The Student Room Group

Post-referendum situation is looking increasingly undemocratic and unconstitutional

Scroll to see replies

Original post by jneill
Interesting...

Result yes 52:48 but below 40% electorate threshold. So Act was repealed.

EUref Leave 52:48. Leave also below 40% of electorate. So....

Posted from TSR Mobile


Errr no, but the UK believes in referendums!
Original post by jneill
Interesting...

Result yes 52:48 but below 40% electorate threshold. So Act was repealed.

EUref Leave 52:48. Leave also below 40% of electorate. So....

Posted from TSR Mobile


It stands because it was never in the terms of the referendum, and it's non binding

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
So what exactly is a "non legislative regulation," regulations are necessarily legislative

Posted from TSR Mobile
*

I don't know where you got that idea from.

Do you think every time that a new chemical is added onto the some list that it requires an Act of Parliament? Of course not *

On top of that, there are a whole host of regulations that govern industries that have nothing to do with the UK such as olives and etc. *
Original post by DorianGrayism
*

I don't know where you got that idea from.

Do you think every time that a new chemical is added onto the some list that it requires an Act of Parliament? Of course not *

On top of that, there are a whole host of regulations that govern industries that have nothing to do with the UK such as olives and etc. *


You do realise that most legislation passing through Westminster isn't in the form of an act of parliament?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
You do realise that most legislation passing through Westminster isn't in the form of an act of parliament?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Ok then.*
Original post by Fullofsurprises

When Theresa May comes in to office, she must state right away that this will eventually go to Parliament and put back to the people if necessary.

If she doesn't say this, effectively, we will all know that our constitution as it stands has come to an end and British democracy is dead. The natural recourse of the people in that situation is insurrection and, if necessary, civil war.


This is Britain, so there isn't going to be insurrection and civil war.

The natural recourse of the people in that situation will be first a number of demonstrations, mostly from the young/students, that will dwindle off. Pro-remain journalists will write a lot of articles saying how bad Brexit will be and if things start to go wrong they will keep up the "we told you so" pressure. Various politicians will join them.

However, there is an interesting question about how the British democracy will react over the long term if indeed, Brexit goes wrong. The people who voted Remain here feel disenfranchised and they are likely to blame a decline in the fortunes of our country on this vote. 2 weeks after the vote, its easy to shut them down with "get over it we had a referendum and you lost", but in 10 years time the landscape will be different and sometimes the general consensus on something changes.

At the time of the Iraq War, the country was split and on similar lines to the current leave/remainer groupings: with the pro-war people seeing anti-war protesters as generally a load of student hippie lefties that needed to get over themselves and recognise the need to sort out Saddam. Now 13 years on there's more of a consensus that the Iraq war was wrong and everyone is out for Blair to pay for it. So who knows how, in a decade or so, people will view Gove, Johnson, Farage and indeed the PM who led the UK out of the EU.

So what will happen at that point? Well this depends on the future of the EU. At the moment the EU has a very uncertain future regardless of Brexit with the tensions of a single currency without appropriate harmonisation measures, so over the next decade or so they're going to have to bet all their chips on full economic integration in the Eurozone. With this in mind the whole EU decision making will be focused on that primarily and countries outside the Eurozone will be less relevant even if they are still in the EU (this would have happened to us).

If the Eurozone breaks up it could lead to the end of the EU as we know it and either descend in to instability or cool heads could build something out of the wreckage and form a looser trading affiliation which then the UK may be interested in joining as this was the type of thing even Eurosceptics wanted.

But if the EZ survives, by that point it will be quite a well integrated and large economic power, and if it is showing faster growth than the UK then the centre left in the UK might start pitching for reapplying to join the EU (which will involve joining the EZ). This is unthinkable at the moment, or if Brexit goes well, but if the scenario the Remainers predict (economic downturn and long term decline for the UK) and the EZ starts going well this will be a much more powerful argument especially if the Tory Eurosceptics have had a decade or so in power and are being blamed for high unemployment and stagnation. If the intergenerational divide stays the same, there will by this point be a lot more younger pro-EU voters around and some of the older Leavers won't be here.

