This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 steeleye20  Croydon 07 Nov 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It will be interesting to see how they can make 'advisory' mean 'not advisory'........
|
|
| Part Time James 07 Nov 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
"Referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues" Clement Attlee/Margaret Thatcher. She wasn't wrong. And nor was he. Edited by Kermit8 (07 Nov 2016 3.47pm) A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It will be interesting to see how they can make 'advisory' mean 'not advisory'........
Who is 'they'?
|
|
| silvertop Portishead 07 Nov 16 3.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Was there a parliamentary vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties? And there definitely wasn't one when we declared war on Germany in 1939, and nor was there one about guaranteeing Poland's sovereignty beforehand. Additionally, an elected government CAN implement law through Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council.
When the people voted to enter [in the then various forms] to make entry legal we needed the European Communities Act 1972. It was that Act that carried through the will of the people. Without it we would have been paper signatories only but without this country actually being in the Common Market. Such revisions of this Act were then required following the treaties of Lisbon and Maastricht in order to enact those treaties into English law. Again, without that primary legislation, once again those treaties would have had no effect on English law. None of those Acts were passed by Order in Council, SI, the Royal Prerogative or a majority vote of the Cabinet. Primary legislation had to be made by passing the Bill through both Houses and then receiving the Royal Assent. Thus, why should going the other way be any different?
|
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Nov 16 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight. To be fair much of the remain vote didnt feel the need for a referendum at all. And it was Forage that said a 52/48 vote the other way would be "unfinished Business" so I dont think hindsight is the issu. It is just that large numbers on either side were never going to accept the vote
|
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 16 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The next high level the Supreme Court .
|
|
Kermit8  Hevon 07 Nov 16 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
A device widely accepted by millions of people until after it happened. Ah the benefit of hindsight. After the GE results in 2015 where UKIP got 14% of the vote it was pretty clear that the majority weren't so bothered about the must-have referendum that Nigel wanted so much. The wave of 'patriotic' fervour cajoled many into making a choice to Leave which, obviously, they won't be quite as passionate about as those14%. They've worked it brilliantly to get it to this and in their favour. So far.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 16 4.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
"Referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues" Clement Attlee/Margaret Thatcher. She wasn't wrong. And nor was he. Edited by Kermit8 (07 Nov 2016 3.47pm) Francois Mitterand said that the result of a referendum depended on how they felt about his government on the particular day and not about the subject of the referendum.
|
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
When the people voted to enter [in the then various forms] to make entry legal we needed the European Communities Act 1972. It was that Act that carried through the will of the people. Without it we would have been paper signatories only but without this country actually being in the Common Market. Such revisions of this Act were then required following the treaties of Lisbon and Maastricht in order to enact those treaties into English law. Again, without that primary legislation, once again those treaties would have had no effect on English law. None of those Acts were passed by Order in Council, SI, the Royal Prerogative or a majority vote of the Cabinet. Primary legislation had to be made by passing the Bill through both Houses and then receiving the Royal Assent. Thus, why should going the other way be any different? I was merely making the point that governments can legislate without resort to a Parliamentary vote. When did 'the people' actually vote to join? Do you mean Heath's government, which had it in their 1970 manifesto to do so, and was subsequently elected? I accept that Brexit involves the repeal of the 1972 act and subsequent amendments. What I'm saying is that the making (or repudiation) of treaties and acting upon them doesn't necessarily require a parliamentary vote, as 1939 shows.
|
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 4.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
The next high level the Supreme Court . Funnily enough, that's not what this court case is about.
|
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Nov 16 4.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I was merely making the point that governments can legislate without resort to a Parliamentary vote. When did 'the people' actually vote to join? Do you mean Heath's government, which had it in their 1970 manifesto to do so, and was subsequently elected? I accept that Brexit involves the repeal of the 1972 act and subsequent amendments. What I'm saying is that the making (or repudiation) of treaties and acting upon them doesn't necessarily require a parliamentary vote, as 1939 shows. I dont think 1939 is a viable comparison though joining the Common Market is and there was a Parliamentary vote in 1972
|
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sedlescombe
I dont think 1939 is a viable comparison though joining the Common Market is and there was a Parliamentary vote in 1972 Going to war isn't a viable comparison????
|
|
| elgrande bedford 07 Nov 16 4.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sedlescombe
I dont think 1939 is a viable comparison though joining the Common Market is and there was a Parliamentary vote in 1972 But the vote in 1972,was for the common market, not the huge juggernaut that the EU has become.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Nov 16 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
No its not. Leaving the EU is hardly on a par with needing to deploy a military response. Wasn't the defence treaty with Poland, however, passed through parliament.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 16 4.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
But the vote in 1972,was for the common market, not the huge juggernaut that the EU has become.
Thats disgraceful Ted Heath was a decent man
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Nov 16 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Was there a parliamentary vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties? And there definitely wasn't one when we declared war on Germany in 1939, and nor was there one about guaranteeing Poland's sovereignty beforehand. Additionally, an elected government CAN implement law through Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council. No, but I believe there was on the legislation changes that the maastrict and Lisbon Treaty invoked (of course there should also have been a referendum on the greater EU from the Common Market, as well). Although its noteworthy that the Anglo-Polish agreement wasn't really enforced as such, because the British really didn't make much of an effort to come to Poland's aid, but more used it as a pretext for deployment of forces into Europe in support of French mobilisation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Part Time James 07 Nov 16 4.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
After the GE results in 2015 where UKIP got 14% of the vote it was pretty clear that the majority weren't so bothered about the must-have referendum that Nigel wanted so much. The wave of 'patriotic' fervour cajoled many into making a choice to Leave which, obviously, they won't be quite as passionate about as those14%. They've worked it brilliantly to get it to this and in their favour. So far.
Didn't the Conservatives get in after promising a referendum?
|
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 07 Nov 16 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No its not. Leaving the EU is hardly on a par with needing to deploy a military response. Wasn't the defence treaty with Poland, however, passed through parliament. Firstly, going to war is a lot more serious than just deploying a military response. Secondly, I'm talking about the use of Royal Prerogative being used to enter into a mutual-assistance treaty with Poland (on which Parliament did not vote) and to declare war. I think it's an eminently comparable example IF we're debating on the appropriate use of Royal Prerogative which is what I thought we were doing.
|
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Nov 16 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
No, not in English law.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.