Brexit and power to the people

If referendums are only 'advisory' why the hell doesn't Sturgeon say the Scottish Independence Referendum was only 'advisory' .?

As no-one on GN is apparently able to answer that perhaps you should ask Nicola Sturgeon...

So if referendums are not legal but only advisory can somebody pleeeease answer this question I repeatedly ask.

If referendums are only 'advisory' why the hell doesn't Sturgeon say the Scottish Independence Referendum was only 'advisory' .?

Granjura

We have discussed the similarities between Brexit and Switzerland quite a bit and I remain of the opinion the likes of Junker and the EU Commission are only interested in the 'Ever Closer Union ' enshrinement, the 'Free Movement of People' and the desire for a 'Federal European State' .

Trade, wellfare, ecomics required for the 28 countries to be progressive and compete world wide is secondary and that is the crux of the problem, not only in The UK but clearly in other countries in the European Union also.

You say this about the EU Commission, I say Commission, Junker et al,because my understanding is there has been no vote in the European Parliament by the MEP's to have input, is that correct?

"But at the last minute, the EU said 'sorry no can't do- asit would set a precedent and we want to show we are tough on free movement being part of the deal - and with Brexit in mind- we just can't waiver one little bit."

This sort of behaviour, showing of strength and power to over rule a democratic vote by countries in the EU shows they are worried the tide is turning against them.

Instead of embracing democracy the likes of Junker, fellow Arch Federalists, are electing to crack down on what they see as rebellion. They cannot see they are a major cause of the problem and I think the people of the 28 countries in the EU will either accept the central dominance of the EU Commission over their countries affairs or go the other way and do as Junker et al 'fear' the most rebel against them.

The elections in Italy, Germany and France coming up soon will be interesting to see if the 'threats' from Junker et al will prove fruitful.

'Meanwhile, the legal and political complications facing May intensified on Friday after the Welsh government’s law officer, its counsel general Mick Antoniw, said it would formally join the complainants’ side in the supreme court case next month.

Scottish government sources said Antoniw’s intervention increased the chances that Nicola Sturgeon would also join the action, because both devolved governments worry that their legal and parliamentary interests are being overlooked in May’s rush to push through article 50 without a vote. '

Scotland and Wales want their say, too. I think the government seems to forget how many lawyers there are in parliament.

Brexiteers didn't say this was going to happen.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/05/trade-uk-india-suffer-double-hit-theresa-may-visit-brexit-sterling

Remainers said it would. Tata Steel is going to decide on Port Talbot after this meeting, too.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/us-sports-presenter-gina-miller-mistaken-target-of-online-abuse

She's getting some pretty horrible hate mail, too.
How many Gina Millers do you think there are in the world?

Maybe so, and yet six MP's to every 1 MP in Parliament agreed to give all in the UK a clear choice of in or out.They could have all disagreed and it wouldn't have happened, but they didn't.

What the GVT is now saying- is that they should not have allowed the Referendum on free movement to take place in the first place. They can stop referendum if they fly in the face of current Treaties, or the Human Rights Act (for instance they would not allow a vote on the death penalty).

Rings a bell?

It's clear that Cameron wanted a referendum to show that a significant % of British people wanted out - so he could then use this as an argument to get a better deal- wringing his hands and saying 'yes, I know, but you see I have no choice because of those 30 or 40% of voters breathing down my neck- etc, etc. He never ever even considered for 1 second that the vote would go in favour of Brexit- albeit by a tiny margin- and what could happen next. None of them did- apart from Farage perhaps. And of course, that he was NOT allowed to promise that the people's vote would be implemented without having to go through Parliament - as it is Constitutionally against BRITISH Law as set out from 1915. He had NO right to make that promise, in BRITISH Law.

No, the vote did take place- in February 2014- and the Swiss Government now has to implement it- as a referendum in Switzerland is totally binding. They have been working very hard behind the scenes at trying to find a 'compromise' - and were very close to reaching one with the EU- being a 'special' case as we are NOT part of the EU but are part of the single market- and this means having free movement of people with the EU. But at the last minute, the EU said 'sorry no can't do- asit would set a precedent and we want to show we are tough on free movement being part of the deal - and with Brexit in mind- we just can't waiver one little bit.

Jobs are going, massive international research programme are at risk, and all sort of other nasty consequences, Erasmus- etc. The Swiss GVT is therefore in a very similar- albeit different, situation. The referendum being binding, they have to implement it- even though the margin was tiny (as with Brexit) and whole regions, like Romandie, the French speaking part, were massively against the 'limit free movement' initiative- a little bit like Scotland in the UK. It's a mess- here and there. As said, déjà vu big time (and we happen to be caught in the middle of both disasters- neither here nor there in the grand scale of things, I know).

British justice is admired and copied throughout the world for its integrity, and the fact that it is totally removed from the political sphere.

The fact that the right wing press and government by its silence is trashing that view by suggesting that it is partisan and thereby questioning its integrity is beyond disgraceful and a very dangerous game to be playing. It should stop immediately and the government show enough guts to say so. what is the matter with the Tory government that it lacks so much spine? As for integrity, that seemed to have gone down the pan years ago.

Phoebes, do you not remember how every time someone tried to explain the possible effects of Brexit you highlight they were accused of scaremongering? Who wants to listen to the experts now?

Theresa May apparently knew exactly what was likely to happen when she spoke to business people a month earlier. She said it would be a disaster and it is and now she's pretending to know what she's doing leading us towards the EXIT sign.

To attempt to bypass Parliament over such a crucial issue is either extreme arrogance or downright stupidity. Now we see just how dangerous that decision has proved to be, yet as far as I'm aware she has remained silent on this whole sad episode. I guess she's afraid of what she's unleashed.

The report DJ has posted above for chilling calls to harm the judges because their rulings did not go the way Brexiteers want, make alarming reading. No contesting outcomes so long as they go your way!

Those of you who think that Brexiters are all mildmannered philosophers should think again.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/04/enemies-of-the-people-brexit-campaign-putting-lives-risk

Some people on twitter have actually asked for the judges to be executed for treason.

That doesn't sound very fair. The UK government never considered Switzerland in its deliberations, so why should Switzerland have to delay a vote just because of Brexit?

Sadly, the majority of people do not take the time to really study the very complex issues they are asked to vote about several times a year. Some are local, some are Federal (national) - and even when you do take the time- the issues are so complex that even very well educated people often cannot really understand all the fors and againsts. Several times since we arrived, I abstained as I just couldn't work all the consequences and issues (often on engineering, science, etc). We will have to vote on the phasing out of nuclear power in a couple of weeks- and the issues/alternatives/consequences are really complicated!

On the Feb 2014 vote on putting limits on free movement of people from EU - the referendum was called by a very rich right wing party, similar to UKIP. But Government should have vetoed the referendum, as they can do if it is clearly against Treaties and Human Rights etc - as it flies totally against the existing Treaty re the Single Market, research, Erasmus, etc, etc. The Gvt had nearly managed to get a deal with the EU to limit some free movement, quietly by the back door- but due to Brexit - this has been called off, as it would set a precedent for the UK to get a similar deal.
Swiss business, universities, research programmes, and so much more, have been suffering since and we just don't know how it will end. The gvt has until February to finalise the new deal- and it seems clear now that it can't happen. A very serious situation indeed. As said, we are going through a double wammy, DH and myself - and it is a real case of dreaded 'déjà vu'.

I wish that could be done on the parliament website.
Hunt would no longer be health secretary if that was the case.
We could have stopped the privatisation and reorganisation of the health service.
I think they all have over 200,000 signatures, but parliament only says it has discussed the idea, not having a referendum about it.

How can I launch an optional referendum?

Anyone wanting to launch a referendum can form a referendum committee, although this is not absolutely necessary. The authors of the referendum may contact the Federal Chancellery in order to ensure that the referendum is correctly drawn up and conforms with legal standards. This is best done before or during the parliamentary session in which the contentious act was passed. Several referendum committees can be formed to deal with the same law or decree by Parliament.
Before the contested law or decree is published in the Federal Gazette, the authors of on a continuous basis and in plenty of time; the 100-day deadline cannot be extended.the referendum prepare the signature lists. Upon request the Federal Chancellery will provide them with sample signature lists. These lists are required to contain certain specific information, for example the exact title of the contested law or decree and the date it was adopted by the Federal Assembly (see below). The authors can, if they so wish, submit the signature lists to the Federal Chancellery to be checked.
Signatures can start to be collected once the disputed law or disputed decree has been published in the Federal Gazette. From this date the authors of the referendum have 100 days in which to collect the 50,000 signatures required, to have them validated by the communes and to hand them in to the Federal Chancellery. Usually some signatures are invalid, so it is worth collecting more than 50,000. It also takes some time for the communes to check the signatures, so they should be handed in to the communes continuously, as the 100-day deadline cannot be extended.
A referendum can take place once at least 50 000 valid signatures have been handed in to the Federal Chancellery. The electorate can then vote on the disputed law or decree.

Well, it is certainly totally different- and a real direct democracy, with many parties having to work as a coalition all the time. And where all major decisions have to be decided by the people with Referendi and votes which are binding.

And it carries its own problems ... as we have seen with Brexit how easily people can be hoodwinked by biased bodies, the Press, TV and extreme parties similar to UKIP and the BNP - with massive financial resources.

No time just now to write the book the question deserves. A Parliamentary democracy like the UK requires all new Laws and Treaties to be ratified by Parliament, and all referendi are advisory only in the UK. Couldn't be more different.

No House of Lords type of unelected Chamber- and of course no Royal prerogative! And totally proportional representation and total separation of Church and State.

This is such a mess. The government didn't go into all the pros and cons properly prior to the referendum. All they told us was that we were going to be swamped with immigrants and that schools and the Health Service would collapse, but they didn't mention the fact that every price would instantly shoot up. If we sent back all the immigrants, the whole Health Service would collapse completely - I had to spend a couple of days in hospital at the beginning of the week, and every single nurse and physio was from somewhere else in the world, as were a lot of the doctors and they were all brilliant and we couldn't manage without them. Likewise, the hospitality industry would collapse without immigrants. My husband is an immigrant, but became naturalised a long time ago and has made a tremendous contribution to this country working at Oxford University.
We were not given the true facts about Brexit beforehand and thus were unable to make an informed decision, so the referendum should be declared nul and void as we only had biased information beforehand.
David Cameron left very speedily after the result, didn't he?
We have such a clueless bunch of politicians at the moment, don't we? I watched The Apprentice this week and there wasn't a lot of difference between the clueless bunch of individuals on that programme and the "Government"!

" we don't have Referendums over other say NATO membership, Hinkley Point etc. so why should the EU be any different? "

Make sure you quote the whole sentence, bags. Otherwise you miss the meaning.

Where's granjura when you need her...?

Is Switzerland worse governed than the UK?

* one

"We don't have referendums"

Erm... excuse me, but we just did.

I don't think referendums are a good idea either but we did have one (well, two actually, in recent times) and I think that if you have a government stupid enough to call referendums then the results should be honoured.

At least this latest on is carrying on supplying plenty of entertainment.

I seem to remember reading somewhere recently that Switzerland has a lot of referendums.

perhaps we should have had a referendum re Hinckley Point

Please - is it too late?

For once I agree with you dj! (re Liam Fox)