BREXIT

This thread is currently locked.

:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: Previous | ... | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | ... | Next |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
04 Nov 2016 9:33 PM by tteedd Star rating in Hertfordshire & Punt.... 990 posts Send private message

No such thing as 'advisory'.

It did not say so in the referendum bill.

It did not say so in the question asked.

Both sides in the referendum said that the result was binding on the government.

David Cameron resigned because he did not want to enact the decision he was bound to respect.

The 'advisory' claim is just a straw being grabbed at at. It has no reality.

The UK electorate made a decision. They were given the chance to do this by an Act of Parliament for which the MP's voted 6 to1 in favour.

The government has to enact the democratic will of the people.

There may be many twists to this tale yet but at the moment that is where we stand.

 


This message was last edited by tteedd on 04/11/2016.



Like 4      
04 Nov 2016 10:43 PM by baz1946 Star rating. 2327 posts Send private message

In January 2013 Cameron told the country that if the Conservatives won and were in power he would offer the country a referendum on in or out of the EU, he won, he promised the vote.

Why has it taken so long for these 3 stooges to put a spanner in the works?

If they, and any other legal eagle did their homework correctly they would have known months ago it possibly cant be done, because it might not be 100% legal, seems now the reality of leaving is getting to be more then a possibility many are getting worried.





Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 12:01 AM by perrypower1 Star rating in Derbyshire/Fuerteven.... 647 posts Send private message

perrypower1´s avatar

Tteedd

it is advisory.  All parties accept that.  Except maybe you.  All referendums, in the UK are advisory only unless the act that creates them specifically states they are not advisory only.  That is the law!   The 2015 Referendum Act does not contain that language.  And most importantly, the briefing paper for the act made it explicitly clear that it was advisory only so all the MP's knew that before they voted on it.

I know you are frustrated by this development...the court decision...but that is the law of the land.  The PM and all of us have to follow the rule of law.  That is what protects us.  

Baz, the issue is process rather than Brexit itself.  Only Leavers who are for unknown reasons wanting to rush in and trigger Article 50 seem to be upset about it.  The MP who resigned today was/is a Leaver but resigned from government because of the illegal method they are trying to use to trigger Article 50 (Royal Perogative).

 





Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 9:43 AM by baz1946 Star rating. 2327 posts Send private message

Baz, the issue is process rather than Brexit itself.  Only Leavers who are for unknown reasons wanting to rush in and trigger Article 50 seem to be upset about it.  The MP who resigned today was/is a Leaver but resigned from government because of the illegal method they are trying to use to trigger Article 50 (Royal Perogative).

I never asked about the MP who left, or ask about Article 50, I did ask though if this is, as you also say, for the want of better words 'Illegal' then why wasn't the illegal / legal side of it sorted out almost 3 years ago when it came to light that this would happen as, Cameron first said it will happen.

Could the reason be the  'Leavers'  want to trigger Article 50 is because in their millions that is what they voted for? or are we waiting for another vote until some get the outcome they are looking for.

 





Like 2      
05 Nov 2016 10:54 AM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

There seems to be some misunderstanding on here about the way government works. A referendum is ‘advisory’ in the sense that the result is guiding the government on what the electorate wants. Referendums are not a normal process of government in Britain. In fact only 11 have been held in the country since 1973 and usually on devolutionary issues.

A referendum result does not have any legal powers of authority over the sovereignty of parliament. Parliament can ignore or legally vote against the result because it’s the sovereign head of power in the nation and always by virtue of that has the final say.

Mrs May attempted to use the royal prerogative as an instrument to by-pass that sovereignty of parliament and trigger article 50. It was a serious political mistake. She did that to try and avoid revealing in public what her negotiating point were.

In the UK; which is a constitutional monarchy the royal prerogative is devolved to the head of the government and a special legal procedure allows parliament to challenge the prime ministers claim to use the 'right’ of reserved powers.

In this instance the consequences for the country of triggering article 50 without parliament’s consideration and approval was in actual terms a constitutional breach. It was always going to be open to challenge in law. That is because since it is sovereign, parliament must debate and approve the terms under which the UK will leave the EU.

Crucially the referendum was only about leaving or remaining, it was not about the conditions of leaving. That is parliament’s job to consider. It will not fundamentally change the direction of travel for the country which is out of the EU.

If Mrs May is serious about not revealing her hand for the negotiations now that she has come legally unstuck, a general election is her only practical option left.

Britain will now either debate and approve these terms or have a general election. In my view the latter would be desirable because this government so far have made a hash of the entire thing and might even lose a vote of confidence if one was tabled.

It will also give the electorate a chance to reconsider the consequences of Brexit given the likely disastrous conditions that the country will be offered.



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 11:56 AM by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1754 posts Send private message

Seems the uk are whipping up a frenzy what a disgrace and it IMO this us just the start next step march's and demonstrations then violence then..............

No matter what happens now I really can't see a healthy way forward 



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 12:17 PM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

An informative post Mickeyfinn, but let’s straighten out a few realities here to previous postings, and ask some uncomfortable questions.

To suggest that voters knew or were advised (pun intended) that this was only advisory prior to the vote, is a denial of the truth. This advisory status was never identified by David Cameron or the remain camp during the referendum campaign, nor was it debated in any of the live TV debates, nor covered by the media, and has only come to light AFTER the vote went to a Brexit majority. So to suggest otherwise is not true.

To also imply that this was not a majority vote or democratic given there was the largest % turnout for many years is another denial. Those who didn't vote used their democratic right not to vote, but to imply that this in effect made it any less democratic is to turn our voting system on its head. Have you ever heard of a British vote being declared undemocratic because people chose not to vote?

So the question then turns to the requirement to respect the democratic vote as voted for by the British public in the referendum.

Most MPs that have been interviewed since the majority Brexit vote, and indeed it appears that the majority who have spoken in Parliament to date, have declared that they WILL respect the democratic decision by British citizens to exit the EU.

But moving on, and now recognising the devil is in the detail, I would have thought that what is of concern to those currently living and working in Spain is if the European Commission and other EU states decide to bully the UK following their democratic right to exit the EU at citizens expense, such that they will not respect those who in all good faith chose to reside and work in one of their member states.

The British PM has already stated in Parliament that, post Brexit, she wishes to respect those EU citizens who currently reside and work in the UK, but she stated that she is not prepared to do so in a unilateral manner since she considers this would lay British citizens residing and working in the EU susceptible to being denied equal reciprocal arrangements.

 The suggestion has-been made for citizens to take control as best they can and obtain the relevant documentation that can prove their current right to work and reside in the country. The fact they are advised to do so, is sadly indicative that the EU could act in a vindictive manner post Brexit, in such a way as to significantly compromise citizens who chose to reside and work in that member state in all good faith.  Have you heard of any reassurances from the EU bureaucrats prior to negotiations in this regard? Have you demanded that they show their hand in this regard prior to negotiations?

But back to the devil being in the detail…..What does this tell you of a treaty that from the outset does not appear to legally protect citizens acquired rights when they chose in all good faith to live and work in one of their member states, should a member state decide to use their democratic right to leave the EU? And what does it tell you of an intransigent EU Commission and bureaucrats IF(please to goodness they dont) they would even contemplate such compromising behaviour and place their existing EU citizens living and working across member states at risk in this way, and use this tactic to bully a member state to remain in the EU?

It would appear that denial of acquired rights has also been hidden from those citizens exercising their right to live and work across member states, and this is what you should be bringing to the attention of the EU Commission and bureaucrats, to make them accountable and fully aware of your concerns.You should be demanding treaty change.

If this is the way they do business and would be prepared to "use" citizens in this fashion in their negotiations, rather than look to mutually agreeable arrangements post Brexit ( which our PM has ALREADY suggested in Parliament that she aspires to), then this will only reaffirm the  lengths they are prepared to go to, to bully the UK in the negotiating process.

Is this the form of democracy and protection that you seek, where a ruling body (EU Commission) can ignore citizens acquired rights, and use this gap in treaty arrangements as a means of bullying a member state? If this be the case then why haven’t they already addressed this aspect of protection of citizens acquired rights? Might it be that they purposefully left this open so as to act as disincentive to member states and in that process had no intention of protecting citizens acquired rights from the outset. In which case why was this risk to citizens not openly identified and debated by all EU bureaucrats when they negotiated the treaty arrangements? Do you now see why  the risks to citizens in the CETA treaty was identified?

Isn’t this akin to what they have done with Greece whereby they encouraged them to join a union (having turned a blind eye to essential financial accession criteria), in full knowledge that they had an intractable hand in terms of financially crippling them if they chose to leave the EU? This is not looking after or respecting citizens rights, it’s become akin to an unaccountable dictatorship that is sadly failing to address citizens rights.

Let me ask you, who to date has endeavoured to reassure citizens in this specific matter of acquired rights and their aspirations to protect citizens post Brexit, those citizens currently living and working in the EU? Sadly it certainly does not appear to be the EU Commission and bureaucrats.

You should be demanding a reform to the treaty such that citizens acquired rights are protected in these intervening years, and whilst you are about it, please can you also demand that the EU adhere to the rule of law and use infringement rights against any member state that fails to ensure that adequate resources be made available to ensure that all citizens rights to consistent fair and timely justice are protected.

IMHO, the light from all of this should be shone firmly and brightly on the lack of citizen protection within the current EU system.... Surely it's in everyones interest to do so?

 

 





Like 2      
05 Nov 2016 12:27 PM by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1754 posts Send private message

Ads

Good post and it simply shows the lack of information and detail supplied prior to the vote

Voters simply did not know what the consequences of an exit vote were and they still don't know

IMO opinion the need for detail of an exit plan and another referendum is looking like the only way forward that would satisfy all

Anything else will see a continuation of misinformed debates points of law and a continual divisive future for the uk



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 1:17 PM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

ads:

I was pointing out the legal and constitutional position on UK referendums. I did not suggest the public were advised that the result would be advisory. However had anyone taken the trouble to find out they would know that was the constitutional case. Legally unless parliament agrees beforehand that the vote result would be binding the vote is advisory by default.

Neither am I implying the vote was undemocratic. I am trying to explain in lay terms what the constitutional position of the UK is on this matter. I agree it's unlikely the Brexit vote will not proceed. The opposition has said they will respect the vote which they are entitled so to do.

However parliament can tie the hands of the government as to what they can actually agree to during the negotiations. They do that by debate and a vote by both houses on the detail of what the government intends. That is the exercise of sovereign power by parliament and completely constitutionally correct.



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 2:06 PM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

What you should not be doing is allowing EU bureaucrats free reign with citizens rights, in other words be prepared to continue with the status quo at any cost.

Presumably commitment to protect rights are up to the point at which article 50 is triggered? Unfortuantely this will act as incentive to increasing migration in the interim, and without adequate transient controls in place, or the directive implemented to restrict housing benefit and tax credits to incoming new migrants,etc or a viable admin system is up and running to recoup NHS costs from EU member states, the UK will be once again at risk from swift uncontrolled migration with all the unintended consequences and pressure on housing, education, infrastructure, prisons, police, all with potential to sadly proliferate unrest etc.

Doesn't this therefore require a swift trigger of article 50 but also the need for Govt to swiftly address all the aspects  associated with benefit directives and correct recouping of NHS monies, whilst also making adequate resources available to areas/regions under stress?

 


This message was last edited by ads on 05/11/2016.


This message was last edited by ads on 05/11/2016.



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 2:35 PM by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1754 posts Send private message

Ads

Why at the point of article 50 trigger

We will still be members until negotiations have been complete and the uk actually leaves the EU



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 4:19 PM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

Even if article 50 is triggered it does not mean it is irrevocable. The UK can still change its mind. Also the two year consultation period can be extended with approval from the commission. Many experts have said two years is not long enough to complete the 'divorce'. Tadd is correct the UK only leaves to EU at the end date set and agreed in the negotiations.

Since UK governments have now fixed term parliaments we could find that come 2020 the negotiations are still continuing. In that event the Labour Party might win and find themselves having to complete the task in hand.

Another reason May should go to the country before triggering article 50.

Incidentally the terms of a member states exit can been done on qualified majority voting providing it’s approved by the European Parliament.

Article 50 was inserted into the Lisbon Treaty to allow member states to exit the Union when their country no longer complied with the EU entry requirements. For example in the case of a coup d’état. 



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 7:14 PM by tteedd Star rating in Hertfordshire & Punt.... 990 posts Send private message

More balony.

If we voted in remoners would have said the result was binding.

We voted out so the remoaners say it was advisory. 'All parties' as you put it said and behaved as if it were binding before the vote it is only the sore loosers wishing to change matters.

We have never had an advisory anything in the UK. It's the likes of Mugabe and Putin who think that the electoral process is advisory.

You are living in a dangerous dream world.

It is in countries where the will of the electorate is overridden by elites where we say that the people have a right to take things into their own hands. You are treading in very dangerous waters.

It is time that all accept the will of the people and work together towards a free, democratic and prosperous future.

 


This message was last edited by tteedd on 05/11/2016.



Like 3      
05 Nov 2016 7:32 PM by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1754 posts Send private message

Tteedd 

Had the vote been stay nothing would have changed and no legal challenges on protocol etc as a result.

As the vote was for an exit with absolutely no idea what that means is why we are in this mess of uncertainty secrecy and guessing etc



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 7:57 PM by tteedd Star rating in Hertfordshire & Punt.... 990 posts Send private message

Had the vote been stay nothing would have changed

I think it might have taken the wind out of UKIP's sails for a while.

