O/T Democracy

[BigLadonOS]

Thankyou for clearing that up but just for the record I genuinely could not understand your point but nevertheless
what a shockingly poor argument
Let me rephrase with something nearer the truth
First of all it was not a questionnaire it was a referendum but your argument hinges around it being advisory
If when filling out this rdiculous questionnaire your solicitor [substitute prime minister here] told you that your decision [answer] would be binding & then proceeds to send you a letter [ telling you that you should buy the house] & he would take your instruction from. there then over 450 advisors told you the same [triggering article 50]
Then you could be forgiven for thinking that the vote was something more than a "questionnaire"

You wont get a sensible reply so why even bother!

[Exiletyke]

You wont get a sensible reply so why even bother!

One lives in hope that he may have a lightbulb moment

[John2]

If when filling out this rdiculous questionnaire your solicitor [substitute prime minister here] told you that your decision [answer] would be binding

OK, we've made genuine progress, I've identified the exact bit you're not understanding.

If your solicitor tells you a document is legally binding and it isn't... the document isn't legally binding. No matter what David Cameron said, or what happened afterwards, the referendum was never binding and it never will have been.

You can't go to the legal system and say "but my solicitor said it was binding", because they will say the solicitor was wrong, end of discussion.

Do you understand?

[John2]

You wont get a sensible reply so why even bother!

I guess you're conveniently ignoring the government's own guidance that explains that the referendum was non binding in law? I thought you might!

[rolymiller]

Interesting John never knew that which means we don't have to go along with the result of it. Why has this not been mentioned in the h of c?

[animallittle3]

Interesting John never knew that which means we don't have to go along with the result of it. Why has this not been mentioned in the h of c?

Not binding legally it may be but it was never dressed up as that right from the time the referendum was announced

Everyone knew the result wouldn't be treated as advisory even remainer and architect Cameron knew that .

The word advisory only appeared when the electorate provided the wrong result .

[rolymiller]

Interested to hear what our legal eagle chum would say about this.Get ya skis off and get off the piste and come and give us your view Mr Kerr. Sounds to me like a waste of time legally one way or t'other. And is Animal right about it becoming only advisory after the result?

[ragingpup]

Not binding legally it may be but it was never dressed up as that right from the time the referendum was announced

Everyone knew the result wouldn't be treated as advisory even remainer and architect Cameron knew that .

The word advisory only appeared when the electorate provided the wrong result .

I think that anyone that knows how parliament works knew that parliament has to have the final say. This is why May was so opposed to Miller's legal challenge that parliament must retain the final say. As that is how our democracy works.

The political parties (bar lib dems) have genuinely tried to implement the result as they had committed to it, but the problem is no one can agree how to leave. As the end point must be agreed by parliament, there you go.

It does protect us though in that if the Lib Dems won a minority government, the same parliament can, and will stop them imposing Revoke.

A deal is the only way, but there has to be compromise and common ground to squeeze to a commons majority. I would suggest the WA plus some standards protection guarantees in the future trade negotiations is likely the only way to get it through without recourse to referendum. I can't see a referendum/election getting the majority needed to get a clear outcome in the commons, unless there is some way of attaching a legal clause that over rides the parliamentary agreement. No idea if that is possible though. I'm just a hair head!

[rolymiller]

An election may sort it if their is a solid majority for a party but I don't see that happening. I agree we can't remain. The only sensible option,unless we want this to drag on for years, is to put it back to the people BUT with more options than the previous referendum so that it is more clear what people want.

I would suggest, as well, if it is a hung parliament after the election for each party to have their own options to vote on. Sounds complicated but it needn't be. Each party would argue its own version of Brexit.So if you like the Labour/ Tory/ Lib version you vote that etc.

ThIs is what ought to have been done in the first place when I think about it...but hey ho 3 years plus down the chuffin pan

[ragingpup]

An election may sort it if their is a solid majority for a party but I don't see that happening. I agree we can't remain. The only sensible option.unless we want this to drag on for years, is to put it back to the people BUT with more options than the previous referendum so that it is more clear what people want.

I agree that I don't see a majority government of any colour emerging whilst Brexit still spreads its ugly manure. The problem is that the split in this parliament simply reflects the split in the country, completely down the middle. The next parliament will still represent the people in the country and therefore will be equally split as this one. If Cox moans that this parliament is "dead", his new parliament will be stillborn, because nothing will have fundamentally changed with the split in the people. I don't think an election would change anything on Brexit. Same arguments with some different faces.

A referendum is fine but the result of this referendum would still have to go back through parliament for sign off wouldn't it? Where's Kerr when you need him? Kerr! KERR!!