Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

General Election

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: General Election

Postby miner » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:18 pm

Hairyloon wrote:It is an acceptable form of emphasis, and shouting is not inappropriate when you are as troubled as miner seems to be.


You're the one who is clearly troubled, Hairy!
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: General Election

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:08 pm

dls wrote:
They also knew that the referendum was advisory, that being the reason why parliament did not see any need to give any consideration to the devolved nations in the Referendum Act.


Sorry, HL, you are dreaming.

The wod 'advisory' here means only somethng which is not immediately binding...

If I might refer you to the actual debate in the House Of Commons, where they discussed whether the separate nations of the union should be given consideration:
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) wrote:The amendments that we are debating cover a wide range of issues. The House will expect me to spend most of my time addressing the arguments about the proposal to disapply section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, I will start by addressing amendment 16, moved by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). I was not surprised that he and his party should have moved such an amendment or that they had the support of Plaid Cymru in so doing, but I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will be shocked when I say that the Government do not intend to accept it.

Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year.


There is no two ways about it: the House discussed whether they needed any kind of threshold or to consider the separate nations, and the answer was clear and unambiguous: they did not need to do any of that because the referendum was advisory.
A cynic might suggest this was entirely deliberate because almost anywhere else, a vote of this kind of significance would require the belt and braces of a threshold of turnout and a super-majority: they avoided all that by dint of making it an advisory referendum. These things work either way, but they do not work both ways at once.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9580
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: General Election

Postby dls » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:11 am

HL, you are scraping the very bottom of the barrel. The quote you make establishes not a lot. It may be no more than something similar to a debate about what act constitutes the final decision to leave (a la Miller). You would need to waste an awful lot of effort examining the different - now rejected - amendments to see what the significance is of the remark.

Of course parliament used the word 'advisory'. Nobody is denying that it is such. The issue is that in this context, the word has a very particular meaning. It does not mean "It is only advisory so we can ignore it if we choose" It is advisry in the sense that "We still have to make the final deed, but heaven help us - and it won't - if we fail to do exactly what we are told'
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: General Election

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:14 am

The simpler answer to why the architects of the referendum didn't build in a "super majority" (I think I know what you mean) is that they were too arrogant to consider the possibility of defeat.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19053
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: General Election

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:49 am

atticus wrote:The simpler answer to why the architects of the referendum didn't build in a "super majority" (I think I know what you mean) is that they were too arrogant to consider the possibility of defeat.

While entirely true, that is not how they put it in the debate. "Super majority" is not my term, it is one that has been widely bandied about. I take it to mean something more than a simple majority.

dls wrote:HL, you are scraping the very bottom of the barrel. The quote you make establishes not a lot.

It establishes precisely the point we were discussing.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9580
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: General Election

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:28 pm

atticus wrote:The simpler answer to why the architects of the referendum didn't build in a "super majority" (I think I know what you mean) is that they were too arrogant to consider the possibility of defeat.


Yes, and no. The whole referendum was intended to be an exercise in the internal management of the Conservative Party. At the time the Act was passed, Cameron was still maintaining that, if he didn't get a decent deal from the negotiations, he was prepared to recommend a Leave vote. Requiring Leave to get anything other than a simple majority would have undermined that position.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6181
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: General Election

Postby dls » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:28 pm

Referenda are not called when there is a clear margin either way - they are unnecessary. Therefore the absence of a 'supermajority' does not mean anything.

I agree that this was Cameron's way of handling his recalcitrants, and have always said that it was a mistake t gie in to them, but it all matters not at all - it is dead history. We have a real need to create something, and wasting energy about how we got here will assist nobody.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: General Election

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:36 pm

dls wrote:I agree that this was Cameron's way of handling his recalcitrants, and have always said that it was a mistake t gie in to them, but it all matters not at all - it is dead history.,.

It's not dead, it is just resting: probably pining for the fjords.
We have a real need to create something, and wasting energy about how we got here will assist nobody

There is a famous saying about the lessons from history. It is not wasting energy to look at how we got here.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9580
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: General Election

Postby diy » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:45 pm

Serious question HL - do you think we are going to leave the EU?
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2470
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: General Election

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:53 pm

diy wrote:Serious question HL - do you think we are going to leave the EU?

Most likely, but I don't think that question is as serious as the question of the moral and constitutional bankruptcy the government is operating under.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9580
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests