to ask why several prominent members seem to have vanished?!?

Sorry I went off the initial topic.
Thank you for your very interesting reply Jura

I understand what you're saying, jura. Nonetheless, in spite of all that, the British government is going ahead with Brexit. Since Britain doesn't have a written constitution as such, I think this means the British government isn't doing anything they really really shouldn't be doing. Which is the long and the short of it.

I admit to admiration for the tenacity of those who continue to try and scotch it ?

Well, Farage himself said a 48/52 win would definitely be unfinished business.

But did you read my post Baggs.

The fact the UK is and has always been a Parliamentary Democracy, where MPs are elected to make decisions on our behalf, and where Referendums are always advisory - and NOT a Direct Democracy- is totally 100% fact, Brexit or no Brexit, and whatever you or I think about it. It IS our Sovereign form of democratic Government- with all the pros and cons it entails.

Brexit is irrelevant as such - and does NOT change the nature of OUR UK democracy. So, do you want it - or not? If not- then start the fight - it's a totally separate one.

But had the result gone the other way there would have been no upheaval and just a bit of moaning from Farage - he did warn that is what he would do and keep on for another referendum! - OK for him to do that but not those wishing we were going to remain. Double standards.

Not to mention sour-grapey and, yes, moany.

If the same people would be making the same arguments about democracy, referenda, etc had the vote gone the other way, then I would credit their arguments with the integrity I suspect they wish I would credit them now. I doubt the same arguments would be being made, which rather suggests that the real driving force behind the arguments is not absolute incorruptible purity of facts (about what democracy is, the ex-PM's role in the caboodle, etc) but something a touch more artful.

Forgot to say, we have no income or pension in Switzerland, at all- and I've been dual national since 1973, and OH since 2012 (t'other way round).

BTW I liven within short walking distance of France - and we live our life with one foot in 3 countries ;)

Cherrytree- we are massively digressing here. But, I will answer. Switzerland is made of 3 separate entities, the French part (where I live and was born and bred), the German and the Italian part. All 3 with not only different languages, but also roots and culture. The French speaking part has always voted for the EU, but pipped at the post by the larger German region.

But we have very strong reciprocal agreements with the EU- part of Single Market, part of Customs Union and Free movement of people, and part of Schengen. But we pay a lot of money for the privilege, and have absolutely not say at the EU table, and have to abide by all EU rules for exports, etc.

maiz, do you think Cameron’s actions pre-ref will come back to bite him, so to speak? It’s kind of odd they haven’t already if what he did was all that bad.

Jura Can I enquire if you would you prefer your birth country Switzerland to be a full member if the EU.
I have read that the Swiss voted against joining the EU in 3 separate referendums.

(I believe they are part if the single market)

Are you suggesting that in following through with Brexit that the British government is acting outwith its remit?

I don’t think all these arguments would be presented if the vote had gone the other way with similar percentages and the govt implemented the people’s decision. I think Remainers would have been quite happy then. I would too; the result was a surprise.

I think what Cameron said pre-vote is what made and still makes the difference.

I'm afraid that Cameron was completely exceeding his powers under the British constitution when he made that statement. It was like the Queen saying that we could all have Monday off work. The Queen and her ministers are the Executive Branch of government; they are not able to make decisions. It is solely Parliament's role to make decisions (apart from a very few which can be made under the Royal prerogative)- they are the Legislature who approve or disapprove of what the Executive wants to do and it is translated into law if they approve it.

Cameron's statement has no legal standing. It would be different if Parliament had approved the statement and it was written into the Referendum Act. But they didn't and it wasn't.

Also, no government can be bound by its predecessors. May's government is a new government. It doesn't have to honour Cameron's illegal 'promise' at all.

As said, some Democracies are 'direct' - people can get a petition going, and if they get enough signatures, it can be put to the vote, and a majority will win, even if small. It is actually quite rare- Switzerland, my birth country, is one.

