Brexit, Engxit, Wexit or Scexit?

[GB9]

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 did not have a provision in it for enacting the result of the referendum; ergo it was advisory.


The Parliamentary Voting System And Constituencies Act 2011 has specific provisions in it to enact the result of that referendum (Section 8, if you want to look it up).

So it follows that precendent was set in the 2011 legislation that for a referendum to be legally binding, it would have clauses in it to enact the result of the referendum.

Point one: you assume it was advisory. There is nothing stated that says either way.

Point two: refer to point one. No precedent set.

The only reason it is advisory at present was because three EU supporting muppets have said so.

From fullfact.org

"Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one."

So, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly, the judges have made the decision.

[bobspud]

I don't think you have met enough members of the law profession if you think a minister can bully them. These are the most highly trained mental combatants in the world. Standing over someone and trying to bully them while they are charging you 900 an hour will achieve only one thing. A bigger bill.

[Paddy]

Point one: you assume it was advisory. There is nothing stated that says either way.

Point two: refer to point one. No precedent set.

The only reason it is advisory at present was because three EU supporting muppets have said so.

From fullfact.org

"Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one."

So, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly, the judges have made the decision.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/...leOfParliament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refere...United_Kingdom


FFS your are so thick!

[GB9]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/...leOfParliament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refere...United_Kingdom


FFS your are so thick!

Do you even know what Hansard is?

That wiki entry is so incorrect it isn't even worth bothering with.

At least what Chopper stated was factual to an extent, whereas what you are arguing doesn't even make sense and proves nothing.

It's true. Arguing with idiots like you are pulling me down to your level. If I have to stoop any lower i'll do my back in.

[shaunbhoy]

whereas what you are arguing doesn't even make sense and proves nothing.

That is very much the "Paddy" MO unfortunately. More seasoned posters just allow him his little deranged tantrums, then smile wryly, and completely ignore. You just can't educate Pork!!
Tis a tried and tested strategy, trust me.

[minestrone]

2,001,926 people voted in Scotland to stay in the UK.

I was one of them.

[xoggoth]

I don't give a damn about whether the referendum result was legally binding according to interpretations of some umpteen thousand word document or not. The main point is that, if democracy means anything at all, it should be implemented.

[BlasterBates]

Looks like May is steering towards an arrangement inbetween Norway and Switzerland.

May's changing vocabulary signals shift from 'hard Brexit' | Reuters

probably more closer to Norway than Switzerland though as she's angling to keep certain sectors in the Customs Union.

She'll need a couple of sectors out of the customs union to make sure Liam Fox has a job

[DodgyAgent]

I don't give a damn about whether the referendum result was legally binding according to interpretations of some umpteen thousand word document or not. The main point is that, if democracy means anything at all, it should be implemented.

If the Judiciary wish to take power then they should say so

[BlasterBates]

If the Judiciary wish to take power then they should say so

They're saying parliament should decide not the Queen, or do you think it should simply be the Queen's decision ?