From a legal standpoint the EU Ref wasn't binding, however that could be argued to have changed when the Government spent £9m of taxpayers money and sent out an official communication. Which stated in no uncertain terms that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the EU and the single market and the Gov would carry out you decision.

When you get something in writing from the Government you expect it to be 100% correct..........that pamphlet left no wiffle room in the process to leave as it clearly stated leaving the single market would happen along with leaving the EU, anyone who argues otherwise clearly doesn't understand what happened on June 23rd.

You seem to be confusing a legal document with the wilful misleading of the electorate. The leaflet was official government policy, the Stronger in Europe Campaign was the official campaign to keep us in Europe. Neither indicated that the Government could not enact its intent. Most voters are not au fait with the legal situation and neither the campaign nor the government favoured the electorate with that information.

They did not indicate the legal status as far as I can see. I think many voters made assumptions and perhaps they were not disabused of that as a deliberate ploy at worst or as a unforgiveable oversight at best

What oversight.

I ask again, have I missed something over the Xmas because as far as I know, we are leaving the EU. This whole issue is around the process of leaving which was not mentioned in this leaflet you have now brought into the post.

And why talk about what the government have said, it is parliament who decides, not the government, unless we are going to start claiming that a government in power can never be defeated on any policy.

Not confusing any thing, did it state how we would leave the EU, no, did it give a date for leaving the eu no, is the court case about stopping the uk leaving the eu no.

Parliament have already decided. Did they dictate that the RP couldn't be used? If they did, when?

In post 137 you said

So people really did vote with ignorance. Quite a worry.

Did you read the replies? Ignorance can just be not being informed which is a different thing altogether.

Did the government put it in the bill they laid before parliament that RP was going to be used

They didn't, but it was hinted and assumed that it would be used, and not ONE MP protested about it.

For goodness sake, the comment was that the voters voted with ignorance. That is as maybe but if they were not informed and specifically guided to believe that the government could and would act one way by both Remain and the Government then they were misled. Nothing to do with how, why, what, who, if and maybe. All to do with informing the electorate before a vote.

Please point us to evidence of precisely how this was "hinted at" or "assumed".

Adopting this thought process, almost anything can be "hinted" or "assumed" so as to fit your agenda.

Daft as ****, I'm afraid. .

So it was not in the bill then, and we know why not because parliament would not have voted it though. You can debate and protest about something in a bill but you cannot debate something that is not in the bill.

Yes, my post was in reply to someone claiming that millions voted in belief the referendum was binding.

Therefore they were ignorant to the fact it isn't.

A different thing to what???

The government information leaflet stated clearly that the government (not Parliament) would implement whatever the electorate decided. The Stronger in Europe campaign did not contradict that and no MP contradicted that. So it was not just hinted at it was stated clearly that the government would act.

They were ignorant of the fact I was pointing out why they were ignorant of the fact which does not cast the Government, the Stronger in Europe Campaign or MPs in a very good light as regards informing the electorate.

So they read a leaflet that didn't mention the referendum being binding and were ignorant because they believed something they were never told.

I think we are in agreement.

Not how you work that out, put simply how can a government leaflet say what parliament is going to do. And the leaflet was not a legal document, and another point being how can a government say this when half were on the remain side and half on the leave side so you had a government fighting each other

Sexist twaddle. Do you have a problem with women making their own decisions and being responsible for their own actions?

Good grief, the days when husbands "allowed" their wives is a bit 19th Century isn't it ?

how is she responsible for the abuse she gets? maybe you dont understand but my posts are about about his inaction to even defend her when she's not doing anything wrong and facing widespread abuse from people on social media and other places.
this year we've seen mr clinton defend his wife, i'm sure there's more examples but my post is about him and mr pimlico plumber, not her. they need to contribute more since they're in it as much as gina is but they're happy to do nothing and allow her to face the of the campaign. i say again, some men they are

No one was misled, the government does intend to implement the referendum result. Again you confuse following a legal process with some conspiracy to stay in the EU.

You must have a cupboard full of tinfoil hats.

Another ignorant post that fundamentally misunderstands the nature and function of parliamentary democracy.

The fact that a particular Tory government produces a particular leaflet is meaninglesss, in the same way that riding around the country is a massive bus, plastered with the biggest lie since liar mc lie founded lieville is meaningless, or alleging that a vote for Brexit will result in financial Armageddon in meaningless. It's just politicians saying shite to get them elected and/or persuade you to peddle on their point of view.

Referenda are non binding save where legislation specifies otherwise. I'm sorry you were ignorant of that plain and simple fact, but it's for you to educate yourself.

Everyone knows it was advisory, every referendum ever held in this country has been advisory other than the AV Vote , even the Scottish referendum was advisory , however whilst not binding in law those that run the country publicity stated they would carry out the wishes of the people in that vote.

You mean DC who did a runner, so his word was meaningless. Wonder way DC never made it legally binding, fact is he could not as if the government had folded and a GE was called, no law can be passed to make it law for a new government to carry it though what ever a old government said they would do.

Why has no other referendum been legally binding other than AV ? including the one that kept us in the EU in 1975 after we were taken in to it with no vote.