Merged Now What?

[abaddon]

Setting aside the result of a referendum, by whichever part of government (or even the judiciary), would immediately undermine the legitimacy of those very bodies who owe their right to exist to democracy and the rule of law. If we can bin some bits of democracy and the rule of law, we can bin them all, and if ignoring the result of plebicites is justifiable, then so is ignoring the results of elections. That's just about the definition of a constitutional crisis.

The problem is that in the UK, the constitution is unwritten, theus parliament may chose whether or not a referendum is binding or not, or even if it is held at all.

The US, for example, has referenda and they are by default binding because it is written and defined.

UK politicians always resist the notion of binding referenda because it removes power form parliament and hands it right back to the voting public. This is anathema to the political class, who, in the UK have a visceral horror of having actual democracy take hold. Now that it actually has, they have no clue what to do which is why they are all jumping ship.

 

[MCel58]

Referendums have not been ignored in Ireland. Unlike the UK, they are actually part of the constitution, so can't be ignored.

It does sometimes take more than one go to get the answer right however

Yes you are correct they held two referendums first in 2008, when Ireland held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – and voters rejected it by a majority of 53 per cent. Then Irish and EU politicians urged people to think again, the 2nd referendum was held in 2009 and this time 67 per cent of voters backed the treaty. So they didn't ignore it they ran it again.

 

[Craig B]

I think you are missing my point. I am sure we do not disagree on whether or not there would be a 'crisis' simply whether or not it is a constitutional one.

wikipedia says "A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system's constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve"

If the current law allows parliament to overrule the public then there is no legal supremacy problem to resolve. It would be a constitutional crisis if one part of the law said the referendum was binding and another said Parliament could overrule it.

I don't agree with that limited view of things, but it is a step forward from your initial overly dismissive statement, to wit; that there is no constitutional crisis because

(1)There is no constitution ...

The constitution is considered valid because it is founded on the will of the people. When a matter involving changes to the constitutional order requires to be decided, it has in recent times become the practice to refer this to the decision of a popular referendum. This reinforces the principle that the legitimacy of power derives from popular assent.

 

[MikeG]

......This is anathema to the political class, who, in the UK have a visceral horror of having actual democracy take hold. Now that it actually has, they have no clue what to do which is why they are all jumping ship.

Are they? Who is jumping ship, other than Cameron? (Don't include Farage, who was never on any ship........I think of him more as that blue-green algal sludge you see now and then).

 

[Tolls]

Re: constitutional crisis.
Isn't there already one, what with the whole Scotland thing?

 

[Lothian]

I don't agree with that limited view of things, but it is a step forward from your initial overly dismissive statement, to wit; that there is no constitutional crisis because The constitution is considered valid because it is founded on the will of the people. When a matter involving changes to the constitutional order requires to be decided, it has in recent times become the practice to refer this to the decision of a popular referendum. This reinforces the principle that the legitimacy of power derives from popular assent.

There is no constitution as such. To the extent there is one it has nothing to do with the will of the people rather the rights allowed by a number of acts and laws. As Rat pointed out earlier the will of the UK people (by about 52% to 48%) is for capital punishment yet we don't have it.

 

[Craig B]

There is no constitution as such. To the extent there is one it has nothing to do with the will of the people rather the rights allowed by a number of acts and laws. As Rat pointed out earlier the will of the UK people (by about 52% to 48%) is for capital punishment yet we don't have it.

Yes it has. Under theoretical principles sovereignty is supposed to be exercised in the UK by an entity referred to as the Crown in Parliament. That is a fiction. When a referendum takes place, the sovereignty of the Crown, now anyway superseded, as well as of parliament in practice, is returned to the electorate. Why else have a referendum? The Crown, like parliament, awaits the outcome of the referendum, and if it is agreeable to her, the Queen "purrs" as we have learned. That is her constitutional role in practical terms.

The specific punishments to be meted out for various crimes are in no way constitutional matters and are properly decided by votes in the legislature, so the amount of support there may or may not be for for stringing them up its the only language they understand, is indeed constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Lothian]

Yes it has. Under theoretical principles sovereignty is supposed to be exercised in the UK by an entity referred to as the Crown in Parliament. That is a fiction. When a referendum takes place, the sovereignty of the Crown, now anyway superseded, as well as of parliament in practice, is returned to the electorate. Why else have a referendum? The Crown, like parliament, awaits the outcome of the referendum, and if it is agreeable to her, the Queen "purrs" as we have learned. That is her constitutional role in practical terms.

The specific punishments to be meted out for various crimes are in no way constitutional matters and are properly decided by votes in the legislature, so the amount of support there may or may not be for for stringing them up its the only language they understand, is indeed constitutionally irrelevant.

Where in the constitution does it say the Queen and parliament must enact a referendum result? I presume that it also has a timescale and all this pressing the button stuff is a red herring.

 

[McHrozni]

Keep preaching Doom. Everyone and their dogs telling us that the sky is going to fall because of Brexit is getting tiresome.

No one is preaching that.

Could you also quit calling vast numbers of this country retards. Also getting tiresome.

Would you perfer another term? Morons, perhaps?

The best course of action is for the Tories to elect a new leader, and for that new leader to use the time between now and Sep 9th to draw up a sensible plan on how best for the country to proceed.

