On 27/06/16 18:16, pamela wrote:
On 17:32 27 Jun 2016, Alan Dawes wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to
over rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

My question is whether a general election mandate could
overturn a referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about
such an approach but I wonder if it would be consitutionally
valid.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation.
Ignoring the reply of such a consultation may be politically
very unwise but that does not make it unconstitutional.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law
Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-
tom-hickma
n-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-
indispensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify triggering
Article 50 without a statute voting for it passed by parliament
would be by "royal prerogative" but case law going back to "the
case of proclamations of 1610" right through to the more recent
"fire brigades union case of 1995" limit the ability of the
government or crown to use "royal prerogative" and could not be
used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers in
the British Constitution: the Government cannot take away rights
given by Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute. For the
courts to hold otherwise would place the rights of British
citizens at the mercy of the Government and would be contrary to
Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind as
to what the government can legally do.

Alan


That's an interesting article. This caught my eye amongst other
points.

"Before an Article 50 declaration can be issued, Parliament must
enact a statute empowering or requiring the Prime Minister to
issue notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and
empowering the Government to make such changes to statutes as are
necessary to bring about our exit from the European Union."

Even earlier than all this is Cameron's pre-referendum claim that
Article 50 would be invoked immediately if he lost the vote. Now
he is saying he will leave such an action to a succeeding prime
minister. I wonder if such a successor has any obligation at all
to organise the ruling party to advance Article 50.

In other words, Cameron promised the UK electorate Article 50 if
he lost (within the constraints of the article you mention) but is
his successor bound by such a promise?

No one is bound by promises. Cameron has already broken his.
THAT is not the issue. You are seeing all this in narrow legal and
constitutional terms, but laws can be repealed and constitutions changed.

What is at stake is if the clear majority will of the people of the
united kingdom is going to be allowed to prevail,. and if not, what are
the political consequences of abandoning any pretence of democracy.

Before the referendum, it was possible to claim that actually most
people wanted to remain in the EU, and therefore there was no point in
holding a referendum. Now we know that 32% want to say in the EU, more
want out and the rest are presumably undecided or indifferent.

That piece of data cannot be put back in the box. Schrödingers cat has
been revealed to be comprehensively dead.


And the political consequences of finagling a 'remain' against that
clear data are to finally admit that we don't live even in the pretence
of a democracy. And to demonstrate to the brexiteers that everything
they feared about the establishment and the EU, was in fact true.

It would amount to a totalitarian coup. The final admission that the UK
is a police state run by a narrow elite for a narrow elite and its
democracy is a sham.

Its a no win situation. The rest of Europe would look on aghast if it
happened.

OTOH if Britain successfully leaves, its is also the nucleus of a
breakaway alliance of similar countries.

And that's why European bourses are getting hammered. The EUs bluff has
been called, If they give in, they look weak, If they use force, they
look undemocratic and like a police state.

Whichever way it goes, the EU is a laughing stock globally, and a big
risk financially.

WE will never know the secret feelings of the major players, Cameron,
Johnson, Corbyn...maybe they secretly wanted the remain vote to fail.
They certainly were supremely incompetent at delivering a truthful and
convincing message.

Politics itself and the establishment has been massively damaged.

WE cant turn the clock back. WE have to now go on.

--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell