Brexit legal challenge.

hungrymark

Heartfeltdawn;1139736" said:

hungrymark said:

It works both ways, watch:
no


- Number of recent votes, as pointed out by my doctor-sympathetic friends on Facebook, where the majority of doctors who voted opted to reject the new contract, meaning that the government and people of this country should respect their wishes: 1



- Number of recent nationwide referenda that resulted in a majority of voters opting to leave the EU: 1



- Number of my doctor-sympathetic friends who have no problem with the decision to leave the EU because there is a democratic mandate: 0












(and I genuinely LOL'd there). 

The best bit is that the JrDoc vote was as non-binding as the EU referendum and ultimately sod all to do with the voter. Just as the decision to invoke Article 50 rests with PM prerogative rather than being activated by a legal trigger within the referendum, there was no legal trigger in the JrDoc referendum and any action resulting from the vote is down to an executive decision by the Junior Doctors Committee. 

In the words of Jonathan Ross, that's democwacy, innit? 

Fuck voting. We should make all parties fight it out on the Gladiators television set. Last one standing gets it all. 

Yep :-)

I'm actually all for a parliamentary vote, if only to legitimise the decision. The last thing the country's going to need in five years' time is continuing legal challenges/moaning.

hungrymark

Heartfeltdawn;1139736" said:

hungrymark said:

It works both ways, watch:
no


- Number of recent votes, as pointed out by my doctor-sympathetic friends on Facebook, where the majority of doctors who voted opted to reject the new contract, meaning that the government and people of this country should respect their wishes: 1



- Number of recent nationwide referenda that resulted in a majority of voters opting to leave the EU: 1



- Number of my doctor-sympathetic friends who have no problem with the decision to leave the EU because there is a democratic mandate: 0












(and I genuinely LOL'd there). 

The best bit is that the JrDoc vote was as non-binding as the EU referendum and ultimately sod all to do with the voter. Just as the decision to invoke Article 50 rests with PM prerogative rather than being activated by a legal trigger within the referendum, there was no legal trigger in the JrDoc referendum and any action resulting from the vote is down to an executive decision by the Junior Doctors Committee. 

In the words of Jonathan Ross, that's democwacy, innit? 

Fuck voting. We should make all parties fight it out on the Gladiators television set. Last one standing gets it all. 

Yep :-)

I'm actually all for a parliamentary vote, if only to legitimise the decision. The last thing the country's going to need in five years' time is continuing legal challenges/moaning.

Heartfeltdawn

hungrymark said: I'm actually all for a parliamentary vote, if only to legitimise the decision. The last thing the country's going to need in five years' time is continuing legal challenges/moaning.

It appears that we have to go by the pathway that seems to be there (ie. PM prerogative over any statutory pathway) but I believe there should be a review of the entire referendum process by an independent body and clear rules set down for future votes. The obvious part would be to make it clear whether the referendum is binding or non-binding. It would have saved a tremendous amount of mindless claptrap from both sides. There should also be serious questions asked as to why a decision of this magnitude did not have a Parliamentary vote written into the EURA 2015. 

fields5069

Also I would have thought that a certain percentage majority would be a good idea, perhaps also based on turnout.

fretmeister

Heartfeltdawn said:

hungrymark said: I'm actually all for a parliamentary vote, if only to legitimise the decision. The last thing the country's going to need in five years' time is continuing legal challenges/moaning.

It appears that we have to go by the pathway that seems to be there (ie. PM prerogative over any statutory pathway) but I believe there should be a review of the entire referendum process by an independent body and clear rules set down for future votes. The obvious part would be to make it clear whether the referendum is binding or non-binding. It would have saved a tremendous amount of mindless claptrap from both sides. There should also be serious questions asked as to why a decision of this magnitude did not have a Parliamentary vote written into the EURA 2015. 

It was clear that this one was not binding, just like it was clear that the AV vote one was binding.

And it necessarily follows that a NON binding vote, that if followed would need the repeal of an act, requires a vote in parliament.

That's why a parliamentary vote is needed - The European Communities Act 1972 needs to be repealed before the process can start.

Once again - the discussions on here prove that Civics lessons are needed in school.

fretmeister

fields5069 said:

Also I would have thought that a certain percentage majority would be a good idea, perhaps also based on turnout.

