"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[Richard Barrett]

Few can have forgotten her terrible story; it may indeed have acted as a catalyst for the referendum.

Exactly. I don't feel that men have any right to pontificate about what is and isn't appropriate for women in relation to abortion, but just thinking about the prevention of future suffering like that ought to be enough to change opinions.

[ahinton]

Exactly. I don't feel that men have any right to pontificate about what is and isn't appropriate for women in relation to abortion, but just thinking about the prevention of future suffering like that ought to be enough to change opinions.

Indeed and, so far, it clearly has been; let's just hope for some more relaxation of specifics of the new law once it's been introduced and then (or before) that NI sees sense about this and same-sex marriage.

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed and, so far, it clearly has been; let's just hope for some more relaxation of specifics of the new law once it's been introduced and then (or before) that NI sees sense about this and same-sex marriage.

If 'this' and same sex marriage is 'NI seeing sense' why doesn't the NI government just do it and not consult the people of NI?

[jean]

There is no 'NI government' at the moment, Beefy, since power-sharing collapsed.

Theresa May could legislate for them of course, but she is far too scared of the DUP whose support she relies on for a majority at Westminster.

Such is the nonsensical situation we find ourselves in.

[Beef Oven!]

There is no 'NI government' at the moment, Beefy, since power-sharing collapsed.

Theresa May could legislate for them of course, but she is far too scared of the DUP whose support she relies on for a majority at Westminster.

Such is the nonsensical situation we find ourselves in.

Agreed on all counts, but I had put the question to ahinton in theory.

[ahinton]

If 'this' and same sex marriage is 'NI seeing sense' why doesn't the NI government just do it and not consult the people of NI?

A good question to which I do not have the answer; it could and should do just that. Perhaps it's partly because there's less will to do it there (DUP wold be dead against) and partly because there's not really a government there at the moment and, in all probability, one of the last things that May & her henchpeople would want to do - especially while her party's so heavily dependent upon DUP support - is impose it from Westminster in the absence of one.

[ahinton]

Agreed on all counts, but I had put the question to ahinton in theory.

I didn't see jean's answer before posting mine which broadly say the same thing. An answer to your question would have in any case to be in theory until and unless the May government actually sought to do this, which I'm sadly sure that it won't.

[Beef Oven!]

I didn't see jean's answer before posting mine which broadly say the same thing. An answer to your question would have in any case to be in theory until and unless the May government actually sought to do this, which I'm sadly sure that it won't.

But if a government was willing to do that without reference to the people, you'd be happy with that?

[Bryn]

But if a government was willing to do that without reference to the people, you'd be happy with that?

The stumbling block is the DUP. As a 'unionist' party it should be happy to go along with a decision by the U.K. Government. In the case of abortion and same-sex legislation, it seems likely that the people of the U.K., as a whole, would support a cange reflecting the law in England and Wales.

[jean]

But if a government was willing to do that without reference to the people, you'd be happy with that?

Why not?

There was no referendum here in 1967 when David Steel introduced his Bill legalising abortion.

We have no Constitution, so there are no specific provisions which would need a referendum to overturn them before legislation could be initiated.

Besides, the DUP is not the only party at Stormont. And in a poll taken over a year ago, over 70% supported a change in the law.

[Beef Oven!]

Why not?

There was no referendum here in 1967 when David Steel introduced his Bill legalising abortion.

We have no Constitution, so there are no specific provisions which would need a referendum to overturn them before legislation could be initiated.

Besides, the DUP is not the only party at Stormont. And in a poll taken over a year ago, over 70% supported a change in the law.

Why not indeed? I guess the same applies to Brexit.

[ahinton]

But if a government was willing to do that without reference to the people, you'd be happy with that?

Of course! - this would be no different to the passing of any other legislation that involves debating and voting in Parliament although, were it to happen, it would have to be Westminster because it's currently not technically possible in NI itself; I would disagree that this would in any case be a case of action "without reference to the people" insofar as it would be enacted by their elected representatives having first been debated by them and the unelected Lords.

[ahinton]

Why not indeed? I guess the same applies to Brexit.

It does; if it had to be addressed at all (and there seems to have been no reason to do this), the government of the day should have promised in its 2015 General Election manifesto to debate and vote on the issue in both Houses of Parliament instead of to subject it to plebiscite.

[french frank]

Given that the constitutional position on referendums is clear - they are advisory - and that the whole the situation of asking for the electorate's (!) advice and then not taking it seems a nonsense, there seldom seems much point in holding a referendum on anything.

In the case of the Scottish Independence referendum, Parliament voted (as they were entitled to do) to make the result binding (as they failed to do in the case of the EU referendum), and there is a case for allowing a recognisable nation to vote on self-determination. That seemed like a clear enough issue for YES-NO, yet surprisingly there were those who said they were unaware that independence would mean leaving the UK.

[Beef Oven!]

QUOTE=french frank;681713]Given that the constitutional position on referendums is clear - they are advisory - and that the whole the situation of asking for the electorate's (!) advice and then not taking it seems a nonsense, there seldom seems much point in holding a referendum on anything.

I don't think I agree with the 'not taking it' bit. I think that advisory means not binding, but for the purpose of informing government policy/decisions. In the case of our 2016 EU referendum, the government, if it were brave, could have said 51.89/48.11 is inconclusive and as such will observe the status quo (which although is half of the in/out question, that is just a coincidence!). Of course there would have been uproar, but (with hindsight) would have been less dysfunctional than the current situation and easier to manage.

In the case of the Scottish Independence referendum, Parliament voted (as they were entitled to do) to make the result binding (as they failed to do in the case of the EU referendum), and there is a case for allowing a recognisable nation to vote on self-determination. That seemed like a clear enough issue for YES-NO, yet surprisingly there were those who said they were unaware that independence would mean leaving the UK.

I guess some Scots weren't paying attention (it can be tedious, you know).