Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Post-referendum situation is looking increasingly undemocratic and unconstitutional Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    If Labour gets a half-way decent leader in place, the Tories are toast at the next election anyway.

    I don't think Article 50 will be invoked until there is a clear picture of what the UK is going to 'get'. I don't believe that Theresa May will rush to invoke it, despite any backbiting or aggression that comes her way from UKIP or the headbangers on her backbench. There will be a timetable set, six months for negotiations or something like that.
    Ho. Ho. Ho. Blairite arrogance and delusion at it's finest. Good luck with that mate. And The Tories are in no way 'toast' at the next election.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Exactly.

    The left thinks it knows best and the voters are wrong you see.

    That is what it amounts to at bottom when you strip out the legal and constitutional antics referred to in this thread..

    And that is why the Labour Party speaks for no-one nowadays. They thought they knew best and their own voters were wrong.

    It will be interesting to see how this new "Progressive" party of virtue signalling London luvvies everyone is talking about does against UKIP under a new leader in the North and West Midlands and working class Wales.

    Progressive but not speaking for the poor....
    They still haven't got it. The break up of the union, leaving the EU-they will actually blame Corbyn, not Blairism. They haven't gotten where their vote has gone. It makes me laugh 'cos I hate them, Campbell, Clarke, Mandelson all of them. I really think they are shot. All they have is some vague sense of despising economic leftists, and at the same time thinking the Tories are 'evil' and they are morally superior, whilst they sell out their core vote and treat them with contempt, trying to tell them that they are all stupid for voting a certain way, rather than getting that if they were in that situation they would vote the same. They are morally vapid and have ended up wrecking themselves- I think they know it, it's why they are lashing out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    In a democracy, we listen to the people. We would call it undemocratic to ignore the results of a general election and likewise, I believe it would be undemocratic to ignore the results of this referendum.
    What's being asked for is that we follow the British constitutional arrangements and put it to Parliament now. The UK is not a country of binding referendums and there was nothing in the Referendum Act that made it binding.

    It's actually profoundly undemocratic to argue otherwise, as it ignores the law. We are either a country of laws, or else we are a comic dictatorship of right wing Tories and extra-parliamentary UKIP racists and headbangers. Many of us don't want to live in a country where the law is so deeply abused by a self-serving and self-satisfied extreme political faction serving the interests of oligarchs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There's going to be a major legal challenge on that - doubtless it will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

    One thing people are also currently overlooking is that the European Court might rule the process invalid and it also has to pass through the EU Parliament, although presumably they won't obstruct.
    I wonder if there is a sense that because there is a democratic mandate behind leaving many of the legal challenges will simply be waved off. If the courts are all going to rule it needs to go through a parliamentary body, and it is guaranteed it will pass through with flying colours, is there any point going through the motions? We may see a consensus of there is no point, so why bother going through with a formality.

    Of course a cynic might point out, if legal concerns can be so easily trumped by "democratic will" is our system of checks and balances being undermined?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Don't talk nonsense. You don't have a referendum in a so-called democracy if you won't carry out. You remainers make me laugh, it's pathetic the way you are so petulant and cannot accept a legitimate verdict. You will twist things to the extent that 'democracy is dead' (yeah, truly)by following the democratic mandate of a referendum. Oh, and the real insurrection, by the way, will be if a second vote is fixed, or if they ignore the vote, in which case democracy is officially dead. As I'm sure you're well aware, you are simply being disingenuous.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It wasn't Merkel, she's been conciliatory. Juncker can rant all he likes, in the end it's Germany that decides with Hollande and he's also going to want it to be smooth.
    Then it was a commissioner, isn't it odd how it's the commissioners who have nothing to do with the negotiations in any functional way that are saying we can't do anything rather than the parliament and the council?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then it was a commissioner, isn't it odd how it's the commissioners who have nothing to do with the negotiations in any functional way that are saying we can't do anything rather than the parliament and the council?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've never said the EU is perfect. To some extent, the role of Commissioners has been reduced in recent years as the powers of the Parliament and the Council have been increased and I suspect sometimes they are trying to reclaim it. Of course they have something to do with it, but the decisions rest as always with the nation states and that hasn't changed. This is one of the Big Lies that UKIP and right wing Tories have circulated for years about the EU - that the bureaucrats are in charge. It just isn't true, although some of the latter might wish it was.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I wonder if there is a sense that because there is a democratic mandate behind leaving many of the legal challenges will simply be waved off. If the courts are all going to rule it needs to go through a parliamentary body, and it is guaranteed it will pass through with flying colours, is there any point going through the motions? We may see a consensus of there is no point, so why bother going through with a formality.

