Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Dippypud

Lornapink wrote: »

Provide links to key Remainers during the campaign saying 'this is only advisory'

As the High Court put it on 3 November:

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.

Herzlos

lisyloo wrote: »

Why should they have any faith in the policitical system if they are told something hundreds of times over a period of years and then
It doesn’t happen

Presumably you'll feel the same when all of the leave claims don't happen? Those that haven't already turned out to be lies, at least?

BikingBud

Herzlos wrote: »

Presumably you'll feel the same when all of the leave claims don't happen? Those that haven't already turned out to be lies, at least?

Simple answer, never trust a politician.

As an aside where are they all at the moment, as if 22 weeks a year not sitting enables them to deliver anything never mind the most pressing problem facing the UK in recent history:(

Tromking

Dippypud wrote: »

As the High Court put it on 3 November:

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.

Ever asked yourself the question as to why this advisory referendum has not been trumped by our lawmakers thus far?
Only a few of them want Brexit, why the reluctance to give it up as bad job I wonder.
Any ideas?

SpiderLegs

Herzlos wrote: »

Presumably you'll feel the same when all of the leave claims don't happen? Those that haven't already turned out to be lies, at least?

I think it’s fairly clear to the electorate now that current MPs of any colour cannot be relied upon to do what they say they will. Promises are worthless, manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on, statements made today are convieniently airbrushed away next week. It’s not something just limited to Brexit, it’s just the normality of politics. The only thing these people look at is what is their best chance of being personally re-elected.

I’m sure labour supporters will claim the tories are worse and vice versa, but that’s just personal bias. They are all as bad as each other.

VoucherMan

SpiderLegs wrote: »

I think it’s fairly clear to the electorate now that [STRIKE]current[/STRIKE] MPs of any colour cannot be relied upon to do what they say they will. Promises are worthless, manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on, statements made today are convieniently airbrushed away next week. It’s not something just limited to Brexit, it’s just the normality of politics. The only thing these people look at is what is their best chance of being personally re-elected.

I’m sure labour supporters will claim the tories are worse and vice versa, but that’s just personal bias. They are all as bad as each other.

It may be 40 years old, but still surprisingly accurate. After all, the Beeb didn't just make up the bit about MPs being more interested in their own welfare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVFD1MuPrU

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Has been on the agenda for some considerable time. Seems a reasonable proposal if the EU is to function on a level playing field. Countries such as Eire and Luxembourg do unfairly benefit.

I recall reading an EEC booklet on tax harmonization in 1973. It is as you say nothing new and for the EU to function some degree of harmonisation is needed.

Those who favour the UK to move to a very low tax economy post Brexit need to appreciate that this is likely to make a trade deal with the UK based on low tariffs rather difficult.

Moby

Herzlos wrote: »

Presumably you'll feel the same when all of the leave claims don't happen? Those that haven't already turned out to be lies, at least?

Exactly we were promised a Porche and we've ended up with a Austin Allegro. We're probably going to end up with a version of May's deal and that will result in a greater loss of sovereignty than staying in the EU would have done. At least in the EU we were a voting member. Now we are going to pay for access and will be a rule taker with no voting rights. How can that possibly be better than what we have!

BobQ

Lornapink wrote: »

Provide links to key Remainers during the campaign saying 'this is only advisory'

Do your own reseach.

The Referendum was held based on an Act of Parliament not the pronouncements of politicians. The Referendum Act just stated that there should be a vote. If it had been legally binding then the Act would have included text that was legally enforceable. It did not. In fact, whatever claims were made by the Leave/Remain politicians, the Government briefing to Parliament stated it was advisory

In contrast the Alternative Vote Referendum in 2011 was legally binding since it enacted a change in law if the referendum passed.

If you are really interested look at p32 of the following link

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf#page=32

BobQ

lisyloo wrote: »

What people were told literally hundreds of times counts for a lot in the mind of your average Person who doesn’t read acts of Parliament.

Why should they have any faith in the policitical system if they are told something hundreds of times over a period of years and then
It doesn’t happen.

I presume you don’t require a YouTube collection of Cameron/May etc. Saying it’s your choice on hundreds of occasions?

All this demonstrates is that politicians (including in the Government) felt comfortable about misleading the public. Politicians can of course say that they will implement any policy but they cannot guarantee it if they flout the law. They tried to flout any involvement of Parliament (that was what the Gina Miller case proved). The 2017 election provided a new Parliament which has not supported this level of arrogance. The Act was advisory whatever politicians may have said.