Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)


Recommended Posts

The referendum is not secondary legislation.

 

It was a referendum enacted by parliament to advise the executive whether to use its royal prerogative to activate article 50 and get us out of the EU.

 

No it wasn't it was an advisory referendum aimed at informing the government on the UK's preference. Artciles 50 and the process had not been discussed in the run up at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a massive exercise in attempting to defeat the spirit of the law using the letter of the law. It had better fail in some way, I don't care how but it needs to fail.

 

Wow... really just...

 

I think you better prepare yourself for some disappointment then. The spirit and letter of the law couldn't be clearer - Parliament had fought a civil war and were so serious about it all they cut the King's head off.

 

The supremacy of Parliament was very much the spirit of the law and a check on the unfettered power of the Monarch in person and in Crown. To deride that as being just the mere letter of the law shows a very deep misunderstanding of what the Bill of Rights is actually about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... really just...

 

I think you better prepare yourself for some disappointment then. The spirit and letter of the law couldn't be clearer - Parliament had fought a civil war and were so serious about it all they cut the King's head off.

 

The supremacy of Parliament was very much the spirit of the law and a check on the unfettered power of the Monarch in person and in Crown. To deride that as being just the mere letter of the law shows a very deep misunderstanding of what the Bill of Rights is actually about.

 

Parliament and the government promised to abide by the referendum result. If they don't then that's a very serious matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... really just...

 

I think you better prepare yourself for some disappointment then. The spirit and letter of the law couldn't be clearer - Parliament had fought a civil war and were so serious about it all they cut the King's head off.

 

The supremacy of Parliament was very much the spirit of the law and a check on the unfettered power of the Monarch in person and in Crown. To deride that as being just the mere letter of the law shows a very deep misunderstanding of what the Bill of Rights is actually about.

 

Well and truly owned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parliament and the government promised to abide by the referendum result. If they don't then that's a very serious matter.

 

No they didn't.

 

What they said was...

 

 

The referendum

.

 

 

 

(1)

 

A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

.

 

(2)

 

The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.

.

 

(3)

 

The day appointed under subsection (2)—

.

 

(a)

 

must be no later than 31 December 2017,

.

 

(b)

 

must not be 5 May 2016, and

.

 

©

 

must not be 4 May 2017.

.

 

(4)

 

The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

.

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

 

(5)

 

The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—

.

“Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union”.

 

(6)

 

In Wales, there must also appear on the ballot papers—

.

 

(a)

 

the following Welsh version of the question—

.

“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”, and

 

(b)

 

the following Welsh versions of the alternative answers—

.

“Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd

Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wheres he being rude and wheres the honest and fair poster? I don't see either of the two entites you are describing there.

That must be because you are wearing dodgy EU tinted spectacles. :suspect:

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 17:37 ----------

 

No it wasn't it was an advisory referendum aimed at informing the government on the UK's preference. Artciles 50 and the process had not been discussed in the run up at all.

Perhaps the Gambia presendential election was only advisory and President Jammeh is being unfairly vilified, by the World for not allowing the winning candidate to replace him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That must be because you are wearing dodgy EU tinted spectacles. :suspect:

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 17:37 ----------

 

Perhaps the Gambia presendential election was only advisory and President Jammeh is being unfairly vilified, by the World for not allowing the winning candidate to replace him.

 

Do you really not understand the difference between an advisory referenda, and a binding election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Gambia presendential election was only advisory and President Jammeh is being unfairly vilified, by the World for not allowing the winning candidate to replace him.

 

Our electoral system has been compared to that of the Republic of Zimbabwe ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.