demfad wrote: » Re: The media It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.
Really Interested wrote: » What the 2015 Act said. “1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union” From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.
Really Interested wrote: » Gerry T wrote: » It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered. Where in the 2015 Act was the word advisory used?
Gerry T wrote: » It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.
Lemming wrote: » I cited, and linked to, the 'advisory' bit in one of the earlier incarnations of this thread. The 'advisory' wording was from the then cabinet's own official statements regards holding a referendum, all freely viewable online. In any case, unless otherwise explicitly stated & agreed upon, all referenda held in the UK are 'advisory' due to that old adage "Parliament is God".
ambro25 wrote: » Good enough summary of the issue here. Legally speaking, in the UK the 'test' is reversed: unless the outcome of a referendum is made binding in relevant provisions of the corresponding Act (and in that respect, see the earlier AV vote referendum Act, the outcome of which was made binding), it is non-binding and, as such, merely advisory. Parliament should consider, but is entirely free in law to disregard, the referendum result, and that is what 'advisory' means in context. The moral and political dimensions of the issue are different, of course.
Really Interested wrote: » An adage under attack. According to you principle Parliament is supreme which then is higher an Act of Parliament or a official statement of the government?
Lemming wrote: » Not according to me; according to the fact that it is Parliament that is the final arbiter on any legislation proposed for enactment within the UK that has been put forward for consideration. And in the case of referenda, quite literally, Parliament can do what it likes irrespective of the outcome, unless the referendum is - as I have already stated and you seem to have blithely ignored - agreed upon as being binding. Your subsequent question is laughable and answered already; "Parliament is God".
Really Interested wrote: » Has the Goverenment treated the referendum as advisory. The Goverement fought a court case to try and show parliament was not supreme and recently in the House of Lords a Tory stayed “the people are supreme”
Anyone who does not see the Goverenment is trying to relegate parliament to second or third place is ignoring facts.
Lemming wrote: » The less said about the current cabinet the better. As for the above mentioned court case, remind me how that one went again? AH yes, they withdrew their assertion that they could do whatever they liked over Parliament, knowing that they were facing defeat in the courts over the matter. I never said they weren't. What they have tried to do is deliver Brexit as a fait accomplit rendering any decision by Parliament on the final outcome irrelevant. This is being facilitated by the main party of the opposition abdicating all responsibility for holding the government to account.
Leroy42 wrote: » In a normal democracy, the opposition would be standing up for the other side, but in the UK that is not the case and it is left down to a few mavericks for both parties to try to put a stick in the wheel.
The PM will also vow to protect the "integrity" of the UK, saying that means ensuring there are "no new barriers" within the UK's domestic market. ... In her own statement, Mrs May said she was determined that the UK's future will be "bright" after it leaves the EU. "Having regained control of our laws, our borders and our money, and seized the opportunities provided by Brexit, the UK will thrive as a strong and united country that works for everyone, no matter whether you voted Leave or Remain."
Really Interested wrote: » Lawyers in 50 years may talk about this time as the point when parliament was no longer supreme.
Really Interested wrote: » My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.
My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.
Thomas__. wrote: » Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership.
Peregrinus wrote: » The word "advisory" does not appear in the Referendum Act. Nevertheless, the Referendum was indeed advisory, because there was nothing in the Referendum Act to alter, abolish or remove the powers of Parliament in relation to EU membership (or anything else). This. The Tory Party fought and won the 2015 General Election on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to "respect" the result. Thus they had a political mandate, but not a legal obligation, to give effect to the referendum result. This they did by serving Art. 50 notice in March 2017. Immediately after that they fought another election, seeking a mandate for a particular model of Brexit - no single market, no customs union, no ECJ jurisdicastion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Inconveniently for them, they failed to get a mandate for that model of Brexit, which also meant that they failed to get a majority which would enable them to face down the ultra-Brexiters and push through a version of Brexit more calculated to win broad support in the community. So they reinvented the particular model of Brexit for which they failed to get a mandate as something inherent in the referendum result, and have pushed ahead regardless, to the extent that their manifest ineptitude and incompetence has permitted. Possibly. But they won't see it as the point where the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of the people; they'll talk about the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of altogether more shadowy forces.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Thomas__. wrote: » Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership. Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone. In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).
trellheim wrote: » What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit
Thomas__. wrote: » I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone. In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).
Peregrinus wrote: » trellheim wrote: » What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit Their policy is to remain in a customs union, though, which would limit some of the damage and make it a bit easier to solve the Irish border problem. And, though they haven't said anything very intelligent on the subject, I have a sense that Labour would be slightly more highly motivated to solve the Irish border problem by keeping the border open than the Tories are.
Lemming wrote: » Thomas__. wrote: » I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2. Many of the arguments that were given to remain in the union will no longer hold true, giving any future independence referendum a far higher probability of seeing Scotland cede from the union. The manner in which the current government have behaved towards Scottish concerns combined with some of the press treatment of Scotland's first minister will have done nothing but provide further cause for grievance and a display of how much Scotland is "valued" by the English.
Thomas__. wrote: » Quite so.
Rain Ascending wrote: » And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves. I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans. I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment. However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers). The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could. However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.
J Mysterio wrote: » A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.
Lemming wrote: » Thomas__. wrote: » Quite so. I don't think it's a slam-dunk by any means though, as circumstances would now - if the current Brexit trajectory continues unchecked - mean facing into a vote that would also wave goodbye (on account of no ability to fudge matters) to things such as GBP and the Monarchy, which matter on some level to more than enough voters to mean that the independence campaign will need to have done its homework and done it well.
