• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quakkerillo

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2015
Messages
553
So it was the will of the people and now it's the fault of the E.U ?

Regarding the will of the people: The referendum on the European Constitution in France ( 2004 ) was won by the 'no's' by 54.67 % to the 'yes's 44.33%. This result was ignored by the centre-right government in power and the treaty was ratified. A much bigger majority against than the winning margin of those in favor of Brexit. Clearly the referendum result was not considered binding. Why then is it against the will of the people to refuse to blindly leave the E.U with no defined terms ? Voting leave did not mean blindly leaving the E.U in any circumstances. The referendum was botched. A refusal to admit this just shows ignorance and stupidity. We've been over this so many times and it saddens me in the extreme that such a big decision is being taken with no clear majority. There will be no going back and the U.K deserves all the pain it is going to receive.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make up stories. The referendum was held in May 2005, followed by a Dutch referendum 2 days later. Both showed a no vote, resulting in a quick abandonment of the European Constitution treaty by the EU, looking for a new way forward.
The constitution did NOT get to a vote in the French or Dutch parliaments and senates, and did NOT get ratified.
Your claim that it was ignored by the French government and ratified against the vote of the people is blatantly a lie, and just feeding anti-European sentiments by making up your own stories.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
I do remember some scathing criticism of Brown, when he took over from Blair without a general election.

In particular, from, uh, Johnson...

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...how-boris-johnson-described-gordon-brown-2007
The big difference with Brown taking over from Blair is that there was no major change to government policy, which was still broadly in line with the manifesto people voted for (although every government has to respond to events, in this case the financial crisis). May taking over from Cameron was a bit different but explicable by Cameron's core policy being voted down by the public and the mandate to seek withdrawal. Johnson taking over from May has resulted in major changes to government policy, not necessary to deal with world events and not sanctioned by the electorate.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,009
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
Been on holiday, so late to the party, but:

I doubt we'll have rulings handed down from the US Supreme Court influencing our affairs; nor do I expect we'll be forced to allow US citizens to live and work here; nor do I expect the US will prohibit us from agreeing trade agreements with any other nation; nor do I expect we will have to pay £10bn a year for access to their market; nor do I expect the US will determine how many hours per week our employees can work; nor do I think they will attempt to determine what hour we set our clocks to (I could go on but I'm sure you get the gist). Other than that it will be just the same as our current relationship with the EU. :D

3 years on and we still have people believing this. Incomprehensible

UK governments have successively abrogated their responsibilities on a cumulative basis over a wide range of policy areas that are now effectively outside the UK Parliament's control.

So, when all the time, if it hadn't been lazy then it could have (and did have the power to) carried out all of these regulations themselves, yet you blame the EU for imposing it on us when they had to be the adult and do the job because the UK Government couldn't be bothered themselves
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,161
Should we ask that people replace Remoaner with Remaineer? :)
What are they gonna call remainers when we've left, and at that point the referendum result is null and void as we've done what was asked, and we form parties wanting to rejoin (with or without a referendum)? Rejoiners is the obvious one, but I'm sure they will have a less polite term!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,373
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
So, when all the time, if it hadn't been lazy then it could have (and did have the power to) carried out all of these regulations themselves, yet you blame the EU for imposing it on us when they had to be the adult and do the job because the UK Government couldn't be bothered themselves

Once the act of leaving the EU is finally done and dusted, the UK will be left alone with its very own various political incompetencies, not having anyone else to blame. The country can vote to 'escape' the EU but it can never vote to escape itself and its myriad problems.
 

Pyreneenguy

Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
327
. Whenever builders work an 80 hour week to add an extension to our house in Surrey, liberated from the tyrrany of the working time directive, we will be thankful for their sacrifice.

Tyranny of the Working Time Directive. LOL.
 
Last edited:

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
Not being an expert on the UK constitution (for what it’s worth), how easy is it to extend such a prorogation?

That just wouldn't happen. The Queen is now booked for the State Opening of Parliament, and you don't play games with her tour diary! :)

But that’s the only problem? Doesn’t she have to do as told by the pm?

