Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I can't recall anyone saying that before the 23rd of June.

Just shows the very poor level of debate and facts given to the public.

They were more interested in peddling bollocks like the extra £350m per week for the NHS.

MPs on both sides were fully aware about it
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CviMZoqXYAA9ljz.jpg

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I can't recall anyone saying that before the 23rd of June.

It seems that the referendum was meant to be the final say and to determine that Britain will adhere to the EU until long after everyone alive on 23rd June is dead. The threat to the Tory right wing from UKIP would be neutralised and everything was going to be business as usual with David Cameron and George Osbourn whittling away at the social fabric of the country and selling our collective bottom in public toilets to big business and the banking sector. But now that the voters have said otherwise, and we have the authority of Kenneth Clarke MP for this, the referendum is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll.

If the majority of MPs had followed the lead of Mr Clarke and of the 47 Labour MPs there would have been a very dangerous constitutional crisis in which the MPs defied the express will of the voters. This is why, in absolute seriousness, I consider what he did to be treasonable. Were it in my power to make the rules on this issue, the crime of treason would be punishable by death and Kenneth Clarke MP would turn into strange fruit.

[scoundrel]

Just shows the very poor level of debate and facts given to the public.

They were more interested in peddling bollocks like the extra £350m per week for the NHS.

MPs on both sides were fully aware about it
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CviMZoqXYAA9ljz.jpg

Sorry vinceprince, quote function is up the spout yet again.

I remember the quality of the debate being extremely poor from both official campaigns. I strongly sensed the patrician classes contempt for ordinary people in the level at which the arguments were pitched. Whenever the discourse went deeper than mere slogans it only did so in order to peddle bullshit such as the extra £350m a week for the NHS, or else to shroud-wave at us about the awful things which would happen if we had the temerity to seek to leave the EU, such as George Osbourn and his emergency budget to levy an extra 2% basic rate income tax.

Nobody treated the voters with respect and talked about the strategic long term arguments for and against either decision. This has been a huge long-term decision which involves a philosophical choice about the values and principles on which our grandchildren will be governed when all of us are safely dead; we needed to be talking about the referendum on this level and at this depth and our political class did everything in their power to prevent this conversation. Sadly, the most informative and thought-provoking debate of the issues came to me from a ride out with a biker friend of mine ten days before the vote; from reading the Wetherspoons house magazine while eating a meal there four days before the vote; and from reading and responding to posts on the referendum topic on VEF.

And now the very people who cheapened and stifled the debate are presuming to tell us that our decision is not binding and that they will decide whether we can have what we voted for or not.

Not acceptable.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I remember the quality of the debate being extremely poor from both official campaigns. .....the most informative and thought-provoking debate of the issues came to me from reading the Wetherspoons house magazine while eating

Ironically I found the best discussion and information to be in various European newspaper websites - although very much pro remain they seemed less hysterical and stridently partisan than their UK equivalents.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Ironically I found the best discussion and information to be in various European newspaper websites - although very much pro remain they seemed less hysterical and stridently partisan than their UK equivalents.

I certainly wasn't impressed by the coverage on the BBC.

[Mal Hombre]

I grow weary of all this tabloid talk about the "Will of the People",It's the will of 52% of the people,48% is a sizeable minority,No British government has won 48% of the vote in recent memory. Talk of treason and hanging is ridiculous hyperbole.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

What is the crime that has been committed?

Legally the referendum was advisory had no legal authority at all and only has legally authority if endorsed by Parliament as confirmed in the Supreme Court.

In April 2016, after the bill was passed, the government circulated an advisory leaflet: "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK". This leaflet clearly stated: "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide".


This in my book is binding.

The whole matter is quite confusing because nobody separated the mass of Europe and its population with the organisation of the EU.
Europe is populated by millions of people, many of whom wish to trade with us.
The EU is an authoritative and undemocratic body which cannot even abide by its own rules. It has damaged some members such as Italy , Spain and Greece to a dreadful degree through its inflexibility while Germany amasses an illegal surplus at their expense.
My view is that the UK got onto the first lifeboat. Most of the rest will go down with the ship.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

I grow weary of all this tabloid talk about the "Will of the People",It's the will of 52% of the people,48% is a sizeable minority,No British government has won 48% of the vote in recent memory. Talk of treason and hanging is ridiculous hyperbole.

Why ridiculous, and why hyperbole? We should remember our own history.

Those who govern the British autocratically do so at a high risk. King Charles I was beheaded for presumimg to exercise what he called the Divine Right of Kings. King James II was deposed and exiled for doing rather similar things. King George III was thrown out of what is now the United States of America for governing there with no regard for the will of the people who lived there. The reason why Britain has enjoyed civil peace and political stability in her home territory since 1746 and the Battle of Culloden is that her government and monarchy has adapted with the times and always appreciated that they must retain the consent of the people at large. Occasionally there were clashes of will and in the end, if the popular will is consistent and determined over time, the popular will prevailed; as with the extension of the vote and with the growth of unions, and more recently with the failure of the Poll Tax, which cost Margaret Thatcher her premiership. But 1746 saw the last attempt to impose a government and system which the people did not want; and many people were hanged for taking part in that coup. Some were hanged, drawn and quartered.

I don't think enough people realise the enormity of voting to oppose and overturn the decision of a national referendum. It is equal in heinousness to Charles I announcing that he governed by Divine Right.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by knobby109

In April 2016, after the bill was passed, the government circulated an advisory leaflet: "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK". This leaflet clearly stated: "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide".


This in my book is binding.

Courts can only apply the legislation not leaflets. And yes they will implement it through legislation like everything else.

If every party manifesto leaflet was legally binding every Government would spend all their time being sued.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Courts can only apply the legislation not leaflets. And yes they will implement it through legislation like everything else.

If every party manifesto leaflet was legally binding every Government would spend all their time being sued.

Can't argue with that.

However, it is a lot different to hold a formal referendum/plebiscite of the whole adult citizenry and then think you don't have to implement the verdict because you don't like the answer they came up with.

I doubt if any future government will hold a referendum in a hurry. The disadvantages of government-by-referendum have been demonstrated. Parliamentary democracy is much cleaner and far less dangerous. But one of the consequences of having a referendum is the way the stakes are raised, should you seek to weasel out because you didn't like the decision of the vote.