    Of course a cynic might point out, if legal concerns can be so easily trumped by "democratic will" is our system of checks and balances being undermined?
    In effect, the act that commissioned the referendum made a nonsense of our system anyway, as it implied that the power was vested with the referendum without ever making it clear or binding.

    I don't personally think it would cake-walk through the House(s) - for one thing, it was clear from watching the Lords last night that many peers plan to run opposition on it. The SNP will be fiercely against and will try to disrupt the process. Many Labour MPs will be unhappy and some Tories.

    I think it will be quite a fight if it gets to the House, which is why Cameron is against putting it there. He's a Leaver, you know.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    What's being asked for is that we follow the British constitutional arrangements and put it to Parliament now. The UK is not a country of binding referendums and there was nothing in the Referendum Act that made it binding.
    Yes we are.

    We don't have them very often, but when we do they bind. We voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975 and that was binding for more than forty years.

    Scotland voted to remain part of the UK and they still are part of it (last time I looked).

    The fatal flaw in your position is that it would have been binding if we had voted the "right" way. Would it not?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's actually profoundly undemocratic to argue otherwise, as it ignores the law.
    No it is actually profoundly undemocratic to argue that a 52% majority on a more than 72% turnout should be overturned by a few unelected left wing lawyers.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    We are either a country of laws, or else we are a comic dictatorship of right wing Tories and extra-parliamentary UKIP racists and headbangers.
    That is a false dichotomy.

    Seventeen and a half million racists and headbangers, though? Does it ever occur to you that being talked to in such terms morning noon and night might just have annoyed enough people to get out and cast their votes for Leave?

    That would be ironic, would it not?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Many of us don't want to live in a country where the law is so deeply abused by a self-serving and self-satisfied extreme political faction serving the interests of oligarchs.
    It isn't the oligarchs who spoke, but the people.

    Pretty nifty, huh?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Cameron is against putting it there. He's a Leaver, you know.
    No he isn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsdiMtzg3n0
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I've never said the EU is perfect. To some extent, the role of Commissioners has been reduced in recent years as the powers of the Parliament and the Council have been increased and I suspect sometimes they are trying to reclaim it. Of course they have something to do with it, but the decisions rest as always with the nation states and that hasn't changed. This is one of the Big Lies that UKIP and right wing Tories have circulated for years about the EU - that the bureaucrats are in charge. It just isn't true, although some of the latter might wish it was.
    The power or perfection of each chamber is irrelevant, ALL article 50 negotiations are done with the council, the commission does as good as nothing, and all the parliament does is vote

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Leaving the EU involves overruling an act of parliament, something the government cannot do. Article 50 has to be invoked inline with the constitutional requirements of the UK, so simply invoking it may not be legally valid.
    Incorrect. No English Parliament has the capability to bind itself, it can pass any legislation it sees fit, even if it repeals legislation given Assent only the same day.

    The Executive (Crown and Prime Minister) can act in this manner without any votes in Parliament. This prerogative power has been frequently used. It is legally valid, supported by Common Law, end of.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)

    No it is actually profoundly undemocratic to argue that a 52% majority on a more than 72% turnout should be overturned by a few unelected left wing lawyers.
    I don't think it's a case of left or right wing for the lawyers.

    They're just being paid a f****tonne of money and want the exposure.

    Taking this case is career suicide, good luck to them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Constitutionally, wouldn't we need a referendum with 80% turnout and a 60% vote one way to invoke article 50?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhisperingTide)
    Constitutionally, wouldn't we need a referendum with 80% turnout and a 60% vote one way to invoke article 50?
    Lol no, why would you think that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhisperingTide)
    Constitutionally, wouldn't we need a referendum with 80% turnout and a 60% vote one way to invoke article 50?
    Nope.

    But you would think you'd need more than 40% of the total electorate. But you don't... for this one anyway, unlike 1975.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhisperingTide)
    Constitutionally, wouldn't we need a referendum with 80% turnout and a 60% vote one way to invoke article 50?
    No, but most referenda do have rules like that - it should have required a 75% turnout and more than 60% in favour for such a crucial decision. Leaving it, as the act did, to a majority of 1 is either scarily casual of the government with Britain's future, or else points to rigging, which is far more likely.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    No, but most referenda do have rules like that - it should have required a 75% turnout and more than 60% in favour for such a crucial decision. Leaving it, as the act did, to a majority of 1 is either scarily casual of the government with Britain's future, or else points to rigging, which is far more likely.
    Most don't though...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 6, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.