UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

''This change potentially sweeps it under the carpet and says 'what our soldiers do whilst on duty stays on duty''.

not true. I bet there are perfectly good laws under the Geneva Convention and others which would serve for any misconduct. They used to be able to shoot deserters which means there are some draconian military laws out there and that was way before the European Human Rights thing. who is to say the 300 cases were not trumped up.

PLEASE GOD LET GINA MILLER WIN HER CASE!. put an end to the nightmare.

PLEASE LET THIS BE TRUE


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-block-brexit-deal-no-10-admits-a7368561.html

What the fook was the point in voting ? If it really means Government can call the shots why all the pantomime beforehand ? Id like to know what Queenie thinks ?

{{Strictly speaking under our system Parliament is Sovereign- even over a referendum result.
If a majority of MP's and Peers vote against it on the grounds that carrying it out would not be in the best interests of the country they can, technically, overrule it. It is not only in their power, its technically their duty to do so if they genuinely believe it would be a negative result for the country all round.

But, I cant think of an occasion when this has actually happened.

But some idea as to the potential resentment it would generate might be found in the original 1970's Scottish devolution referendum.
The government did accept the result, but only because they had fixed the rules to make it go their way, by at the last minute setting a bar of 70% in favour before it would count. So despite a majority voting for devolution it was not over 70% of the population, so there was none.*

When the referendum came about that did eventually give us devolution there was a lot of resentment still from those who felt robbed the first time, and a lot of the ill feeling that built up towards Westminster, solidified by the Thatcher regime and completed by the Blair government started with that referendum vote.

The Leave vote is a much bigger deal than it in terms of numbers of people involved, large scale protests, riots would be a likely outcome in strong Pro-Leave areas I reckon if the government does ignore the result.


*they arguably pulled a similar rule bending stunt in the independence referendum. The rules of election in the UK include what is called Purdah- which is a period at the end of campaigning but before voting where nether side is allowed to make any new policy or initiative announcements- but must argue only on what they have put forth so far. The idea is that the arguments should be made and finished- then the electorate gets a bit of time to listen to each side put their case before voting- not get bombarded with more election promises.
But in the final week of the referendum, during the purdah period, former Labour PM Gordon Brown popped up and made 'The Pledge' which was basically a form of devolution -max- a completely different offer than the one on the table and you would think, clearly in breach therefore of purdah. They got round it however by having brown make the announcement- as he wa snot registered to campaign for either side it was not officially an announcement from either side- though obviously it was on behalf of the No side.
It wasn't breaking the rules, but it was bending them round in a fucking circle.

These resentment last in Scotland- ask Longshanks }}

The referendum is not legally binding, and parliament is sovereign and should come before anything. the problem is MPs being worried that if they voted to ignore the referendum their constituents wouldn't re-elect them. its their jobs on the line, so even if there is a vote the chances are it will mean nothing. The SNP may mysteriously decide to vote for Brexit on the grounds Brexit is their ticket to another Scottish Indi-referendum, so its fucked from the offing.

In theory we elect representatives so they can take the time to deeply understand the issues and do the right thing by the people they represent, even if it goes against their less well-informed constituents.

It all gets screwed up, of course, by their own self interest which includes voting the way their constituents want them to.

exactamundo.

Edit: herp derp

{{That's what I said 'Parliament is Sovereign' The Queen doesn't have any Parliamentary role beyond announcing the governments program and signing the stuff into law. Either of which she technically refuse to do and force a constitutional crisis- but will never happen.}}

Sorry, I completely misread your post. Egg on my face and all

you said it was the monarch's duty to refuse if she thought that a law was bad for the country- Eldo

{{No I didn't I said- 'If a majority of MP's and Peers vote against it' (ie the House of Commons and the Lords then it can be blocked- it would not go to the Queen to become law in the first place.) }}}

I think we are getting confused over the word sovereign because you are both saying the same thing.

{{{Ah most likely Figg- the term Parliamentary Sovereignty comes about because power the power of the monarch was literally transferred to the House of Commons- making it the Sovereign power in the country. But does not imply the actual sovereign in terms of the Monarchy, quite the opposite in fact.}}

Once I realized that I'd misunderstood Petty I tried to make a note of it but I guess I was too late. Dunno if it's cause I'm tired and just got off work or if I'm just an idiot but anyway, my apologies.

{{{{ No apology required here Eldo! Honest misunderstanding can happen to anyone- are you drunk? if not why not?! }}

Apart from not.

I just heard that the high court has ruled that Parliament's vote is necessary to trigger article 50. So what does that actually mean in the real world? If it were to go to a vote, what would Parliament most likely do, and then how would the public respond? Is it even likely to come to a vote? Any thoughts? This seems to be a never-ending story.

{{Was just coming on to talk about that very thing David.
Basically it comes down to sovereign powers.

History first- way back when Parliament took the powers of the monarch on the PM got some powers where they can act with Royal prerogative, but under a different name, meaning unilateral action without the need for Parliamentary approval.

May has been claiming she has the right to exercise such power over the Brexit vote and triggering article 50- in other-words she can do it herself on the basis she has been given the authority by the people to carry out their wishes to leave the EU.

But this ruling challenged that right on the basis that leaving the EU fundamentally changes the rights of the subjects (us plebs)- something which had to be done when we joined the EU by Parliament in the 1972 act- and therefore no-one but Parliament can rescind those rights.

The judges agreed unanimously (there were 3 of them)- parliament is sovereign in this matter not the PM- and therefore Parliament has to vote to trigger Article 50 which means the government will have to bring their case for what they want in the negotiations, at least in broad outline, to Parliament to vote on.
Then following usual rules it would go to the unelected Lords for further scrutiny- the worry for those who voted out is that there is a remain majority in the commons, and an even bigger one in the Lords.

The government can appeal the ruling- and probably will- but I don't see on what grounds they can persuade the judges to change the ruling.

On a matter of law not politics they seem completely right to me in their reading of it. Maybe Blue can comment on that one. }}}}

This should be interesting! I'll stock up on popcorn!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Was just coming on to talk about that very thing David.
Basically it comes down to sovereign powers.

History first- way back when Parliament took the powers of the monarch on the PM got some powers where they can act with Royal prerogative, but under a different name, meaning unilateral action without the need for Parliamentary approval.

May has been claiming she has the right to exercise such power over the Brexit vote and triggering article 50- in other-words she can do it herself on the basis she has been given the authority by the people to carry out their wishes to leave the EU.

But this ruling challenged that right on the basis that leaving the EU fundamentally changes the rights of the subjects (us plebs)- something which had to be done when we joined the EU by Parliament in the 1972 act- and therefore no-one but Parliament can rescind those rights.

The judges agreed unanimously (there were 3 of them)- parliament is sovereign in this matter not the PM- and therefore Parliament has to vote to trigger Article 50 which means the government will have to bring their case for what they want in the negotiations, at least in broad outline, to Parliament to vote on.
Then following usual rules it would go to the unelected Lords for further scrutiny- the worry for those who voted out is that there is a remain majority in the commons, and an even bigger one in the Lords.

The government can appeal the ruling- and probably will- but I don't see on what grounds they can persuade the judges to change the ruling.

On a matter of law not politics they seem completely right to me in their reading of it. Maybe Blue can comment on that one. }}}}

Hmm...M.P's are supposed to act in the best interests of their constituents and a (slim?) majority of MP's backed remain, but a majority of English/Welsh constituencies voted Leave, do the MP's now vote with their hearts or minds? Respecting the voice of the people (well, 52% of those who could be bothered to vote) or rebelling against the party whips and their constituents? Risking a political career or the UK economy? I'm rather interested in finding out just what May's supposed 'plans' are considering they want immigration controls AND access to the single market, we can't make trade deals or negotiate with the EU openly until we actually trigger article 50, but how can MP's or the House of Lords vote to pass the legislation without knowing exactly what they are voting for?

Can we assume Soft Brexit is the most likely option, followed by a snap General Election next year?

M.P's are supposed to act in the best interests of their constituents - Malick

That's more of a popular myth. Its not actually true in our system. MP's are voted at a constituency level to act in the best interests of their constituency. But as party members at a Parliamentary level they are supposed to vote in what is in the best interests of the country.

In very simple terms this would be is the UK's current deal with the Eu better or worse than the one May intends to get with the EU after Brexit.

If they think its not they should, by precedent, vote against it on the basis it would not be in the country's best interests- regardless of the result of the referendum which in the UK system is not a decisive vote like in a General Election, but an advisory vote indicating the direction the people want to go.

Of course this being our UK system its more based on precedent than anything else, so into this you can chuck the party lines and the Whips, and those MP's who do believe they should vote for what their constituency voted for because they want to keep their jobs and get reelected.

And that's before you even bring the Lords into it.

On the whole what was already a complete mess just got a lot messier.
Its quite possible May might just think fuck this and hold a general election to decide matters. But because Cameron brought in fixed five year terms she would have to get a 2/3 majority in the Commons for an election- and the opposition parties might be inclined to think ' no thanks, the Tories lit the fuse on this particular ticking time bomb and you can keep hold of it and we will come in after its gone off in your face'.

This will be interesting, just wish I was observing it from somewhere else and not from a position where I am likely to suffer the consequences of this Parliamentary car crash.    }}}

It's got to the point where the car is so badly damaged and out of control that the best we can do is sit back and morbidly enjoy the ride before the actual crash, still at least this means Parliament can hold May's government to account for a while.

And I think it's guranteed Farage will un resign once more if parliament blocks a hard brexit.

ah shite! and here was me thinking we could end the nightmare. for one glorious moment I thought Brexit was smashed. and then I realised MPs are not going to risk their jobs for no man, woman or Hobbit. and then I realised that Scottish and Northern Irish and Labour and others vote could put their votes where their mouths are and vote to Remain. and then I *chuckle* realised the Lords those glorious Lords in their swirling capes of ermine Poop! Poop! may just save us. for a bit anyway. at least put the wind up the Brexit idjeets.