O/T Democracy

[Shark27]

I'm gobsmacked that it was a unanimous decision. That is unusual in itself and demonstrates just how much the court disapproved of BoJo's action.

Kerr I have a genuine question for you regarding the law which prevents no deal.

If the EU do not grant an extension and parliament reject a deal it means that we would leave without a deal and therefore the law cannot be enforced. In your experience are there many other laws in this country that have the potential to be unenforceable? Also should a law that has the potential to be unenforceable be brought in?

Isn't it like a couple getting a divorce and a judge says that one of you can walk away without agreeing a settlement but the other one can't?

It puzzles me that such a law would be brought in!

[KerrAvon]

Kerr I have a genuine question for you regarding the law which prevents no deal.

If the EU do not grant an extension and parliament reject a deal it means that we would leave without a deal and therefore the law cannot be enforced. In your experience are there many other laws in this country that have the potential to be unenforceable? Also should a law that has the potential to be unenforceable be brought in?

Isn't it like a couple getting a divorce and a judge says that one of you can walk away without agreeing a settlement but the other one can't?

It puzzles me that such a law would be brought in!

The Benn law does not prevent no deal - it requires BoJo to ask for an extension if a new deal isn’t agreed by, I think, 16th October. As you have observed, it does not and cannot compel the EU to agree to extend and if they don’t agree, we either leave on the 31st with no deal or Parliament is going to have to vote to revoke Article 50.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the law says nothing about how BoJo is to ask. It would be open to him to go to the EU and say ‘I’ve been told to apply for an extension. I don’t know what it is supposed to achieve given that Parliament want neither a deal nor a no deal exit and the official opposition doesn’t even know what it’s position on Brexit is’. France and a couple of other countries are closing to saying ‘non’ and that approach just might do it.

If BoJo refuses to ask the EU for an extension, someone will go to court for an order that compels the government to do so. On that basis, it’s not correct to say that the law is unenforceable. It is simply that it is not guaranteed to have the intended effect as it is dependent upon the EU granting an extension. Your divorce analogy is a good one.

The attempt to prevent a no deal takes the UK’s main bargaining chip off the table in its dealings with the EU. Even if BoJo secures a new deal (which is likely to be a repackaged version of the May deal) , it would still have to get past Parliament in a ‘meaningful vote’ which is unlikely given that Labour will continue to play political games with a view to trying to secure power for themselves.

[BigLadonOS]

The Benn law does not prevent no deal - it requires BoJo to ask for an extension if a new deal isn’t agreed by, I think, 16th October. As you have observed, it does not and cannot compel the EU to agree to extend and if they don’t agree, we either leave on the 31st with no deal or Parliament is going to have to vote to revoke Article 50.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the law says nothing about how BoJo is to ask. It would be open to him to go to the EU and say ‘I’ve been told to apply for an extension. I don’t know what it is supposed to achieve given that Parliament want neither a deal nor a no deal exit and the official opposition doesn’t even know what it’s position on Brexit is’. France and a couple of other countries are closing to saying ‘non’ and that approach just might do it.

If BoJo refuses to ask the EU for an extension, someone will go to court for an order that compels the government to do so. On that basis, it’s not correct to say that the law is unenforceable. It is simply that it is not guaranteed to have the intended effect as it is dependent upon the EU granting an extension. Your divorce analogy is a good one.

The attempt to prevent a no deal takes the UK’s main bargaining chip off the table in its dealings with the EU. Even if BoJo secures a new deal (which is likely to be a repackaged version of the May deal) , it would still have to get past Parliament in a ‘meaningful vote’ which is unlikely given that Labour will continue to play political games with a view to trying to secure power for themselves.

What is to stop Boris playing this out until Oct 16 then calling a no confidence vote in himself before he has to ask for an extension?

Would it mean that the other parties have 14 days to get a temp PM in or would it mean a GE?

[KerrAvon]

What is to stop Boris playing this out until Oct 16 then calling a no confidence vote in himself before he has to ask for an extension?

Would it mean that the other parties have 14 days to get a temp PM in or would it mean a GE?

One assumes that Parliament would vote down the no confidence motion saying that they would bring one forward at the time of their choosing.

[BigLadonOS]

Politicians all said lots of different and contradictory things. Your problem, like so many, is you cherry pick everything thing that reinforces your position and ignore everything that doesn't.

The facts are the referendum was stated as advisory and was legally advisory.

The facts are we live in a parliamentary democracy where parliament decides the laws through centuries of established procedure. You really really wanting something doesn't magically change that.

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?

By implementing article 50 we validated the result anyway so lawful or not the result was implemented and therefore parliament should abide by it.

You seem to think that by changing the law to suit your point of view is acceptable but if it goes against your point of view it is not. I would look at yourself when talking about cherry picking mate.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[WanChaiMiller]

Reading the notes of this court case it says the referendum was advisory but all parties had agreed to implement the result.