Labour and antisemitism

[Bryn]

I am sure Lord Sumption and many government ministers would agree with you - on the other hand the development of administrative law in this country has led to vastly improved decision-making by public bodies although it remains all too often unlawful.

That is simply not the point - the Court of Appeal was apparently making the point that it was satisfied that had the referendum been binding ( like the AV referendum was) rather than advisory and would therefore have had the effect that we had to , as a matter of law , leave the EU it would have been quashed for electoral fraud and breaches of electoral law - just as a Parliamentary election is liable to be . What saved the Government was that as the referendum was only advisory it was for the Government to decided how much weight to give to it .

Hence , the point is that it is a denial of democracy to either have a ratification referendum or for an elected government to revoke A50 is absurd . It may be politically wise or unwise but it is perfectly democratic. A country ceases to be a democracy when it loses the right to change its mind on the basis of a corrupted advisory referendum.

It would be quite open for Brexit supporters to seek at the next general election to elect Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party or UKIP and its band of Islamophobic fascists or to be a part of Purple Momentum and seek to take the Conservative party over entirely and for a government to be elected that chooses to leave the EU .

Beautifully put.

[Lat-Literal]

I am sure Lord Sumption and many government ministers would agree with you - on the other hand the development of administrative law in this country has led to vastly improved decision-making by public bodies although it remains all too often unlawful.

That is simply not the point - the Court of Appeal was apparently making the point that it was satisfied that had the referendum been binding ( like the AV referendum was) rather than advisory and would therefore have had the effect that we had to , as a matter of law , leave the EU it would have been quashed for electoral fraud and breaches of electoral law - just as a Parliamentary election is liable to be . What saved the Government was that as the referendum was only advisory it was for the Government to decided how much weight to give to it .

Hence , the point is that it is a denial of democracy to either have a ratification referendum or for an elected government to revoke A50 is absurd . It may be politically wise or unwise but it is perfectly democratic. A country ceases to be a democracy when it loses the right to change its mind on the basis of a corrupted advisory referendum.

It would be quite open for Brexit supporters to seek at the next general election to elect Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party or UKIP and its band of Islamophobic fascists or to be a part of Purple Momentum and seek to take the Conservative party over entirely and for a government to be elected that chooses to leave the EU .

As I previously indicated, there is not to my knowledge any precedent for a Government in the UK making a referendum binding. Cameron's Government - the worst Government in my lifetime imo - had hoped to overturn the rule book in terms of the AV referendum, much as Nick Clegg decided that established rules in regard to the Monarchy should be overturned because he said so. However, the House of Lords introduced an amendment which gave the decision on whether the referendum on AV was binding to the electorate. That is to say it would depend on a threshold of turnout. If sufficient numbers of people voted, then it would be binding and if sufficient numbers didn't vote, then it would not be. As things transpired, enough people did vote to make the result binding but that was the people's decision - to bother to turn out rather than simply to stay at home which took some doing given that AV has never been proper PR - and there was nothing intrinsic in the architecture of the referendum which ran counter to the tradition of all referenda having at least the scope to be advisory. Consequently, if the EU referendum had been designed to be unequivocally legally binding, all precedents would have been overturned and for political reasons of one way or another.

From what I can gather, your line seems to parrot that of Lord Norton. But it was, of course, open to the Lords to introduce an amendment for the EU referendum which would have similarly placed in the hands of the electorate the decision as to whether the outcome would be binding or not, that is, dependent on whether the level of turnout had crossed a specified threshold. In contrast with AV, the Lords did not do this in the case of the EU referendum. So to suggest that had the referendum been binding the outcome could have been quashed by the Electoral Commission or whoever is to be wandering in the area of theoreticals for which there is no democratic precedent. The arrangements for the referendum were entirely in line with what had practically and actually occurred before. In this light, voters had a reasonable expectation that their advisory majority decision would be treated in the same way as those in earlier referenda which was for the result to be accepted and followed through as necessary in the Commons. That reasonable expectation was further compounded by Prime Minister Cameron's assertion beforehand that the result would stand, by the triggering of Article 50 by the vast majority of MPs and at the election by the Conservative and Labour manifestos.

[Barbirollians]

As I previously indicated, there is not to my knowledge any precedent for a Government in the UK making a referendum binding. Cameron's Government - the worst Government in my lifetime - had hoped to overturn the rule book in respect of the AV referendum, much as Nick Clegg decided that established rules in regard to the Monarchy should be overturned because he said so. However, the House of Lords introduced an amendment which gave the decision on whether the referendum on AV was binding to the electorate. That is to say it would depend on a threshold of turnout. If sufficient numbers of people voted, then it would be binding and if sufficient numbers didn't vote, then it would not be. As things transpired, enough people did vote to make the result binding but that was the people's decision - to bother to turn out rather than simply to stay at home and it took some doing given that AV has never been proper PR - and there was nothing intrinsic in the architecture of the referendum which ran counter the tradition of all referenda having at least the scope to be advisory.



Consequently, if the EU referendum had been designed to be unequivocally legally binding, all precedents would have been overturned for political reasons of one way or another. From what I can gather, your line seems to parrot that of Lord Norton. But it was, of course, open to the Lords to introduce an amendment on the EU referendum which would similarly place in the hands of the electorate the decision as to whether the outcome would be binding or not, dependent on whether the level of turnout had crossed a specified threshold. In contrast with AV, the Lords did not do this in the case of the EU referendum.

So to suggest that had the referendum been binding the outcome could have been quashed by the Electoral Commission or whoever is to be wandering in the area of theoreticals for which there is no democratic precedent. The arrangements for the referendum were entirely in line with what had practically and actually occurred before. In this light, voters had a reasonable expectation that their advisory majority decision would be treated in the same way as all advisory majority decisions in earlier referenda which was that the result would be accepted and followed through as necessary in the Commons. That reasonable expectation was compounded by Prime Minister Cameron's assertion beforehand that the result would be honoured, by the triggering of Article 50 by the vast majority of MPs and by the statements at the last election in both the Conservative and Labour manifestos.

I am sorry that is simply wrong . The Referendum Act 2015 is entirely silent on what the Government was to do as a result of it - it was therefore no more than an advisory referendum / The Government of the day then sent out a pack to everyone saying they intended to abide by it - but that was just a matter of politics not law .

There is no scope for the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectations - substantive legitimate expectation in law is a concept that may apply to individuals but not to the whole population and requires a change of position to the detriment of the individual as a result of the expectation e.g a local authority promises a prospective tenant a particular house but has not yet granted her a tenancy - as a result she turns down an offer from a housing association only for the local authority to try and renege on the offer . There is no scope for reading that into a statute especially an EU referendum where there are myriad possible types of Brexit.

The point is that had the referendum been a binding referendum then it would have been quashed as unlawful as it there were so many infringements of electoral law . As it was merely advisory May could take it into account when making her decision and how much weight she gave to it was a matter for her and Parliament in approving serving the notice under A50 .

[Lat-Literal]

I am sorry that is simply wrong . The Referendum Act 2015 is entirely silent on what the Government was to do as a result of it - it was therefore no more than an advisory referendum / The Government of the day then sent out a pack to everyone saying they intended to abide by it - but that was just a matter of politics not law .

There is no scope for the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectations - substantive legitimate expectation in law is a concept that may apply to individuals but not to the whole population and requires a change of position to the detriment of the individual as a result of the expectation e.g a local authority promises a prospective tenant a particular house but has not yet granted her a tenancy - as a result she turns down an offer from a housing association only for the local authority to try and renege on the offer . There is no scope for reading that into a statute especially an EU referendum where there are myriad possible types of Brexit.

The point is that had the referendum been a binding referendum then it would have been quashed as unlawful as it there were so many infringements of electoral law . As it was merely advisory May could take it into account when making her decision and how much weight she gave to it was a matter for her and Parliament in approving serving the notice under A50 .

Which part is wrong? Are you suggesting that the question about whether the AV referendum was binding or not wasn't wholly dependent on turnout and therefore based on a decision by the people on whether they wished to vote in sufficient numbers? That is, because of an amendment introduced by the House of Lords? Because the House of Lords did introduce that amendment and in doing so it insisted that there was the scope for an advisory outcome should the turnout be considered as they saw it too low. No Government has ever introduced a binding referendum which lacks provisos and it is the provisos in the case of the AV referendum which provided an advisory possibilty before it was handed over to the public to decide.

As for point two:

I am not suggesting by using the phrase "reasonable expectation" that there was anything legally binding in the outcome of the EU referendum but I put it in that slightly legalistic sounding way because the law insists on getting so close to political decision making. Just because political contracts between those who govern and the governed are not set in stone does not mean that they are without consequence. On one level, there is merely an impact on trust in individuals and parties. On another, it is that everyone knows that if and when it substantially breaks down, the future of the law and an ability for law enforcement goes with it too. That is precisely why everything on democracy isn't written down in law or spoken. National security depends both on trust and a safe conspiracy of nobody ever mentioning revolution. The fact that it is generally assumed doesn't mean that it is an automatic given.

[Lat-Literal]

Incidentally, this is all my own work - and reasoning - although I am not a qualified lawyer. But, I think it is pretty nifty and as such it may be why I am being told that I am wrong although I doubt that I am. If right, what it does is remove any idea that there is a precedent for a Government providing a binding referendum without provisos because of the arrangements for the AV referendum as any binding aspect to the AV referendum did come with provisos. They came with the provisos that the referendum would be advisory if the people decided not to vote in enough numbers. It was the people's decision. Consequently, a second EU referendum is not only on dodgy ground in terms of public views about democracy, especially if it were to be made binding without provisos, but if it were made binding without provisos it would be entirely unprecedented in legal and constitutional terms.

So then it naturally goes to the "what if?" of a Government declaring that it would be binding if turnout met a certain threshold. I believe in the case of AV that was 40%. And the answer to that "what if?" is that leavers would be best advised politically to refrain from voting in order to ensure along with natural non-voters that it failed to get over that threshold. It's absolutely superb. Consequently, it would have to come down to a second advisory referendum only - probably in legal terms as well as political - and then you are back on respective percentages for the options on offer with no added substance. That is, other than some window dressing about everyone now knowing what leaving amounts to which is all opinion. Just because there is or could be a deal on the ballot paper doesn't mean that voters in the round are any clearer and we'll never know unless we are going to test them all.

[teamsaint]

I think that the fraudulent elements of the referendum are, in practice, a bit of a red herring.

Far more important to focus on the practical factors, the most significant one being that the level of constitutional change being sought does not reflect the narrowness of the vote, and the broad nature of the referendum question, as well as its non binding status.
Nobody has a moral right to define a course of action narrowly in these circumstances, and that includes the PM, and the Labour party.

IMO ( as one who thinks that the original referendum was a date with destiny that had been a long time coming, and was going to happen sometime or other) this ought to go back to the democratic judgement of the country ( not fetishising but respecting) in a straight choice between the real WA on offer ( which might yet get amended through cross party negotiation/ compromise) and the status quo.

[MrGongGong]

To use your phrase - I have no idea what you are talking about. I have absolutely no interest in the Birmingham 6 and I doubt that I have ever written anything about them. At most of the 13 Pogues concerts I attended, there was a song about them. Apart from that, my only connection with the IRA is having fortunately been on holiday as a child when the bomb went off in Caterham because had I not been, there was a very fair chance that I would have been blown to bits. So the bridge building on my part between 1975 and 1987 was considerable. As previously mentioned, I did write 4,000 words on the history of Northern Ireland when at university in 1985 but the Birmingham 6 were not mentioned in it. I have just checked.

So this

As I say, I really genuinely don't care if the national economy and my own personal finances are slaughtered in this process because I place democracy above the economy and my life.

Is nonsense
Thanks for confirming it

You obviously aren't interested in a "democratic" legal process that gave rise to a gross miscarriage of justice then
Interesting how something you would be prepared to die for can be a bit flawed (which is a gross understatement)

[french frank]

it does is remove any idea that there is a precedent for a Government providing a binding referendum without provisos because of the arrangements for the AV referendum as any binding aspect to the AV referendum did come with provisos … I believe in the case of AV that was 40%.

Could you quote the Section that requires a quota? I can't see it at the moment. The turnout was 42%, being particularly low in areas where there were no other elections taking place. It was certainly binding because it was written into the Bill and Parliament voted for it:

§8 (1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 andPart 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—

(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament undersubsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to HerMajesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

and (3) An order under subsection (1)— (a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day asthe coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection

[Lat-Literal]

Could you quote the Section that requires a quota? I can't see it at the moment. The turnout was 42%, being particularly low in areas where there were no other elections taking place. It was certainly binding because it was written into the Bill and Parliament voted for it:

§8 (1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 andPart 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—

(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament undersubsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to HerMajesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

and (3) An order under subsection (1)— (a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day asthe coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection

I will come back to these posts in due course. I hope to go again to Womad this year. It seems very unlikely given my parents' positions and my own failing health which makes the prospect of camping seem unwise. Still, I am absolutely committed to the cultural angle which I have a natural leaning towards. I have become very used now to being on my own in a range of scenarios. I'm aware that people don't necessarily talk unless I speak with them. It doesn't spoil my enjoyment and to the extent that I choose to speak with anyone, it is to people of ethnicity who are clearly in the tiny minority as was the case tonight and I do so to incorporate. There was also a fabulous man who could only make strange sounds, given his condition, and some turned to glare. Not me. I was amazed how his sounds which many thought inappropriate had an uncanny alignment with the music. It was interesting and human.

I am benevolence personified.

But I am absolutely sick to death as a man of white working class origins of the political attitudes of middle class liberals and I can entirely separate these two things out. I feel under attack from them and my attack back would be to vote for UKIP or the BNP. I feel sorry for the people who will suffer as a consequence and as someone who is single I doubt that they will do me any favours. But intellectually and emotionally I cannot in any way accept a Guardian readership which acts as if it is a dictatorship and I want it smashed to smithereens, preferably economically, so that it is so shaken up it will never behave in the way that is has behaved for far too long. I am completely genuine in this position and totally unapologetic. I hate them and consider them warped. And there is no point in trying to discuss issues rationally with such people. I want them to fear for their lives and the lives of their children. Because I don't feel that they stand for multiracialism as I do or the disadvantaged as I do. I feel they just stand for their wallets in just the same way as Rees-Mogg and his cronies.

[Barbirollians]

Could you quote the Section that requires a quota? I can't see it at the moment. The turnout was 42%, being particularly low in areas where there were no other elections taking place. It was certainly binding because it was written into the Bill and Parliament voted for it:

§8 (1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 andPart 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—

(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament undersubsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to HerMajesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

and (3) An order under subsection (1)— (a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day asthe coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection

There was no quota . It is a great shame there wasn’t one in the EU referendum and a requirement for all four nations of the UK to have a majority to leave.