It might be that setting a winning post for constitutional change at, for example 60% voting for the change, would require a constitutional change in itself. 

That could be interesting. Need a more than 50% referendum to make sure the next one has a more than 60%.

I'm going to try and find out whether a rule like that could need a simple act of parliament or whether it needs a referendum itself. I have no idea!

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

It was clear that this one was not binding, just like it was clear that the AV vote one was binding.

And it necessarily follows that a NON binding vote, that if followed would need the repeal of an act, requires a vote in parliament.

That's why a parliamentary vote is needed - The European Communities Act 1972 needs to be repealed before the process can start.

Once again - the discussions on here prove that Civics lessons are needed in school.

I think you're not quite seeing what I'm getting at. It was clear to you because you're a learned fellow. It was clear to me because I read this shit in my spare time. Non-binding all the way, a big consultative exercise. No disagreement there. 

But it was not seen as a non-binding referendum by an awful lot of people who don't have the legal background you do or who actually have a love/family/social life and don't spend too many hours reading political shit like I do . It is my contention that a number of voters believed the referendum was binding and that this was down to a) large amounts of the media whipping up this environment where "The people will speak and their decision will be final" and b) a failure by government to actually communicate what this referendum was clearly to all members of the electorate. 

Take page 14 of the official government brochure sent to the electorate (that document): 

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". 

Your average voter could well take that as meaning "winner takes all", that a process is legally triggered, and that the government legally has to follow whatever the winning stance is. Compare that to the 3 June 2015 briefing paper I've already posted in this thread (page 25 being the relevant page). Clearly written and explained. I contend that the explanation in that briefing paper should have been part of that official government brochure. 

When I said that "There should also be serious questions asked as to why a decision of this magnitude did not have a Parliamentary vote written into the EURA 2015. ",the decision I was referring to was that of triggering Article 50 which can be via prerogative and not Parliament. To fully Brexit, that Act needs to be repealed by Parliament. Totally agree with you there. It's just that I believe the decision to trigger Article 50 should be a Parliamentary vote and not down to prerogative. 

fretmeister

Heartfeltdawn said:

fretmeister said:

It was clear that this one was not binding, just like it was clear that the AV vote one was binding.

And it necessarily follows that a NON binding vote, that if followed would need the repeal of an act, requires a vote in parliament.

That's why a parliamentary vote is needed - The European Communities Act 1972 needs to be repealed before the process can start.

Once again - the discussions on here prove that Civics lessons are needed in school.

We need Civics lessons and we need them now!

Summarised it....

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

It might be that setting a winning post for constitutional change at, for example 60% voting for the change, would require a constitutional change in itself. 

That could be interesting. Need a more than 50% referendum to make sure the next one has a more than 60%.

I'm going to try and find out whether a rule like that could need a simple act of parliament or whether it needs a referendum itself. I have no idea!

The changes put upon strike action by trade unions included specific thresholds for voting (50% of those eligible must vote for things to be legit) came through a bill alone (Trade Union Bill 2016). Would it be feasible that something similar could be put in place for referndrums? Something similar to the Dutch Consultative Referendum Law perhaps? 

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

Summarised it....

You could just save time and call me stupid

fretmeister

Heartfeltdawn said:

fretmeister said:

It might be that setting a winning post for constitutional change at, for example 60% voting for the change, would require a constitutional change in itself. 

That could be interesting. Need a more than 50% referendum to make sure the next one has a more than 60%.

I'm going to try and find out whether a rule like that could need a simple act of parliament or whether it needs a referendum itself. I have no idea!

The changes put upon strike action by trade unions included specific thresholds for voting (50% of those eligible must vote for things to be legit) came through a bill alone (Trade Union Bill 2016). Would it be feasible that something similar could be put in place for referndrums? Something similar to the Dutch Consultative Referendum Law perhaps? 

I don't know.

Normal acts of parliaments are lesser beasts than the constitution itselfand are fairly easy to enact in comparison.

I've sent a few emails out, with luck I'll get a reply.

Of course the usual way of getting 3 opinions on a subject is to ask 2 lawyers...

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

I don't know.

Normal acts of parliaments are lesser beasts than the constitution itselfand are fairly easy to enact in comparison.

I've sent a few emails out, with luck I'll get a reply.

Of course the usual way of getting 3 opinions on a subject is to ask 2 lawyers...

