1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Vast Brexit thread merge part I

Discussion in 'off topic' started by russel, Sep 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. maxflinn

    maxflinn Bernie Sanders 2020.

    Who here genuinely feels that the highest court in the land would say it is legal to overturn the result of the Brexit referendum on the basis of a GE pledge?
  2. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    How is the Court able to ‘overturn the result of the Brexit referendum’?

  3. puddlesplasher

    puddlesplasher pfm Member

    Remain or leave with no deal and do it by the end of Oct so we can have an general election and vote this bunch of tossers out. This is just ripping the country apart and we need someone to take a hold and get us back on track....and it's not Boris Johnson. I know we all have our opinions about him and mine is that he is a self centred lying git, sorry but that's the way I feel about most of them.
  4. maxflinn

    maxflinn Bernie Sanders 2020.

    I'm not saying it is. I'm pointing out that, IMO, the highest court in the land would have to find that any attempt to overturn the result by a government stating they have the right to do so based on a GE win would be illegal.

    The basic premise for this being that the result of a referendum could only be negated by the result of another referendum.

    Therefore I believe the LD position is pie in the sky. Even if they won a majority another referendum which remain would have to win is still the only lawful route to stopping Brexit, IMO, of course.
  5. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

    The referendum was advisory and no Government has to accept promises (or laws) made by an earlier one.

    No 'overturning' required.

  6. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    I'm not defending the Lib Dem policy, it seems counter-productive to me. I understand pre-election guff requires that you don't admit what deals you would do, but that move is particularly baffling. My point is that remain or status quo was never the radical position and hasn't become one just because there has always been "no deal" as well as "deal" leave positions.
  7. Brian

    Brian Eating fat, staying slim

    It’s like groundhog day.

    Again. Govt promised to implement the outcome, it’s a reason why the turnout was one of the highest ever, people were told their vote would count.

    I’ll post that again the next time you bring that strawman back from the dead.
  8. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    Well not me but rather literally 98% of economists and trade experts. It's a matter of relatively simple and well settled economics and trade policy that we will be worse off because of Brexit.

    To gain more remain votes in a general election by having a policy distinct from that of Labour and other parties.

    If nothing else Occam's Razor would indicate this is a very unlikely explanation.

    PS If you are going to reply, and I mean this in a constructive way, please do not do that thing where you parse your post until it means something roughly the opposite of what you plainly just stated and then go all gaslighty. Possibly it's only me that finds it quite so vexatious but it's very bad for my mental health at a time when I am very vulnerable and it seems no matter how factual and matter of fact I make my replies I have so far been unable to stop you from doing it.
    Nick_G, Sue Pertwee-Tyr and ks.234 like this.
  9. richgilb

    richgilb Admonishtrator

    I thought governments were supposed to go back on their promises? They do on nearly all the others.
  10. maxflinn

    maxflinn Bernie Sanders 2020.

    The public were told again and again by the government of the day that the result would be implemented, so it wasn't advisory.

    I see no way it can be legally overturned bar the opposite outcome in another referendum, which I hope happens.
  11. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    It was an advisory referendum FFS, it was never legally binding in the first place! It was also three years ago and has proven impossible to implement without huge economic damage. If a government were to campaign on a ticket of revoking A50 they would be entirely legally entitled to do so. In fact legally it would almost certainly be a far more simple process than say Labour’s manifesto pledge to renationalise the railways, which are currently owned by private businesses and investors, i.e. not the state/government.
  12. maxflinn

    maxflinn Bernie Sanders 2020.

    We will have to agree to disagree.
  13. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

    You are missing the point.

    We were talking about a new LD Government. If they win a majority in a GE and say they will rescind A50 in their manifesto, that new Government can implement that.

    People were told their vote would count by Cameron's Government, now long gone. No new Government is bound by the promises of an earlier one. If the LDs win a majority, they can do whatever they want as long as it can pass in Parliament.

  14. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

    Brian mentioned Groundhog day—here's the bill again.

    This is what people voted on. Cameron or May saying it wasn't so are basically ignoring the referendum bill itself.

    But that's irrelevant to the LD discussion.

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  15. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

    That's irrelevant. A new LD Government is not bound by the promises of earlier ones.

  16. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

    I wonder what the case would have been if the referendum was drafted as explicitly binding, as I believe the AV one was.

    Would a new Government be able to overturn that?

  17. tuga

    tuga European

    There are no hard-remainers, only one type of remainer, one who wants to remain.
    ks.234 likes this.
  18. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    There is also the small fact that if it wasn't advisory it would have required a super majority and so the nation actually voted to remain.
    PsB, jackbarron and ks.234 like this.
  19. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    I might be missing the joke here, but obviously there are a number of different types of remainers.
  20. Colin Barron

    Colin Barron pfm Member

    You are correct, we return to the £350 million a week on the side of the bus and for many who are struggling to make ends meet they do wonder why we subsidise other countries.
    They have given the vote to one and all over 18 years old, even those with a lack of intellect, and with it the right to bin off representatives who don't deliver on their promises. The day of reckoning is not far away.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice