On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:06:17 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:38:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result
legally binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always
unmake any legislation it makes and one referendum can always
overturn the result of an earlier one, as happened with our
membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be
set up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give
over.

I also should say that in California, the outcome of a referendum (or
initiative as they call it) acts *directly* to modify the state
constitution, if passed, with no further ado. Nothing is required of
the legislature for this to happen.

A bit like EU regulations, I suppose.

The briefing paper 07212, issued to MPs before the referendum, makes it
quite clear that the referendum was to be advisory only. See page 25.

Was this in the legislation? And was every member of the general public,
who would be voting on the matter, so advised?

And if this briefing paper was written, why was the public told "we will
implement what you vote for"?

Quite. The point is that MPs were told that when they were voting to have
a referendum.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor