The Liberal Democrats Want To Stop Brexit. Can Someone Help Me With This.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

All UK elections are decided on the majority of votes cast.
Using your logic nearly every single General Election should be invalidated.
Back in 2001 only 59% of the electorate voted; those who couldn't be bothered were by far the biggest section of the electorate, should that have invalidated Labour's landslide victory?

I agree that anyone registered to vote who doesn't without a reasonable excuse should face some kind of punishment possibly a fine or ban from voting in x number of future ballots etc.

As for Ireland; a unique situation that requires a unique solution.
Unfortunately both the EU and DUP etc refuse to compromise one little bit from their relative pre-determined standpoints.

a reply to: uncommitted

With all due respect, I'm not an idiot.

I am more than aware that there was/is no legal obligation to implement the result of any referendum unless specifically stated in the parliamentary act authorising the referendum.

But there is definitely a moral obligation.

Yes, Parliament is sovereign....but as has been so publicly revealed our current political model is broken and party politics is no longer fit for purpose.
We need radical reform of our electoral and parliamentary systems and procedures.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

So, a vote to leave by a majority can be ignored and we should have another one in the hope that you get a vote to remain? That is what is absurd.

Erm, a majority of whom? The total electorate of this benighted country is around 45 million people out of a total population of 66 million. We had a turnout of just 72% in 2016 on one of the most important issues we will ever be asked to vote on. 17 million voted to leave and 16 million voted to stay on a 52-48% split. When it was predicted that it would be a similar split for a remain victory that greasy fraud Farage said that there should be a second vote. I guess he changed his mind.
So a minority of the total electorate voted to leave. And being asked to vote on a "This is the real deal, this is what happens if we leave, do you want to confirm Y/N?" vote is somehow undemocratic?
We need to do what our Aussie friends do and make it against the law to not vote. That way you get genuine engagement on issues.
And by the way this was never an easy concept. Leaving the EU after 40 years means unpicking a huge amount of law and trading standards, plus I have not once, NOT ONCE, heard a sane solution to the Northern Irish border issue from Farage, or Rees-Mogg, or Bowis, or any leading Leaver of any way shape or form.

A majority of those that voted in the referendum, quite simply.

On your logic, you could ignore the result of nearly every General Election that we have had.

Do you want it to be against the law to, say, spoil your ballot paper?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course it undermines the principles behind referendums.

Simply delay implementing the result of any future referendum as long as possible then hold another one without enacting the result of the first in the hope that one gets the 'desired' result.
It makes a mockery of holding referendums and renders them completely and utterly irrelevant.

Again, if any second referendum had a 52/48 vote for Remain would you support claims for third referendum?

There's only one principle behind the referendum, to hear the voice of the people on a given point. There is no obligation to actually make a change based on what you hear. In theory at least, if you heard the voice of the people at one point in time and decided to look further at the point raised, captured further information around it and sought to bring more evidence to the people in the form of a second referendum, you aren't undermining it if you do or don't act on the second referendum or the first.

When it comes to a referendum, Parliament is sovereign, it's not obligated to carry out the wish of the majority in the same way as it is in an election.

We all know that parliament is sovereign and that referendums are not legally binding. It is morally and politically binding if not legally.

We had a referendum on the Common Market some time ago now since when quite a few people seem to have changed their minds.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: uncommitted

So why call it a referendum then? Why is it not just called an "opinion poll"?

Fair question, because arguably that's what it is, but not sure the original latin that referendum is derived from used such a phrase.

a reply to: Freeborn

If you feel I was patronising, I apologise, it wasn't my intention. Many people on here seem to see it as synonymous to an election.

But there isn't a moral obligation. If a particularly sickening crime or series of crimes had been committed, ones that shook the country and the government of the day wanted to test the mood of the people for capital punishment, if at that point a slim majority responded to the referendum that they wished for the death sentence to be reintroduced, due you think there would be a moral obligation to do so?

a reply to: oldcarpy

referendums are not legally binding.

