JCL666
absurdism
- Sep 23, 2011
- 2,190
If only your post pre dated 23rd June 2016, but alas .................
sorry but I don't get what you mean?
If only your post pre dated 23rd June 2016, but alas .................
A purely ADVISORY referendum, that returned a far from conclusive response.
Ye gods , you must be puce with embarrassment posting crap like this.
Yes they can take those view into account but the majority of the electorate, those that voted remain and those that did'nt vote still have interests that can't be ignored. So it is perfectly legitimate for that MP to carefully scrutinise what is proposed and if they feel its not in the interests of the majority of their constituents then they can take a differing view and make their judgement on that.
so the "we elect mp's to make these decisions for us " argument is only valid if the vote goes your way, yes ?
I agree. I think the ruling may be used in order to rubber stamp any proposal for the terms of Brexit.I've lifted this from the BBC.
But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.
In simple terms I think it just says that the government can't enact Article 50 and that Parliament has to say it's ok.
sorry but I don't get what you mean?
Yes they can take those view into account but the majority of the electorate, those that voted remain and those that did'nt vote still have interests that can't be ignored. So it is perfectly legitimate for that MP to carefully scrutinise what is proposed and if they feel its not in the interests of the majority of their constituents then they can take a differing view and make their judgement on that.
No, the High Court has said that Brexit is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That means that in some form, parliament will vote on the direction the government wants to take Brexit. I think.
Fair enough points but the amount of hypocrisy amongst remainders is astounding , you cannot seriously tell me you'd be acting this way had the vote gone your way,
Oh yes you do .............. I cannot remember one poster citing that the refrendum was undemocratic prior to 23rd June 2016, there I spelled it out for you, but you knew what I meant all along.
No I didn't know what you meant.
The point of my post was a flippant remark on how democratic processes work. Which in our country (as other posters have pointed out) means Parliamentary processes etc within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. A lot of people seem to think it works differently.
Fair enough points but the amount of hypocrisy amongst remainders is astounding , you cannot seriously tell me you'd be acting this way had the vote gone your way,
But the question will not be 'shall we stay or leave the EU'. It will probably be some sort of scrutiny of whatever plan they have for leaving.No the High Court has said that Article 50 cannot be triggered without a Parliamentary vote.
Good luck with getting re-elected by your constituency electorate if you just happen to be a remoaning MP. This will sadly be the end of the public getting involved in election days of the future. Maybe that was the plan all along. Sad day indeed.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
We do want parliamentary democracy. It was a democratic act of parliament that voted through the referendum act. The referendum was clear in its question and clear in its answer. We only have this obsession now about 'parliamentary democracy' from remainers as it is the only way that they see the process being impeded. Parliamentary democracy is the excuse being bandied around as an excuse to get the 'right' result. A truly EU trait.Don't be ridiculous. Brighton and Hove as an area voted remain and, while I would expect Simon Kirby to be whipped in to voting with Teresa May I would also expect Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and centre-ist Labour MP Peter Kyle to vote remain, and for it to increase their majorities next time. In fact, though it would not be representative entirely across constituencies a parliamentary vote of 338 - 312 in favour of Brexit would broadly mirror the popular vote.
What's more there's a chance to vote on more than one broadbrush question.
It's not a rubber stamp. I thought you lot wanted parliamentary democracy above everything else? Or was it actually about kicking out Johnny Foreigner after all?
It seems that legally the government cannot do that.
The people who voted have been misled.