Parliament to be prorogated

[Paddy]

An interesting explanation on the legalities of proroguing parliament.

[CryingSheep]

I think it becomes more binding when all the main parties have it as a manifesto pledge (2017) to implement the result.

Still not the same...not even close!

[CryingSheep]

Legally it might have been advisory, but politically it wasn't. Hence the millions spent on campaigning for Remain, after Cameron promised the Govt would honour the result. If you want "advisory", just hold an opinion poll.
You can call Cameron stupid and naive if you like (and I'm sure you will), but at no point in the campaign did anyone from the Remain side claim the referendum was advisory. Which is why they all crapped themselves when the results came in.

I still think the main brexit supporters were the ones who crapped themselves the most, after finding out that their crazy idea actually won!

[meridian]

Legally it might have been advisory, but politically it wasn't. Hence the millions spent on campaigning for Remain, after Cameron promised the Govt would honour the result. If you want "advisory", just hold an opinion poll.
You can call Cameron stupid and naive if you like (and I'm sure you will), but at no point in the campaign did anyone from the Remain side claim the referendum was advisory. Which is why they all crapped themselves when the results came in.

Yes and no.

It was raised in Parliament that normal referendum safeguards should be added. David Liddington argued against this for the precise reason that it was advisory.

Typically for our politicians they were rather two-faced. Politically (in Parliament) it was very well k own that this was an advisory referendum, without any of the normal safeguards of a binding referendum. Outside to the public they didn’t use the words “advisory” or “binding” all that much, but they did use phrases like “we will implement what you decide”, etc.

This is part of the cause of the current mess - once the referendum was over, the two camps split into “advisory” (ie from inside Parliament) and “will of the people” (from outside Parliament).

Whichever way it goes there’s a lot of water gone under the bridge since then and any argument about it being advisory has long since sailed.

The most important thing now is to secure what is best for the country. So, keeping it on topic, do you think that prorogating Parliament and setting a precedent that the Government can ignore the sovereignty of Parliament is best for the country?

And if so, will you still think that this precedent is great under, say, a Labour Government?

[Old Greg]

Legally it might have been advisory, but meaningless guff.

You've nearly got it!

[darmstadt]

Will we start to bills of Parliament written in Fraktur:



Faksimile Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich [Ermachtigungsgesetz], 24. Marz 1933 / Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB, Munchen)

[darmstadt]

This should trigger the gammonerati: EUR-Lex - 12012M007 - EN - EUR-Lex as the UK is still a member of the EU...

[Old Greg]

This should trigger the gammonerati: EUR-Lex - 12012M007 - EN - EUR-Lex as the UK is still a member of the EU...

Lies! Minestrone was having a party in March because the UK was definitely leaving and it was impossible to stop it.

[sasguru]

Lies! Minestrone was having a party in March because the UK was definitely leaving and it was impossible to stop it.

How is the alcoholic old fool? Still alive?

[The Dogs Bollocks]

[QUOTE=meridian;2676170]...

Whichever way it goes there’s a lot of water gone under the bridge since then and any argument about it being advisory has long since sailed.
...QUOTE]

That argument sailed when both Labour and the Conservatives stood, during the 2017 election campaign, on a platform to honour the referendum result and deliver Brexit.

Now we can argue all day and night long about who, why, and when neither of those parties has delivered on that promise to the electorate. Like him or loath him we now have a PM who is trying to honour that pledge. Last March we had two options (methods if you like) to leave the EU. The MPs rejected the WA and therefore by default (they of course may dispute this) voted for no deal as that was the only other option by which they could honour theoir election pledge.

However, we all know that the two faced liars we elected in 2017 don't work that way. They can only operate on single decisions at any one time requiring a yea or no answer which gave them s=the scope to reject ALL options available that allowed them to honour their election pledge.

Perhaps parliament should be allowed to debate Brexit in October with a simple two option vote. Deal (whatever that is) or No Deal. Those who don't want to honour their 2017 election pledge, or stood on a ticket of not respecting the referendum result can abstain if they wish. We can then leave the EU on October 31st as promised, albeit March 31st, in 2017 by whatever means sovereign parliament decides.