O/T Democracy

[KerrAvon]

Weren't we told many times especially by Kerr that leaving with no deal is the default position

It is.

[animallittle3]

It's going to be carnage but then again I suppose that's what you get if a country votes for something and mps refuse to act on it.

One day soon we may even see Farage in charge of this country and in my opinion the people who have prevented Brexit will have got just what they deserve.

I have to say Johnson's tone and language tonight in parliament is pretty despicable .

There's even talk of him shutting down parliament again if a vote of no confidence in his government isn't forthcoming tonight from the opposition .

There's every chance if he does he could be impeached .

Pretty brutal stuff going on in there tonight , possibly the worst I've seen .

Political opponents hardly ever agree on anything but there's an element of respect upheld , this is pure hatred now in an environment of highly charged hostility .

This can't go on much longer , another referendum gets closer by the day and as I said another referendum and a remain win could make tonight's events in parliament the norm .

Nobody can govern a country such as this under these circumstances .

Absolutely impossible .

[John2]

I do not cherry pick at all mate and you are entirely wrong that it was stated as advisory only because it was not stated either way but again please do not let facts spoil your argument eh! .

As you will no doubt know that referendum results in the past have been implemented even when it has not stated that it is a lawful mandate including the one in 1975. Does that mean we are not legally a member of the EU?

You believe the referendum was binding, you are factually wrong. That was never the case, for a referendum to be binding it has to be part of the law that proposes the referendum, as it was in 2011. In law, it was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll.

This is the government's official briefing paper on the referendum Bill in June 2015 (http://researchbriefings.parliament....ary/CBP-7212):
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.
"

There it is, undisputedly written down, the government's official position. It doesn't matter what someone said that you want to believe or what you think you remember - this is the official factual position, anything else is wrong.

[KerrAvon]

And here's the Act itself. There is nothing within it that sets out its effect:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ntents/enacted

[Exiletyke]

You believe the referendum was binding, you are factually wrong. That was never the case, for a referendum to be binding it has to be part of the law that proposes the referendum, as it was in 2011. In law, it was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll.

This is the government's official briefing paper on the referendum Bill in June 2015 (http://researchbriefings.parliament....ary/CBP-7212):
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.
"

There it is, undisputedly written down, the government's official position. It doesn't matter what someone said that you want to believe or what you think you remember - this is the official factual position, anything else is wrong.

I think you may be overlooking the fact that parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 which sort of trumps any previous considerations thus legitimising the referendum by putting the kaibosh on "consultative"

[John2]

I think you may be overlooking the fact that parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 which sort of trumps any previous considerations thus legitimising the referendum by putting the kaibosh on "consultative"

No, it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the referendum was advisory or not, it just highlights that what happens in our country is decided by laws passed by parliament (already and in the future), not directly by the outcome of the referendum.

[mikemiller]

I have to say Johnson's tone and language tonight in parliament is pretty despicable .

There's even talk of him shutting down parliament again if a vote of no confidence in his government isn't forthcoming tonight from the opposition .

There's every chance if he does he could be impeached .

Trump could face impeachment too. He recently said "People (in Britain) are saying that Boris Johnson is the British Donald Trump - that's how much they like me over there!" You couldn't make it up

[Exiletyke]

No, it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the referendum was advisory or not, it just highlights that what happens in our country is decided by laws passed by parliament (already and in the future), not directly by the outcome of the referendum.

I don't accept that it's irrelevant as in so doing it kicks any "advisory" element into touch
Are you saying that in voting to trigger Article 50 parliament was passing a law or putting the law into effect
And my word John you're sounding very much like Kerr
Are you sure you werent with him stateside?

[John2]

I don't accept that it's irrelevant as in so doing it kicks any "advisory" element into touch
Are you saying that in voting to trigger Article 50 parliament was passing a law or putting the law into effect
And my word John you're sounding very much like Kerr
Are you sure you werent with him stateside?

OK, you're struggling. I'll help you out. A basic principle of the dimension of time is that it can only move forwards, and what happened in the past cannot change when it has already occurred.

1) Imagine if I asked you if you wanted to buy a house, and to tick a box that said yes or no.

Then, 2) 5 years later, you signed a contract that made you the owner of a new house.

Did the fact that 2 occurred change make it so that 1 was actually an agreement to sign a contract for a house? No, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest and I don't know why you keep trying to make this argument.

[Exiletyke]

OK, you're struggling. I'll help you out. A basic principle of the dimension of time is that it can only move forwards, and what happened in the past cannot change when it has already occurred.

1) Imagine if I asked you if you wanted to buy a house, and to tick a box that said yes or no.

Then, 2) 5 years later, you signed a contract that made you the owner of a new house.

Did the fact that 2 occurred change make it so that 1 was actually an agreement to sign a contract for a house? No, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest and I don't know why you keep trying to make this argument.

Good grief & you say I'm struggling
Have you actually read your final paragraph, total tripe
"Did the fact that 2 occurred change make it so blah di blah di blah".............What tf?