Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
abaddon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Constitutions don't have to be codified to be called a constitution. We certainly do have one, problem is it's wrote on the back of several envelopes, a napkin from 300 years ago and the medieval equivalent of post-it notes!
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the UK we settled the question a few centuries back - parliament is sovereign and that is why we have a representational democracy not a "true" democracy.
 
Darat said:
In the UK we settled the question a few centuries back - parliament is sovereign and that is why we have a representational democracy not a "true" democracy.
Click to expand...
I think that's right. Now, given that, explain to me why we have referendums.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending there isn't a lot of economic turmoil right now, or that we won't end up in a recession. Leaving the EU is a massive change, and such things cause a significant shock to the system. The vote was very recent and it'll take a while for things to settle into a new normality.

I'm concerned at the state of things right now, who wouldn't be.

Champagne?
Click to expand...

Cheers! :)
 
Craig B said:
I think that's right. Now, given that, explain to me why we have referendums.
Click to expand...

Er.... because parliament passed legislation to have one.

ETA: As for the reason we had one - internal Tory party politics and Cameron didn't have the skill nor resolve of Major and bottled it.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Let Parliament set aside the result of the referendum, [...] [and then] call an immediate general election
Click to expand...

Electoral suicide.

It's likely that MPs that backed the motion to set aside the referendum would be voted out of office, for David Cameron and all of the Tory leadership candidates to say that the result is done and there is no rerun, to U-turn on that would top even the past week in politics.
 
Darat said:
Er.... because parliament passed legislation to have one.

ETA: As for the reason we had one - internal Tory party politics and Cameron didn't have the skill nor resolve of Major and bottled it.
Click to expand...
I think he has in practice, now conceded that the electorate, rather than the Queen, is the source of the instructions that are to be attended to in the case of EU membership. He can say he will obey this "sovereign" or he can say he won't, but it makes no sense to suggest that he was merely seeking "advice". If the "advice" had been to his liking, he would have exhibited it as his democratic authority to remain in the EU.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean by fiction but it makes you sound like a Freeman! Parliament prevails, that is where the effective power rests.

My view would be that Parliament will maintain the fiction :) that we are going for Brexit until it gets a better idea of the deal on the table. If it does not have immigration controls, a free market and an absolute saving of 350m a week I think the case will be made that the Brexit content s do not reflect what was on the tin and the public will be asked if they still want to go ahead. That could after the button was pressed or before.
 
Lothian said:
I know what you mean by fiction but it makes you sound like a Freeman! Parliament prevails, that is where the effective power rests.

My view would be that Parliament will maintain the fiction :) that we are going for Brexit until it gets a better idea of the deal on the table. If it does not have immigration controls, a free market and an absolute saving of 350m a week I think the case will be made that the Brexit content s do not reflect what was on the tin and the public will be asked if they still want to go ahead. That could after the button was pressed or before.
Click to expand...
Then in these matters the EU is the "sovereign", and that sovereignty is to be recognised by the UK government. It makes the referendum look like the fraudulent exercise that indeed it was.

I am hardly a Freeman by suggesting that the electorate, having been invited to participate in a referendum called by the government should expect that government to accept the results of the referendum. I am strongly opposed to the decision of the electorate, by the way, and to the ideologies that motivated it.

But Parliament has not granted sovereignty to itself. It comes in theory from the Crown. Or it comes in practice from the electorate which elects MPs. Even as a fiction, the idea that it is self-generated is preposterous.

If governments or parliaments are to decide on membership of political unions without having referendums; how much longer do you think the UK will remain in being? Cameron is playing a dangerous game.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
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).
Click to expand...

Cameron bailed. Politically astute move on his part. Hand the poison chalice to someone else while reserving the right to be the rescuing white knight further down the road.

Boris was handed the poison chalice and at least had the wherewithal to realise that he never expected a brexit and did not know what to do with it when it happened. He at least also had the knowledge when to bail out.

Farage (although you requested he not be mentioned) bailed out. This one is suspect. It is his third resignation. No reason to believe he will not renege again like the previous two times. It is all a game to him with your welfare in the balance. How much do you really think Farage cares about you? He couldn't care less. He knows full well what the poison chalice is, and he wants no part of it.

Furthermore, the founder of UKIP disclaims where Farage has lead it. Does this not give you pause for thought?

Gove? Synonymous with traitor and impossibly naive. Stabbin BoJo in the back was not pleasant. Obvious power grab. One must wonder. Why would anyone sane even want to take hold of this poison chalice.

May? Closet Nazi. Hyperbole, you might claim, but no. She is a wingnut. She simply has better camo.

Leadsom? Politically naive posh tory twit with nothing to show, Symbollically throwing her hat in the ring because who knows at this point?

Finally, Liam Fox, already disgraced once, and if he keeps it up it will be twice.
 
Craig B said:
Then in these matters the EU is the "sovereign", and that sovereignty is to be recognised by the UK government. It makes the referendum look like the fraudulent exercise that indeed it was.

I am hardly a Freeman by suggesting that the electorate, having been invited to participate in a referendum called by the government should expect that government to accept the results of the referendum. I am strongly opposed to the decision of the electorate, by the way, and to the ideologies that motivated it.

But Parliament has not granted sovereignty to itself. It comes in theory from the Crown. Or it comes in practice from the electorate which elects MPs. Even as a fiction, the idea that it is self-generated is preposterous.

If governments or parliaments are to decide on membership of political unions without having referendums; how much longer do you think the UK will remain in being? Cameron is playing a dangerous game.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you are interested in another referendum but I have yet to be persuaded that, short of us all heading to the shed to get pitchforks. Parliament has the decision whether or not to take us out of Europe.. If you have evidence that the referendum is legally binding let's see it.
 
Lothian said:
I appreciate you are interested in another referendum but I have yet to be persuaded that, short of us all heading to the shed to get pitchforks. Parliament has the decision whether or not to take us out of Europe.. If you have evidence that the referendum is legally binding let's see it.
Click to expand...
No, but I predict that ignoring it will be politically disastrous, and that it will have consequences for the future constitutional order in the UK. For that reason I don't think that in practice the government can afford to set it aside.
 
Nice list, abaddon, but not much evidence for "jumping ship". Cameron could never have stayed after that result, as his authority disappeared at about 6.00am Friday 24th June. Farage's life's work is achieved. Nothing else to do other than watch his now meaningless party disappear into obscurity. Boris didn't jump ship, so much as have his canoe scuttled beneath him.

As for the rest.........nothing to do with jumping ship. We get it.....you hate Tories. But have you any evidence for May being a Nazi, and Leadsom being a twit?
 
Let's ignore the majority of people that voted and find a way to weasel out of this. We need to do this because the majority of the british people are too stupid to understand what the outcome of a democratic referendum means. And we don't like the way they voted.
 
MikeG said:
None of that scenario contained anything other than opinion:

"damage too large"....."taxes rise too much"......."costs too high"....."too time consuming".......

All matters of opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...

Evolution is just a theory.

Why does that phrase Jeep going through my head?
 
catsmate said:
The legal challenge to the implementation of A50, initiated by Mishcon de Reya, looks interesting.
Click to expand...
We send £350m a week to lawyers, you know.

This whole process promises to be a bonanza for m'learned friends.

The more the train gets shaken about the more likely it is to derail before it reaches the washed-out bridge, so I'm all in favour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom