If there was another EU referendum...

No Maw, I wasn’t meaning what you said, I was referring to Marie’s post of 17.01.

Maisie’s

I don’t think you have look as far as Greece.
(Copying and pasting as I have a suspicion that the links I have posted are being ignored)
In elections last September, the AfD became the first far-right party to win seats in the Bundestag in more than half a century, raising concerns among mainstream politicians about the effect the party, with its populist, anti-immigrant agenda, could have on German politics

As opposition leader, the AfD chairs the parliamentary budget committee. As the biggest opposition party, it also has the right to respond first to any statement issued by the government, ensuring publicity and a national platform for its messages.

The AfD is trying to split society," the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung recently warned. "And there is a crack in the Bundestag

Maizie

People now wanting all this proof etc - they didn’t look for it to check out the Leavers claims!
A plebiscite is totally different to a normal election which is a first past the post scene.
A plebiscite has totally different rules and the U.K. is not ruled by plebiscite. Cameron was foolish and wrong to say it would be binding but then he was full of himself and thought as you say that people would vote to stay and he would have sorted out his Brexiteers.

Exactly!!

D.C. made it quite clear in the H of C that the result would be first past the post, made it quite clear the the result would be respected, made once in a lifetime crystal clear.

What don't you understand, nellie about 'he exceeded his constitutional powers' and 'no parliament can bind its successor' (and a 'government even less so because it it parliament that is sovereign, not the government)?

Whether it is 'politically' wise to ignore the result of the referendum (which the current government isn't doing, you might have noticed) is a different matter. But the fact remains that parliament can do whatever it pleases and if that includes a referendum on whether or not to accept the deal that the government 'might' negotiate (though it's looking dodgy at the moment) it's at perfect liberty to do so.

Of course it not, it agreed to abide by it and so it should, else why bother to ask if you're going to reject an adverse (in your opinion) result anyway?! Presumably Scotland's referendum should have been the same, or do they operate under different rules!!?

Did Hilter actually say ‘ the will of the people’. Source please.

Try the first part of this:

www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports2013/hitlerenablingact.htm

He alludes to the 'Volk' a great deal (which can be translated as 'people') but there is actually a 'will of the people' in there. I expect I'd find more if I were to plough through a few more of his speeches.

I think it's a pretty chilling speech with a number of parallels to the present situation.

It is hard to hve to repeat, again and again, that David Cameron had NO legal or democratic right- under our OWN Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy, to make the promise that it would be implementd- without the support of both Houses. That is because OUR OWN SOVEREIGN LAWS, NOT THE EU'S - state clearly that any Referendum is advisory in the UK.

This is what is so hard, Leavers keep saying 'take back control of our own Laws and Rules' - and at the same time agree to go against Centuries of our own Sovereign Laws!?!

Yes, 'Volk' means 'the people'.

"Following the election, the opposition Labour Party withdrew its opposition to holding an in-out EU referendum. On the bill's second reading, on 9 June 2015, MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the principle of holding a referendum with only the Scottish National Party opposing the Bill."
European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

Of course it not, it agreed to abide by it

If by that first 'it' you mean parliament, no, it didn't agree (or can you find me the bit in the debates where MPs agreed to abide by the result of an advisory referendum?)

And the second point I make; 'parliament cannot bind its successors. That means that a new parliament can overturn anything that the previous parliament legislated for.

The current parliament is not the parliament that passed the 2015 Referendum Act. It's a completely new one elected last year. It can do whatever it likes regardless of what Cameron said or 'promised'.

And your point is ..what, Allygran?

When you find the passage in Hansard record of the debates where MPs agreed to 'abide by the result' of an advisory referendum I'll give up...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jura you mind find these facts useful:

^This article is about the 2015 Act of Parliament which enabled the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. For the associated Act of the Gibraltar Parliament, see European Union (Referendum) Act 2016 (Gibraltar). For the unsuccessful 2013–14 private member's bill, see European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013–14.
European Union Referendum Act 2015
Act of Parliament"

"Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.
Citation2015 c. 36
Introduced byPhilip Hammond, Foreign Secretary^

^Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Territorial extentUnited Kingdom & Gibraltar
(separate local enacting legislation exists in Gibraltar; see European Union (Referendum) Act 2016 (Gibraltar)
(Act No. 2016-01 (Legislation Number (L.N.) 2016/034, as amended by L.N. 2016/035, L.N. 2016/082 and L.N. 2016/120)))
Dates
Royal assent17 December 2015
Commencement17 December 2015
(partly in force)
1 February 2016
(wholly in force)^

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Union or leave it.[1][2] The bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Philip Hammond, Foreign Secretary on 28 May 2015.[3] The Act was subsequently passed by 544-53 votes on its second reading on 9 June 2015, a ratio of six to one in the Commons[4] and was approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015,[5] and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and came partly into force on the same day and came into full legal force on 1 February 2016.
The Act gave effect to a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party at the general election of May 2015. It required the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which the referendum should be held although it could not be any later than 31 December 2017 and, on Saturday 20 February 2016, David Cameron announced that the referendum would take place on Thursday 23 June 2016.

Now! Since David Cameron had in his manifesto promises, a referendum, and he was returned to power at a General Election, this means David Cameron had every 'right' as you call it to fullfill his manifesto promise of a legal referendum as you can see from the The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/583346/MPs-vote-favour-EU-referendum

Its aim must be to design a constitution which ties the will of the Volk to the authority of a genuine leadership. The statutory legalization of this reform of the Constitution will be granted to the Volk itself

I think I deserve a medal for ploughing through Hitler’s frankly boring and unremarkable rhetoric to find the above quotation.
It should be remembered though that his interpretation of Volk as not just “the people” but the German People i.e.race
Jews, immigrants, gypsies, and ultimately political opponents would forfeit their rights as members of the Volk. Even without the benefit of hindsight it must have been apparent to those with eyes to see that Hitler was not following the “will of the people” but imposing his ideology on them.

If the intention of Parliament had been to make the result of the Referendum legally binding it would have been stated in the 2015 Act.

Here it is. I can find no such statement

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/crossheading/the-referendum/enacted

The legal referendum "The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum" voted by majority to leave the EU. This was upheld by a majority Government. That Government then went to the people again in another General Election with the promise to fulfil the Brexit vote and leave the EU. This Government was re-elected on their mandate including fulfilling the commitment to fulfil the vote leave majority at the referendum and Brexit. As did the Labour Party who also stood on a leave the EU Brexit mandate and became the opposition.

Even without the benefit of hindsight it must have been apparent to those with eyes to see that Hitler was not following the “will of the people” but imposing his ideology on them.

So what?

Firstly I was challenged on whether Hitler actually said 'the will of the people'. He did; it's there in the speech.

Secondly, we all know that he was imposing his ideology on them but he was using 'the will of the people' as a justification for it. As are some of our current politicians.

MaizieD
What on earth would be the point of offering the country a referendum with all the palaver and expense it entails only to say ‘only kidding’ because the result wasnt as expected. We are venturing into the land of the ridiculous.

Well you could go on asking the same question again and again until you get the answer you want.........?

But the question is “Who” wants it?
There is little point in belabouring the incompetence of the referendum, its illegality if you so believe, DC’s total shortsightedness, the poor turnout etc etc etc.
But the deed is done.
And in the words of Martin Sheen as President Bartlett,”What’s next?”

You deserve a medal but a will have to do. Thanks for doing that research, we all benefit from it. It makes the point so well and your analysis has real impact on the fact's.

The other interesting and scary, thing is that in order to fulfil his ideology of the "final solution" he had to first remove citizenship leaving Jews, Gypsy's and others stateless therefore unprotected by law's of the German or any other State, unless those people could get to another State and more didn't than did. How any one who understand's the history of those times, can ever, ever compare the UK or any main stream political party to that ideology, that man, or that system, is using words that they simply do not understand the reality of.

Ride on Maw!!