** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[Cugel]

He's off your Christmas card list this year, then?

I'm taking my JRM poster down off the wall in the light of these revelations.

Wot to throw the darts at then then? I have suggestions!

Cugel

[mercalia]

3. Everyone went into it with the clear understanding it was binding

Myth! See attached. I know what Cameroon's leaflet said, but that leaflet is itself not binding!

yer know I never got one. so I didnt know what it was all about. I wonder how many other people didnt get a leaflet.

[reohn2]

his well suited Savelle row exterior

Open to dispute.

Figure of speech,even if spoiled wrong

[mjr]

It'll have to wait until I'm on a bigger screen than aphone at a coffee sstop!

The population thought that it was voting and that their decision was binding, that's my point, irrespective of the "small print" which is now being referenced.

I think that's revisionism or retcon. The advisory nature of it was well publicised.

Of course, this means Mr Cameron should be jailed alongside Boris, Farage et al for lying campaign materials.

[PDQ Mobile]

He's off your Christmas card list this year, then?

I'm taking my JRM poster down off the wall in the light of these revelations.

I knew you were secretly a fan.

[Bonefishblues]

It'll have to wait until I'm on a bigger screen than aphone at a coffee sstop!

The population thought that it was voting and that their decision was binding, that's my point, irrespective of the "small print" which is now being referenced.

I think that's revisionism or retcon. The advisory nature of it was well publicised.

Of course, this means Mr Cameron should be jailed alongside Boris, Farage et al for lying campaign materials.

Yep, got it, I remember all the politicians mentioned that now you say it. Nigel 'Advisory' Garage, Boris 'Tell us what you think' Johnson, Call me Dave 'Best of Two, or Three, or as many as it takes' Cameron.

No, I have a clear recollection of events, thanks. The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted. That's the point I am making. I'm making no comment on its legal status, and whether that was or wasn't known, and how widely.

But assuming that you are correct, perhaps others on the Forum can confirm that I am deluded and that they didn't have that expectation?

[roubaixtuesday]

The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted.

As a convinced remainer, I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is that democracy is a single event.

We now have a position that what is proposed - May's "deal" - is demonstrably very far from what the leave campaign promised. Practically no-one from that campaign supports it. Likewise almost no one from the remain campaign.

So it's fair to say that we have now demonstrated that the "will of the people" cannot actually be enacted.

In those circumstances, I still don't think it's right to just revoke A50. But I don't see anything anti- democratic about a confirmatory referendum.

Indeed, in my view, most of those against it oppose it not on principle, but on fear of losing it.

[Bonefishblues]

The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted.

As a convinced remainer, I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is that democracy is a single event.

We now have a position that what is proposed - May's "deal" - is demonstrably very far from what the leave campaign promised. Practically no-one from that campaign supports it. Likewise almost no one from the remain campaign.

So it's fair to say that we have now demonstrated that the "will of the people" cannot actually be enacted.

In those circumstances, I still don't think it's right to just revoke A50. But I don't see anything anti- democratic about a confirmatory referendum.

Indeed, in my view, most of those against it oppose it not on principle, but on fear of losing it.

It's unusual to find a post I agree with in pretty much every respect. I feel I should find something to carp about, as is the traditional way hereabouts

[mercalia]

seems like May is really turning the screws on the DUP, making them responsible for a failed Brexit?

Brexit: No new vote on May's deal without DUP support - chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47602746

I read May/Hammond is trying to BRIBE them with TAX PAYERS MONEY. OUR MONEY
These politicians have no shame do they?

I hope they dont buckle certainly the lady who I have seen representing them seems as tough as any Mrs May
Its the only way to finally kill her deal? I really cannot see how the DUP can ever accept her deal, so good riddance? ( have I spelt it right this time?)

[roubaixtuesday]

It's unusual to find a post I agree with in pretty much every respect. I feel I should find something to carp about, as is the traditional way hereabouts

Right, our work here is done.

But I like a challenge, how about we go off to the helmet ghetto and spread compromise, peace and mutual understanding there too?

[Bonefishblues]

It's unusual to find a post I agree with in pretty much every respect. I feel I should find something to carp about, as is the traditional way hereabouts

Right, our work here is done.

But I like a challenge, how about we go off to the helmet ghetto and spread compromise, peace and mutual understanding there too?

Nah, let's limber up with Syria before we take on that particular challenge.

Dons helmet.



...or not.

[reohn2]

The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted.

As a convinced remainer, I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is that democracy is a single event.

We now have a position that what is proposed - May's "deal" - is demonstrably very far from what the leave campaign promised. Practically no-one from that campaign supports it. Likewise almost no one from the remain campaign.

