DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-12-2016, 11:25
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Or why the referendum bill didn't contain details of how the UK would exit the EU if thats how the vote went.
Have a stab at answering my original question.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-12-2016, 11:31
Sport1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,057
OK, so we move on to the method of withdrawal. Of course the referendum didn't give options for exit with plan A, B, C etc. as I hope all will agree that was totally unworkable. What is unambiguous about the result is that we are leaving. The campaign to stay heralded that if we vote out it would mean leaving the single market, financial turbulence mandating an emergency budget, plague of locusts.... And the majority of people still voted out. Out without conditions, out without delay.

I agree that the populous did not give the PM / government a blank cheque as I will be spitting feathers if any sort of freedom of movement of people is retained. So we leave asap, the government negotiate privately on a new arrangement with the EU and then when it believes that it has it's best deal presents it to Parliament for debate / amendment / ratification. What is not in the UKs interest is showing all our cards to the EU negotiators in advance by having Parliament debate every nuance of our proposals in advance.
If any form of freedom of movement is retained, would you accept it or would you be happy for someone to use the law to challenge it?
Sport1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:38
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
If any form of freedom of movement is retained, would you accept it or would you be happy for someone to use the law to challenge it?
I would accept it for the time being and wait cautiously for the next general election which will be a good indicator of how well that policy was received by the UK electorate. The UK populous should decide on such issues and their elected politicians enact their wishes. This is preferable to the status quo.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:43
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
Can I ask, do you believe that the will of the majority of the people who voted in this 'advisory' referendum should be ignored?
I don't think it should be ignored, but that isn't the same as giving May a blank cheque to do anything she wants without any checks or ballances.

We live in a democracy with the rule of law, an advisory referendum didn't make us a dictatorship.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:52
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,514
We live in a democracy with the rule of law, an advisory referendum didn't make us a dictatorship.

Brexiters seem to want us to be a dictatorship. Democracy and sovreignety clearly stop when they won't get them what they want.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:54
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,270
Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me.
Is that because you don't like outright lies being pointed out to you?
I don't see the PM acting outside of the law and I don't believe I'm alone in this.

I propose that in this case 'the law is an ass' as it is being used to circumvent the will of the people in this particular context. The law needs changing...
Can you explain your legal background in thinking this, as you are obviously an experienced legal mind with extensive knowledge of parliamentary law?
Any thoughts on why Cameron didn't come out that morning and tell the worlds press that the referendum was actually advisory, he's considered the will of the people and has decided that in his view the UK is best served by remaining in the EU and hence it's business as usual?
Because he's a sniveling git?
OK, so we move on to the method of withdrawal. Of course the referendum didn't give options for exit with plan A, B, C etc. as I hope all will agree that was totally unworkable. What is unambiguous about the result is that we are leaving. The campaign to stay heralded that if we vote out it would mean leaving the single market, financial turbulence mandating an emergency budget, plague of locusts.... And the majority of people still voted out. Out without conditions, out without delay.

I agree that the populous did not give the PM / government a blank cheque as I will be spitting feathers if any sort of freedom of movement of people is retained. So we leave asap, the government negotiate privately on a new arrangement with the EU and then when it believes that it has it's best deal presents it to Parliament for debate / amendment / ratification. What is not in the UKs interest is showing all our cards to the EU negotiators in advance by having Parliament debate every nuance of our proposals in advance.
When was this plan agreed, if there were no plans on the table?
Can I ask, do you believe that the will of the majority of the people who voted in this 'advisory' referendum should be ignored?
It shouldn't be, and it won't be. However, even though Brexit means Brexit and is red, white and blue, no-one actually knows what Brexit involves.
Do you believe that Parliament have the right to vote against the will of the people on this particular issue?
They have the right to vote against an advisory referendum, as it is only advisory. However, it is unlikely they will ignore the advice.
Doesn't matter what the government 'intend' to do if Parliament are allowed to vote on the issue and decide to vote against the EU referendum result thus triggering a constitutional crises.
Do you think MPs should just hand over all decision making to May (who became PM on the say so of fewer then 200 Tory MPs) on everything?
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:56
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
I don't see the PM acting outside of the law and I don't believe I'm alone in this. What I do see is an opportunist attempting to delay / overturn the will of the people. Not listening to the people when they have spoken has not gone down well in the past. The subtlety here is that the PM is attempting to act on the will of the people, not a decision of her own making.

I propose that in this case 'the law is an ass' as it is being used to circumvent the will of the people in this particular context. The law needs changing...
1. What law?

2. Maybe so, but until it is changed it requires Parliament to overturn an act, in this case the 1972 Act.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:56
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
Do you believe that Parliament have the right to vote against the will of the people on this particular issue?
Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That goes for all issues unless parliament explicitly binds itself to the outcome of a referendum.
It didn't in this case.
One of many oversights in the enabling legislation.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:58
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Any thoughts on why Cameron didn't come out that morning and tell the worlds press that the referendum was actually advisory, he's considered the will of the people and has decided that in his view the UK is best served by remaining in the EU and hence it's business as usual?
Because he decided that we should leave but that he wasn't the person to do it.