That is true.

However by The UK Government triggering Article 50, they made the referendum binding.

a reply to: uncommitted

No need to apologise, all is good.


An Act of Parliament passed by the majority of The House is required for a national referendum to be held.
This in itself gives the referendum a certain amount of legitimacy but it can be written into the Act that the result is binding on a stated majority, either a simple majority or 55/45 etc.

Cameron's arrogant assumption that the people would not vote to leave the EU meant that no such proviso was included.

But this does not mean that there is a moral obligation to implement the result of the referendum, in fact all major political leaders recognised this in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Of course since then they have all done their very best to derail and dilute Brexit.

I would expect that any future referendums - if we have any more, any second referendum will immediately devalue and discredit the principles that support and underpin democratically held referendums - would include the required majority and state if the vote was legally binding or not.
Surely we can't fail to recognise one of the most fundamental mistakes surrounding the conduct of this referendum.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: oldcarpy

referendums are not legally binding.

That is true.

However by The UK Government triggering Article 50, they made the referendum binding.

You may think here I'm being pedantic, but it didn't make the referendum binding, it signalled our 'intention to leave the EU in accordance with our own constitutional requirements'. Isn't that the same thing, well, no, it means that the government decided to act on it.

As I'm sure you know, there was then a legal challenge as to whether this could be done by the government of the day without consent by Parliament as a whole. That challenge was upheld and that became the constitutional requirement which has led to the current impasse. So, in a nutshell, the result of the referendum wasn't binding by triggering article 50 and if the constitutional requirements aren't met, then the government can't meet the terms laid out in article 50 - or at least that's how I understand it.

a reply to: alldaylong

Yes, indeed.

a reply to: uncommitted

Both Conservative and Labour in their 2017 General Election Manifesto's stated that they would " Honour " the result of the 2016 EU Referendum.

Normally that would have been good enough for me. However the word " Honour " does not compute with both of those parties.

No wonder " Leavers " such as i, are turning to the Brexit Party.

a reply to: alldaylong

They did indeed. It is therefore shameful that some Tories and now the Labour Party are calling for a second referendum, although Corbyn seems a bit quiet on that?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: uncommitted

Both Conservative and Labour in their 2017 General Election Manifesto's stated that they would " Honour " the result of the 2016 EU Referendum.

Normally that would have been good enough for me. However the word " Honour " does not compute with both of those parties.

No wonder " Leavers " such as i, are turning to the Brexit Party.

Entirely your choice, voting for a one trick pony is gesture politics, but your choice.

a reply to: uncommitted

Voting for a " one issue " party that wants The UK out of The EU is good with me.

a reply to: uncommitted

Me voting for the Brexit Party certainly is a gesture - a two fingered gesture to be precise.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: uncommitted

Voting for a " one issue " party that wants The UK out of The EU is good with me.

Seeing as UKIP did nothing of value in the EU parliament I wouldn't expect the Brexit party to do anything different. But if was a general election would you vote for them in that?

If your answer is yes then that's quite a sad state of affairs.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: uncommitted

Me voting for the Brexit Party certainly is a gesture - a two fingered gesture to be precise.

two fingers?

single middle will suffice but that's me being tight lol

f.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Your position is: Keep having referendums until you get a remain vote. which is undemocratic.

It's fairly common place in the EU though. On several occassions referendums have been re-held due to the mistakes of the first one where the electorate made the wrong choice.

a reply to: uncommitted

If your answer is yes then that's quite a sad state of affairs.

Yes, I would at present.

And its a very sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The purpose of referendum is to see if people want to leave the EU.

And wasn't that the result? ...... the people by majority voted to LEAVE

Did you miss that?

If that is no longer the case then we shouldn't leave.

IF being the operative word, do you have anything solid to

prove that more people want to stay? Because the very speedy rise

in popularity of the new Brexit party says otherwise.

That doesn't undermine the previous vote it just means people have changed their mind.

Have they?