The sensible plan is one that doesn't involve Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[MCel58]

The position of a referendum in the UK is advisory as stated by the select committee parliamentary report on referendums. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99.pdf
The main clauses states;
"223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory to the Parliament. The report also warns on the need to make sure that people voting in a referendum are told of the advisory nature or they will expect their will to be enacted.
However, It was exactly this advisory nature that was not made clear to people voting in this referendum and so there is an understandable expectation that the vote will be honoured and that is why it is a political crisis rather than a constitutional one. I am not suggesting that Brexit should not happen just that it is a complete mess.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Keep preaching Doom. Everyone and their dogs telling us that the sky is going to fall because of Brexit is getting tiresome.

I realize you are not addressing me, but since earlier I so argued, I'd only add that there is some logic to those who are concerned; it isn't merely scare mongering. It isn't all doom and gloom, though, certainly some markets will do better and pockets of the economy improve. Overall, however, the decline in the economy will be manageable but enough to make it of critical concern.

In my case, I hope that the bad news arrives soonest, not out of spite, but because that will allow all sides to evaluate with more information in hand prior to the 24 month expiry once Art 50 is triggered.

Could you also quit calling vast numbers of this country retards. Also getting tiresome.

Regarding those who had basic hard feelings as their Brexit voting rationale, I think it important to recognize that there are fair concerns about immigration and loss of national sovereignty, without being racist or anything of the sort. More honest dialog from everyone might be nice.

The best course of action is for the Tories to elect a new leader, and for that new leader to use the time between now and Sep 9th to draw up a sensible plan on how best for the country to proceed.

Reason I posted was so I could agree with the above, and not make all my posts in disagreement.

Frankly I am glad Farage has left the building, the less that idiot has to do with what happens next the better.

Champagne?

 

[catsmate]

Feel free to explain why the government setting aside the result of a constitutional referendum, which it initiated itself, would not represent a constitutional crisis.

Particularly when it is agreed that the motive behind the vote of the majority, if not outright racism, was the feeling that government is "undemocratic" and doesn't listen to the common people.

It wasn't a "constitutional referendum" it has no legal or constitutional standing or authority.

 

[ceptimus]

Whether or not it's constitutional is neither here nor there. The government will ignore the result of the referendum at its peril.

 

[catsmate]

Setting aside the result of a referendum, by whichever part of government (or even the judiciary), would immediately undermine the legitimacy of those very bodies who owe their right to exist to democracy and the rule of law. If we can bin some bits of democracy and the rule of law, we can bin them all, and if ignoring the result of plebicites is justifiable, then so is ignoring the results of elections. That's just about the definition of a constitutional crisis.

No it wouldn't. If the UK Supreme Court blocks any attempt to invoke A50 without a vote in parliament it is interpreting the UK's constitution. The referendum is not legally binding.

 

[catsmate]

Referendums have not been ignored in Ireland. Unlike the UK, they are actually part of the constitution, so can't be ignored.

It does sometimes take more than one go to get the answer right however

A solution the UK could attempt.

 

[MikeG]

It's always a tough situation. The neo-fascists never have to stick to their word, act respnsibly or be honest; nobody expects them to, especially not their supporters as long as they "stand up to the PC establishment" and whatnot. But God help you if you try to pull a fast one on THEM!

For the sake of clarity, are you suggesting that only neo-fascists voted for Brexit, or that only neo-fascists led the Brexit campaign, or something else? In other words, please explain your association of the words "neo-fascist" with the referendum.

 

[MikeG]

A solution the UK could attempt.

Just for a second, do a little thought exercise. Imagine that Remain had won, Leave lost, by the same percentage and with the same campaign as we've just had. OK?

Now, imagine what you on the Remain would be saying if Leavers were agitating for the result to be set aside. Can you explain why you might treat the two circumstances in a different fashion?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

For the sake of clarity, are you suggesting that only neo-fascists voted for Brexit, or that only neo-fascists led the Brexit campaign, or something else? In other words, please explain your association of the words "neo-fascist" with the referendum.

I'll tell you my association: Nigel horde-behind-me-on-a-bus Farage.

Nigel Farage was no mirage.
Now triage, with UK in the bargain garage.

For that effort I deserve a massage.

 

[abaddon]

As above. Parliament isn't the only body in the country which is part of the constitution, and a democratic organisation ignoring the outcome of a legal and democratic referendum would invalidate their own raison d'etre.

Where is that written as law? In the UK, nowhere. It devolves into overpaid legal eagles arguing at enormous expense over a constitution which neither side can put their finger upon. Because it is not encoded and enshrined into law in any meaningful way.

The so-called British Constitution does not exist in any meaningful way because it simply does not exist at all. All that actually exists is precedent, which is subject to wild interpretation, legal argument, which is subject to the relative ability of the legals on either side, and appointed judges whose rulings are often called into question.

Ideally, the UK claims to have a constitution. Nobody has ever seen it or read it.

If you disagree, feel free to point out the UK constitution.

 

[Craig B]

Where in the constitution does it say the Queen and parliament must enact a referendum result? I presume that it also has a timescale and all this pressing the button stuff is a red herring.

It doesn't say anything in all probability. Now, either the Crown in Parliament is sovereign or the people is sovereign. Parliament may advise the Crown, in constitutional fiction, but it verges upon lunacy to suggest that the electorate can "advise" the government. One side or the other must prevail on this issue.

Let Parliament set aside the result of the referendum, and see what happens. At the very least it would be necessary to call an immediate general election in my opinion.