I1L2T3 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 So despite the Brexiters' claims that the referendum was fixed in favour of remain, it was in fact the other day way around. Nothing was fixed but I guess if we wanted to go down that track we could talk about the 16-17 year olds denied a vote. If the had voted in the same numbers as 18-24 year olds (64% turnout it has emerged) and in the same way (70:30 remain) then the Brexit majority would have been wafer thin. Based on the Scottish referendum where 16-17 year olds did vote the turnout was 75% amongst 16-17 year olds then the chances are we would have had a near 50:50 split had that age group been allowed to vote in the EU referendum. Thd disenfranchised expats are not the real story and their latest legal challenge will fail although it has value in keeping the Brexit fightback in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 At the end of the day the referendum was always advisory. There is no legal obligation for the government to act on it. What happens next is down to parliament. No its not, it is down to the government because its not a legal decision and nowhere in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 does it state that Parliament has any further say. The legal process was that Parliament was given the chance to vote on holding a referendum, and Parliament voted yes. Now they have to abide by the democratic process which was in favour of leave. There are other legal moves starting too. One is around the legality of excluding 700,000 British citizens resident abroad from voting. Again that was part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 which Parliament voted through so the legality does not come into question as it formed part of the act which parliament approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) No its not, it is down to the government because its not a legal decision and nowhere in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 does it state that Parliament has any further say. The legal process was that Parliament was given the chance to vote on holding a referendum, and Parliament voted yes. Now they have to abide by the democratic process which was in favour of leave. Again that was part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 which Parliament voted through so the legality does not come into question as it formed part of the act which parliament approved. Can you show me precisely in that act where it says the result of the referendum must be carried out? In fact, don't bother, I've read it myself and it says no such thing. What do you think non-legally binding means? Edited July 9, 2016 by Radan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Can you show me precisely in that act where it says the result of the referendum must be carried out? The act was about holding a referendum that's all, and is the reason why it does not state that it must be carried out which I'm sure you already know. What do you think non-legally binding means? Its not enshrined in law which means that that it is the governments responsibility, after the act has been voted though (the legal bit), for the result to be processed by the government. As stated it is now up to the government to deal with, not parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 No its not, it is down to the government because its not a legal decision and nowhere in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 does it state that Parliament has any further say. The legal process was that Parliament was given the chance to vote on holding a referendum, and Parliament voted yes. Now they have to abide by the democratic process which was in favour of leave. Again that was part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 which Parliament voted through so the legality does not come into question as it formed part of the act which parliament approved. You're wrong. The referendum is not legally binding. It is advisory only and has no basis in law to automatically trigger any process. What you are describing is an inferred duty for parliament to respect the result when a vote on triggering the necessary processes is put to them. The argument goes that it would be political suicide not to respect it but that in itself is a simplistic view. If you want to invoke the idea that democracy is important then the 48% who voted leave should be represented. We should expect 48% of MPs to vote against. That is going to make it a close vote, and given that the Tories are split 50:50 whipping them is going to be tough. The pro-remain Tories aren't going to want to trigger article 50 and will by that time IMO have a huge amount of economic ammunition to justify such a choice. The only way round this is a rogue PM using royal prerogative and triggering article 50 without going to parliament. The general view is that would be unwise. So what you have to understand is this is not necessarily about blocking article 50. It's about ensuring that when it is triggered that the 48% are represented and the best deal for everybody is delivered. You can't expect half the country to step aside and not be involved in the biggest changes to the UK for almost half a century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) The act was about holding a referendum that's all, and is the reason why it does not state that it must be carried out which I'm sure you already know. Its not enshrined in law which means that that it is the governments responsibility, after the act has been voted though (the legal bit), for the result to be processed by the government. As stated it is now up to the government to deal with, not parliament. I apologise I misunderstood your post. Though I'm pretty sure others think differently about what you state or rather the inability to challenge it. Mishcon de Reya won't come cheap and Zoopla must think they have a chance of success otherwise why bother paying them? If successful, the matter of triggering Article 50 will then be referred to Parliament for a vote. Which would be interesting.... I1L2T3, Tory MPs are not split 50:50. A fair chunk more favoured remain. Edited July 9, 2016 by Radan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) I apologise I misunderstood your post. No worries. Though I'm pretty sure others think differently about what you state. Mishcon de Reya won't come cheap and Zoopla must think they have a chance of success otherwise why bother paying them? If successful, the matter will then be referred to Parliament for a vote. Which would be interesting.... The trouble is that Mishcon de Reya are wanting an act of parliament passed before any proceedings to take us out are started but any act cannot stop the exit, only put forward its timetable and process. The only way to change things is to appeal against any legal illegal clauses in the act, if any exist and then there is a time frame of 6 weeks after the referendum to do so. ---------- Post added 09-07-2016 at 23:48 ---------- You're wrong. The referendum is not legally binding. It is advisory only and has no basis in law to automatically trigger any process. I know, its the government that pulls the trigger by invoking A50.! ---------- Post added 09-07-2016 at 23:52 ---------- You can't expect half the country to step aside and not be involved in the biggest changes to the UK for almost half a century. You can as its not open to public involvement thats what the government is for. Edited July 9, 2016 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 9, 2016 Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 The initial polling figures on the youth-vote were significantly wrong. (ie. they were a load of nonsense). http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radan Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) No worries. The trouble is that Mishcon de Reya are wanting an act of parliament passed before any proceedings to take us out are started but any act cannot stop the exit, only put forward its timetable and process. The only way to change things is to appeal against any legal illegal clauses in the act, if any exist and then there is a time frame of 6 weeks after the referendum to do so. ---------- Post added 09-07-2016 at 23:48 ---------- I know, its the government that pulls the trigger by invoking A50.! ---------- Post added 09-07-2016 at 23:52 ---------- You can as its not open to public involvement thats what the government is for. I thought the goal of MdR was to challenge prerogative powers and force the creation of an act of Parliament requiring a majority Commons vote before the PM can trigger article 50? I say it will be interesting because clearly they hope that all MPs that backed remain will then vote against invoking article 50 and hence be voting against the referendum outcome. I wonder if they would do that. It's plausible MdR will succeed (not sure quite how plausible exactly) but then MPs will still vote to invoke article 50 out of respect to the referendum result. Edited July 9, 2016 by Radan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Which will reflect in polls. No, that's absolutely not the case. TV Vox pops have gone through at least three tiers of editorial/journalistic choices, before their specifically selected opinions are broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts