If a new referendum on Brexit was announced..

[bbcessex]

Would you be up in arms about that?
Discussing last night.. I think given the margins in the last vote and the (being charitable) confusion and uncertainty over the Brexit plans, a new referendum would generally be accepted.

DH (remainer) thinks a re-vote is not constitutional & would cause uproar (amongst all).

Who is unreasonable ?

So now: it isn't legally binding on the gov't of May (Home Sec in Cameron gov't), who stood on 2015 Manifesto, voted in favour of a referendum that would let people decide, was elected to leadership on basis it would implement decision, and stood again in 2017 on the basis that her government would implement the decision. ?

the 2015 manifesto clearly stated that there would be a commitment to the Single Market.

It was stated, but maybe it wasn't 'clear' because May felt able to ditch it.

statements like 'clearly', 'surely', 'obviously'. What such statements do is keep lawyers in work

"Reasonable". I actually took the bus to Clapham once. Still don't know.

No, it was not legally binding on the Government, in the way that the Single Market commitment wasn't binding either. A stronger argument could have been made for the commitment to enfranchise overseas British citizens. That was not only in the manifesto, but also I believe, made it as far as the Queen's speech - to be quietly forgotten about.

All the Referendum did was tell the Govt that on balance the people of the UK would prefer to be out of the EU. There was nothing about how they wanted to be out of the EU. Did they want EEA/EFTA/Customs Union, Euratom, ECJ?

May/her right wingers decided that they would like those things. If the electorate had been of the same opinion, my belief is that she would have got her mandate, but she didn't.

May decided that they would want out of those things. Ah the importance of not missing words out!

it isn't legally binding on the gov't of May (Home Sec in Cameron gov't), who stood on 2015 Manifesto, voted in favour of a referendum that would let people decide, was elected to leadership on basis it would implement decision, and stood again in 2017 on the basis that her government would implement the decision?

Correct. It is not legally binding.

We were asked a specific question do you want in or out.

I'm afraid it strikes me as a bit pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the referendum result isn't legally binding. Fortunately, May, her government, and even Labour and many if not most remainers do indeed think it's legally (and morally_ binding on the government to follow through with the wishes expressed in this specific referendum.

As do these

www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-binding.shtml

I'll settle for that, rather than trying to convince you.

That is what they decided. They could equally have said that the vote for a change of such magnitude, after what legally was only an advisory referendum, was too close, and set up a cross party working party to analyse all the options. Then put some realistic choices before the public

I don't understand this? My question was to a user who said there never should have been a referendum so I asked if they thought that, how would they have felt if the Conservative party decided on Brexit without a public vote as they felt the public shouldn't be trusted to vote.

There is nothing at all in that article describing a constitutional validation for the stated premise.

Crackednips

You can argue as much as you like that you don’t believe that the EU Referendum wasn’t legally binding. You are wrong.

Parliamentary Briefing Paper 07212:

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

Crackednips

I'm afraid it strikes me as a bit pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the referendum result isn't legally binding

You want the referendum to be legally binding but unfortunately the House of Commons gets to decide that not you. The HoC is sovereign they can make and change laws.

Yes a leaflet and whilst we're on the subject of legalities...

Doesn't that constitute a written contract?

You guys may have a point from an ethical/moral position, but from a constitutional standpoint, nothing presented here, nor in that article, validates in any way that that referendum is legally binding.

NO!

makeourfuture

Yes! ( The NO was to the legally binding comment)

People make ethical and/or moral points and try to justify it with constitutional or legal points when they fundamentally have no understanding of the issues.

Which brings us back to the point of a representative democracy.

M4Dad - you have stated that nothing would ever convince you that the EU is democratic so there is no point in trying.

However, I would like to make the point that if you look at the structure of UK institutions they also appear profoundly undemocratic - see for example the PM is appointed by the Queen and the House of Lords. However, in practice, the UK largely is democratic, just as is the EU.

Personally, I am wary of those who have excess belief in the nation state as that way wars begin. Though it also raises a question as to what is the nation state? I presume being from NI and a firm believer in the nation state that you are a firm supporter of Irish unity? After all, Ireland voted overwhelmingly for independence in 1919 and has always been a clear nation.

I go along with J Rees Mogg. My take of his views on this subject, that:

1/ Parliament is sovereign and has discretion to act on our behalf.

2/ Every five years, parliament's sovereignty is returned whence it came (the electorate) at a general election.

3/ Whenever it is faced with questions on sovereignty or the constitution, then the electorate must be consulted in a referendum and the result of that referendum must be binding.

In '92 the Maastricht Treaty and Single European Act and the 2008 Lisbon Treaty were in my view examples of where parliament overstepped its remit in giving away sovereignty, without consulting the electorate who lend it to them.

And the Supreme Court were of the same opinion - see Para 107 of the Miller judgement.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf

Doesn't that constitute a written contract

A contract is comprised of elements. An offer, acceptance, consideration, and the will to be legally bound. One could argue each of these were present. The "legally bound" part jumps out immediately as a point of contention.

But in reality it would seemingly be a stretch to apply contract law to this.

But that is an interesting idea. And legal profesors would almost surely say it is a good attempt at lateral thinking.

"I actually took the bus to Clapham once. Still don't know"
Didn't want that to go unmarked.

Despite my politics degree I don't understand this statement. Please elucidated

Hang on a minute, if you don't appreciate that the EU is part Governmental and Part Federal then despite your politics degree I'm afraid you're not actually worth bothering with, debate wise.

Crackednips

Yes you and Rees Mogg share views. Just because you and others want it to be true does not make it true.

To All those saying that the EU is democratic, unfortunately as the elected members are numbered proportionately to the size of the country’s, we have fewer elected MEPs than larger country’s meaning if something proposed is not supported by the U.K., we are vastly out numbered by Germany alone (I think we have around 70 mep’s to Germany’s 90 odd)
I read somewhere a while ago that the U.K. was the nation most often on the loosing side of a EU vote.

M4Dad

Are you going to reply to my repeated response to to your incorrect point that the EU is undemocratic?

They are democratically responsible because we can choose NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN

We only get to vote one person out - there are 28 people making the decisions. How is that democratic?

Nothing personal, but it really irks me when people are economical with the truth, especially when they are willfully slanting the debate to benefit their agenda.

In your heart, you must know the EU is democratically deficient.