That'd be really interesting to hear what results you get back. 

ICBM

Fretwired said:

You attacked me as you've consistently attacked anyone else who doesn't share your views on the EU.

(Sorry for the late reply, I've been thinking about how to put this into the most precise words I can.)

To be accurate, I've consistently attacked anyone who doesn't share my views on the referendum .

There is a reason for that - because I truly do not believe this has been a proper democratic result, for all the reasons we've gone through several times. If it was then I'd be happy to abide by it. As it is, I think democracy is in danger of being hijacked by a minority who want to turn an advisory referendum into a fait accompli - and are apparently in a hurry to do so before anyone can say stop.

To me it's critical that due process is followed given that this is probably the most important decision this country has faced since WWII and the repercussions will last decades, if not longer. It should now be a decision for Parliament, because the referendum was not binding. The result of the referendum is obviously important, but so is what the MPs think about what is in the interests of all their constituents.

It's quite possible that each of them will simply look at what the referendum result was in their constituency and vote accordingly - and I can understand them wanting to do exactly that. I think if they did it would be a leave vote, although I could be wrong - the map can be misleading because of the disproportionate size of rural and city constituencies. And if at the end of the day they vote for leaving, that's it, over and done with.

I hope that explains it without getting too bogged down in detail again. For me it's not actually about whether I want the UK to stay in the EU or not (although obviously I do), more about what I think is a properly democratic process. Sorry! I'm a pedant, I know.

But if you like I'll stop arguing about it, at least until we've finished with Chilcott and Blair .

Brize

ICBM said:

For me it's not actually about whether I want the UK to stay in the EU or not (although obviously I do), more about what I think is a properly democratic process. Sorry! I'm a pedant, I know.

A disingenuous pedant at that. If the result of the referendum had gone your way you would have been perfectly satisfied that the democratic process had taken its course.

ICBM

Brize said:

ICBM said:

For me it's not actually about whether I want the UK to stay in the EU or not (although obviously I do), more about what I think is a properly democratic process. Sorry! I'm a pedant, I know.

A disingenuous pedant at that. If the result of the referendum had gone your way you would have been perfectly satisfied that the democratic process had taken its course.

No. It's not an equivalent proposition, because we are voting to change the status quo. 

If the result of the Scottish independence referendum had been the same - a narrow vote for independence supported by less than half the electorate - I would say the same as I do now, even though I supported independence.

It is about what I think is a proper democratic process. Major decisions to change should be made by the *majority*, not the largest minority. I've been absolutely consistent about this as you well know.

Brize

ICBM said:

It is about what I think is a proper democratic process. Major decisions to change should be made by the *majority*, not the largest minority. I've been absolutely consistent about this as you well know.

You are indeed consistent, I'll give you that. 

fretmeister

Brize said:

ICBM said:

It is about what I think is a proper democratic process. Major decisions to change should be made by the *majority*, not the largest minority. I've been absolutely consistent about this as you well know.

You are indeed consistent, I'll give you that. 

On this point he is correct.

The vast majority of countries require more than just a win to change the constitution. Some require 60%, some even more.

It ensures that a genuine majority want the change and the default position is no change. Doesn't matter what the subject is, or who is on the winning / losing side - a genuine majority of the electorate is needed to bring in the change.

Brize

fretmeister said:

The vast majority of countries require more than just a win to change the constitution. Some require 60%, some even more.

Well, you and @ICBM should have been standing outside parliament with your placards when the rules of the EU referendum were formulated, not after the event.

fretmeister

Brize said:

fretmeister said:

The vast majority of countries require more than just a win to change the constitution. Some require 60%, some even more.

Well, you and @ICBM should have been standing outside parliament with your placards when the rules of the EU referendum were formulated, not after the event.

No need.

The result is advisory only. If it had been binding I may well have done.

Brize

fretmeister said:

Brize said:

fretmeister said:

The vast majority of countries require more than just a win to change the constitution. Some require 60%, some even more.

Well, you and @ICBM should have been standing outside parliament with your placards when the rules of the EU referendum were formulated, not after the event.

No need.

The result is advisory only. If it had been binding I may well have done.

And if the result had gone the other way and Brexiters had pushed for Britain to leave the EU because the referendum result was only advisory, what would you have said to that?