No government can order a referendum, it is not a power of government, it is a power of Parliament.
No Parliament can impose unalterable restriction on subsequent parliaments. Every Parliament is Sovereign. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
"
Like any referendum for Scottish independence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
"
The EU referendum was -
a) very clear
b) perfectly easily achievable
c) perfectly clear outcome
d) it was a none binding referendum |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
The EU referendum was -
a) very clear
b) perfectly easily achievable
c) perfectly clear outcome
d) it was a none binding referendum"
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
The EU referendum was -
a) very clear
b) perfectly easily achievable
c) perfectly clear outcome
d) it was a none binding referendum
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want..."
No, I have to disagree on that.
David Cameron and many others clearly stated many times over that a vote to leave meant leaving the Customs union & single market and in turn by a simple process of ellimination it meant we walked away from everything including all trade deals we currently benefit from.
What you have now is a government trying to stay in bits of the EU to limit the damage to the Country, instead of following the public's answer to the original question of the referendum and acting on the predefined path that was laid out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
The EU referendum was -
a) very clear
b) perfectly easily achievable
c) perfectly clear outcome
d) it was a none binding referendum
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want...
No, I have to disagree on that.
David Cameron and many others clearly stated many times over that a vote to leave meant leaving the Customs union & single market and in turn by a simple process of ellimination it meant we walked away from everything including all trade deals we currently benefit from.
What you have now is a government trying to stay in bits of the EU to limit the damage to the Country, instead of following the public's answer to the original question of the referendum and acting on the predefined path that was laid out."
The implications of leaving the Customs union & single market were not clearly defined. And, perhaps even most importantly, it wasn't (still isn't) well defined how issues like the Ireland border could be dealt with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nothing about the referendum other than it being a vehicle to keep the Tories in power was or is clear."
Wrong. As it was very clear Parliament voted by a very large majority (across all parties) in favour of having the referendum and letting the public decide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the government be banned from holding referendums on issues that are -
a) ill-defined
b) impractical i.e. unachievable
c) of unknown consequence?
d) irreversible
The EU referendum was -
a) very clear
b) perfectly easily achievable
c) perfectly clear outcome
d) it was a none binding referendum
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want...
No, I have to disagree on that.
David Cameron and many others clearly stated many times over that a vote to leave meant leaving the Customs union & single market and in turn by a simple process of ellimination it meant we walked away from everything including all trade deals we currently benefit from.
What you have now is a government trying to stay in bits of the EU to limit the damage to the Country, instead of following the public's answer to the original question of the referendum and acting on the predefined path that was laid out.
The implications of leaving the Customs union & single market were not clearly defined. And, perhaps even most importantly, it wasn't (still isn't) well defined how issues like the Ireland border could be dealt with."
Either way, enough people decided they knew 100% what they voted for & I hope they get everything this wished for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wrong. As it was very clear Parliament voted by a very large majority (across all parties) in favour of having the referendum and letting the public decide. "
Really?
So was the referendum legally binding? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wrong. As it was very clear Parliament voted by a very large majority (across all parties) in favour of having the referendum and letting the public decide.
Really?
So was the referendum legally binding?"
You said nothing was clear about the referendum. I'm saying it was very clear a large majority in Parliament (across all parties) voted in favour of having a referendum and letting the public decide.
Are you denying that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You said nothing was clear about the referendum. I'm saying it was very clear a large majority in Parliament (across all parties) voted in favour of having a referendum and letting the public decide.
Are you denying that? "
Yep!
The majority the referendum bill had does not in any way prove it was clear only that it had massive support.
Now answer my question, was the referendum legally binding? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You said nothing was clear about the referendum. I'm saying it was very clear a large majority in Parliament (across all parties) voted in favour of having a referendum and letting the public decide.
Are you denying that?
Yep!
The majority the referendum bill had does not in any way prove it was clear only that it had massive support.
Now answer my question, was the referendum legally binding?"
No it wasn't legally binding but it was made very clear that the result of the referendum would be implemented. Hell the government even spent £9 million quid of taxpayers cash on a leaflet which was sent to every house in the country which said the government would carry out and implement the result.
Article 50 has been triggered which is legally binding according to the EU treaties and Parliament voted by majority for the EU Withdrawal bill which is also legally binding and has now been given Royal ascent. Brexit is now legally binding and is part of British law.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No it wasn't legally binding but it was made very clear that the result of the referendum would be implemented. Hell the government even spent £9 million quid of taxpayers cash on a leaflet which was sent to every house in the country which said the government would carry out and implement the result.
Article 50 has been triggered which is legally binding according to the EU treaties and Parliament voted by majority for the EU Withdrawal bill which is also legally binding and has now been given Royal ascent. Brexit is now legally binding and is part of British law. "
So to be clear the Scottish Independence referendum bill drafted by the same government 2 years earlier was legally binding, but the EU referendum bill wasn't but it was because politicians said so. And you see nothing wrong or fudged in that at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Referendums are choosen to be legally binding or advisory.
I'm not sure exactly what is done that differentiates the 2 but if the Government was going to act upon the result in a leave win then I don't see why it wasn't made legally binding to start with.
You could argue why the need to make it binding if they are going to act on the result anyway I guess.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want..."
I used to think that, but I changed my mind.
It was simple - to leave the EU or stay.
That was implemented by Article 50.
I agree what happens next is not clear at all.
Theresa May wanted a clear mandate for that and went to the polls last summer.
The electorate refused.
Hence we appear appear to be in this dysfunctional state - gridlock, paralysis, whatever.
The lack of clarity stems from the fact that the people who called the referendum did not want any change, and therefore made no provision for any outcome other than "no change".
Stupid, lazy, whatever.
Nevertheless, the people who voted to leave are getting what they wanted.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The EU referendum was anything but clear. The question was massively oversimplified and almost 2 years later we're still arguing about what kind of brexit we want...
I used to think that, but I changed my mind.
It was simple - to leave the EU or stay.
That was implemented by Article 50.
I agree what happens next is not clear at all.
Theresa May wanted a clear mandate for that and went to the polls last summer.
The electorate refused.
Hence we appear appear to be in this dysfunctional state - gridlock, paralysis, whatever.
The lack of clarity stems from the fact that the people who called the referendum did not want any change, and therefore made no provision for any outcome other than "no change".
Stupid, lazy, whatever.
Nevertheless, the people who voted to leave are getting what they wanted.
"
We really need a no deal now otherwise if we're half in half out NOBOBY gets what they voted for at all, alienating the entire voting public. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
