Tried to post this before! No-one seems to want to bring this up but it comes fron the House of Commons Library briefing paper European Referendum Bill 2015/16 number 07212 of 3/6/2015. Paragraph 5 says “It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.”
So why has this government done the opposite???
2 Likes
1 Like
To further their own careers.
1 Like
Because Cameron turned it into a politically binding referendum with his promises to invoke Article 50 the morning after the vote and May compounded the error with all her Brexit is Brexit bullsh*t and ludicrous Red Lines.
1 Like
The only ex-pat I know who voted to leave told me, when I asked, the he voted “because I could”.
'Nuff said.
1 Like
Maybe politically but not legally.
Many election promises have been broken and it is time to add this one to the list.
There was a recent court case in which it was ruled that because the Referendum was advisory it has no standing in law therefore it could not be lawfully stopped. If it was not advisory it could be
Stopped because of illegality.
I find it quite impossible to think that anyone living in the EU would vote to leave. Our rights are guaranteed under the EU. Now we really do not know what the future holds for us if the UK leaves.
3 Likes
Are you watching Channel 4 evening news?
They are going after Arron Banks in a big way and have unearthed new mayerial of his illegal funding of other Leave organisations.
TM’s QC James Eadie has admitted that she knew that the trigger for declaring the Referendum illegal had been reached, but she went on anyway
It seems to me that they have more information that they will put into the public domain before the meaningful vote.
At least I hope so.
1 Like
Regrettably, TM sees herself as another Thatcher and is eager for a place in the history books. Well, she’ll undoubtedly get it, that is, in the dustbin of history. Being tough is one thing, being obstinate is another.
My take on all this is that if Mays deal is kicked out - which is almost certain. Then the H of C needs to vote “No deal” out of order and ask for more time. Three months is ridiculous, and the EU is already talking about 21 months. If the government accepts this (BIG “if”) this will give enough time for a new referendum and/or election. Then, one way or another maybe we can scupper this whole awful mess.
1 Like
I predict May’s deal getting thrown out, no-deal getting rejected, but then an extension being rejected as well. Not because I have any special insight, it’s just that is the maximally perverse outcome so clearly the one our f****d up parliament will go for.
thank you. more succinctly than my piece. let us hope this leads somewhere.