[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Not really, it's a lead but not a majority in political terms.

I agree.
I also as someone who voted remain, felt that any margin under 10% even had it been for remain would not have closed this issue down.

I think any major change has to be really voted for,you have to look at how things are won and lost.
Margaret Thatcher who always said referenda was a failure of govt. and that she would never have one.
Rejected the Scottish devolution referendum result put in place by the then Labour govt of 1979 despite there being a narrow vote for devolution.

In 1975 the EEC referendum again held by Labour, produced a clear result, near 67% voting yes and all 4 UK Nations voting yes too.

A lot gets said about ignoring those who don't vote, well that's fine but they are never likely going to vote if they keep being totally ignored.
That being so, the vote held was not a majority of the total electorate.

However the govt, as MTVN said I think a few times in the EU debate, should have put locks on the vote, that there had to be at least 60% either way for it to be acted on or something like that.
All the time we hear the referendum was advisory not binding.
Of course the concerns need to be dealt with but 3.8% is really a small win.
We hear loads about 17 million people voting to leave totally discounting the near almost equal high of 16 million voting the other way.

I still cannot fathom out why after so much delay already from Theresa May on this, throwing it into next year from July this year at least.
Why anyone who voted has any fear of a democratic parliamentary vote by MPs on the whole process.
The call for 'our' parliament to make decisions, not the EU, was strong in the EU campaign, now however they want even our own elected MPs to be denied votes on the issue all through, why?

MPs only voted to support and hold a referendum nothing more,if they had to vote to hold the referendum, they should certainly be voting all through the process of leaving too.

Why so scared and aggressive as to any other voting on this issue, if the leave side really does believe it still has the support for leaving from voters.
The added side of this too is that 2 Nations voted to remain,now if the UK had 4 Nations with roughly the same electorate in each, from the way the UK voted in June there would have been a majority to remain.
Still in single figures, this 3.8% margin for leave was only won by the strength of larger numbers of electorate in England.

Take the average of the percentages of voting in the 4 Nations however, 56/44% to remain in Northern Ireland, 62/38% to remain in Scotland, then 52.5/47.5% to leave in Wales,(surprisingly, and I feel pretty sure that would be overturned now),finally 53/47% to leave in England.
So if England had not the vastly greater numbers of electorate and was more on a par as to voters,the vote would have been to remain.
That some lock was not put in place to heed the view of the whole UK as to its 4 Nations was badly planned.

Really after England voted, the other 3 may not as well have bothered as they had no chance at all of influencing or changing the result from how England voted.
Hardly a move that would unite anyone.

Which is why I agree 3.8% should not be enough to bring about this massive change to the whole of the UK,just as I would not have thought a 3.8% vote to remain would have settled and closed the issue either.

There as been some talk of Margaret Thatcher here n this thread and really a PM as strong as her would have been better now.
Not as to many of her policies.
She would have insisted on locks being in place for this referendum, and if she had this 3.8% result, she would said simple, not enough, I am pretty sure with her view of referenda.
UKIP or no UKIP, I doubt she would have ever entertained a referendum on anything however.

UKIP were the ones who really won getting this referendum, no one else,
David Cameron promised a referendum,stressing only if he got an overall majority, he never believed he would have to hold one as no polling suggested any party was going to come near an overall majority,even right up to election day 2015.
Labour never wanted one and only came on board under Harriett Harman's acting leadership.

However finally to UKIP, a 3.8% vote to remain would not have in any way, as Farage said on the results night,satisfied them and with Nigel Farage, the fight would have gone on and on.
In my view he would have been right in that too.

I also myself think the mood of voters is now more likely to be for remain,I don't know that for sure obviously,it may well have strengthened the other way for leave but I fear no other voting at all on this issue, whether it's the voters via a general election, a referendum to accept the final deal, or elected MPs in parliament.

Whether voters or MPs are thinking like me or not, I support votes all through this process and this govt. held to account all the way.
No intricate details obviously but the broad plan, which actually voters should have been told 'properly' during the EU campaign anyway.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree.
I also as someone who voted remain, felt that any margin under 10% even had it been for remain would not have closed this issue down.

I think any major change has to be really voted for,you have to look at how things are won and lost.
Margaret Thatcher who always said referenda was a failure of govt. and that she would never have one.
Rejected the Scottish devolution referendum result put in place by the then Labour govt of 1979 despite there being a narrow vote for devolution.

In 1975 the EEC referendum again held by Labour, produced a clear result, near 67% voting yes and all 4 UK Nations voting yes too.

A lot gets said about ignoring those who don't vote, well that's fine but they are never likely going to vote if they keep being totally ignored.
That being so, the vote held was not a majority of the total electorate.

However the govt, as MTVN said I think a few times in the EU debate, should have put locks on the vote, that there had to be at least 60% either way for it to be acted on or something like that.
All the time we hear the referendum was advisory not binding.
Of course the concerns need to be dealt with but 3.8% is really a small win.
We hear loads about 17 million people voting to leave totally discounting the near almost equal high of 16 million voting the other way.

I still cannot fathom out why after so much delay already from Theresa May on this, throwing it into next year from July this year at least.
Why anyone who voted has any fear of a democratic parliamentary vote by MPs on the whole process.
The call for 'our' parliament to make decisions, not the EU, was strong in the EU campaign, now however they want even our own elected MPs to be denied votes on the issue all through, why?

MPs only voted to support and hold a referendum nothing more,if they had to vote to hold the referendum, they should certainly be voting all through the process of leaving too.

Why so scared and aggressive as to any other voting on this issue, if the leave side really does believe it still has the support for leaving from voters.
The added side of this too is that 2 Nations voted to remain,now if the UK had 4 Nations with roughly the same electorate in each, from the way the UK voted in June there would have been a majority to remain.
Still in single figures, this 3.8% margin for leave was only won by the strength of larger numbers of electorate in England.

Take the average of the percentages of voting in the 4 Nations however, 56/44% to remain in Northern Ireland, 62/38% to remain in Scotland, then 52.5/47.5% to leave in Wales,(surprisingly, and I feel pretty sure that would be overturned now),finally 53/47% to leave in England.
So if England had not the vastly greater numbers of electorate and was more on a par as to voters,the vote would have been to remain.
That some lock was not put in place to heed the view of the whole UK as to its 4 Nations was badly planned.

Really after England voted, the other 3 may not as well have bothered as they had no chance at all of influencing or changing the result from how England voted.
Hardly a move that would unite anyone.

Which is why I agree 3.8% should not be enough to bring about this massive change to the whole of the UK,just as I would not have thought a 3.8% vote to remain would have settled and closed the issue either.

There as been some talk of Margaret Thatcher here n this thread and really a PM as strong as her would have been better now.
Not as to many of her policies.
She would have insisted on locks being in place for this referendum, and if she had this 3.8% result, she would said simple, not enough, I am pretty sure with her view of referenda.
UKIP or no UKIP, I doubt she would have ever entertained a referendum on anything however.

UKIP were the ones who really won getting this referendum, no one else,
David Cameron promised a referendum,stressing only if he got an overall majority, he never believed he would have to hold one as no polling suggested any party was going to come near an overall majority,even right up to election day 2015.
Labour never wanted one and only came on board under Harriett Harman's acting leadership.

However finally to UKIP, a 3.8% vote to remain would not have in any way, as Farage said on the results night,satisfied them and with Nigel Farage, the fight would have gone on and on.
In my view he would have been right in that too.

I also myself think the mood of voters is now more likely to be for remain,I don't know that for sure obviously,it may well have strengthened the other way for leave but I fear no other voting at all on this issue, whether it's the voters via a general election, a referendum to accept the final deal, or elected MPs in parliament.

Whether voters or MPs are thinking like me or not, I support votes all through this process and this govt. held to account all the way.
No intricate details obviously but the broad plan, which actually voters should have been told 'properly' during the EU campaign anyway.

It's not hard to fathom at all. There is no 'fear' about parliament debating it, it just simply isn't necessary. Parliament had a vote for a referendum and it was a clear referendum with clear choices. A leave vote means we would leave, to leave we have to start the process of article 50, everyone knew that so what's to talk about? We have two choices really. We can leave without any deals and look for deals away from the EU with countries that want deals with us like Australia which is bigger than the EU and UK altogether as a land mass. Or we can negotiate to see if they want to do a trade deal with us and let us remain in the single market. They trade with us more than we do with them so that might be in their interest. It obvious that the government will try to get as much of a deal as the EU is willing to give, which also isn't really much to debate. What we don't know is what concessions the government will be willing to give I'm return. Those concessions once discussed are about the only thing the government might have to talk about with the rest of the UK and there isn't much point unless they are of interest to the EU after some talks. Then the government can come back to us and say if you want this, they want to allow this. Then we can talk.

I have even seen it suggested in an interview by someone involved in the writing of article 50 that you don't even have to do that. He said make no further payments, don't go to meetings and the EU would realise eventually you were gone! Going by what he said we may not even be bound to trigger article 50 to leave at all. He seemed to be suggesting it was more of a courtesy. Not sure how accurate that is but an interesting idea.

I think it's wishful thinking to suggest people wouldn't vote leave again. I think more people would vote leave if the will of the people was ignored from the first vote.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It's not hard to fathom at all. There is no 'fear' about parliament debating it, it just simply isn't necessary. Parliament had a vote for a referendum and it was a clear referendum with clear choices. A leave vote means we would leave, to leave we have to start the process of article 50, everyone knew that so what's to talk about? We have two choices really. We can leave without any deals and look for deals away from the EU with countries that want deals with us like Australia which is bigger than the EU and UK altogether as a land mass. Or we can negotiate to see if they want to do a trade deal with us and let us remain in the single market. They trade with us more than we do with them so that might be in their interest. It obvious that the government will try to get as much of a deal as the EU is willing to give, which also isn't really much to debate. What we don't know is what concessions the government will be willing to give I'm return. Those concessions once discussed are about the only thing the government might have to talk about with the rest of the UK and there isn't much point unless they are of interest to the EU after some talks. Then the government can come back to us and say if you want this, they want to allow this. Then we can talk.

I have even seen it suggested in an interview by someone involved in the writing of article 50 that you don't even have to do that. He said make no further payments, don't go to meetings and the EU would realise eventually you were gone! Going by what he said we may not even be bound to trigger article 50 to leave at all. He seemed to be suggesting it was more of a courtesy. Not sure how accurate that is but an interesting idea.

I think it's wishful thinking to suggest people wouldn't vote leave again. I think more people would vote leave if the will of the people was ignored from the first vote.

Well jaxie keep coming back all you like, I have said my feelings on the issue and I certainly know yours.
We simply do not and will not agree.
I think the govt needs strong and in depth scrutiny.

No govt. should be able to make all decisions and have no analysis of same on this issue just as really no party should either.
Not anyway without a mandate for same from the voters in a new general election as to their plans.

The Judges thought that too from the position of the law of the UK.
I disagree with you that MPs should be ignored by the govt on this, even worse is that as to MPs there is only 1 MP from UKIP, who are the ones who forced this referendum anyway.
Yet even he will not get and will be denied a vote in parliament on this, if Theresa May gets her way..
I do not agree with UKIP much but that is ridiculous.

A leave vote did not give actually support the triggering of article 50 in itself,it will be done after this result,and MPs will vote for that too, however all the last vote in parliament was for and sanctioned to be done,was to hold a referendum nothing else.
What happens after that vote should then still be a matter for all MPs in parliament from a multi party National campaign.

Instead of dawdling Theresa May could have had the vote over and done with as to triggering article 50 after the Autumn recess rather than bring about all this going on now possibly.

You may want to give this govt and Theresa May a blank cheque on this, I certainly don't and there you and I will always disagree I am afraid.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well jaxie keep coming back all you like, I have said my feelings on the issue and I certainly know yours.
We simply do not and will not agree.
I think the govt needs strong and in depth scrutiny.

No govt. should be able to make all decisions and have no analysis of same on this issue just as really no party should either.
Not anyway without a mandate for same from the voters in a new general election as to their plans.

The Judges thought that too from the position of the law of the UK.
I disagree with you that MPs should be ignored by the govt on this, even worse is that as to MPs there is only 1 MP from UKIP, who are the ones who forced this referendum anyway.
Yet even he will not get and will be denied a vote in parliament on this, if Theresa May gets her way..
I do not agree with UKIP much but that is ridiculous.

A leave vote did not give actually support the triggering of article 50 in itself,it will be done after this result,and MPs will vote for that too, however all the last vote in parliament was for and sanctioned to be done,was to hold a referendum nothing else.
What happens after that vote should then still be a matter for all MPs in parliament from a multi party National campaign.

Instead of dawdling Theresa May could have had the vote over and done with as to triggering article 50 after the Autumn recess rather than bring about all this going on now possibly.

You may want to give this govt and Theresa May a blank cheque on this, I certainly don't and there you and I will always disagree I am afraid.

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

I voted remain but I want it got on with now and I want the best deal for the UK as a whole, not just certain sectors of it.

I however have no fear at all of any voting of any kind on the issue from voters or MPs,I accept result of votes, I may disagree with the results at times but would always set out to work in the framework of the result.

One as close as this was however needs care and the very best of all minds in all Westminster parties we give power to, or may give power to in the future, to work out and seek together the very best deals possible.
As a whole elected Parliament should.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

AGain this is all irrelevant because the UK has parliamentary sovereignity. A referendum is an opinion poll of how the public believes parliament should proceed but it holds absolutely zero legal weight. Is it morally correct for parliament to go against such a vote after agreeing to hold one? No, it probably isn't, certainly not with a clear result. The low margin does muddy the waters a bit, but that's another discussion. The point is; even if 100% of the public voted for something in a referendum, and we already knew that 100% of parliament would vote it through, it would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovreignity.

I really don't get why people are struggling with this concept so much. I mean... if you want to start another thread discussing the merits and drawbacks of parliamentary sovreignity and suggest that we should abandon it and find another system, fine, that would be a perfectly valid debate. But it's irrelevant in this one because we DO currently have it, and parliament MUST vote for the triggering of article 50 to be legal. Maybe that stings / is crappy / doesn't seem fair / seems needless / whatever but... ... ... you could say that about countless laws.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

AGain this is all irrelevant because the UK has parliamentary sovereignity. A referendum is an opinion poll of how the public believes parliament should proceed but it holds absolutely zero legal weight. Is it morally correct for parliament to go against such a vote after agreeing to hold one? No, it probably isn't, certainly not with a clear result. The low margin does muddy the waters a bit, but that's another discussion. The point is; even if 100% of the public voted for something in a referendum, and we already knew that 100% of parliament would vote it through, it would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovreignity.

I really don't get why people are struggling with this concept so much. I mean... if you want to start another thread discussing the merits and drawbacks of parliamentary sovreignity and suggest that we should abandon it and find another system, fine, that would be a perfectly valid debate. But it's irrelevant in this one because we DO currently have it, and parliament MUST vote for the triggering of article 50 to be legal. Maybe that stings / is crappy / doesn't seem fair / seems needless / whatever but... ... ... you could say that about countless laws.

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

I don't know how they will decide, but I do know how they should decide. If they choose to bypass the law for the sake of convenience then something very ****ing dodgy is going on.

And like I said, it doesn't mean that referenda are pointless. Parliament SHOULD listen to them and uphold the will of the people as far as is possible / realistic. However that still doesn't mean that there doesn't have to be a second parliamentary vote to enact major change.

There does.

Because we have parliamentary sovreignty.

That is the definition of parliamentary sovreignty.

That is why the high court judges looked at the law and said "Yup this is obviously what needs to happen". All of the Brexit papers making out like they're trying to "stop Brexit". It's ridiculous. They are applying the simple, unbiased, letter of the law, without any ulterior motive and one would HOPE that the supreme court would do exactly the same.

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Wee Burney is getting involved

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

A good post Joey, and the one quality which DOES set you apart from SOME other Left Wing leaning members on here, is that YOU ARE fair and reasonable in your views.

You do not fall into the trap of painting everything 'Not Of The Left' as entirely BLACK.

Thank you Kirk, that is greatly appreciated.
We all make our own comments from feelings and the views we have formed,however I have always preferred to look at the bigger picture and not just the snapshot.
As in fact I think you do as well.

You and I have debated much over the years,because passions are strong on issues,it is easy to sacrifice respect sometimes for the others view.

Thank you Kirk, after some difficult debates, it is good to hear your appreciation even in some way.
I do accept a lot of your arguments carry the greater amount of weight of fairness in them too and in fact always have.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Thank you Kirk, that is greatly appreciated.
We all make our own comments from feelings and the views we have formed,however I have always preferred to look at the bigger picture and not just the snapshot.
As in fact I think you do as well.

You and I have debated much over the years,because passions are strong on issues,it is easy to sacrifice respect sometimes for the others view.

Thank you Kirk, after some difficult debates, it is good to hear your appreciation even in some way.
I do accept a lot of your arguments carry the greater amount of weight of fairness in them too and in fact always have.

You are welcome Joey.