The Queen's set the date. She's only allowed to act on the advice given to her, and the current Prime Minister isn't likely to change his mind.

I don't believe that the date can be changed once Parliament is prorogued. If a different Prime Minister came along before then, and gave differing advice, it may be practical to cancel the proroguing. But don't quote me on that.

Here's something that is quotable, from the now-online version of Erskine May:
When Parliament stands summoned (after a dissolution) or prorogued to a certain day, it may be prorogued or further prorogued to a later day, under the Prorogation Act 1867, by a proclamation made by the Queen on the advice of the Privy Council. The interval prescribed by this Act between the date of the proclamation and the day to which it prorogues Parliament is not less than 14 days.

When it is intended that on the day to which it is so prorogued, or further prorogued, Parliament shall meet for the dispatch of business, the proclamation states that Parliament will then ‘assemble and be holden for the dispatch of divers urgent and important affairs'. Even when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified day ‘for the dispatch of business’ it may similarly by proclamation be prorogued to a later day.

As for bringing the date forward, that can be done too (as we're not dealing with a newly-elected Parliament):
When Parliament stands prorogued to a certain day, the Queen may issue a proclamation, giving notice of her intention that Parliament shall meet for the dispatch of business on any day after the date of the proclamation; and Parliament then stands prorogued to that day, notwithstanding the previous prorogation. The power cannot be used to advance the meeting day specified in the summons of a new Parliament.
It is provided by statute that whenever the Crown shall cause the reserve forces to be called out on permanent service, when Parliament stands prorogued or adjourned for more than five days, the Queen shall issue a proclamation for the meeting of Parliament within five days. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 also requires that where emergency regulations are made and Parliament stands prorogued for more than five days, the Queen shall issue a proclamation for Parliament to meet on a specified day in that period.

In summary, the end date can be changed on the Prime Minister / Privy Council's advice, even after the prorogation takes effect.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Tyranny of the Working Time Directive, what you are advocating is social regression. The workers are not making a sacrifice, they are in a situation where they either do as they are told or get the sack.

Yes, actually you are right. Having considered matters carefully, I have decided to become a remainer again.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Another problem is that half the MPs still want to be part of the EU.

If they accepted we MUST leave (after all, isn't it law after they wanted to try and add more complication?) and busied their efforts into figuring out how to solve the problems, we'd be in a better position.

I don't agree with a fair amount my employer does, but I don't try and stop it happening hand over foot. I work out how I can make the problem work for me.

I don't really get this argument that MPs must work towards brexit. If they don't believe in it, they are fully entitled to work against it.

If leave had lost, do you think the moggster would have become an ardent remainer?
 

SilentGrade

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
135
In summary, the end date can be changed on the Prime Minister / Privy Council's advice, even after the prorogation takes effect.

Which is exactly why this should be opposed by everyone. Regardless of views on Brexit it sets a very dangerous and disturbing precedent. In allowing this to happen it simply allows any future PM with a dodgy majority the opportunity to suspend parliament because ‘I won’t the election/referendum/shortstorycompetitioninyear5’ and I’m enforcing the people’s will.

Any claims from our charlatan PM that this ‘isn’t about brexit’ are nothing more than lies and should be called out as such by the media. The fact they are unable to do so, either because they support it, or because of this stupid obsession with representing both ‘sides’ shows just how low journalistic standards have become in this country.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,820
Location
Scotland
The fact they are unable to do so, either because they support it, or because of this stupid obsession with representing both ‘sides’ shows just how low journalistic standards have become in this country.
To be fair to journalists, they have to be able to provide verifiable evidence to support any claims they make or face prosecution for libel. While we all know that BoJo is lying, I doubt very much that there's a convenient memo lying around in which he admits it.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
Which is exactly why this should be opposed by everyone. Regardless of views on Brexit it sets a very dangerous and disturbing precedent. In allowing this to happen it simply allows any future PM with a dodgy majority the opportunity to suspend parliament because ‘I won’t the election/referendum/shortstorycompetitioninyear5’ and I’m enforcing the people’s will.
By "this" do you mean prorogation, or the ability to alter the dates of prorogation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is correct to say that prorogation is a "perfectly normal" procedure, but the manner in which is being used is anything but normal. I agree that using it in this manner could be an undesirable precedent.

