|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:36:50 GMT
LOL! It was an advisory referendum. Thanks for your guidance, by the way. An advisory referendum can be a mandatory referendum, and a man can be a woman. You've liberated the English language, and the transgender movement thanks you for your efforts. Not quite my little robotic chum. LOL - an excellent point. If a Man is now a Woman then an advisory referendum is obviously a mandatory referendum.. ..makes perfect sense..  You catch on quick, Doc. Good man! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:37:31 GMT
So the promise of the Prime Minister that the referendum decision would be implemented didn't count? So let me take you back some 40 years when the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson made the same promise that Labour would honour the result; sure enough, they did and we remained in. What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Yes it did, the moment David Cameron declared the outcome of the referendum would be 'honored' he had legally set it in stone, he would be guilty of misleading the people, that is why people went out to vote, on the understanding the vote would be 'legally binding', and thanks to Cameron... it was. ... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:39:15 GMT
What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Yes it did, the moment David Cameron declared the outcome of the referendum would be 'honored' he had legally set it in stone, he would be guilty of misleading the people, that is why people went out to vote, on the understanding the vote would be 'legally binding', and thanks to Cameron... it was. ... LOL Right. There's no point. You don't understand even the basics of the constitution. An entire Parliament cannot 'set it in stone' under the constitution, let alone a single member of parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:40:21 GMT
Yes it did, the moment David Cameron declared the outcome of the referendum would be 'honored' he had legally set it in stone, he would be guilty of misleading the people, that is why people went out to vote, on the understanding the vote would be 'legally binding', and thanks to Cameron... it was. ... LOL Right. There's no point. You don't understand even the basics of the constitution. An entire Parliament cannot 'set it in stone' under the constitution, let alone a single member of parliament. I understand that you don't understand the process of advisory, legally binding and honor... never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:41:05 GMT
What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Yes it did, the moment David Cameron declared the outcome of the referendum would be 'honored' he had legally set it in stone, he would be guilty of misleading the people, that is why people went out to vote, on the understanding the vote would be 'legally binding', and thanks to Cameron... it was. ... LOL Sunak cannot make a statement tomorrow saying that Parliament will vote a certain way on an issue next week. It's not his decision. He can't speak on behalf of Parliament. Nor could David Cameron. He had no authority under the constitution to promise that Parliament would vote to accept the result. None whatsoever. It was not 'set in stone' - that's legally impossible under the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jun 11, 2023 10:41:38 GMT
The only person you vote for is the representative of your constituency. We tend to look past that and consider ourselves voting for a party, but that’s just people not understanding our democratic system correctly. Exactly we do not vote on who should be PM, that is the domain of their MP's in their party |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:43:10 GMT
Yes it did, the moment David Cameron declared the outcome of the referendum would be 'honored' he had legally set it in stone, he would be guilty of misleading the people, that is why people went out to vote, on the understanding the vote would be 'legally binding', and thanks to Cameron... it was. ... LOL Sunak cannot make a statement tomorrow saying that Parliament will vote a certain way on an issue next week. It's not his decision. He can't speak on behalf of Parliament. Nor could David Cameron. He had no authority under the constitution to promise that Parliament would vote to accept the result. None whatsoever. It was not 'set in stone' - that's legally impossible under the constitution. So using your logic, we all go out and vote at the next GE and the Tories win, but then Labour cancel the vote because it was just 'advisory', and we want another GE, the point of referendum results, and GE results they are honored, and without being in name, are 'legally binding' on the outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 11, 2023 10:44:16 GMT
So the promise of the Prime Minister that the referendum decision would be implemented didn't count? So let me take you back some 40 years when the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson made the same promise that Labour would honour the result; sure enough, they did and we remained in. What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Well you would say that but I know and you know that had Remain won, Cameron would have remained in the EU and almost certainly remained as PM. I know a promise when it's made, especially by a Prime Minister and particularly when the government publication said: This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:44:34 GMT
Sunak cannot make a statement tomorrow saying that Parliament will vote a certain way on an issue next week. It's not his decision. He can't speak on behalf of Parliament. Nor could David Cameron. He had no authority under the constitution to promise that Parliament would vote to accept the result. None whatsoever. It was not 'set in stone' - that's legally impossible under the constitution. So using your logic, we all go out and vote at the next GE and the Tories win, but then Labour cancel the vote because it was just 'advisory', and we want another GE, the point of referendum results, and GE results they are honored, and without being in name, are 'legally binding' on the outcome. LOL!!! Did you finish school, Fairy? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:45:26 GMT
So using your logic, we all go out and vote at the next GE and the Tories win, but then Labour cancel the vote because it was just 'advisory', and we want another GE, the point of referendum results, and GE results they are honored, and without being in name, are 'legally binding' on the outcome. LOL!!! Did you finish school, Fairy? Serious question. Have you even started school, Darling? serious question ........ LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:46:31 GMT
What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Well you would say that but I know and you know that had Remain won, Cameron would have remained in the EU and almost certainly remained as PM. I know a promise when it's made, especially by a Prime Minister and particularly when the government publication said: This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide. No point, Darling and andrew no understandie. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:46:50 GMT
What David Cameron said about honouring the outcome of the referendum did not change its legal status of it being advisory. Or are you trying to say it does? FS's assertion that the referendum was not advisory was plainly wrong. Well you would say that but I know and you know that had Remain won, Cameron would have remained in the EU and almost certainly remained as PM. I know a promise when it's made, especially by a Prime Minister and particularly when the government publication said: This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide. LOL! Sunak can't promise that Parliament will vote a certain way next week. He has no authority to make that promise. It's up to Parliament to decide how it will vote. When Johnson tried to take the vote away from Parliament, his actions were struck down by the Supreme Court. If a Leaver had been stupid enough to take a court action on the basis that Cameron had the right to promise away the right of Parliament to vote on result of the referendum, his action would have met exactly the same fate as Johnson's. A PRIME MINISTER CANNOT PROMISE THAT PARLIAMENT WILL ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY. CAMERON HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROMISE THAT PARLIAMENT WOULD VOTE TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME OF THE REFERENDUM. THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 10:47:33 GMT
LOL!!! Did you finish school, Fairy? Serious question. Have you even started school, Darling? serious question ........ LOL All banter, joking, insults, etc., aside, did you finish school? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 10:48:51 GMT
Have you even started school, Darling? serious question ........ LOL All banter, joking, insults, etc., aside, did you finish school? All banter, joking, insults, etc., aside, when do you start school?l... seriously |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 11, 2023 10:49:55 GMT
The UK referendum was not advisory Errm, yes it was. States a remnant who could see ambiguity in a simple binary choice.Funny it was only the remnants who saw that. Never mind hash I am sure lefty central will conjure up more bullshit for their captive numpties.. |
|
