Brexit legal challenge.

fretmeister

http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

I need popcorn.

axisus

I can't believe it will affect anything to be honest

ICBM

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Garthy

ICBM;1137085" said:

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.

guitarfishbay

Garthy;1137089" said:

[quote="ICBM;1137085"]Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.
[/quote]

72 + 32 = 104?

ICBM

Garthy said:

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.

True (if you mean the 28% of the electorate who didn't vote), but that's not what I meant… it's that you would think a law firm would use the correct terms - that's supposed to be their job.

In fact it was only about 26% of UK citizens - not even 37%, since children are also citizens.

Garthy

guitarfishbay;1137090" said:

[quote="Garthy;1137089"][quote="ICBM;1137085"]Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.
[/quote]

72 + 32 = 104?[/quote]

Got to include the tower hamlets postal fraud!

hungrymark

Garthy;1137089" said:

[quote="ICBM;1137085"]Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.
[/quote]

Quite. This is getting tiresome. The majority of people who bothered to vote expressed a desire to leave. Nobody knows how those people would have voted and there's no way of finding out. If you don't vote you don't get a say - it's not that hard to work out - so if you wanted to remain but you didn't vote you don't really have any right to complain. It's like those disingenuous facebook posts being shared that said 'if you are undecided, vote remain'. Well no, that's not the point of a binary choice referendum.

@icbm, what would have been your response had the vote been similarly proportioned in favour of remain? I'm guessing along the lines of 'it doesn't show a desire to change so we keep the status quo'.

Chalky

ICBM;1137094" said:

Garthy said:Because 32% of the country were too busy doing fuck all to cast their vote. They had their chance to make their feelings known and make themselves count.





True (if you mean the 28% of the electorate who didn't vote), but that's not what I meant… it's that you would think a law firm would use the correct terms - that's supposed to be their job.

In fact it was only about 26% of UK citizens - not even 37%, since children are also citizens.

Including children?! I know you won't give it up but you are definitely entering Farage country when you talk such nonsense.

ICBM

hungrymark said:

@icbm, what would have been your response had the vote been similarly proportioned in favour of remain? I'm guessing along the lines of 'it doesn't show a desire to change so we keep the status quo'. 

Correct.

In fact, I would much rather have seen the referendum rules drawn up much more rigidly - ie something like a majority vote of a minimum 75% turnout, or a 40% threshold, or (best for such a momentous decision in my opinion) a true majority of the electorate. I am well aware that any of these would have stopped a Leave vote, but that isn't really the point - I would be more than happy to accept the result of a proper majority vote even if it was Leave.

The problem with the lazy ineptitude of Cameron not doing that is that it has left the result inconclusive - a small majority of those who voted wanted change, but far less than a majority of the electorate by a wide margin. To me that is extremely unsatisfactory for something of this importance. How low a turnout do you think would have made the result invalid?

It may be moot anyway - the legal challenge is correct because this is a Parliamentary democracy and the referendum was non-binding.

Chalky said:

Including children?! I know you won't give it up but you are definitely entering Farage country when you talk such nonsense.

Actually read what I said before you try to rubbish it.

I am not saying children should have been included in the vote, just pointing out that the wording of the webpage is incorrect because it says "The Referendum held on 23 June was an exercise to obtain the views of UK citizens, the majority of whom expressed a desire to leave the EU."

Which is untrue.

Only about 26% of UK citizens expressed a desire to leave the EU. You would think a law firm would know the difference.

Chalky

ICBM;1137122" said:

hungrymark said:@icbm, what would have been your response had the vote been similarly proportioned in favour of remain? I'm guessing along the lines of 'it doesn't show a desire to change so we keep the status quo'. 





Correct.

In fact, I would much rather have seen the referendum rules drawn up much more rigidly - ie something like a majority vote of a minimum 75% turnout, or a 40% threshold, or (best for such a momentous decision in my opinion) a true majority of the electorate. I am well aware that any of these would have stopped a Leave vote, but that isn't really the point - I would be more than happy to accept the result of a proper majority vote even if it was Leave.

The problem with the lazy ineptitude of Cameron not doing that is that it has left the result inconclusive - a small majority of those who voted wanted change, but far less than a majority of the electorate by a wide margin. To me that is extremely unsatisfactory for something of this importance. How low a turnout do you think would have made the result invalid?

It may be moot anyway - the legal challenge is correct because this is a Parliamentary democracy and the referendum was non-binding.

Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....

ICBM

Chalky said:

Yet again you are just suggesting vote-rigging in favour of Remain....

No, I am suggesting requiring an actual democratic mandate for Leave.

holnrew

In a general election, if a party only wins 52% of seats they're a minority government and don't have a mandate to govern

hungrymark

They do if there's only one other party competing in the election, which, in a binary choice referendum, is effectively the case.

hungrymark

For what it's worth, if the turnout was only one voter nationwide then the referendum, under the terms of the one we've just had, would still be valid. We can't retrospectively change the rules just because we don't like them.

Brize

ICBM said:

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Christ, give it a rest.

Garthy

holnrew;1137137" said:

In a general election, if a party only wins 52% of seats they're a minority government and don't have a mandate to govern

If this was a general election then Leave would have won 270 seats to 129.

ICBM

hungrymark said:

For what it's worth, if the turnout was only one voter nationwide then the referendum, under the terms of the one we've just had, would still be valid. We can't retrospectively change the rules just because we don't like them.

It would be a valid result but it would still be non-binding, because those were the terms of the referendum.

Brize said:

Christ, give it a rest.

No.

This is important.

Or, you could give trying to demand a result which you know is not supported by the majority of the population a rest.

Richardj

Brize said:

ICBM said:

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

Christ, give it a rest.

NO.  If you are so desperate to be out of Europe then get out.  Article 50 should have been invoked by now.  The very fact that no one has the courage to do it speaks volumes.  Don't tell me that you have to wait for advantageous deals, you can't have it both ways.  IN or OUT. Simples.

Bucket

Garthy said:

holnrew;1137137" said:

In a general election, if a party only wins 52% of seats they're a minority government and don't have a mandate to govern

If this was a general election then Leave would have won 270 seats to 129.

How do you make that out?

hungrymark

@icbm, you're on record saying that you think parliament should disregard the referendum result. But say the position was reversed. Remain won by 52 to 48, but the government decided that it was in the national interest to leave anyway and passed an act of Parliament to trigger article 50? My point is that I don't think you're objecting on principle. I think you just don't like the result.