While I would have been dissapointed, I would not have expected the country to be revisiting the matter in my life-time.





Like 3      
05 Nov 2016 9:14 PM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

When I say the UK referendum result is not binding on the government I mean legally none binding. All referendums in the UK are legally none binding.

An exception was the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system to alternative vote, where the relevant legislation obligated the government to change the law to reflect a “yes” vote had that occurred. No such provision was contained within the EU referendum legislation.

In 1975, when the last vote on whether to stay in the EU (then the European economic community) was held, the rightwing Conservative MP Enoch Powell, unhappy about what he considered a loss of national sovereignty, argued that the result was merely provisional as it could not be legally binding on parliament.

You can argue the government has a moral duty to proceed with the referendum result since it appears to be the democratic will of the people. It is difficult for parliment to argue against that. Edmund Burke wrote “It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.” I think that quote may have some relevance here.



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 9:58 PM by baz1946 Star rating. 2327 posts Send private message

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.”It did not say “it is your chance to advise on whether we should remain, the actual decision being taken by Parliament.”
But it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic:
This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide.” 

It is therefore clear that the referendum was not merely advisory, but was constitutionally decisive and binding. The clear, repeated and unequivocal promise made to the British people was that their vote in the referendum would finally decide the course which our country takes. Treating the result as merely advisory would be a flagrant breach of the repeated and unequivocal promises made to the British people. There should be no second guessing or reversal of the result by Parliament or by anybody else.

The government is therefore constitutionally mandated to exercise its legal power under the Royal prerogative to trigger the Article 50 process.

  • The legal power to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is in law a prerogative power vested in the Crown, which may be exercised by government ministers without the need for authorisation or consent from Parliament. There is no credible legal argument supporting the legal challenge being advertised by law firm Mishcon de Reya.

  • Constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. The referendum result not merely authorises but positively mandates the government to exercise its legal power to give notice under Article 50. 

  • As a matter of democratic politics it is astonishing that so many people should apparently regard it as legitimate to engage in activities designed to frustrate the expressed will of the British people. Sadly, this is a symptom of the serious damage which 40 years of membership has done to our sense of national cohesion. This damage can begin to heal once we leave.

This message was last edited by baz1946 on 05/11/2016.



Like 4      
05 Nov 2016 10:24 PM by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1754 posts Send private message

Baz

So the judges are wrong

 



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
05 Nov 2016 10:29 PM by tteedd Star rating in Hertfordshire & Punt.... 990 posts Send private message

For those that say it is unclear:

What do you not understand about exit?





Like 0      
05 Nov 2016 10:40 PM by tteedd Star rating in Hertfordshire & Punt.... 990 posts Send private message

So the judges are wrong

As there is no precedent, statute or case law it is a bit difficult to see how they could be right or wrong.

Perhaps they would have been more honest had they found themselves unable to give judgement.

As it is, people are certain to argue that they followed their personal preferences.





Like 1      

Pages: Previous | ... | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | ... | Next |



This thread is currently locked.


Previous Threads

2015 SPECIALIZED STUMPJUMPER EXPERT CARBON WORLD CUP - 0 posts
Renting - 7 posts
New law for private rentals in Andalucia - 110 posts
Questions for someone who lives in Corralejo, Fuerteventura. - 0 posts
Looking to buy in Hacienda del Alamo - 15 posts
new to forum - 11 posts
Form 210 non residential tax form - 1 posts
Part time self employment - 1 posts
Supreme Court- Law 57/68- Creditor´s meeting - 0 posts
Property to auction - 7 posts
Buying a car to keep in Spain... - 4 posts
HELP REQ'D WITH A SURVEY FOR A HND - 3 posts
Transfering car from UK to Spain How to do it - 14 posts
Moving to spain - 12 posts
Parking at Gatwick Airport - Discount Code - 0 posts
intercontinental hotel al torre golf resort...re opening? - 1 posts
Printed plan of Cala Mosca Development - 0 posts
For sale Ovation Balladeer LX electro acoustic guitar - 0 posts
Job and renting info please? - 8 posts
TV content from 'home' - 5 posts
Donald Trump - 61 posts
Looking for advice on which estate agent to use..... - 7 posts
Buying Travel Insurance whilst living in Spain - 6 posts
Law 57/68 claims - 25 posts
Hi - new: moving from UK Sussex to Galicia in summer 2016. - 4 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 7451

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | 298 | 299 | 300 | 301 | 302 | 303 | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 | 369 | 370 | 371 | 372 | 373 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x