this decision was legally challenged, and if said challenge won? Where would that put the exit negotiations? Would the PM have to resign? What would happen next?

It sounds like a cluster$#@! to me.

Sounds to me like you don't accept the will of the people in a democratic election. You are backing something looked in to, by rich business people, to stop a democratic vote. Not very democratic. Why wasn't it mentioned before the referendum.

" You are going to have a free vote that will cost millions and divide our nation. It doesn't matter what you vote, because we can vote in parliament not to listen to the people of our nation, if we don't get the result we want"

Can you imagine that! How can any socialist or democrat or even liberal support that.

There would be anarchy and riots on UK streets. I hope the left and even Geldof would be with us. Come to think of it, not Geldof, he couldn't give a fuck about democracy.

 

[leedswolf]

Constitutionally only parliament can pass a law to amend or revoke previous laws made by parliament. The pm does not have executive power to invoke A50. Hopefully it will be a formality, but due process has to ensue. Failure to do so would cause potential legal challenge.

 

[Jolemai]

From the BBC reality check

The question: Graham asks: The view of senior constitutional lawyers is that there has to be a bill passed by Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, before Article 50 can be invoked. Won't MPs be duty-bound to vote in whichever way they consider to be the best interests of the country?

The answer: Some constitutional lawyers think that there will have to be a vote in Parliament before Article 50 is invoked.

But others say it's a prerogative power held by the Prime Minister so no vote is necessary.

Even if there is a vote, many MPs will think their primary duty is to uphold the will of the people as expressed in the referendum - even if they had personally supported Remain.

There's also the fact that a lot of MPs don't think the electorate matter once they've elected them to power. Here's Frank Field showing his utter discontempt at those who voted him in:



My point is that if it comes to a vote, don't be surprised if we remain as most MPs feel they know best.

 

[Dinowolf]

I'd say the time for avoiding looking like a banana republic has passed when you've already held a ridiculous referendum on a key constitutional issue, which is of course one of the hallmarks of a banana republic.

Did you vote in the referendum? If you did then you have supported the referendum.

You only think its ridiculous because the result was not what you wanted. You sound very bitter.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Constitutionally only parliament can pass a law to amend or revoke previous laws made by parliament. The pm does not have executive power to invoke A50. Hopefully it will be a formality, but due process has to ensue. Failure to do so would cause potential legal challenge.

Leeds, put all our tiffs behind us. Would you protest if the will of the people to leave was overturned and ignored in this way?

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Sounds to me like you don't accept the will of the people in a democratic election. You are backing something looked in to, by rich business people, to stop a democratic vote. Not very democratic. Why wasn't it mentioned before the referendum.

" You are going to have a free vote that will cost millions and divide our nation. It doesn't matter what you vote, because we can vote in parliament not to listen to the people of our nation, if we don't get the result we want"

Can you imagine that! How can any socialist or democrat or even liberal support that.

There would be anarchy and riots on UK streets. I hope the left and even Geldof would be with us. Come to think of it, not Geldof, he couldn't give a fuck about democracy.

Sounds to me like you don't understand the rule of law.

^^ What Leeds said.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Did you vote in the referendum? If you did then you have supported the referendum.

You only think its ridiculous because the result was not what you wanted. You sound very bitter.

I think you'll find I said it was a ridiculous idea, at great length, before the result. I called it out as terrible leadership from Cameron. I should have abstained now?

I'll thank you not to tell me why I think what I think.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Leeds, put all our tiffs behind us. Would you protest if the will of the people to leave was overturned and ignored in this way?

It would be astounding if Parliament voted against out.

Personally I wouldn't support them, but at the same time I wouldn't bet against them doing it.

Incidentally, I have no idea where all this goes, I just think that the next PM has to tread very carefully in order to avoid future legal complications.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Sounds to me like you don't understand the rule of law.

^^ What Leeds said.

More like you don't like losing and can't accept the will of the people. Cameron says the result stands, Corbyn says it stands and Clegg said it would stand even if leave won, before the the day of the referendum. Do all those leaders not know the rule of law?

 

[thehistorymakers]

It would be astounding if Parliament voted against out.

Personally I wouldn't support them, but at the same time I wouldn't bet against them doing it.

Incidentally, I have no idea where all this goes, I just think that the next PM has to tread very carefully in order to avoid future legal complications.

Sorry, I posted before at the same time as you and didn't read your last post. Apologies and I respect what you said.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I guess this is my point - for all the talk about democracy, the referendum risks running rough shod over our democracy. In a representative democracy it is parliament that makes these decisions. I believe that parliament should proceed on the basis of the outcome despite the fact that the majority in the chambers would favour remain but it is absolutely imperative that parliament does it properly otherwise our democracy is overturned.