Brexit legal challenge.

Heartfeltdawn

Brize said:

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.

Even if Remain had won, the Prime Minister was fully within his or her right to flick two fingers up and to go ahead with invoking Article 50. That's how democratic and binding this was. 

Heartfeltdawn

Brize said:

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?

Had that occurred, then I would have wanted the Brexiters to push for a vote in Parliament on whether to invoke Article 50. The same way we vote on wars, taxes, and everything else, by putting it in the hands of the peopel we elected at the General Election. 

Brize

^^ Disagreeing with the concept of referenda is one thing, which I can accept; advancing facile arguments about the legitimacy of a referendum that's been and gone is something else.

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

p90fool

Cameron who?
I see no Cameron...

ICBM

Brize said:

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

And so it should. Acting upon it means that leaving the EU should now be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Brize

ICBM said:

Brize said:

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

And so it should. Acting upon it means that leaving the EU should now be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Another masterclass in disingenuity.

fretmeister

Brize said:

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?

See my earlier point on needing a majority for change.

I would still have supported a parliamentary debate and a parliamentary vote on it though. Because that's what the constitution demands.

ICBM

Brize said:

ICBM said:

Brize said:

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

And so it should. Acting upon it means that leaving the EU should now be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Another masterclass in disingenuity.

lol

No disingenuity here no matter how much you keep trying to twist it. I've been completely consistent about what I think is the right democratic process and why.

Yes, I want the UK to remain in the EU - but if Parliament votes to leave, after the proper procedures have been followed, then that is that and I will say no more about it. If you don't think that's a necessary step then it's you who is advancing facile arguments about the legitimacy of the referendum, not me.

fretmeister

Over 1000 barristers have signed a letter confirming their understanding of the law requires a parliamentary vote.

It should be noted that if Brexit happens the lawyers will make the most money out of it as they will be the ones drafting up the new cross-boarder contracts and dealing with the inevitable challenges and disputes. That's just in the private sector. The Goverment Legal Service will be doing the treaty work - no doubt in conjunction with externals as well. Ignoring the Treaty issues for a moment, there is decades of trade war litigation there.

Lawyers who voted Remain (most of them) actually voted against the best interests of their own wallets.

Clarky

Brize said:

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?

I think the difference is that to remain means exactly that and cannot really be hijacked
Leave on the other hand was a blend of things; folks that genuinely wanted to leave, folks that wanted to simply give the middle finger to the establishment and of the folks that actually believed the unimplementable promises of Boris and Co [give £350m / week to the NHS, zero immigration etc], some may have voted differently had they realised what utter crap all that was..

so the number of people that actually voted to leave based on a reasonable opinion [that did not believe Boris' crap but still concluded that Leave is the right thing to do - which I completely accept btw] could not have been 52%
what the true figure is though we'll never know because it was hijacked by the protestors and the misled..

Brize

One of the most condescending narratives to come out of the referendum is that Leave voters had their tiny little minds warped by Boris & Co. There was copious amounts of bullshit on both sides.

John_P

Thinking about the idea that there should have been a threshold percentage to trigger a change - does that mean falling to achieve that means the EU had to stay unchanged?       As I understand it there are plenty of plans for the EU to change and move towards closer integration so in this case both sides were voting for a change and some aspects of the future unknown.

I'd agree that it needs debating in parliament (though I wish there were more people there I trust)   but the debate will be about the terms of leaving - it would be very poor form for mp's to decide to go against the results of the referendum imo.

hungrymark

I agree that it should go to parliament, and I'm in favour of brexit. Contrary to the narrative being peddled, I voted remain but have since changed my mind. Mind you, it was never a strong remain.

ToneControl

Third largest  Eurozone country announced as officially shafted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36770311

ICBM

Interesting…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36770277

SNP spokesman: "The SNP's focus is on the negotiations that lie ahead to protect Scotland's relationship with the European Union and our place in the single market."

Read that carefully again… *with* the EU - not *in* the EU.

Freudian slip, or very carefully worded policy statement?

Heartfeltdawn

Brize said:

^^ Disagreeing with the concept of referenda is one thing, which I can accept; advancing facile arguments about the legitimacy of a referendum that's been and gone is something else.

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

I do not question the legitimacy of the result. A question was asked, an answer was given. It is the legitimacy of the referendum as a means for instigating action above Parliamentary Sovereignty that is in question. 

I would recommend the article posted up recently by Nat le Roux of the Constitution Society describing the issues. 

http://www.consoc.org.uk/2016/07/the-eu-referendum-and-some-paradoxes-of-democratic-legitimacy-by-nat-le-roux-of-the-constitution-society/#more-2723

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn said:

Brize said:

^^ Disagreeing with the concept of referenda is one thing, which I can accept; advancing facile arguments about the legitimacy of a referendum that's been and gone is something else.

Cameron always made clear that, although the result of the referendum would not be binding, the result would be respected and acted upon.

I do not question the legitimacy of the result. A question was asked, an answer was given. It is the legitimacy of the referendum as a means for instigating action above Parliamentary Sovereignty that is in question. 

I would recommend the article posted up recently by Nat le Roux of the Constitution Society describing the issues. 

http://www.consoc.org.uk/2016/07/the-eu-referendum-and-some-paradoxes-of-democratic-legitimacy-by-nat-le-roux-of-the-constitution-society/#more-2723

Ha! He segues from legitimacy of the referendum and parliamentary sovereignty into telling MPs how they should do their job and how they should vote.

Prat.

quarky

ICBM said:

Interesting…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36770277

SNP spokesman: "The SNP's focus is on the negotiations that lie ahead to protect Scotland's relationship with the European Union and our place in the single market."

Read that carefully again… *with* the EU - not *in* the EU.

Freudian slip, or very carefully worded policy statement?

Makes sense. Joining the EU for Scotland won't be easy, and adopting the Euro would be incredibly unpopular I assume.

ICBM

quarky said:

Makes sense. Joining the EU for Scotland won't be easy, and adopting the Euro would be incredibly unpopular I assume.

Yes, I think so.

I thought it was interesting that if taken exactly as read, it means the SNP has given up trying to keep Scotland actually in the EU and is probably looking at more of an EFTA solution. I may be misinterpreting that though.

It's useful to look at the Denmark/Greenland situation for this too, since Denmark is also not in the Euro - I can't see how it would work if they were.

I'm beginning to think some kind of complicated arrangement like that could actually solve both the EU and the Scottish independence questions at the same time, if Scotland can get a federal arrangement with the UK somewhere short of independence, and an arrangement with the EU somewhere short of full membership… it would allow all sides (including the Spanish, if Scotland doesn't rejoin as a full member) to claim they've got more or less what they want.

Not quite what I and a lot of other Scots want, but sometimes you have to make the best of what you're given.

Clarky

ICBM said:

quarky said:

Makes sense. Joining the EU for Scotland won't be easy, and adopting the Euro would be incredibly unpopular I assume.

Yes, I think so.

I thought it was interesting that if taken exactly as read, it means the SNP has given up trying to keep Scotland actually in the EU and is probably looking at more of an EFTA solution. I may be misinterpreting that though.

It's useful to look at the Denmark/Greenland situation for this too, since Denmark is also not in the Euro - I can't see how it would work if they were.

I'm beginning to think some kind of complicated arrangement like that could actually solve both the EU and the Scottish independence questions at the same time, if Scotland can get a federal arrangement with the UK somewhere short of independence, and an arrangement with the EU somewhere short of full membership… it would allow all sides (including the Spanish, if Scotland doesn't rejoin as a full member) to claim they've got more or less what they want.

Not quite what I and a lot of other Scots want, but sometimes you have to make the best of what you're given.

so in the interests of compromise and everyone coming out of this looking like they got something out of it [if not everything]..
the UK will be out, but not out out