The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Obelix]

This is some kind of joke right? If not, then the only person I'm inclined to exclude from voting is you.

 

Tell you what, let's put it to a vote of the most highly educated people on the Forum. That's me and tzijlstra as we both have PhDs.

 

The motion is that everybody's opinion should count except runningman1. Tim?

 

*cough* excuse me but can I join please...?

 

The point made above though is valid, most MP's will not listen to the more ludicrous wishes of the electorate (otherwise income tax would be just for bankers, we would garrotte suspected kiddie fiddlers without trial and all bus trips would cost 2p). A referendum in the ultimate is a formalised way of sampling the opinion of the country. It's up to the MP's to do with that as they will - we do not have the power to direct them via a referendum only the means to make a strong suggestion.

 

Now if they choose to go against a popular decision, then they can be subject to recall. However - most people don't want them to be recalled. Perhaps they should have originally set the exit threshold higher....

[unbeliever]

*cough* excuse me but can I join please...?

 

The point made above though is valid, most MP's will not listen to the more ludicrous wishes of the electorate (otherwise income tax would be just for bankers, we would garrotte suspected kiddie fiddlers without trial and all bus trips would cost 2p). A referendum in the ultimate is a formalised way of sampling the opinion of the country. It's up to the MP's to do with that as they will - we do not have the power to direct them via a referendum only the means to make a strong suggestion.

 

Now if they choose to go against a popular decision, then they can be subject to recall. However - most people don't want them to be recalled. Perhaps they should have originally set the exit threshold higher....

 

I took issue with removing the vote from people runningman1 deemed inferior to him. The matter of the value is referenda is certainly worthy of discussion.

 

The problem arises because we have no formal way of settling constitutional matters. It is not acceptable for parliament to give away permanently, power which the people granted to them temporarily, on the basis of a simple majority vote.

In the US for example, a series of super-majority votes are required to alter the constitution. We have no such mechanism. A referendum may not be the best way of settling such things, but a simple majority vote in parliament is unacceptable.

 

Would you support a requirement for some kind of super-majority standard for constitutional matters? We need an English parliament for balance, so perhaps once we have that; we could require a 2/3 majority in parliament, plus the support of 3 of the 4 constituent country parliaments.

[Obelix]

I don't think that this is perhaps the right place to start up this debate. Let me cogitate and I'll answer that in a different thread?

[tzijlstra]

I don't think that this is perhaps the right place to start up this debate. Let me cogitate and I'll answer that in a different thread?

 

I believe we have a thread on it, about the voting system. Unfortunately all these things sort of blend into each other as the questions and consequences all relate to this particular referendum.

[L00b]

I know of at least one other member with a PhD, but it's not for me to reveal that publicly. Tim and I are both clearly "out" on the matter. But sure. You get a vote too. That's a tie so far then. Still waiting on Tim.

Hey, I have two (STEM) PhD holders as my gofers trainees, does that count?

In the US for example, a series of super-majority votes are required to alter the constitution. We have no such mechanism.

Then again, we do not have a constitution, nor any similar single 'constitutional' bedrock (unless you want to go all the way back to Magna Carta). Edited June 29, 2016 by L00b

[apelike]

It doesn't even need a manifesto to be overridden

 

Legally, parliament decides. They can just ignore the referendum if they wish..

 

Parliament cant as its not up to them as its not a legal decision. It does not go to a vote in Parliament and is up to the Government at the time to implement or ignore. Cameron has already stated that he will have the result implemented by the Government.

Edited June 29, 2016 by apelike

[unbeliever]

Then again, we do not have a constitution, nor any similar single 'constitutional' bedrock (unless you want to go all the way back to Magna Carta).

 

Which is part of the reason we get into such a mess over these things.

[Guest]

Someone high profile should warn people of this country to pay attention to what their MP is doing right now.

 

"Remainer" MP's, particularly ones with narrow majorities, should be careful if they're speaking and acting, with regards to Brexit negotiations, in parliament, in a way that is contrary to their constituents wishes.

[truman]

Someone high profile should warn people of this country to pay attention to what their MP is doing right now.

 

"Remainer" MP's, particularly ones with narrow majorities, should be careful if they're speaking and acting, with regards to Brexit negotiations, in parliament, in a way that is contrary to their constituents wishes.

 

I thought the vote was arranged by council areas..not constituencies..if this is the case how would an MP know what the vote in their constituency was..?

[Vaati]

The 'I have a better qualification then yours' comments and other attacks can stop. This is the final warning I'm going to give on top of the last one before I start to suspend people.