(For balance, the Government have been critical of opposition parties using unconventional methods to take control of the Order Paper earlier in the year, which some say was flying in the face of precedent. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those opposing the Prime Minister's actions are considering some equally underhanded measures of their own in the coming weeks.)
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I don't really get this argument that MPs must work towards brexit. If they don't believe in it, they are fully entitled to work against it.

MPs must work towards the collective best interests of those people they represent. Based on available facts and evidence as they stand, that is not to Brexit at all.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
I don't really get this argument that MPs must work towards brexit. If they don't believe in it, they are fully entitled to work against it.

MPs must work towards the collective best interests of those people they represent. Based on available facts and evidence as they stand, that is not to Brexit at all.

And as I've said recently, if it's concluded that MPs are not working in the interest of the people they represent, the correct procedure is to call an election and replace them with a set of MPs with a fresh mandate. (Of course, if some MPs get re-elected, that implies that their electorate as a whole are happy with what they're doing.)
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
And as I've said recently, if it's concluded that MPs are not working in the interest of the people they represent, the correct procedure is to call an election and replace them with a set of MPs with a fresh mandate. (Of course, if some MPs get re-elected, that implies that their electorate as a whole are happy with what they're doing.)

This is why we have a general election at least every five years.
How could we "conclude[] that MPs are not working in the interest of the people they represent"?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
This is why we have a general election at least every five years.
How could we "conclude[] that MPs are not working in the interest of the people they represent"?
Yeup, I left that intentionally obscure. It'd be more likely that there was a question of whether they were working in the the interest of the people. Go to an election, and then you have the answer.

Historically, it would happen if the Commons repeatedly voted for something, but the Lords repeatedly turned it down (this was changed in 1911), or if the Government lost a vote in the Commons on a key matter such as a finance bill. But since 2011 things are not as obvious.

For the time being, as Parliament have yet to decide that they have no confidence in the Government (which could trigger such an election), but vote against the Government's actions repeatedly, all we have is bystanders looking in and stating their opinions.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
To be fair to journalists, they have to be able to provide verifiable evidence to support any claims they make or face prosecution for libel. While we all know that BoJo is lying, I doubt very much that there's a convenient memo lying around in which he admits it.
A certain journalist made his name by publishing mostly untruthful stuff denigrating the EU. Probably because it wasn't libellous against a specific individual, he got away with it. Wonder where he is now...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
For the time being, as Parliament have yet to decide that they have no confidence in the Government (which could trigger such an election), but vote against the Government's actions repeatedly, all we have is bystanders looking in and stating their opinions.
After their failed attempt to get a bigger majority in 2017 the Conservatives haven't wanted another election, and the possibility of letting Corbyn near power scares most of them. This may change particularly if Boris delivers Brexit and/or does a pact with Farage.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
After their failed attempt to get a bigger majority in 2017 the Conservatives haven't wanted another election, and the possibility of letting Corbyn near power scares most of them. This may change particularly if Boris delivers Brexit and/or does a pact with Farage.

This could be very complicated. Let's consider a few scenarios:

- Johnson somehow agrees a deal with the EU, gets it through parliament and delivers brexit. The brexiteers will be livid and the brexit party will accuse Johnson of betrayal. The pro-brexit vote in an election will likely be badly split between the pro-deal tories and the anti-deal brexit party. The anti-brexit parties could do well.

- The UK leaves the EU without a deal, and the tories and the brexit party come to an arrangement. There will potentially be significant disruption to the UK economy at the time of the election, which won't bode well for brexiteers of any persuasion, but at least their vote would be united. Outcome is hard to predict.

- Parliament intervenes and somehow gets an extension agreed with the EU, or forces an election before 31st October. In an election in these circumstances, the pro-brexit camp might do quite well if they can stay united.

In the end, the electorate is likely to vote for anti-brexit parties by a small majority, but how this translates into MPs will depend greatly on how split (or well organised) each block of voters is.
 
Joined
24 Mar 2019
Messages
255
Location
The Canny Toon
Once the act of leaving the EU is finally done and dusted, the UK will be left alone with its very own various political incompetencies, not having anyone else to blame. The country can vote to 'escape' the EU but it can never vote to escape itself and its myriad problems.

Oh, there will be plenty of people to blame. The EU, for trying to 'bully' plucky Britain by sticking to the rules of a club that we resigned from; Remainers, for our temerity in daring to defy 'The Will of The People' and not showing sufficient enthusiasm and 'talking the country down' (ie pointing out the problems of leaving and asking Brexit enthusiasts what solutions they had in mind); the Scots; the Irish; other foreigners; experts; academics; students; 'the self-absorbed metropolitan elite' (48% of the voting public and rising)politicians not loyal to whoever is the Brexiters' favourite at any particular moment. If this list runs short, the Mail, Express and Telegraph will come up with further people to blame for the nation's problems.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
'the self-absorbed metropolitan elite' (48% of the voting public and rising)politicians not loyal to whoever is the Brexiters' favourite at any particular moment. If this list runs short, the Mail, Express and Telegraph will come up with further people to blame for the nation's problems.

The Mail isn't pro-Brexit since Paul Dacre left as editor.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,736
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Oh, there will be plenty of people to blame. The EU, for trying to 'bully' plucky Britain by sticking to the rules of a club that we resigned from; Remainers, for our temerity in daring to defy 'The Will of The People' and not showing sufficient enthusiasm and 'talking the country down' (ie pointing out the problems of leaving and asking Brexit enthusiasts what solutions they had in mind); the Scots; the Irish; other foreigners; experts; academics; students; 'the self-absorbed metropolitan elite' (48% of the voting public and rising)politicians not loyal to whoever is the Brexiters' favourite at any particular moment. If this list runs short, the Mail, Express and Telegraph will come up with further people to blame for the nation's problems.

And don't forget "Project Fear", the organised campaign set up by remainers to highlight any negatives about leaving & turn them into public fears. Of course this overlooks the fact that "Project Fear" was entirely a leaver invention to try explain away those negatives being highlighted.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Do those ranting about #StopTheCoup actually know what a coup is?

The very meaning of the word means and I quote: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government."

Now since when has proroguing the longest session of parliament in centuries resembled anything of the above? If Boris decided to surround parliament with tanks and forcibly take power by overthrowing parliament and the Queen then installing himself as some banana republic dictator then fair enough but he has only taken the decision to prorogue parliament after months and months of refusal on both sides to come to a agreement.

Bearing in mind I'm not taking sides here as both those MPs who back remain and those MPs who back leave need their heads knocking together as both are equally at fault but just remember the UK voted to leave and that vote should be respected otherwise it is not democratic as it is ignoring the will of the majority however slim to leave the EU.

Also parliament usually breaks up for a recess before the new parliament starts usually between the 13 September - 8 October, so in theory prorogation only loses MPs up to seven parliamentary days not the end of the world.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,887
Location
Sheffield
Prorogation also prevents any new questions being tabled and any already asked being answered. It also kills any bills not yet enacted so lesser items of legislation that matter to small numbers will fall and have to start again. I'm not aware of the details of any in the current pipeline but I'm sure some people will be at least inconvenienced.

As my incapable MP is supposedly about to resign on 3rd September I'm hoping it won't delay us getting someone to represent us at this critical time. We've been wanting a by-election election ever since we discovered who we'd elected. Labour are unlikely to win.
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Bearing in mind I'm not taking sides here as both those MPs who back remain and those MPs who back leave need their heads knocking together as both are equally at fault but just remember the UK voted to leave and that vote should be respected otherwise it is not democratic as it is ignoring the will of the majority however slim to leave the EU.

Not at any cost, and not without any senblance of a proper plan* to leave, which a good chunk of Leave voters would have reasonably expected to be the case.

*That I don't believe has any prospect of ever actually existing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top