woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: It was a different government back then. One government cannot bind another. We have a different government now for the time being. Parliament is sovereign and that includes not necessarily bending towards what the populace allegedly thinks if that parliament can see a disaster looming. The MP is elected to represent you but not be slavish. Moot points true hence the only real safety valve is another referendum to get it all out in the open and this time do it whatever it is. Did the government lie...Yes...It was not meant to be this way...The guinea pig escaped before the experiment was concluded. then they need legislation.......a si can only be used to extend the date and would need the eu's agreement...... it wouldn't change the law..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: But under our system that is not necessarily permanent. That was then but this is now. Personally I would crash out now and soddit because it will never be the same again and for how long it lasts we will all be arguing and at loggerheads and the EU will get tired as well as the future trade deal will more of the same for many years. The only thing is a lot of people will lose out and or suffer in some way. Will I have to go the post office and buy a British visitor's passport to pop over to Calais like pre Common Market. Ten bob they were? Soddit! nothing is permanent.......but its the law now........ it also highlights how daft labour's plan is for no change ever in rights.......because any future gov. can overrule it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 33 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: It was a different government back then. One government cannot bind another. We have a different government now for the time being. True, BUT, there has to be some trust in government and in some senses governments do bind their successors. Governments sign contracts for periods far in excess of their terms of office. The government of the day cannot just walk away from commitments made by its predecessors, and in general they do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, woolley said: True, BUT, there has to be some trust in government and in some senses governments do bind their successors. Governments sign contracts for periods far in excess of their terms of office. The government of the day cannot just walk away from commitments made by its predecessors, and in general they do not. Those in favour of Brexit were yesterday asking if a new Government could just cancel Theresa May's deal following a general election. I think it was the Vienna Convention they were referring too but stand to be corrected. I would suggest that commercial contracts are somewhat different from international treaties but even so there is normally some form of termination clause in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, woolley said: True, BUT, there has to be some trust in government and in some senses governments do bind their successors. Governments sign contracts for periods far in excess of their terms of office. The government of the day cannot just walk away from commitments made by its predecessors, and in general they do not. As I understand it, in the British Constitution Parliament is sovereign and a Prime Minister cannot change the British Constitution by standing on his doorstep and proclaiming that from now on votes in Parliament are secondary to votes cast in referenda. A prime minister can promise, in his own personal capacity, to stand by the result of a referendum, but he cannot unilaterally alter the British Constitution. There was only ever a moral, not a legal, duty for Cameron himself to act on the referendum result. Did Theresa May have a moral duty to act on the result of someone else’s stupid idea? Not really, but she did give it a very good go. The truth is, Cameron forgot to explain that the U.K. leaving the E.U. would inevitably mean the U.K. giving up its claim to the six counties. I appreciate that it is going to take Brexiters some time to digest the new state of affairs, but Britain is now a much weaker and smaller state than it was. Edited March 13, 2019 by Freggyragh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Those in favour of Brexit were yesterday asking if a new Government could just cancel Theresa May's deal following a general election. I think it was the Vienna Convention they were referring too but stand to be corrected. I would suggest that commercial contracts are somewhat different from international treaties but even so there is normally some form of termination clause in place. art.60.....which i mentioned some weeks back...... it can't be used to get rid of the backstop but can be used to get rid of the whole treaty...... 12 months notice is required..... may could of used this if her deal had passed and if no progress had been made by dec. 2019 submit art.60 and the uk would of been out of the treaty before the backstop came in...... it wouldn't of gone down well with the eu but it would of got them to move faster.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 38 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: As I understand it, in the British Constitution Parliament is sovereign and a Prime Minister cannot change the British Constitution by standing on his doorstep and proclaiming that from now on votes in Parliament are secondary to votes cast in referenda. A prime minister can promise, in his own personal capacity, to stand by the result of a referendum, but he cannot unilaterally alter the British Constitution. There was only ever a moral, not a legal, duty for Cameron himself to act on the referendum result. Did Theresa May have a moral duty to act on the result of someone else’s stupid idea? Not really, but she did give it a very good go. The truth is, Cameron forgot to explain that the U.K. leaving the E.U. would inevitably mean the U.K. giving up its claim to the six counties. I appreciate that it is going to take Brexiters some time to digest the new state of affairs, but Britain is now a much weaker and smaller state than it was. supreme court found different..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 31 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: As I understand it, in the British Constitution Parliament is sovereign and a Prime Minister cannot change the British Constitution by standing on his doorstep and proclaiming that from now on votes in Parliament are secondary to votes cast in referenda. A prime minister can promise, in his own personal capacity, to stand by the result of a referendum, but he cannot unilaterally alter the British Constitution. There was only ever a moral, not a legal, duty for Cameron himself to act on the referendum result. Did Theresa May have a moral duty to act on the result of someone else’s stupid idea? Not really, but she did give it a very good go. The truth is, Cameron forgot to explain that the U.K. leaving the E.U. would inevitably mean the U.K. giving up its claim to the six counties. I appreciate that it is going to take Brexiters some time to digest the new state of affairs, but Britain is now a much weaker and smaller state than it was. Don't accept any of that. Parliament is sovereign and it is a representative parliament, but that does not mean it can ride roughshod over not only the referendum result, but also both major parties' 2017 election manifestos. The only party that stood on remaining in the EU was the LibDems, so the electorate did have an opportunity to vote for that, but the LibDems got trounced. Legal and moral are interesting concepts. Perhaps you can legally override a moral obligation, but politically you would be very ill-advised to do so. As to the rest of your assertions; stupid idea, the six counties, new state of affairs, weaker, smaller state etc, all are things you have said before, all are entirely subjective with the whole package looking like wishful thinking from a jaundiced Celtic separatist perspective. I could imagine the same words emitting from the SNP or Sinn Fein press office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Those in favour of Brexit were yesterday asking if a new Government could just cancel Theresa May's deal following a general election. I think it was the Vienna Convention they were referring too but stand to be corrected. I would suggest that commercial contracts are somewhat different from international treaties but even so there is normally some form of termination clause in place. not in mays deal.......which is what people are objecting to....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, woolley said: Don't accept any of that. Parliament is sovereign and it is a representative parliament, but that does not mean it can ride roughshod over not only the referendum result, but also both major parties' 2017 election manifestos. The only party that stood on remaining in the EU was the LibDems, so the electorate did have an opportunity to vote for that, but the LibDems got trounced. Legal and moral are interesting concepts. Perhaps you can legally override a moral obligation, but politically you would be very ill-advised to do so. As to the rest of your assertions; stupid idea, the six counties, new state of affairs, weaker, smaller state etc, all are things you have said before, all are entirely subjective with the whole package looking like wishful thinking from a jaundiced Celtic separatist perspective. I could imagine the same words emitting from the SNP or Sinn Fein press office. if it hadn't been the proper legal route then 1975 advisory referendum would have also been wrong..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 18 minutes ago, woody2 said: not in mays deal.......which is what people are objecting to....... Since when was May's deal a commercial contract?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Since when was May's deal a commercial contract?? never said it was.......its a international treaty with no get out clause.........so art.60 would have to be used..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, manxman1980 said: Since when was May's deal a commercial contract?? It's all back to bloody front anyhow. Whoever heard of signing off on the deal internationally first and then bringing it back to get it accepted at home after? Then having to go back and say, "Er, well I know I signed this but I just need a bit of this and a bit of that changing." Crazy process. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 and not sorting out trade first...... cart before the horse....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 hour ago, woody2 said: supreme court found different..... Exact opposite of the truth, as usual. The supreme court ruling in January 2017, clarified that an act of Parliament was required before the government could trigger Article 50. The House of Lords Constitutional Committee explained in a 2010 report why that’s the case. It said “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”. Unless Parliament actively agrees to bind itself to the result of a future referendum (and Parliament didn’t agree this for the in/out referendum) it is not legally obliged to enact the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.