So insurrection and civil war - no chance. But its not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK's involvement with the EU will re-emerge.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Parliament nowadays has to approve wars, even 'small' ones, like the bombing of ISIL targets in Syria.

Yet the retiring Cameron position is to put the Cabinet Secretary in charge of it and carry it out essentially in secret.

Parliament must, must be the approving chamber before Article 50 can be invoked. Yet many in the Tory Party are acting as though this is already a done deal.

When Theresa May comes in to office, she must state right away that this will eventually go to Parliament and put back to the people if necessary.

If she doesn't say this, effectively, we will all know that our constitution as it stands has come to an end and British democracy is dead. The natural recourse of the people in that situation is insurrection and, if necessary, civil war.


Parliament has to approve wars because Cameron lacks the resolve and is not too bothered, the power is still their to use the royal prerogative in military matters and i hope the future PM does.

Parliament will get its say when it ratifies the exit agreement and repeals the 1972 European Act, parliamentary approval is not required to engage article 50.

Original post by jneill
Interesting...

Result yes 52:48 but below 40% electorate threshold. So Act was repealed.

EUref Leave 52:48. Leave also below 40% of electorate. So....

Posted from TSR Mobile


Turnout was the stipulation in the Scottish one, this one had a turnout of 72%.
Original post by Rakas21
Parliament has to approve wars because Cameron lacks the resolve and is not too bothered, the power is still their to use the royal prerogative in military matters and i hope the future PM does.

Parliament will get its say when it ratifies the exit agreement and repeals the 1972 European Act, parliamentary approval is not required to engage article 50.



Turnout was the stipulation in the Scottish one, this one had a turnout of 72%.


My point is that it should be necessary - it cannot be the case that such a drastic and crucial decision is any less important than declaring war. The so-called 'war' that went to Parliament for debate in relation to Syria was actually hardly a thing in reality - the RAF have only been in action flying planes over Syria a few times since, mostly to coincide with ministerial statements on the subject. (Presumably because we can't afford real life non-drone warfare any more.) If that can go to Parliament, it's bloody hard to see why this can't, existing rules or not.

What's absolutely infuriating is the smug assumption by the Tory right wing candidates in interviews today that "we are leaving the EU" as if the referendum they rigged with the help of Rupert Murdoch and offshored oligarchs at the Mail is in some way binding. :angry:

We can't take it seriously, progressive Britain can't take it seriously. It's the worst sort of scumbag Tory politics in action. Then we have the drive to impose a harsh, extremist neoliberal agenda, as represented by Gove and others. The real reason for the Leave.
Original post by Rakas21
Turnout was the stipulation in the Scottish one, this one had a turnout of 72%.
*

Yeh, well they made sure that the stipulation was unattainable to **** the SNP and the referendum
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yet many in the Tory Party are acting as though this is already a done deal.


Because it is a done deal.
Original post by JordanL_
Yeah but they spoke a load of absolute *******s.

Not a lot different from what you do on here then.
Reply 30
Original post by Rakas21
Turnout was the stipulation in the Scottish one, this one had a turnout of 72%.


It wasn't turnout that was stipulated as such, it was to achieve 40% approval of the electorate. This was an amendment to the original Act that enabled the referendum.

Hence why 33% approval was insufficient. And if a similar requirement had been included in EUref the 37% achieved by Leave would also have been insufficient.*

* I know no such requirement was included. I'm flagging the issue, and especially given the closeness of both outcomes.


Ok. Fair dos. Switzerland is a little different to the UK in that they have very frequent referendums to determine government policy and law. So back in February they voted to curb immigration. Given that this single issue has ramifications on all aspects of relations with the EU they are simply having another referendum (they have several a year) to widen the question.

Here in the UK we had and all or nothing vote. The consequences of leaving were well publicised although dismissed as scaremongering by the leave campaign. Because I am a democrat I accept the outcome even though I don't agree with it. You can't hold a referendum and then annul the outcome because you disagree with it. If that is how you want to live I suggest you move to North Korea.

