If there was another EU referendum...

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.

We're not debating this point. We're debating the legality of Cameron's 'promise' that the result would be binding. The point I am making (as is jura) is that he had no right, under our constitution, to make that promise. It was not a legally binding promise. The only body which had the legal right to make that promise was Parliament, which is the sovereign body in our constitution. Parliament did not make that promise. If they had, it would be in the Act.

Nor could he 'promise' that it would be a 'once in a generation' referendum because a) no parliament can bind its successor i.e. any legislation passed by a parliament can be repealed or altered by succeeding parliaments

And b), he had no power under the constitution to make such a promise. That power is reserved to parliament.

His 'promises' may have been morally binding, but they are not legally binding.

Also, despite the party manifestos, Parliament could vote not to implement Brexit and it couldn't be gainsayed. It is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign, not the government. (nor 'the people')

Joelsnan....logical! Maybe that is why some just don't get-it!

His power MD came from going to the people with a referendum. His right to offer the referendum is covered in the legal approval of 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"^. Once the vote to leave by majority vote was carried, the new PM vowed to fulfil the majority vote to leave. She then got confirmation from the people that this is what they wanted, by having a General Election, on which she promised that if she was voted in she would fulfil the leave vote in the Referendum amongst other things. The Government was returned by a hugh increased share of the vote although loosing some MP's. This is her mandate, and we are Brexiting.

You're the one who isn't 'getting it', Ally

Cameron promised that the result would be respected. He had no right under our constitution to make that promise. Nor did he have any right to place a condition on the time at which another referendum might be held.

Do you understand how the British Constitution works?

Do you know what the Separation of Powers is?

Do you know why we chopped off a monarch's head in the 16th century?

Do you actually have any idea what Parliamentary sovereignty means?

All gone quiet.

Are you busy hunting through Wikipedia for another thing to copy and paste?

So if it is not legally binding as you believe to keep a promise to the voters, what does make things binding on politicians to keep their promises made to us to get our vote once we get them into power, especially on a majority referendum vote and a GE increased share of the vote? Let's look at this from a different perspective!

I know what I think...I would like to hear what you think MD!

MaizieD don't start getting like that it spoils things! I won't play if your snotty!

Going off line now. Been to a funeral today, so that's enough of Brexit for today. I will get back to you tomorrow sometime.

You don't have to play at all Ally. You just have to demonstrate some understanding of what I am saying.

Anyhow- we are where we are. No one is asking for a second Referendum on the initial question, which was a straight yes or no with no idea as to what it would actually mean.

Now that there is massive evidence re consequences of various choices- the only way forward is a Referendum on the final deal, or no deal- with an option to remain. You want Democracy, let's have it then.

do you know why we chopped off a monarch's head in the 16th century
Presumably MaizieD so that Henry VIII could marry another wife who could provide him with a son?
Although what that has to do with anything eludes me
If you meant Charles I, he was executed in 1649 which puts him right in the middle of the 17th century.

Do you know what the Separation of Powers is?
The American Constitution of 1789 was the first real demonstration of this.

Whoever it was- no British PM can make such decisions on their own, to go agaisnt British Law ad declare that a Referendum would be binding- our system of Sovereign Democracy is very clear on the subject. It was not his job, not his remit, not his right.

Why all the arguements about the legality of the referendum? Argue ‘til you’re blue in the face, Parliament isn’t listening to you. The legal bods who advise them aren’t listening. They’ve all decided we’re going. I still think they know something we don’t!

Whoever it was- no British PM can make such decisions on their own

That ship has long since sailed jura. Cameron legged it quicksticks and hasn't raised his sorry head much since. The time to address the legality of his promise was as soon as he said it, not 2 years later. Too late now.

Thank you Maw for saving me the job of ploughing through the tedious looking document where Hitler is said to wish to tie the will of the volk to the authority of the leadership. I opened it up earlier, saw it was long and tedious looking, and having more important things to do at that moment (to FaceTime my aged mother who I normally see every day but was unable to today) I decided to read it later. Upon opening Gransnet to engage in the required reading, I found you had done it for me, and very kindly quoted the pertinent phrase.
I’m still not convinced by Maizie that the comparison of Hitler, who was in fact a fascist dictator, with the referendum and its result, is valid.

Jura, you are asking for a second referendum.

Parliament could have stood against the referendum result had they a mind to do so, but they all agreed to honour the outcome.
A bit futile at this stage to be yelling about ‘ legalities’ !

The American Constitution was meant to be a copy of the British one but it got it slightly wrong. Which is why Presidents who are of a different party from the majority party in the House of Representatives (I think that's the right one) have such a problem getting their desired legislation through. The separation of powers is the separation of the Executive (the monarch in our case) and the Legislature (parliament). The Americans separated the Executive (President) from the Legislature but didn't realise that the British PM was not the equivalent of the President/monarch but was a 'representative' of the monarch and was head of the party with the most MPs - which means that they can, in general, get their desired legislation through parliament.

A bit futile at this stage to be yelling about ‘ legalities’ !

I'm not 'yelling about legalities', just trying to clarify a point.

I’m still not convinced by Maizie that the comparison of Hitler, who was in fact a fascist dictator, with the referendum and its result, is valid.

Try re-reading the post in which you queried the 'will of the people'. maddyone.

And please don't ask me for evidence if you can't actually be bothered to read it when I provide it.

Though I found that speech very interesting... History can repeat itself if people can't be a*sed to even find out about it.

Though I found that speech very interesting... History can repeat itself if people can't be a*sed to even find out about it
And to act on the warning of history, not wait until, as you implied when you said you were perfectly aware of the advance of the extreme Right in Europe but they are not in control it is too late.
To which there is one word
Yet.

Not altogether sure what your point is, MawBroon.

The extreme right will gain control if people do not attempt to counter their ideas. But extreme right ideas are seductively simplistic and play on people's fears and gut feelings. An example being the UK referendum 'leave' campaign.

It's all very well pointing to the far right's growing hold in some EU countries but failure to recognise it in our own country is dangerous complacency.

I would add that quoting s load of party names is meaningless. Far right ideology doesn't respect party boundaries.

Though, judging by some of the contributors to this forum, it is clear that the far right is well approved of by some UK citizens rather than being a force to fear. I could see a few nodding along with the Hitler speech; if they could have been bothered to read it...

Pretty obvious.