The consequence thread (Brexit)

[apelike]

Remind me which law school you went to and please tell me where it says that you don't need legislation to overturn existing legislation which is what Brexit is.

 

Because the legislation to hold a referendum in the first place was put through parliament and already voted on despite it being not legally binding. That now gives the government the required mandate to carry out the wishes of the majority result of the referendum. Parliament have already debated it, had their say and BTW also agreed while doing it that ex-pats abroad could not vote. They cant now in retrospect vote it void because they disagree with the outcome.

 

Its great that all these people are now challenging the outcome but just like the ex-pats legal challenge they will fail.

Edited August 12, 2016 by apelike

[ez8004]

Because the legislation to hold a referendum in the first place was put through parliament and already voted on despite it being not legally binding. That now gives the government the required mandate to carry out the wishes of the majority result of the referendum. Parliament have already debated it, had their say and BTW also agreed while doing it that ex-pats abroad could not vote. They cant now in retrospect vote it void because they disagree with the outcome.

 

Its great that all these people are now challenging the outcome but just like the ex-pats legal challenge they will fail.

 

OK you are officially an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. So let me go slowly just for you.

 

The EU Referendum Act 2015 was legislation to make provision for a referendum to be held. That is it. It allows the government to hold a referendum. It was not legally binding as there was no provision made to act on the result. Unlike the referendum on the alternative voting system.

 

The European Communities Act 1972 is the legislation that needs to be overturned to leave the EU. This is why a new piece of legislation is needed.

 

Get it?

Edited August 12, 2016 by ez8004

[biotechpete]

Wow! Just been woken up by the sound of remainers whining.

 

You're still in bed while they're off to work presumably.

[altus]

[/b]

 

My bold

How many times were we the public asked when some trade deal was agreed via the EU?

The public were never given the opportunity to accept any of the EU led trade agreements and what about the TTP deal being done behind closed doors?

Other EU countries are pushing back against TTIP whilst ours isn't. What makes you think a UK-US trade deal would produce a better deal than an EU-US one given that our government seems happier to go along with US proposals than the EU as a whole is?

[Cyclone]

You're still in bed while they're off to work presumably.

 

lol

[tzijlstra]

Very true. It seems that a lot of Brexiteers voted Leave because the EU is too neoliberal (whether they articulated it that way or not), neglecting the fact that policies are likely to be even more neoliberal under a stand-alone UK government.

 

That is a correct observation.

[nightrider]

Labour have never said they would ignore the result. Owen Smith has said that any new deal negotiated would be put to the country in another referendum to accept or not. This will effectively be the second referendum but with actual facts in what the new deal will be.

 

 

I don't really understand how that is possible.

 

We won't know what the new deal is until we trigger Article 50 and negotiate (ok we might have some vague idea based on informal discussions, but nothing remotely concrete surely?). Once triggered though, as far as I understand there is no going back. So any vote on the deal is only gives the choice of that deal or no deal at all, not the deal or the status quo.

[unbeliever]

I don't really understand how that is possible.

 

We won't know what the new deal is until we trigger Article 50 and negotiate (ok we might have some vague idea based on informal discussions, but nothing remotely concrete surely?). Once triggered though, as far as I understand there is no going back. So any vote on the deal is only gives the choice of that deal or no deal at all, not the deal or the status quo.

 

Rejection of the article 50 trade deal would mean an application to extend article 50 negotiations or an exit with no formal deal in place.

I'm not sure that the latter is anything to fear. It's very unlikely (although not impossible) that we would suddenly revert to WTO rules.

[NigelFargate]

Very true. It seems that a lot of Brexiteers voted Leave because the EU is too neoliberal (whether they articulated it that way or not), neglecting the fact that policies are likely to be even more neoliberal under a stand-alone UK government.

 

With the fundamental exception of the ultra neo-liberal policy of free movement of labour. The migration issue was the crucial factor in the Brexit vote. Regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations, it seems highly likely that the UK's migration policy will be less 'neo-liberal' than the current position.

[tzijlstra]

With the fundamental exception of the ultra neo-liberal policy of free movement of labour. The migration issue was the crucial factor in the Brexit vote. Regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations, it seems highly likely that the UK's migration policy will be less 'neo-liberal' than the current position.

 

Are you sure? After all this is the Home Secretary who was part of the government that kept stating immigration should come down in the ten thousands and at the same time recruited hundreds of thousands from outside the EEA.

 

Just because they never told you the truth about immigration being necessary doesn't mean you can ignore that fact.