Stop ridiculing those who disagree and engage. You didn't answer the question I posed you in my last post. I'll ask again. What is the point in having a referendum if the government ignores the outcome returned?
Reply 32
Original post by ByEeek
You can't hold a referendum and then annul the outcome because you disagree with it.


Actually you can. The referendum is advisory and not binding. You can ask the electorate to think again, perhaps in the light of new information or circumstances. cf. Ireland.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
Actually you can. The referendum is advisory and not binding. You can ask the electorate to think again, perhaps in the light of new information or circumstances. cf. Ireland.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Actually, it is funny that people are bringing up the 40% stipulation in the Scottish one.

Using that logic, everyone should just accept that this is legally non-binding and there would be no problem with Parliament rejecting it.

After-all......we did all agree.:colone:
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Parliament nowadays has to approve wars, even 'small' ones, like the bombing of ISIL targets in Syria.

Yet the retiring Cameron position is to put the Cabinet Secretary in charge of it and carry it out essentially in secret.

Parliament must, must be the approving chamber before Article 50 can be invoked. Yet many in the Tory Party are acting as though this is already a done deal.

When Theresa May comes in to office, she must state right away that this will eventually go to Parliament and put back to the people if necessary.

If she doesn't say this, effectively, we will all know that our constitution as it stands has come to an end and British democracy is dead. The natural recourse of the people in that situation is insurrection and, if necessary, civil war.



Do you really think that is the best thing for the country now (or ever)? And do you really think the situation, as much as a shambles as it is, would actually get that dire?


Edit: And by "the situation", I mean the political establishment's response to the referendum result.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by jneill
Actually you can. The referendum is advisory and not binding. You can ask the electorate to think again, perhaps in the light of new information or circumstances. cf. Ireland.

Posted from TSR Mobile


What new light and circumstances would that be?
Reply 36
Original post by DorianGrayism
Actually, it is funny that people are bringing up the 40% stipulation in the Scottish one.

Using that logic, everyone should just accept that this is legally non-binding and there would be no problem with Parliament rejecting it.

After-all......we did all agree.:colone:


Unfortunately we didn't agree on the 40%, and the "people" don't understand the advisory nature. Again, a failing by government to either include such a clause or say before voting day, don't forget folks, this doesn't actually count...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 37
Original post by ByEeek
What new light and circumstances would that be?


One would be, if it turns out correct that trade negotiations can't start until after we leave in 2 years. Leaving us in limbo for much longer than expected.

Or that freedom if movement will be preserved (considering the desire by most Leavers to limit migration).

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Dr Pesto
Do you really think that is the best thing for the country now (or ever)? And do you really think the situation, as much as a shambles as it is, would actually get that dire?


Edit: And by "the situation", I mean the political establishment's response to the referendum result.


I think the truth is that a great many people are going to become even more dismissive of Parliament, the Tory Party, the establishment and the 'authorities' than they were before and that's saying something, because the level of trust was already pretty damn low. Many foolish people voting Leave, for example, thought it was an anti-government vote.

That sets up an atmosphere where bad things can happen and yes, it does appear that is the direction of travel.

Inevitably, the response of the government will be harsh clampdowns on civil rights, especially as the economy continues to degrade and the Tories show themselves utterly incapable of negotiating properly with the EU.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I think the truth is that a great many people are going to become even more dismissive of Parliament, the Tory Party, the establishment and the 'authorities' than they were before and that's saying something, because the level of trust was already pretty damn low. Many foolish people voting Leave, for example, thought it was an anti-government vote.

That sets up an atmosphere where bad things can happen and yes, it does appear that is the direction of travel.

Inevitably, the response of the government will be harsh clampdowns on civil rights, especially as the economy continues to degrade and the Tories show themselves utterly incapable of negotiating properly with the EU.


People like talking of leavers who think they did the wrong thing and forget remainers who think they did the wrong thing, funnily enough ipsos find there are more of the latter

1467789855138.jpg

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest