Like I said, that's your opinion. You can split as many hairs as you feel you need to but its still just an opinion. The argument could be made that the govt of the day must do it or forever be in the political wilderness.
Second vote ? Why not .?
- Thread starter bladeplayer
- Start date
Like I said, that's your opinion. You can split as many hairs as you feel you need to but its still just an opinion. The argument could be made that the govt of the day must do it or forever be in the political wilderness.
Kellfire
Blackballed
It's not an opinion!
The reaction to it not being acted out does not change the fact the government did not legally need to take us out of the EU.
Stop mixing up opinion and fact!
Read the second sentence of my post AGAIN! I used the word MUST too. Surely it’s not too hard for you to understands the semantics and nuances!!
I am well aware of the legality but unlike you I recognise the the practicality and danger of ignoring the vote.
BTW I used exclamation marks too, to shout back at you....hope that helps
Kellfire
Blackballed
Please, show me where I've said otherwise. I'll do you a favour. You can't.
bobmac
Major Champion
Of course as a statement of fact, the government doesn't have to take us out of the EU, but in the real world where pedants don't live, it's also a recognised fact that no government would go against the vote and expect to keep their job.
drdel
Tour Rookie
For someone who claims to provide simplified versions of the argument you make a number of 'false' judgements and assertions.
A binary referendum was held. Having then posed the question to decide between A or B the process is not finished until either A or B is enacted in line with the outcome.
The UK's form of government relies on elected representatives in the HoC and those in the HoL to make decisions for the majority's benefit. The government of the time decided, exceptionally, to give the population a choice on a matter that bridged normal political beliefs.
Having given our representatives the decision 'they' are bound to follow through on the population's decision.
Sending the decision back to the population can only be because 'they' (obviously the 'losers') didn't like to first result even though these are the minority.
So there is no 'legal', political or moral basis for a new People's Vote, but there is a legal, political and moral basis for the first vote to be honoured.
Kellfire
Blackballed
You're completely wrong about the legal aspect.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
The referendum was not legally binding. It may very well be political suicide to ignore it. It may be morally, ethically wrong. But it's not compulsory.
chrisd
Major Champion
No, but the fact that Article 50 was triggered as a result of the vote tells us all that the politicians were bound by the referendum
Kellfire
Blackballed
No it doesn't. They chose to act on it but they weren't legally bound to it.
How can such a black and white issue cause so much argument?
Don't get arrogant Mark, it doesn't suit you.
Try keep it on a grown up level, there's a good little boy.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
Could the fact that Cameron spent millions of pounds on leaflets for every household in the UK affect whether the result of the vote was legally binding? In that leaflet they promised to implement the result of the referendum. Could that be considered a form of contract and make it legally binding?
User20205
Money List Winner
You’re arguing about different things.
Is the vote legally binding, no. It can’t be viewed in isolation. Practically it is, that’s all that matters.
What would happen, hypothetically, if the govt didn’t follow the ‘will’ of the people?
Is the vote legally binding, no. It can’t be viewed in isolation. Practically it is, that’s all that matters.
What would happen, hypothetically, if the govt didn’t follow the ‘will’ of the people?
chrisd
Major Champion
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Not at all. But it's another matter we'll apparently never agree on, so pointless arguing.
A more interesting discussion would be whether Art 50 was able to be rescinded.
ger147
Tour Winner
The A50 issue is currently on its way to the European courts to be ruled on...
I can't believe we have had so many pages on whether it was legal or not. Pedants of the world unite.
Dave offers a referendum, one simple question, in or out. Two sides develop, public money is given to both, months of debate, build up etc, we have the vote. Vote goes against what Dave and the establishment want. Ta da, 'only kidding' says Dave. No problem says the whole of the UK, we knew the last 3 months were just a bit of a lark. Lets just carry on as before.
Do some people really live in the world as described above?
Dave offers a referendum, one simple question, in or out. Two sides develop, public money is given to both, months of debate, build up etc, we have the vote. Vote goes against what Dave and the establishment want. Ta da, 'only kidding' says Dave. No problem says the whole of the UK, we knew the last 3 months were just a bit of a lark. Lets just carry on as before.
Do some people really live in the world as described above?
bluewolf
Money List Winner
You do realise that your 2nd paragraph has little to do with your 1st. And your 3rd is beneath you ðŸ‘😉
I'm sorry but we have had numerous pages on a pedants question / point. The argument seems to be we don't HAVE to leave because of a technicality on the referendum bill. It is a Loophole Nick point.
For those of us who have accepted the result has happened and see others scrambling around looking for reasons not to follow through with it it is like banging your head against a wall. I'm sorry you don't like the post but it is borne out of frustration. Read the posts being made on this subject, it is what it feels like
For those of us who have accepted the result has happened and see others scrambling around looking for reasons not to follow through with it it is like banging your head against a wall. I'm sorry you don't like the post but it is borne out of frustration. Read the posts being made on this subject, it is what it feels like
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Read them again then. We've had about 2 pages on whether it would be legal. The rest has been about whether it would be right!
And with all due respect, the legality of the question is relevant. If it wasn't legal then the whole thread would be theoretical.
Oh, and FWIW, I voted against having the ref again and commented as much on this thread.
