Discussion of the UK Government
:sunglasses: 33.3 % :thumbsup: 7.4 % :grinning: 51.9 % 😟 3.7 % :cry: 3.7 %
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
Abernathy wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:08 pm
Big Arnold wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:50 pm
It's splitting hairs. Parliament voting to implement the result effectively made it legally binding.
No, it didn't. In legal matters, something is either strictly legal, or it is not. There is no "effectively legally binding". Parliament voted for the referendum, it did not vote to implement the result. The decision to implement the result and dishonestly treat the referendum result as if it were binding was Cameron's and later May's alone, though of course Corbyn cravenly followed suit.

Had the referendum legislation been legally binding, it could and would have been anulled because of the proven evidence that the result was fraudulently procured - May was fully aware of this. Ironically, it is because the referendum had no binding effect in law that no action has been taken in this regard.
I also wonder about that "Parliament cannot be bound by the decisions of previous parliaments" business that pompous twats trot out when they find the regulations inconvenient.
I've no idea of its context, or limitations, but we've had an election since the referendum, so how does that work?
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Big Arnold wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:39 pm
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to empower the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice – required by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union – for starting negotiations for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.[1][2][3] Lordon Wednesday 29 March 2017.

The Act gave effect to the result of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum held on 23 June in which 51.9% of voters chose to leave the European Union and also directly follows the decision of the (United Kingdom) Supreme Court on 24 January 2017 in the judicial review case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and was the first major piece of Brexit legislation to be passed by Parliament following the referendum.
May could have treated it as advisory, but that Act changed that. She could still have delayed A50 indefinitely, but it still made the result something that could be ignored.
The 2017 Act did not change the status of the Referendum Act from advisory to binding. It was never binding, even though May & Cameron took a political decision to act as if it was. Arguably the entire sham of the referendum was part of a massive con trick played on the British people that we know as Brexit.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
Europe? And the Future of Britain in Europe

Pretty accurate summing up. https://twitter.com/j[…]

Theresa May

Anyone got any idea what this statement will be […]

The Independent Group

Yes. People can judge for themselves if they lik[…]

C**t of the day

That is going beyond c**t. "Squire" is a[…]