The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandLady]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

Article 50 has been triggered (finally!).
Now we move onwards to the future 🍻

All welcome, as ever...

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

Squishy,

a bunch of posters clearly got the analogy, sorry if you didn't.

I'm with squishy on that one.

I'm struggling to see how the moral definition of "sexual relations" is related to the legal definition of whether the Referendum bill was drafted to make it binding or not.

Moral and legal are different things.

It is not a sensible analogy.

It's very much in "and if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle" territory.

Kaija,

It is a perfect analogy of everyone knowing the meaning of something but the legalities being different.

Which is very very few MPs, regardless of the passion of their commitment to remain, are choosing to pick the fight that you would like them to.

You can't fight against nature forever - geological Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39494740

That's interesting howabout, as Britain was still connected to Europe by Doggerland around 7000 years ago, which was then flooded by rising sea levels.

So if the 450,000 year ago Geological Brexit wasn't permanent ... but it might be a long wait

Larry,

I'm sorry but it's just utter nonsense. The referendum was held on the explicit basis that it was advisory.

Kaija,

That is errant rot.

Please show me when this was stated in either the remain or leave campaign.

Advisory references:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015
fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-senior-conservative-mps-seize-on-a-forgotten-government-pledge-to-let-parliament-decide-the-a7366316.html
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-gina-miller-brexit-legally-binding-advisory-eu-
"Farage conceded: “I take the advisory point. And I would now wish to see constitutional change to make referendums binding.”"
referendumuk581f054ae4b09d57a9a8c62f

Think it was advisory.
Love the geology howabout

Thank you, woman.

It was clearly stated in the bill that MPs voted on to hold the referendum in the first place.

Kaija,

I am slightly sceptical of your posting motivations on here; you never seem to engage with points made but to obfuscate and derail.

If you are sincere then please tell me if you feel that the referendum was merely a glorified opinion poll, which is the implication of an 'advisory' referendum. Also, if that is all the weight it carried, why is no political party arguing for ignoring it?

As though comparing the advisory nature of the referendum to a sex scandal wasn't obfuscation and derailment... but leaving that aside.

An opinion poll is of course held for any number of reasons, not to inform government decisions. But inform is the key word, not dictate.

Legally the referendum has no force. Politically it is a different matter, which is why no party is arguing to ignore it, particularly in an environment where the hard/far right has successfully seized control of the political conversation. But politics can change very quickly.

Kaija,

Once again, obfuscation. Your choice of the word 'inform' which you fail to give a clear meaning to. And, again, 'politically', another word with no clearly defined meaning.

How about you give a clear definition of the words in the context of this referendum (not a link to a context-free dictionary definition).

To me (and this is nice and clear), the referendum was portrayed by both sides as a decision to be made by the people and enacted by government (hence de facto ( but not de jure)) binding.

Of course contexts change over time and, depending on decisions made by both parties in a negotiation, decisions can be revisited. However, attempting to do a Clinton (no apologies for the analogy) Nd wriggle on the head of a legal pin, is insulting and not in a democratic spirit.

Ive always liked kaijis posts

They seem clear and open to me

I am a bit basic though and get bored by long posts so that might be it

No obfuscation from me Larry.

"To me (and this is nice and clear), the referendum was portrayed by both sides as a decision to be made by the people and enacted by government (hence de facto ( but not de jure)) binding. "

It may be nice and clear to you, but the idea that the referendum was binding is your personal opinion, certainly not a matter of fact. It not being legally binding is, however, an indisputable fact.

Its fairly clear that Kajia is correct, and very clear about why.

The referendum wasn't binding, it might have been portrayed that way, but it wasn't.

Kaija and Danny,

Feel free to ignore the realities of the situation. It is one of the luxuries of having absolutely no power. Meanwhile, those in power are having to bow to the result of the referendum.

Patronising much.

The act that brought the referendum about clearly said it was advisory, therefore it is advisory legally.

It might have been politically difficult to ignore it, which is why its being followed, but it was only advisory.

Which is why I struggle with the fact that the terms "overwhelming" are used regarding it (it wasn't) and why the result means that we are taking a hard brexit, rather than a compromised one.

The question of whether they have to "bow to the results" is debatable. From the October conference onwards, they seem to have chosen to make appeasement of the right wing of the party/UKIP a priority over every other consideration. However, as the realities of Brexit start to sink in and opposition grows, we may see them taking a very different tack.

Who has denied that the referendum was legally advisory? Show me one poster claiming it on this thread.

Politically 'difficult'? Well I guess if difficult is a euphemism for suicidal.

I have never used the term overwhelming as, I agree, it wasn't. It was, however, a clear majority. We now need to get on with positively negotiating the best exit possible (and that goes for the EC too).

"Who has denied that the referendum was legally advisory? Show me one poster claiming it on this thread."

Well, according to your Clinton analogy - which you keep referring back to - you.

Unless you either think the phrase "legally advisory" means "not advisory", or you don't believe Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

"We now need to get on with positively negotiating the best exit possible"

We aren't doing that though are we? We haven't even gone in with a policy which reflects that the country was very finely split on this issue, we have gone with policies which reflect only the hard right vote.

The Clinton analogy was perfectly clear, and a good analogy wrt the wriggling and squirming of:

'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' (except you did - you stuck your cock in her mouth and she gave you a blow job).

And

'the ref was only ever advisory, therefore ignoring the result is a perfectly reasonable course of action' (except it isn't, because it was spelled out very clearly that the result would be enacted).

Semi, it was spelled out very clearly in the referendum legislation that it was advisory. If you think campaign leaflets trump legislation you will be looking forward I'm sure to the £350 million per week NHS spending increase.