|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 12:37:16 GMT
David Cameron when he announced the outcome of the referendum would be honored, made it legally binding, as he spoke on behalf of the serving government, who would not have allowed him to commit to such a 'promise' if they weren't going to honor it. no, he did not. That isn't how it works The AV Referendum, in Brown’s mad arsed intent to rob Peter to pay paul, WAS binding. It was declared as so. Why, i don’t remember. But had it not been given the kicking it was given we would have been stuck with it The 2016 referendum was advisory. David Lammy was the first to say so and call for it to be ignored. Which says a lot about professional black labour politicians. If it was legally binding, the Brexiters could have taken Parliament to court and made them enforce the outcome. Why didn't they? Did they forget? Were they busy that day? Or was it because it wasn't legally binding? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 12:40:50 GMT
Stop being bloody ridiculous. 1) Even if there was a contract, the constitution trumps a mere contract. 2) The only way that Cameron could have made a contract on behalf of Parliament is if he was Parliament's agent. He wasn't Parliament's principal. 3) You seem to think that the UK is a dictatorship where the PM rules, not Parliament. It isn't. Cameron could no more make a contract on behalf of Parliament than I could make a contract that binds you. Which constitution would that be Einstein? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 12:43:00 GMT
Stop being bloody ridiculous. 1) Even if there was a contract, the constitution trumps a mere contract. 2) The only way that Cameron could have made a contract on behalf of Parliament is if he was Parliament's agent. He wasn't Parliament's principal. 3) You seem to think that the UK is a dictatorship where the PM rules, not Parliament. It isn't. Cameron could no more make a contract on behalf of Parliament than I could make a contract that binds you. Which constitution would that be Einstein? The constitution the Supreme Court relied on when they said that Boris couldn't prorogue Parliament. Just a quick reminder: In Latin, the same word means sheep and simpleton. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 11, 2023 12:43:46 GMT
I told you. The 2016 referendum was not binding. The statute (or was it a statutory instrument, i forget and it really does not matter) bringing it in said so.
The bill bringing the AV referendum said the current government were bound to implement the result.
In reality that’s all such a bill can do as i am sure you know no act of parliament can bind a future parliament. They can only make it impossibly expensive or politically incorrect to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 12:44:30 GMT
Which constitution would that be Einstein? The constitution the Supreme Court relied on when they said that Boris couldn't prorogue Parliament. Just a quick reminder: In Latin, the same word means sheep and simpleton. So they made one up on the spot then! So I ask again which constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 12:46:31 GMT
I told you. The 2016 referendum was not binding. The statute (or was it a statutory instrument, i forget and it really does not matter) bringing it in said so. The bill bringing the AV referendum said the current government were bound to implement the result. In reality that’s all such a bill can do as i am sure you know no act of parliament can bind a future parliament. They can only make it impossibly expensive or politically incorrect to do so. How many times do you need to be told: the cornerstone of the UK Constitution is that no parliament can bind a future parliament. It wouldn't have mattered if everyone present had signed the bill in blood. It still wouldn't have bound a future Parliament to give effect to the result. That decision was for the future Parliament and them alone. What more proof do you need that it wasn't binding than the fact that the Brexiters weren't able to bring legal action to have the result enforced? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 12:55:02 GMT
Show me this written constitution?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 12:58:04 GMT
Show me this written constitution? Bit difficult, given that it's unwritten. You can find plenty of judicial precedents to the effect that one Parliament can't bind another, I'm sure. If you want a break down of what a PM (like Cameron) is allowed to do on Parliament's behalf, take a look at the SC's judgment in the decision handed down when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 12:59:22 GMT
Show me this written constitution? Bit difficult, given that it's unwritten. You can find plenty of judicial precedents to the effect that one Parliament can't bind another, I'm sure. If you want a break down of what a PM (like Cameron) is allowed to do on Parliament's behalf, take a look at the SC's judgment in the decision handed down when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament. So it doesn't exist then so you made that up as well. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 13:01:33 GMT
So it's a word of honour rather than legally binding? Yes, I accept that. It's in writing ffs. There is the big difference Einstein. We had it put in writing. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 13:02:06 GMT
Bit difficult, given that it's unwritten. You can find plenty of judicial precedents to the effect that one Parliament can't bind another, I'm sure. If you want a break down of what a PM (like Cameron) is allowed to do on Parliament's behalf, take a look at the SC's judgment in the decision handed down when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament. So it doesn't exist then so you made that up as well. Yep, that's what I did. It's always an intellectual treat chatting with you, Sheeps, but I've got to run. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 11, 2023 13:02:39 GMT
I told you. The 2016 referendum was not binding. The statute (or was it a statutory instrument, i forget and it really does not matter) bringing it in said so. The bill bringing the AV referendum said the current government were bound to implement the result. In reality that’s all such a bill can do as i am sure you know no act of parliament can bind a future parliament. They can only make it impossibly expensive or politically incorrect to do so. How many times do you need to be told: the cornerstone of the UK Constitution is that no parliament can bind a future parliament. It wouldn't have mattered if everyone present had signed the bill in blood. It still wouldn't have bound a future Parliament to give effect to the result. That decision was for the future Parliament and them alone. What more proof do you need that it wasn't binding than the fact that the Brexiters weren't able to bring legal action to have the result enforced? hang on, i think we are actually making the same point. I thought your earlier post was asking a question but in fact having read it again you were not asking a question were you. You might like to read this, by the way en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendumIt explains this was the ONLY referendum ever held that has a status other than advisory. It was the first referendum brought under the PPERA 2000 and it DID contain a clause specifically binding the government to abide by its decision. I presume, but i do not know, if the government of the day committed by their own words and deeds to abide by the word of the people chose after the result NOT to do so, it would be a confidence issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 13:05:19 GMT
How many times do you need to be told: the cornerstone of the UK Constitution is that no parliament can bind a future parliament. It wouldn't have mattered if everyone present had signed the bill in blood. It still wouldn't have bound a future Parliament to give effect to the result. That decision was for the future Parliament and them alone. What more proof do you need that it wasn't binding than the fact that the Brexiters weren't able to bring legal action to have the result enforced? hang on, i think we are actually naking tbe same point. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 13:17:56 GMT
So it doesn't exist then so you made that up as well. Yep, that's what I did. It's always an intellectual treat chatting with you, Sheeps, but I've got to run. Pretty much, but then I am not to blame for your lack of knowledge and your making stuff up to cover for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 14:19:54 GMT
David Cameron when he announced the outcome of the referendum would be honored, made it legally binding, as he spoke on behalf of the serving government, who would not have allowed him to commit to such a 'promise' if they weren't going to honor it. no, he did not. That isn't how it works The AV Referendum, in Brown’s mad arsed intent to rob Peter to pay paul, WAS binding. It was declared as so. Why, i don’t remember. But had it not been given the kicking it was given we would have been stuck with it The 2016 referendum was advisory. David Lammy was the first to say so and call for it to be ignored. Which says a lot about professional black labour politicians. Ok so work this out, the vote came in for Leave, then Cameron said 'no was only honoring it, if it was a vote to Remain'.
Cameron made a promise to the electorate he would honor the result regardless, he can not back track on that 'promise', once he made it, even if he did back track it would be challenged in the high courts, and guess what, he would lose, and the vote for Leave would be 'legally binding', people really don't know the law, they only 'think' what the law 'should' be.
|
|
