Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel
In a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the executive and the legislature; which is the basis of parliament being sovereign. We once chopped a man's head off to punish him for thinking he had a divine right to boss British people around, ignore their wishes and deny then their rights. King Charles I thought his authority came from God; but the event proved that it came from the consent of his people. This still remains the basis of authority in the UK - the consent of the governed. So when Parliament thinks a referendum on a constitutional issue can possibly be "non-binding", they are forgetting where their own authority comes from.
|
The civil war was not a choice between 'the People's authority' or 'God's' it was about a 'Catholic God's' or 'Puritans God's'.
The King's executioners were later tried and executed for treason and Cromwell was dug up and head stuck on a spike outside Westminster as a warning to others.
In 1660, Charles II was restored to the throne and continued, as his father had done, trying to rule without Parliament. (as did Cromwell)
The thing that kept stopped Kings power was the fear of being politically or militarily replaced like James ll The Dutch Invasion of 1688 permanently established a 'constitutional monarchy', which is a 'king-controlled-by-parliament'. It was the turning point in England's government not the civil war. The king remained influential, but Parliament made the laws.
Legally the referendum is non-binding because that's what the legislation said it was unlike the AV referendum. The Supreme Court fully upheld this.
If you think politicians lied by failing to mention this, then well, join the long queue.
As any lawyer/policeman/taxman will tell you 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. It's all just political argument.
Democracy and the 'will of the people' didn't end immediately after one advisory referendum it continues and changes.