To think this could mean the end of brexit?

[jdoe8]

Now MPs will be able to block it. Could this be the end of this ridiculous brexit? MPs can not vote for something that they think will not be in peoples interest and its very clear the people that voted to brexit would be the ones worse off.

JO'B is doing a fab job on LBC today and most brexiters seem to be happy that it might not go ahead as they were fooled by lies!

Whilst I think morally it is and should be held to and clearly I think parliament will hold to the result, legally there is no argument that it is binding and no-one thinks there is any wiggle room on that otherwise there would have been no attempt to use prerogative powers and no court case ruling on whether prerogative powers could be used.

"What you are really arguing is that the people in the minority shouldn't have a voice. That isn't respecting the people."

Those are you words. I said nothing of such.

I think this whole thing is silly. Yes the referendum could be considered politically and morally binding. There is absolutely no way it could be considered to be legally binding in the manner in which it was done. No-one considers it to be legally binding including the people in positions to benefit from it being legally binding.

So topsy, what exactly is your problem with an MP from a strongly remain constituency representing their constituents?

Offred

"Yes the referendum could be considered politically and morally binding. There is absolutely no way it could be considered to be legally binding in the manner in which it was done. "

Ok. I can agree with that. It also comes back to what you said a few posts up, it is a matter of the relationship between the parliament and the people.

But as long as they don't block it, there is no issue and all these talks are academic.

merrymouse

Accept the result and move on to the next step of the process and fight for the best deals given the result rather than trying to fight a 3 months old battle?

I do think though given that it was a 48/52 split parliament is going to have a tough time actually giving effect to the result of the vote.

It was a slim margin to leave and that means the correct action is likely going to be a soft exit IMO.

The reality is likely that no-one will be happy.

Retainers need to accept that we are going to leave, leavers need to accept that this is not going to be the end of FM or EU rules.

*remainers

I would prefer a soft brexit at least in the interim but I think EU calls that 'cherry picking' ?

Am I the only one that has the feeling of being trampled down? From the onset, It was always understood that the referendum was advisory not binding. People had to say what they would like, it did not mean they would get it! Now the papers are criticising the Judiciary, one of the holding pillars of democracy (any democracy!). What a bloody joke, this saga has become....

Analogy:
My daughter would like sweets. She can tell me that. I, as her mother will evaluate if she can have them. How much sugar they contain, how fast her teeth will rot or how diabetic she will become. She does not understand any of those consequences, there are too many, some of them are not even relevant to her. Maybe sweets are not good for her even if she really really wants them. I know better and might decide that on balance sweets are not what she needs. She is now throwing a tantrum with the help of her friends. If I cave in, will I be a good mother?

But the situation here is say, already decided on the runway and then when it comes to a a compensation bill, MPs decided to vote against it as a protest against something that has already been agreed (the runway).

Not really. It would be more like MPs voting according to the wishes of their constituents on Heathrow.

Accept the result and move on to the next step of the process and fight for the best deals given the result rather than trying to fight a 3 months old battle?

I hope that parliament will have a say on what leaving will look like. In order to do that the issue will need to be discussed in parliament. It's not just a case of 'getting the best deal'. Nobody has agreed what a good deal would be.

I am a pragmatist and do not think there is any mileage, at this point in campaigning to stay in the EU.

However, I support the freedom of those who wish to campaign for a second referendum to argue their case. Afterall, they are just representing 'the people'.

It is not mutually exclusive to oppose Brexit on the grounds that it will be shit for everyone, and discuss what flavour of Brexit would best minimise the shitness.

natjojo

We are not 5 years old.

topsy777

From what I read and am seeing, unfortunately it looks like it. I know people did not think about passporting or university/hospital international (EU funded) research programs when they voted to see less immigrants taking their (sic) jobs. Please prove me otherwise.

I do see what you're trying to do, natjojo, but the fact is that anyone who voted is, perforce, an adult and should not be treated as a child. Perhaps everyone would have understood the ramifications of their vote better if Politicians had not treated us all as unable to take in and understand information, and hadn't chosen instead to point fingers and shout insults at each other.

Yes, I mean both sides too. Eagle's performance in the debates I saw was a particular disgrace as she was so built up as an intellectual giant. I'm very glad to see the back of her, and hope it stays like that for a long long time.

I am not trying to do anything. I am just saying that the individual voting never had the full picture because we were treated like idiot kids and could not in our ignorance take this historical decision with consequences we are, only now, starting to grasp.

This whole saga was a disgrace and should never have happened. The self centred arrogant imbeciles hungry with self gratification and power have all gone (but one who has become the caricature of the British abroad) and we, the people of this land, are all left to clear up their shit (sorry another word fails me). My view is that we can either clean it up or keep on stirring it.

Next year when salaries will not have increased, when inflation will be running at 4% and even feeding your kids sweets will be more expensive, when the NHS will not be able to recruit foreign staff and the waiting lists will be even longer, we will have the real taste of it.

offred
Constitutionally the government cannot use prerogative powers to override the statute that brought us into the EU (after the last referendum). A new statute is required which means it must go through parliament. Again, if remain won parliament would have been able to decide to come out.
the stumbling block to this is the fact that article 50 is an EU invention enshrined in the last treaty on which there was no vote. Invoking article 50 is the start of negotiation not the end of it so there is little for parliament to discuss.
In the 1972 act (Edward Heath) this was a law to enter the EEC (not the EU) which was never put to the people as either a referendum or a General election manifesto.
Belatedly the referendum on staying in the EEC was run about a year later with very little information given or indication that the EEC would morph into a united states of Europe. People voted in that referendum on the basis of - well we are in now so we might as well stay and the early 1970s were not a good time for the economy and a free trade area was a good idea.
This is why many say Edward Heath took us into Europe illegally. Not really relevant to the questions today but there is a lot of mis-information about the original act and the fact it was potentially illegal.

Nat,

You state that 'from the outset, it was always known that the referendum was advisory'.

Really?

Known by whom? Where was it stated? Can you evidence this?

Larry, it was definitely reported to be advisory before the vote.

Here's a link to a report dated 14th June commenting on it being reported in the FT:

uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

Informal,

That article even refers to it as an 'incredible' theory. It was never intended to be advisory. It ended up being 'advisory' due to Cameron's sloppiness.

Nonetheless, if parliament went against the referendum, it could be the end of the Lords (and they know it).

Larry, the headline calls it a theory, the text calls it a detail. Couldn't get the link to the FT blog to work but I'm sure it should be traceable.

It was never meant to be advisory, why was it not written with a legal trigger as included within the AV referendum?

Larry

Just google it to put your mind at rest.

second in the very long list of links
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-gina-miller-brexit-legally-binding-advisory-eu-referendum_uk_581f054ae4b09d57a9a8c62f

It ended up being 'advisory' due to Cameron's sloppiness.

Even if it did end up as such due to Cameron's sloppiness, it doesn't alter the fact. It wouldn't be the first time that something poorly drafted had unintended consequences.