This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Cucking Funt  Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 3.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its pretty straight forward. UK has a sovereign parliament, and only an act of parliament can implement policy and new law. That was even the requirement for the UK whilst part of the EU, and before being part of the EU. Its been that way for at least 150-200 years. There is no pre-existing UK constitution per se (which was one of the benefits of joining the EU). If you want a Sovereign UK parliament, then a) it has to be answerable to the UK courts of Law b) Pass any significant changes to UK Policy. Even if its a rubber stamping. Was there a parliamentary vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties? And there definitely wasn't one when we declared war on Germany in 1939, and nor was there one about guaranteeing Poland's sovereignty beforehand. Additionally, an elected government CAN implement law through Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Nov 16 3.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
So what was the point of having a referendum in the first place? Bottom line is, parliament approved it and the electorate gave its answer - by a small(ish) majority but decisive nonetheless. This is democracy in its purest and most undiluted form. Any attempts to subvert the result are the very antithesis of democracy. You don't get the runner-up in a constituency election who's lost by a handful of votes complaining that he lost ''because the other bloke told lies" or "the voters didn't understand what they were voting for" and using that argument to claim the result is invalid, so why should we even consider it now? The question required a Yes or a No, and No came out on top. Trying to turn that No into a Yes seems a bit Orwellian to me. Ultimately this is what British law says! Its ironic seeing the press savaging he judges when I thought at least part of the justification for Brexit was for the British Parliament and Judges to have primacy over British laws
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 07 Nov 16 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Realistically, change tends towards a bigger impact, than no change (for obvious reasons). It concerns me that people think they're is going to be no fall out or consequences to leaving the EU - and that everything will automatically be much better. I'd imagine that many landlords and second home investors are s**ting it. Take the 500,000 EU migrants out of the equation, and the housing market is going to collapse (they're mostly responsible for driving up rents) - and that'll have knock on effects across the economy. Even when I voted for leave, I expected consequences. Oh absolutely. I don't dispute that and in particular would say exactly the same as your last line. I voted the way I did accepting that there'd be some turmoil in the hope (I make this bold on purpose) that in the long term things would be better. I didn't anticpate, and I do realise it was naive of me, that a lot of the turmoil would take place before Article 50 was even invoked.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sedlescombe
Ultimately this is what British law says! Its ironic seeing the press savaging he judges when I thought at least part of the justification for Brexit was for the British Parliament and Judges to have primacy over British laws The press comment re. the judges has been utterly disgraceful. Be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles it, though.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 07 Nov 16 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
"Referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues" Clement Attlee/Margaret Thatcher. She wasn't wrong. And nor was he. Edited by Kermit8 (07 Nov 2016 3.47pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It will be interesting to see how they can make 'advisory' mean 'not advisory'........
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 07 Nov 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
"Referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues" Clement Attlee/Margaret Thatcher. She wasn't wrong. And nor was he. Edited by Kermit8 (07 Nov 2016 3.47pm) A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It will be interesting to see how they can make 'advisory' mean 'not advisory'........
Who is 'they'?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 07 Nov 16 3.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Was there a parliamentary vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties? And there definitely wasn't one when we declared war on Germany in 1939, and nor was there one about guaranteeing Poland's sovereignty beforehand. Additionally, an elected government CAN implement law through Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council.
When the people voted to enter [in the then various forms] to make entry legal we needed the European Communities Act 1972. It was that Act that carried through the will of the people. Without it we would have been paper signatories only but without this country actually being in the Common Market. Such revisions of this Act were then required following the treaties of Lisbon and Maastricht in order to enact those treaties into English law. Again, without that primary legislation, once again those treaties would have had no effect on English law. None of those Acts were passed by Order in Council, SI, the Royal Prerogative or a majority vote of the Cabinet. Primary legislation had to be made by passing the Bill through both Houses and then receiving the Royal Assent. Thus, why should going the other way be any different?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Nov 16 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight. To be fair much of the remain vote didnt feel the need for a referendum at all. And it was Forage that said a 52/48 vote the other way would be "unfinished Business" so I dont think hindsight is the issu. It is just that large numbers on either side were never going to accept the vote
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 16 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The next high level the Supreme Court .
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 07 Nov 16 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight. After the GE results in 2015 where UKIP got 14% of the vote it was pretty clear that the majority weren't so bothered about the must-have referendum that Nigel wanted so much. The wave of 'patriotic' fervour cajoled many into making a choice to Leave which, obviously, they won't be quite as passionate about as those14%. They've worked it brilliantly to get it to this and in their favour. So far.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.