Arts in the UK post-Brexit

[gurnemanz]

Article 50 was approved in both houses, it's pretty sound legally.

Little to admire in that vote. 70% of MPs were pro-Europe so lots of them were voting for a course of action which they did not believe was in the best interests of our country. They must live with that. Cameron's failed referendum coin-toss has blighted our national life.

[Beef Oven!]

The Article 50 approvals were post-referendum.

The natural order of things, as we'd expect

It's the referendum result itself which was legally non-binding.

As the results of general elections are legally non-binding. All in order - so far, so good

Regardless of politicians' waffle, any U.K. referendum is purely advisory.

As we know

But we ignore the will of the people at our peril

Until recently, referendums in the U.K. were considered unconstitutional.

So referendums are in keeping with the UK constitution, like they are for our European cousins, who go in for them more than we do

The decision to approve Article 50 was entirely the responsibility of the MPs and Lords.

Hurrah for parliamentary democracy, one of the many gifts we have given to the world

The U.K. electorate had no enforceable say in the matter.

They did through their parliamentary representatives who voted article 50 through the HoC and then the HoL (in their role of overseeing and quality assuring the lower house's decisions)

I think I agree with you Bryn that this was a belt and braces democratic process.

[Beef Oven!]

Little to admire in that vote. 70% of MPs were pro-Europe so lots of them were voting for a course of action which they did not believe was in the best interests of our country. They must live with that.

Stop it!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's deja-vu all over again.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's deja-vu all over again.

[french frank]

As the results of general elections are legally non-binding

I'm not sure what this means.

If a General Election candidate in a constituency polls more votes than any other candidate, he or she is elected. That result is legally binding.

Whichever party wins the most Commons seats is entitled to form a government. That result is also binding. Only in the event of no party winning a majority of the seats might negotiations take place to try form alliances, or a coalition, able to carry out a programme of policies through Parliament.

Referendums are different: one view is that in a Parliamentary democracy, referendums can only be advisory unless Parliament has passed an Act, which it may do, stating that they will be bound by the result. The other view is that while the result may be legally no more than advisory, this is purely theoretical since in practice there is little purpose in holding a referendum unless the result is to be respected. However, it has been concluded that: "Referendums are the creations of Parliament and the Government. Parliament and the Government are therefore accountable and must take responsibility for the conduct of referendums, and the fairness of the question, and there should be proper information about, and planning for, either outcome."

There appears to be silence on the matter in the event that there is no 'proper information' about, and 'planning for', either outcome.

Apologies if the debate has now moved on

[french frank]

It's deja-vu all over again.

(I appreciated the drollery)

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not sure what this means.

If a General Election candidate in a constituency polls more votes than any other candidate, he or she is elected. That result is legally binding.

Whichever party wins the most Commons seats is entitled to form a government. That result is also binding. Only in the event of no party winning a majority of the seats might negotiations take place to try form alliances, or a coalition, able to carry out a programme of policies through Parliament.

Referendums are different: one view is that in a Parliamentary democracy, referendums can only be advisory unless Parliament has passed an Act, which it may do, stating that they will be bound by the result. The other view is that while the result may be legally no more than advisory, this is purely theoretical since in practice there is little purpose in holding a referendum unless the result is to be respected. However, it has been concluded that: "Referendums are the creations of Parliament and the Government. Parliament and the Government are therefore accountable and must take responsibility for the conduct of referendums, and the fairness of the question, and there should be proper information about, and planning for, either outcome."

There appears to be silence on the matter in the event that there is no 'proper information' about, and 'planning for', either outcome.

Apologies if the debate has now moved on

To be sure, a government can't be formed without the Queen's consent, even if the result of the general election gives a party an overwhelming majority. It's not legaly binding unless the Queen gives permission - it's up to her really. Just like a referendum isn't binding. It's up to the government. But of course in a mature democracy, we wouldn't dream of denying the will of the people when they have spoken - that goes for the Queen or the Government.

The good news is that a monarch hasn't refused permission to a majority election outcome for more than a hundred years.

[french frank]

To be sure, a government can't be formed without the Queen's consent, even if the result of the general election gives a party an overwhelming majority.

The Queen is a constitutional monarch, as you know. Therefore her 'permission' is merely a constitutional rubber stamp. There is no question of 'Will she, won't she?' - the result binds her to give her consent. Or assent.

You can usually tell a charlatan (in my experience) if they invoke 'the will of the people' argument

[ahinton]

Article 50 was approved in both houses, it's pretty sound legally.

The approval of Article 50 and its invoking might or might not be considered legally sound at present but, if judgements in either the case to be tried in UK's Supreme Court or that being heard in the General Court of EU (or both) favour the cause of the ex-pats in the other 27 EU member states who were all denied the right to vote in the advisory non-legally binding opinion poll that was the UK/EU referendum, Article 50 as well as the referendum and its result could yet be declared null and void on the grounds of illegality, thereby forcing the UK government either to abandon Brexit altogether or to start the entire shebang all over again, so we'll simply have to wait and see. The former case was thrown out by a lower court in Edinburgh earlier this year but, following appeal, it is now to go to the Supreme Court.

[ahinton]

the results of general elections are legally non-binding

Really? So they can be ignored and any change of government vote for by the electorate can be overturned as it has no legal validity? That's a new one on me; when did such a case ever actually happen in UK?

But we ignore the will of the people at our peril

But even leaving aside the lies (on both sides, but more on the Leave side that the Remain side), the absence of sufficient reliable information on the raft of subjects that UK leaving EU raises and the extent to which they influenced the way in which people voted, how long is this "will" supposed to hold good? In General Election terms, it's five years maximum, yet those who reiterate "the will of the people" as if a mantra would seem to wish to have us all believe that, in this instance, that will is permanent and cannot ever change.

So referendums are in keeping with the UK constitution, like they are for our European cousins, who go in for them more than we do

The UK constitution is so far unwritten; whether any particular referendum actually is unconstitutional or not must surely be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, IMHO, one that offers the single overly simplistic question of "in/out" in respect of a vastly complex set of issues that will impact upon UK for generations and in respect of which woefully little reliable information was provided to the electorate (not least in the wilful sidelining of the fact of the referendum's advisory non-legally binding status) is arguably about as unconstitutional - not to mention undemocratic - as it can get.

Hurrah for parliamentary democracy, one of the many gifts we have given to the world

Indeed; such a pity, then, that it was abandoned to plebiscite in this instance when Parliamentary democratic procedures customarily involve debating and voting in both Houses of Parliament where MPs and Lords who are paid to do this and MPs who are also democratically elected to do this ouoght to have exercised their minds in so doing rather than passing the buck of responsibility to the electorate.

They did through their parliamentary representatives who voted article 50 through the HoC and then the HoL (in their role of overseeing and quality assuring the lower house's decisions)

The Parliamentary representatives saw Article 50 through both Houses of Parliament without consulting the electorate; if that was correct and acceptable procedure, why didn't they do the same for the matter itself instead of holding a referendum on it and depending upon the electorate to tell them what to do?

I think I agree with you Bryn that this was a belt and braces democratic process.

If indeed it was, the belt has been so tightened by austerity and the braces so long since snapped that any sense of "democratic process" that might otherwise have stood any chance of association therewith has long since evaporated.

Indeed, should either or both of the two court cases mentioned in my previous post succeed and the entire Brexit business be forced to go up in smoke as a direct consequence, the electorate's view of the government that promised and launched the referendum and made such a pig's ear of subsequent "negotiations" will plummet once they realise that said government didn't even give a thought to whether any of its had a sound legal basis and, for that matter, its trust in the main opposition which did nothing to oppose the government in these matters will likewise fall away, from both of which consequences a hung Parliament following the next General Election or three might seem inevitable but, far more seriously, the damage that will be done to UK's reputation and economy will likely be immense.

[ahinton]

To be sure, a government can't be formed without the Queen's consent, even if the result of the general election gives a party an overwhelming majority. It's not legaly binding unless the Queen gives permission - it's up to her really. Just like a referendum isn't binding. It's up to the government. But of course in a mature democracy, we wouldn't dream of denying the will of the people when they have spoken - that goes for the Queen or the Government.

The good news is that a monarch hasn't refused permission to a majority election outcome for more than a hundred years.

Whilst all of that is true, the fundamental difference is that, whilst the Queen's consent is required for the formation of a government, it is not required for the implementation of a referendum result; this is because, as ff correctly points out,

If a General Election candidate in a constituency polls more votes than any other candidate, he or she is elected. That result is legally binding.

Whichever party wins the most Commons seats is entitled to form a government. That result is also binding. Only in the event of no party winning a majority of the seats might negotiations take place to try form alliances, or a coalition, able to carry out a programme of policies through Parliament.

So there is a difference between the legally binding status of General Election results and referendum results.

[Old Grumpy]

The approval of Article 50 and its invoking might or might not be considered legally sound at present but, if judgements in either the case to be tried in UK's Supreme Court or that being heard in the General Court of EU (or both) favour the cause of the ex-pats in the other 27 EU member states who were all denied the right to vote in the advisory non-legally binding opinion poll that was the UK/EU referendum, Article 50 as well as the referendum and its result could yet be declared null and void on the grounds of illegality, thereby forcing the UK government either to abandon Brexit altogether or to start the entire shebang all over again, so we'll simply have to wait and see. The former case was thrown out by a lower court in Edinburgh earlier this year but, following appeal, it is now to go to the Supreme Court.

Could be interesting.

OG

[ahinton]

Could be interesting.

OG

It could indeed. Either case could go either way, of course, but it remains a matter for no small degree of perplexity that the government that had the temerity to introduce this advisory non-legally binding public opinion poll into the legislative fray seems to have seen no reason to consider such issues before so doing - and it might well prove to be its successor's UNdoing. The lack of challenge from the main opposition serves only to make the entire problem that much worse in terms of the trust that the electorate can place in the government and opposition of the day which is alone a dangerous thing...

[muzzer]

Theorising aside, we’re all going to find out in relatively short order what it means. And whatever one’s view on the merits, none of us will have any tangible influence over that outcome. That in itself I find profoundly depressing and that is what I also believe will be the long term legacy of this lunacy.