I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence the
result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and if the
government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a significant
majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to
Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or that
of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the public's views
are superseded by the MPs' views.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wanted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisory to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allowed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

On 03/11/2016 14:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Minchin
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so,
and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative)
MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an
interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are
not legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views
of the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.


So no legal obligation then.

On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:09:51 PM UTC, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

MP's will vote to invoke Article 50 overwhelmingly and Brexit will continue. So no need for all the Brexiters to get hot under the collar. This is just about following proper procedure.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

wrote:

MP's will vote to invoke Article 50 overwhelmingly

Presumably journalists have a nice long list of those MPs who have said
"brexit means brexit" or "the people have spoken" etc and will hold
their feet to the fire?

Andy Cap wrote:

If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

s/there must/I'd like there to/
s/because (.*)/or I'll sulk/

FTFY.

On 03/11/16 16:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

s/there must/I'd like there to/
s/because (.*)/or I'll sulk/

FTFY.

OK, should be but their track-record in these circumstances is not
good. Democracy actually means FA.

Andy Cap wrote:

their track-record in these circumstances is not
good. Democracy actually means FA.

Well yes, but we're used to voting for them and then more or less
leaving them to do whatever they want to for another 4-5 (supposedly
fixed at 5 now) years ...

On 2016-11-03 16:17:02 +0000, Andy Cap said:

If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election
first, because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

Yes it was on the table. The Conservative manifesto promised a
referendum on IN/OUT and to honour the result whatever it was.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"NY" wrote in message
...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to Leave but a
majority of MPs vote Remain?

According to the unwritten constitution, the will of Parliament, expressed as the Queen
in
Parliament has the final word in all such matters. The public at large have no say.

Again anyone making an election pledge, as David Cameron is claimed to have
done promising anything different is simply exceeding his powers. Not that
Cameron ever anticipated he'd find himself in such a position in the first
place.

A lot of nonsense had been spouted about the PM using the Royal Prerogative
to by-pass Parliament and directly implementing "the will of the people".
However as the judgement points out, the Royal Prerogative is only used
when its not practicable to recall parliament - to declare war at short notice
etc not as a means of bypassing Parliament when there's every opportunity
for Parliament to discuss the matter in hand. It's there in paragraph 24 in the
judgement which as its a PDF is impossible to copy and paste
directly

The Crown Prerogative is "only available for a case not covered by statute"

The Pdf of the judgement

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...u-20161103.pdf

And it seems unlikely that any appeal by the Govt can over turn this "unfortunate"
reality.

Just as I pointed out ad nauseam previously that article 50 requires any country
wishing to invoke article 50, to take any such decision inn accordance with its
own Constitution. Which in the UK is not simply the as the result of an
"advisory referendum". So any article 50 declaration made on that basis
can be challenged in the European Court as well.

Not that this will end the uncertainty which will be among the most damaging
aspects of this scenario. Something that could last for years.



michael adams

....

On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for, the UK
parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court order to make
them do it.

On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/11/2016 18:41, alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.



What? UKIP ones that have failed?

In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for, the UK
parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court order to make
them do it.
Even now remainers continue to lie.
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"NY" wrote in message
...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margin) to Leave but a
majority of MPs vote Remain?

According to the unwritten constitution, the will of Parliament,
expressed as the Queen
in
Parliament has the final word in all such matters. The public at large
have no say.

Again anyone making an election pledge, as David Cameron is claimed to have
done promising anything different is simply exceeding his powers. Not that
Cameron ever anticipated he'd find himself in such a position in the first
place.

A lot of nonsense had been spouted about the PM using the Royal Prerogative
to by-pass Parliament and directly implementing "the will of the people".
However as the judgement points out, the Royal Prerogative is only used
when its not practicable to recall parliament - to declare war at short notice
etc not as a means of bypassing Parliament when there's every opportunity
for Parliament to discuss the matter in hand. It's there in paragraph 24 in the
judgement which as its a PDF is impossible to copy and paste
directly

The Crown Prerogative is "only available for a case not covered by statute"

The Pdf of the judgement

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...dgment-r-mille
r-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

And it seems unlikely that any appeal by the Govt can over turn this
"unfortunate"
reality.

Just as I pointed out ad nauseam previously that article 50 requires
any country
wishing to invoke article 50, to take any such decision inn accordance with its
own Constitution. Which in the UK is not simply the as the result of an
"advisory referendum". So any article 50 declaration made on that basis
can be challenged in the European Court as well.

Not that this will end the uncertainty which will be among the most damaging
aspects of this scenario. Something that could last for years.



michael adams

...


The judiciary in Northern Ireland has taken the exactly opposite view
--
bert

In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.
--
bert

In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:17:02 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

If things don't look as though they're going the way Teresa wants, she
may call a snap election anyway.

Come back Nige - all is forgiven.
--
bert

On 03-Nov-16 4:40 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:17:02 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

If things don't look as though they're going the way Teresa wants, she
may call a snap election anyway.


To do that, she would either have to get the House of Commons to vote
for an early election, or get a vote of no confidence in her own
government passed.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

you obviously don't know the meaning of "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

you aren't being ruled by judges. The judges said that even the Prime
Minister has to follw the law.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

wrote
dennis@home wrote

I wonder what the scots will vote?

Will it be a free vote?

MP's will vote to invoke Article 50 overwhelmingly

We'll see...

and Brexit will continue.

Very likely.

So no need for all the Brexiters to get hot under the collar.

Particularly given that the appeal may succeed.

This is just about following proper procedure.

It isnt clear what is proper procedure.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,

Nope.

because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

Irrelevant. Plenty of stuff like invading Iraq and
WW2 wasn’t on the table at the previous election.

Andy Burns wrote
wrote

MP's will vote to invoke Article 50 overwhelmingly

Presumably journalists have a nice long list of those MPs who
have said "brexit means brexit" or "the people have spoken" etc

Yes.

and will hold their feet to the fire?

Not even possible to do that.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/11/16 16:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

s/there must/I'd like there to/
s/because (.*)/or I'll sulk/

FTFY.

OK, should be but their track-record in these circumstances is not good.

There is no track record with something like this where there has been a
referendum.

Democracy actually means FA.

We'll see...

"bert" wrote in message news


The judiciary in Northern Ireland has taken the exactly opposite view

If you read the judgement you'll see they pointed out where the
NI Court were wrong. As they failed to acknowledge what both
sides in this case do acknowledge, that invoking Article 50 will
directly affect UK Law.

They made the further point that the Royal Perogative cannnot be
used to remove rights or freedoms currently enjoyed by UK citizens.
A simple example would be the present right of UK citizens to travel
freely within the EU. Such rights or freedoms can only be removed by
an Act of Parliament, not by a PM invoking article 50. At least short
of the Declaration of a State of Emergency.

Anyone reading the judgement might rightly question how anyone
ever thought the Govt had a hope of winning.

Their whole case, such as it was, seemed to revolve around the
fact that because Parliament hadn't specifically passed a law
preventing them from by-passing Parliament in this way, then
they could just do it.







--
bert

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general election
if the brexit vote is reversed.

And a lot more like the SNP MPs and Torys who are confident that
their own electorate doesn’t want Britain to leave might well decide
to refuse to invoke Article 50 to get the result they want, too.

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

If things don't look as though they're going the way Teresa wants, she
may call a snap election anyway.

I think she will, before the March deadline for Article 50, and it'll be
a second referendum on Brexit in all but name.

Interesting times.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 03/11/2016 19:56, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

That's all it was.

On 03/11/2016 19:52, bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

So parliament needs to change the law, which is what the judges have
said. Its the way the UK has done stuff for a long time and you want to
change it without consulting the rest of us.

In article ,
says...

On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.

Hmm. That could be interesting.

If the electorate in constituency X voted Remain (even by
a narrow margin).
Which way should the MP who represents constituency X
vote?

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it
good and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me that
whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this regard would be
implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

You expect everything a government promise to actually happen, do you?
Which planet have you been on up until now?

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not within their
competence.

Ah. Right. One of those who wanted sovereignty - but only their own
version of it.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.