Discussion of the UK Government
:sunglasses: 33.3 % :thumbsup: 7.4 % :grinning: 51.9 % 😟 3.7 % :cry: 3.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Oblomov
#568954
This bellend was on LBC this morning commenting to the effect that these parliamentary votes on various options on Brexit aren't legally binding so the PM should ignore them to resume delivering "the will of the people" (where's the sick emoticon when you need it?)

Though all revisionism is for self-interest, this one is so naked that I get angry that other people don't see it. One Dagenham Dave type even called in last night to say JRM was a grass roots politician! Admittedly true if those roots are in Ireland for his shell companies to cream off his style of disaster capitalism.
Kreuzberger, oboogie, AOB and 1 others liked this
 
By Oblomov
#568977
This transparent revionism also occurred shortly after JRM's second failure at ousting Mayday, some Tory berk was railing against the cabinet ministers for not supporting the Brexit deal and demanding their immediate resignation because "you can't be in the government and against it at the same time". Conveniently he made no mention of JRM being the main cheerleader for overthrowing the government :roll:

I get tempted more and more tempted to read Bernays' Propaganda pamphlet just to get an understanding of the machinations at work, JRM's social policies alone should make him incompatible with modern politics yet here we are.
oboogie, Arrowhead, Boiler liked this
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#569061
Big Arnold wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:12 am
Boiler wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:47 pm
Neither is this fucking referendum legally binding :evil:
It wasn't originally. But didn't it become so when Parliament voted to implement it?
No. It never has been legally binding.

Image
 
By Oblomov
#569077
Arrowhead wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:01 am
Welcome to the forum, Oblomov. Always nice to see new posters on here 8)
Many thanks, I've actually been lurking for some years! I tried making an account years ago before the website redesign but the authentication email never made it to my inbox :(

Thankfully it has now and I can engage with m'learned colleagues!
Arrowhead liked this
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#569081
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.
lord_kobel, Samanfur liked this
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#569087
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.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
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[…]

Theresa May

Mutterings as well that all opposition leaders a[…]

The Brexit Party

Good choice for a sounding board. If anybody woul[…]