The UK is not, and has not been for many Centuries- That is the absolute backbone of UK Democracy- that a/ Referendum can only be advisory (and NO PM has any right to promise it could be anything but- by OUR OWN LAWS...) and that we elect MPs (with a not at all democratic system of First Past the Post system- which means anyone who lives in an area not representative of their views or politics know that their vote is null and void and will go straight into the bin- so not considered Democratic by most other countries) - and that those MPs, in Our Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy, will represent us and make the Laws and major decisions on our behalf (with the help of a totally Undemocratic second Chamber, the House of Lords).

THAT IS OUR SYSTEM - like it or not- think it fair or not, believe it democratic or not. And insisting on by-passing it for a direct popular decision- is totally against OUR political system. Hence the total contradiction.

If we want to change our system- then we should embark on a massive re-shaping of our whole voting, electing, etc- system. I am, for instance, in favour of getting rid of First Past the Post System, as my vote in the UK, nor my OH's- has ever counted and we knew in advance that it would not- because of where we lived. But then- it is a whole different ball game. Cameron had no right to say 'ah well, let's pretend we are Swiss for a bit, ans see what's what'. Nonsense. Whatever we think of Brexit.

I get your point, varian, but the referendum was for us to change our mind about being in the EU, wasn't it? I don't think any kind of democracy that never stuck with a decision the people made but allowed constant change would work.

Also, I don't think Daniel Hannan or David Davis were/are speaking as leader of the government so I'm not sure if any difference they would make would be enough. <-- I think there's a name for what I did there but when I tried to dredge it up it wouldn't come. It's kind of tongue in cheek but not really. Great help. Not!

Does it not also make a difference that before the vote, prominent Leave Campaigner Daniel Hannan said "absolutely nobody is talking about leaving the single market" or that David Davis said "If a democracy cannot change its mind then it ceases to be a democracy." ?

The vote was 'democratic' in that everyone who was eligible to vote had the opportunity to do so, but parliament was under no obligation to implement it because parliament is 'sovereign' not 'the people. They're free to ignore 'the people's' advice if they think it would not be in the interests of the country.

Indeed so, again, maiz, except that most Leavers did not ask for a referendum, and parliament in the form of its representative/spokesperson/Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the people's decision on this occasion would be implemented. In other words, parliament relinquished its final deciding role for this referendum.

This does not change what you are saying about parliament not normally being under an obligation to implement a referendum vote. I think what Cameron said pre-vote is what made and still makes the difference. Theresa May seems to understand this even though she was a Remainer.

Indeed Maizie. What is so confusing, is that leavers says on the one hand they want our own Democracy, and not the EU's - and then ask for a referendum to be accepted with a tiny majority (and manipulated and worse at that) to be implemented- without the say of our Parliamentary Representatives. Both go totally again our own type of Democracy- which has been in place for centuries - total contradiction.

Thank you Lemongrove, I hardly ever go on the meet up threads these days. Oldgoat has just pm`d me though.

But I thought you Brexiters voted to keep your own Sovereign Democracy- or did you not. It is a confusing point of view.

'Democracy' is different from Parliamentary Sovereignty though. I think that Leavers confuse the two. The vote was 'democratic' in that everyone who was eligible to vote had the opportunity to do so, but parliament was under no obligation to implement it because parliament is 'sovereign' not 'the people. They're free to ignore 'the people's' advice if they think it would not be in the interests of the country.

If it had been a referendum on bringing back capital punishment would right minded people have expected parliament to implement the decision had it been in favour? (Not, I think, that any government would be so stupid as to ask for 'the people's' advice on that question)

And that will never do, will it? People, having fun. How very dare they.

Too late now and anyway people are having far too much fun on both of them

I must admit that I have been guilty of unwittingly starting a thread where one already existed , but couldn't GNHQ advise that one of these two threads about "prominent" ( or dominant posters be used and let one of them lapse? It's difficult keeping track !

Stansgran - which is why I asked if anyone knew?

As for Democracy- do go back a few posts. The UK has had a very long history of Parliamentary Democracy, with clear laws re Referendums being advisory.

Unlike other countries, like Switzerland. But I thought you Brexiters voted to keep your own Sovereign Democracy- or did you not. It is a confusing point of view.

Stansgran