"You cannot betray the six million people"

joelsnan please would you respond to my post of 1030?

I don't know enough to agree or dispute what you said at 1225 but I do believe we are better as part of it than out of it. As already said, it is not perfect but then what system is?

Nonnie
I would rather be part of it with a voice to try to change or veto than an outsider who has to obey the rules without any voice

The problem is Nonnie, despite being the third largest contributor to the union our voice is being progressively suppressed as shown by Camerons last pre referendum visit to Brussels and MTs forays since. The EU is only interested in our money and our expertise. If you check out funding for regeneration sites (prettifying areas stripped of industry) the amounts allocated to UK sites is diminishing year on year.

I have every expectation that this information will be disputed but nonetheless a little research will prove it to be true.

As far as the proposal of laws is concerned this isn't true. I'd post a link to the process of law making in the EU but I'm not on the right computer and I don't have time to search for the document I have in mind. I can come back to this later...

maddy I don't think that is so very different from Westminster is it? Presumably the laws written by the bureaucrats have been suggested by politicians. They do get democratically voted upon so not undemocratic surely?Not everyone in our parliament gets to speak in the debates, the Speaker chooses who does.

Why was Junker the only name on the ballot paper? Presumably others had the opportunity to put their names forward.

I agree the EU is far from perfect but then so is our government. I would rather be part of it with a voice to try to change or veto than an outsider who has to obey the rules without any voice. Many of our employment laws come from the EU so maybe we wouldn't have so much protection if we were not a member.

I agree that on balance our economy is better in than out simply because of so much greater buying power. Looking at the bigger picture I think the status quo is the better option.

A good reason to vote leave was the total lack of democracy exercised in the EU. Juncker was the only name on the ballot paper when he was elected. I expect this will be disputed, but sadly it’s true. Do yourself a little research if you don’t believe me.
The European Parliament, to which we elect MEPs, does NOT make or propose laws, it scrutinises them and then rubber stamps them. MEPs are allowed between one minute and one a half minutes to speak when the Parliament is in session, and they are not guaranteed to allowed to speak, only a small number can speak in any debate, time is cited as the reason. Laws are proposed by The European Commission, and rubber stamped by The European Parliament. The European Council is made up of the 28 (currently) Heads of State and meets (fully) four times a year. Other work is carried out when the Council of Europe is not sitting, mainly by bureaucrats.
I have every expectation that this information will be disputed but nonetheless a little research will prove it to be true.
For the record, I voted remain, primarily on economic grounds. I despised the lack of democracy in the EU then, and I still do now. In any future referendum I will vote leave.
Bear in mind, EVER CLOSER UNION is the stated aim of the EU. This has been the case since the inception of the EU (then EEC) since the 1st January 1958.

Good to hear Urmston. Not sure about WTO but whatever is on offer v remain. Maybe even TM's deal, no deal or Remain? As I've said on another thread, when a jury cannot agree they have a retrial, the only way forward now.

I’d be happy to have a second referendum if it was Remain or Leave on WTO (no wishy washy half in half out ‘deals’).

I think Leave would romp it!

How can anyone argue against this?

Easily, Esspee. The majority is tainted by the fraudulent methods used by the Leave campaigns, particularly Vote Leave. The result cannot be relied on to be 'safe' under those circumstances.

Do you really want to live in a 'democracy' where results are obtained by cheating? Tear up the rule book and let anything go?

Joelsnan and others You said "Don't you think that if there was a viable shred of evidence the 600 and something remain MPs would have used any of these accusations at the outset to claim foul play and have the referendum legally declared null and void...simples, so why didnt they do it?" However I don't think you can argue with: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47755611

Can you finally accept that there was criminal activity by the Leave campaign? It was all over the news last night.

Presumably we would have heard if the Remain campaign had been proved to have acted illegally.

Venetia

Leave voters do not have to explain anything to anyone.
This is the problem with some remainers, they’re so arrogant.
Why do you think people who voted differently have to explain themselves to you?
Who do you think you are?
Honestly, get over yourself.

Yes

We are supposed to have a Democracy in this country.
Sadly some people seem to want a Demockracy.
We voted to leave by a majority. How can anyone argue against this?

I've never had a proper reply when I ask people why they voted to leave. A friend of mine told me it was because Turkey was going to join the EU and we would soon be forced to use the Euro. Neither of those things are true. Maybe someone here has a good, genuine reason? I'm open to hearing one.

No, I don't get fed up of flogging a dead horse, Joelsnan.

Why should lies be allowed to triumph?

I voted to remain and accepted the result .

A heartening and conciliatory response Maggiemaybe from a Remainer. thank you. It is appreciated.

Joelsnan, Smileness and Day6 take a recommend ladies.
??????

MaizieD
Don't you get fed up of flogging a dead horse?
No matter how you say it was advisory, parliament ratified the result, the electorate voted on it through election, parliament invoked A50.
Isnt it time to put stuff like this to bed.

Apologies. The briefing paper number is 7212 (no '0' )

From the House of Commons briefing paper no.07212 on the Referendum Bill

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

This is the information on which MPs voted for the Bill. Note very well the bits in bold.

I can't give you a link to it as it comes as a downloaded pdf. but it's easy enough to search for on line.

I know exactly what was in Cameron's leaflet (heaven knows, I've had it quoted at me often enough) but he had no right whatsoever to make that statement. It was for Parliament to make, not the government.

In case you don't understand how our constitution works, there are three elements to it, the Crown, or Executive which is represented by the Government in Parliament, the Legislature, which is the House of Commons (and the Lords to a lesser extent) and the Judiciary. Leaving aside the Judiciary as irrelevant ATM, it is the legislature (Parliament) which has the sovereign power and it is able to legitimately oppose and curb the power of the Executive/Crown. Parliament is in control. The Executive (Crown) can make very, very few decisions without the approval of parliament/the legislature. Parliament cannot be overidden by the Executive. That's what we fought a bloody civil war and chopped off a king's head in the 17thC to establish, the supremacy of Parliament.

That's why Cameron had no constitutional right to promise that the referendum would be implemented; it was exceeding his powers as a minister of the Crown.

Now, many of you may be completely unaware that the referendum was advisory because it was not clearly put to the public as such, but it is an indisputable FACT

Well it doesn't say in the pamphlet that I referred too in my previous post that the referendum wasn't legally binding either varian. So which is it? Advisory only; not legally binding.

Maggiemaybe.

such fun we are out it is the majority

all these long deluded left wing anti brexit rants are so dull. out we go

Fullfact Conclusion

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

That’s because it never was advisory, Smileless. I voted to remain in the knowledge that if the majority also voted to remain we would remain! Which is why I expect the result to stand, even though it wasn’t my choice.

I have just googled the Gov. sponsored pamphlet we all received before the referendum took place, and I can't see anywhere where it states that it was only going to be advisory varian

varian
The reason that referendum has not been declared null and void is because it was only advisory. If it had been mandatory it would have been nullified

Awww give over...The term 'advisory' is now being bandied about to suit the purpose like shifting sands.
You know if it had been illegal as you keep claiming, whatever it was it could have been declared null and void.