None of that affects the law one iota.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:58
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
Have a stab at answering my original question.
Sorry, but you are going to have to remind me what it was.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:58
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,812
Doesn't matter what the government 'intend' to do if Parliament are allowed to vote on the issue and decide to vote against the EU referendum result thus triggering a constitutional crises.
If the SC rules that, under our constitution, a decision on whether or not we leave the EU is entirely up to Parliament then we clearly would not have a "constitutional crisis" should Parliament make such a decision (and irrespective of what it so decides).

In fact, the SC ruling may well bring our "constitutional crisis" to an end as it will establish what the correct procedure should be. And, it should be noted that our leading Leave politicians literally had decades in which they could have brought legislation to Parliament in which a procedure for leaving the EU could have been voted upon which would have made the job of the SC much simpler and saved everyone the current court cases.
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 12:00
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
out without delay.
No, they didn't vote for that. That may have been what some wanted but it wasn't on the ballot paper. And I'm sure there's plenty of leavers who'd like enough "delay" to thrash out a proper deal with the EU.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 12:02
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Do you believe that Parliament have the right to vote against the will of the people on this particular issue?
Legally, yes they do. You can then vote them out at the next election. That's how our parliamentary democracy works.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 13:41
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
So you're saying Cameron's government was lying, and you're surprised?
Not necessarily but the whole conversation as regards this was to do with the voters voting in ignorance. The whole point is that it was not the electorate's fault that they were kept in ignorance.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 13:45
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
: I think one of the problems is you believe what politicians say too much. Do you believe David Davis is a trustworthy and honest and will stick by what he believes ?
Most politicians are saying that the EU is the bee's knees. Most politicians have to compromise, in a democracy I would expect no less.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 13:51
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Farage said that it was a mistake to mention 350 million for the NHS, he said this literally hours after Brexit won, but he never said this figure was incorrect during the campaign, so it was a lie.
You are now saying all that Farage says is the truth and that he is the fount of wisdom. How times change when it suits the moment. The 350 million was a mistake because it could too clearly be criticised, then money going to the NHS (which many seem to persist in seeing as a promise from those not in a position to promise anything) cannot yet be shown to be a lie because we are still a member of the EU and pay the subs accordingly.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 13:52
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
I don't think it should be ignored, but that isn't the same as giving May a blank cheque to do anything she wants without any checks or ballances.

We live in a democracy with the rule of law, an advisory referendum didn't make us a dictatorship.
As I've said in previous posts the checks and balances (of Parliament) must come after the government have negotiated, in private, what they believe is the best deal for the UK. I don't see that as the UK sliding into a Stalinist regime.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:00
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Brexiters seem to want us to be a dictatorship. Democracy and sovreignety clearly stop when they won't get them what they want.
How on earth you can suggest that the PM acting directly on the will of the majority of the people as sliding towards dictatorship is beyond me. It's normally the other way around. There are plenty of examples past and present to draw from. I am not suggesting that Parliament can't vote (I insist that they do) on the final proposed arrangements with the EU, however Parliament do not have any legitimacy to prevent (and by inaction, delay) Brexit.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:02
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
What misinformation? Most things the Govt say they'll do need the approval of Parliament.

I'm not sure what "contradiction" you expected from Remain and I strongly suspect nor are you.
A contradiction that the government could do as they said. Most of the electorate believed the government could trigger article 50 as soon as they said, no MP indicated that this was not possible.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:06
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
...and the 1972 Act.

That would be true were the referendum legally binding.
I would agree, it does not however negate the point as regards 'should'.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:06
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
A contradiction that the government could do as they said. Most of the electorate believed the government could trigger article 50 as soon as they said, no MP indicated that this was not possible.
None of that makes it legally possible.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:07
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
As I've said in previous posts the checks and balances (of Parliament) must come after the government have negotiated, in private, what they believe is the best deal for the UK. I don't see that as the UK sliding into a Stalinist regime.
What is the point of a vote after the negotiations are complete? We leave the EU two years after triggering A50, whether we've agreed to a deal or not. She could negotiate the worse deal on Earth that pleases no one and voting against it will just mean the chaos of no deal at all when we leave, and probably 1000 court cases being launched to challenge anything anyone tries to do. Utter madness.

I didn't mention Stalin. There are many flavours of dictatorships.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:09
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
£350m was the Gross figure, not the Net, and therefore can't be used for anything else as it doesn't exist. A much smaller figure might be available, but after we've employed thousands of civil servants to reproduce many functions the EU does today I suspect we will have less money for the NHS, not more.

Most EU law is implemented by civil servants here. Much EU regulation is drawn from civil servants here.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:11
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
How on earth you can suggest that the PM acting directly on the will of the majority of the people as sliding towards dictatorship is beyond me. It's normally the other way around. There are plenty of examples past and present to draw from. I am not suggesting that Parliament can't vote (I insist that they do) on the final proposed arrangements with the EU, however Parliament do not have any legitimacy to prevent (and by inaction, delay) Brexit.
Brexit isn't just one thing, it contains almost infinite options and possibilities. This isn't something for our Prime Minister to decide alone, that's not how a parliamentary democracy works.

I very much doubt Parliament will try to prevent Brexit, but they might try to get a flavour of Brexit that doesn't only appeal to a few fanatics.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:14
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
I would agree, it does not however negate the point as regards 'should'.
I disagree, I think Parliament should be supreme, I don't want to be more like Switzerland.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21.