So it's fair to say that we have now demonstrated that the "will of the people" cannot actually be enacted.

In those circumstances, I still don't think it's right to just revoke A50. But I don't see anything anti- democratic about a confirmatory referendum.

Quite right.

Indeed, in my view, most of those against it oppose it not on principle, but on fear of losing it.

Funny that innit?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Play on words, who knows what the will of the people will be at any one time
People will no more tell you who they voted for, than if you are in there will..............or not.

My partner was not very open with how they voted, though they say same as me.
I asked if their family had Ever discussed the B....t...........never
They said parents would vote stay but had no way to know, I suggested that one would almost certainly vote leave.

What's a confirmatory referendum

I see that labour are pressing for a re-ref because getting rid of may is proving too difficult and thus a GE too, mmmm a link on that proving difficult because one labour mp or another changes their mind with U turns every day, I can't tell what the labour leader wants next either.
But I admit that party has not much to do with the B....t, unless someone can enlighten me.
None of us can tell, and polls are unreliable.

P.S..........Fear................not me, but I am a little fish in a big muddy ocean, so are the rest of 33 million sprats.

[mjr]

The population thought that it was voting and that their decision was binding, that's my point, irrespective of the "small print" which is now being referenced.

I think that's revisionism or retcon. The advisory nature of it was well publicised.

Of course, this means Mr Cameron should be jailed alongside Boris, Farage et al for lying campaign materials.

Yep, got it, I remember all the politicians mentioned that now you say it. Nigel 'Advisory' Garage, Boris 'Tell us what you think' Johnson, Call me Dave 'Best of Two, or Three, or as many as it takes' Cameron.

No, I have a clear recollection of events, thanks. The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted. That's the point I am making. I'm making no comment on its legal status, and whether that was or wasn't known, and how widely.

But assuming that you are correct, perhaps others on the Forum can confirm that I am deluded and that they didn't have that expectation?

They don't seem to be answering, so I'll challenge your recollection with academics noting in Jan 2016 "strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. In this it contrasts with the legislation for the electoral system referendum in 2011, which required the minister responsible to enact the result" (another legal expert wrote similar in the FT around that time but it's paywalled) and by the vote several newspapers and even, grudgingly, well down the page, the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation had reported it would be advisory.

Vote Leave's notorious Dominic Cummings relied on its advisory nature when arguing for people to vote Leave so the UK could get concessions from the EU and then hold another "referendum on the final terms of Brexit, if the first vote is for Out".

So I think it was well known but maybe not mentioned that much by politicians because firstly, people would ask them why they were keeping the final decision power, and hey, everyone thought Remain would win, so it was pretty irrelevant.

But anyway, if it had been binding, the disenfranchised UK citizens would have won their court case already and thrown the result out anyway!

[Bonefishblues]

I think that's revisionism or retcon. The advisory nature of it was well publicised.

Of course, this means Mr Cameron should be jailed alongside Boris, Farage et al for lying campaign materials.

Yep, got it, I remember all the politicians mentioned that now you say it. Nigel 'Advisory' Garage, Boris 'Tell us what you think' Johnson, Call me Dave 'Best of Two, or Three, or as many as it takes' Cameron.

No, I have a clear recollection of events, thanks. The population went to vote in the clear understanding that the result would be enacted. That's the point I am making. I'm making no comment on its legal status, and whether that was or wasn't known, and how widely.

But assuming that you are correct, perhaps others on the Forum can confirm that I am deluded and that they didn't have that expectation?

They don't seem to be answering, so I'll challenge your recollection with academics noting in Jan 2016 "strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. In this it contrasts with the legislation for the electoral system referendum in 2011, which required the minister responsible to enact the result" (another legal expert wrote similar in the FT around that time but it's paywalled) and by the vote several newspapers and even, grudgingly, well down the page, the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation had reported it would be advisory.

Vote Leave's notorious Dominic Cummings relied on its advisory nature when arguing for people to vote Leave so the UK could get concessions from the EU and then hold another "referendum on the final terms of Brexit, if the first vote is for Out".

So I think it was well known but maybe not mentioned that much by politicians because firstly, people would ask them why they were keeping the final decision power, and hey, everyone thought Remain would win, so it was pretty irrelevant.

But anyway, if it had been binding, the disenfranchised UK citizens would have won their court case already and thrown the result out anyway!

I completely agree with all you say except your assertion that it was well known.

...but let's even leave that to one side.

cf my point in bold above. That is my point, the whole point, and nothing but the point I am making.