Referendum 2016 was NOT legally binding: Johnson's top gov. lawyer

[i***@iniref.org]

Geoffrey Cox, attorney general, Conservative party:

"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law." (Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David Tredinnick Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the decision of the British people to leave the European Union have?".

source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via https://www.theyworkforyou.com

This weakens the claim of brexiteers and the (for the moment) prime minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die" etc. to comply with the "democratic" will of the people.

The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to respond according to judgement and conscience.

W-M
see: www.iniref.org

[Joe]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.

But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

[Incubus]

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.

However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

Now you are really being daft.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

Now you are really being daft.

No dafter than those who voted to leave - but did so for reasons that
were actually little or nothing to do with us being in the EU. Of
course, many didn't realise this at the time - and I fear that despite
the passage of over three years, there are still a fair number who still
don't realise that leaving the EU won't address the problems that they
believe it will fix.

[Incubus]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

Now you are really being daft.

No dafter than those who voted to leave - but did so for reasons that
were actually little or nothing to do with us being in the EU.

Oh yes, those mythical voters who called into LBC and claimed it was all about
austerity all along.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Post by Ian Jackson
Of
course, many didn't realise this at the time - and I fear that despite
the passage of over three years, there are still a fair number who still
don't realise that leaving the EU won't address the problems that they
believe it will fix.

What problems do you believe have been fixed by joining the EU?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

Now you are really being daft.

No dafter than those who voted to leave - but did so for reasons that
were actually little or nothing to do with us being in the EU.

Oh yes, those mythical voters who called into LBC and claimed it was all about
austerity all along.

While the LBC in-phoners are far from 'mythical', many of their reasons
for voting Leave are. Most are listed here (take your pick).
https://tinyurl.com/y5gptnr8

Post by Incubus
Move on, nothing to see here.

Indeed. Most of their reasons don't exist, or are a substantial
misrepresentation of reality.

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson
Of
course, many didn't realise this at the time - and I fear that despite
the passage of over three years, there are still a fair number who still
don't realise that leaving the EU won't address the problems that they
believe it will fix.

What problems do you believe have been fixed by joining the EU?

They're mainly the opposite of the problems that people are claiming the
EU causes.

[MM]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:41:04 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

No. They decided to use a bit of common sense - because although we were
given the choice of voting for apples or oranges, many decided that they
didn't like pears, and decided to vote for bananas.

Now you are really being daft.

No dafter than those who voted to leave - but did so for reasons that
were actually little or nothing to do with us being in the EU.

Oh yes, those mythical voters who called into LBC and claimed it was all about
austerity all along.
Move on, nothing to see here.

Post by Ian Jackson
Of
course, many didn't realise this at the time - and I fear that despite
the passage of over three years, there are still a fair number who still
don't realise that leaving the EU won't address the problems that they
believe it will fix.

What problems do you believe have been fixed by joining the EU?

That's a simple question to answer. I'll let another commenter's words
speak to truth:

<quote>
The UK in the early 1970s was dull, prudish, hyocritical, boring and,
mostly, still in black and white. The banks closed at three, the shops
closed at five and the pubs closed at 10.30. On Sundays and on
Wednesday afternoons everything was shut. Late night television
finished at midnight, and that was only on Friday and Saturday. