This is Bound to End in Tears

[teamsaint]

That's not always what it seems like to me - but then I'm not interested in it so I suppose I notice its domination of news programmes(one of the reasons I stopped watching the so-called local TV news programme was that 'sport' meant football 90% of the time year round and took up a large chunk of the ever-decreasing airtime allocated to the whole programme) , TV schedules and the local paper more than might otherwise be the case.
My comment about privatisation/outsourcing concerned the situation whereby, as I see it, once 'services' become the preserve of commerce they are driven and controlled by factors with which politicians are reluctant(to say the least) to involve themselves in any way that might have negative impact on their(MPs) personal/party interests, and therefore don't. Hence not many questions...

Oddly,Odders, there is probably more football coverage on free to air TV in summer than in the winter, as the main part of FTA football on TV is the World Cup and European Championship.

In total,Live football gets very little exposure on BBC or ITV, despite its popularity with Licence fee payers.

[teamsaint]

Trouble is FPTP tends to make something of a nonsense of the 'representative' part of that for many voters.

And finally its weaknesses and contradictions are being laid bare. One might hope.....

[french frank]

Trouble is FPTP tends to make something of a nonsense of the 'representative' part of that for many voters.

It makes more of a nonsense, certainly. But there will always be those who remain, apparently, unrepresented because they don't agree with and didn't vote for their 'representative'.

The MP 'represents' all constituents on a limited range of 'domestic' issues - especially the personal, individual ones, but not on the great issues of state. How can anyone simultaneously represent the views of a group of people who hold directly opposing opinions? That's why the 'general will' or 'will of the people' is non-existent. It's the will of those who form the largest group, based on a prevailing electoral system.

[Pabmusic]

"The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to contribute personally, or through their representatives, to its formation."

The UK being a representative democracy, citizens have the the right to contribute through their representatives. Which I presume is why, constitutionally, referendums are purely advisory - unless a special Act is passed which makes one binding.

No act can bind Parliament. That is central to our constitution, and has been since 1688-ish. Pass however many acts you like that say a referendum is binding, and it is still subject to the will of Parliament. Convince the current Parliament to go along with you, and a subsequent Parliament can overule the decision.

That's our Constitution. The Crown is subservient to Parliament.

And of course referendums have no place in our constitution. That's why they can only ever be advisory.

[french frank]

No act can bind Parliament. That is central to our constitution, and has been since 1688-ish. Pass however many acts you like that say a referendum is binding, and it is still subject to the will of Parliament. Convince the current Parliament to go along with you, and a subsequent Parliament can overule the decision.

That's our Constitution. The Crown is subservient to Parliament.

Well, this is true. But in the case of the latest Scottish Independence referendum, for instance, it was included as part of the referendum legislation, so passed by Parliament. Would any Parliament vote retrospectively to void that condition?

[Pabmusic]

Well, this is true. But in the case of the latest Scottish Independence referendum, for instance, it was included as part of the referendum legislation, so passed by Parliament. Would any Parliament vote retrospectively to void that condition?

Whether a parliament would vote for something is different from whether it could vote for it. Constitutionally, absolutely nothing is 'set in stone'. Parliament could vote to abolish the Monarchy and install me as Supeme Overlord. It really could. But I doubt it will.

But another day, another parliament...

[edashtav]

Did I spy evidence for Resurrection on this thread an hour ago or was it merely an unquiet spirit?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Did I spy evidence for Resurrection on this thread an hour ago or was it merely an unquiet spirit?

If you translate this into English, ed, I'll try and answer it. (I think the answer is "No" )

[oddoneout]

Did I spy evidence for Resurrection on this thread an hour ago or was it merely an unquiet spirit?

Not on this thread I think?

[Barbirollians]

No act can bind Parliament. That is central to our constitution, and has been since 1688-ish. Pass however many acts you like that say a referendum is binding, and it is still subject to the will of Parliament. Convince the current Parliament to go along with you, and a subsequent Parliament can overule the decision.

That's our Constitution. The Crown is subservient to Parliament.

And of course referendums have no place in our constitution. That's why they can only ever be advisory.

Paps is entirely correct but both the AV referendum and the Scottish independence referendum required Parliament to act on them . The Referendum Act that provided for the EU referendum was advisory and did not require the Government to do anything else but hold a referendum .

The fact that Cameron 's government then said it intended to abide by the result was irrelevant as to the legal ( but self-evidently not political)effect of the referendum

In the circumstances , what was said by Liam Fox on the BBC yesterday was simply wrong.

If Parliament were to decide tomorrow to suspend the rules of the Commons on who can bring forward legislation , enact a Withdrawal of Article 50 Act and direct the PM to withdraw it that would be entirely lawful and constitutional . The remedy of Brexiteers would be to start a Brexit Party and hope to win a general election on the basis it would serve a new A50 notice .

[edashtav]

Not on this thread I think?

Sorry, I had my threads or my knickers in a twist. I am the odd one out, oddoneout.
Apologies to the tried and tested ferney, too: bo's resurrection happened on another thread.

[Bryn]

Paps is entirely correct but both the AV referendum and the Scottish independence referendum required Parliament to act on them . The Referendum Act that provided for the EU referendum was advisory and did not require the Government to do anything else but hold a referendum .

The fact that Cameron 's government then said it intended to abide by the result was irrelevant as to the legal ( but self-evidently not political)effect of the referendum

In the circumstances , what was said by Liam Fox on the BBC yesterday was simply wrong.

If Parliament were to decide tomorrow to suspend the rules of the Commons on who can bring forward legislation , enact a Withdrawal of Article 50 Act and direct the PM to withdraw it that would be entirely lawful and constitutional . The remedy of Brexiteers would be to start a Brexit Party and hope to win a general election on the basis it would serve a new A50 notice .

Quite so. The overwhelming majority of MPs are failing to act constitutionally in failing to act as parliamentary representatives, rather than delegates, with regard to the EU referendum.

[Lat-Literal]

The problem with all of this constitutional chatter - and I am not entirely sure I agree with some comments on the monarch or Crown but whatever - is that it is merely theoretical.

As such, it has little to say about where authority resides.

As with Parliament, the law is equally based in theory which is to say that it too cannot be enforceable, enforcing or enforced unless it has broad public backing.

So the will of the people or the general will is inconsequential compared with the authority of the people which enables.

(The French would know all about this of course)

[french frank]

Paps is entirely correct but both the AV referendum and the Scottish independence referendum required Parliament to act on them .

And to complicate matters somewhat (though not legally!), those were the two referendums which were supporting the status quo anyway.

[Lat-Literal]

And to complicate matters somewhat (though not legally!), those were the two referendums which were supporting the status quo anyway.

So was the current one when it was advanced by Mr Cameron.

To clarify my previous post, authority is lent to institutions by those who choose something other than revolution.

Until that authority is taken back.

(The poll tax - something actually I supported although I was in a tiny minority - would have illustrated this perfectly had it been driven through)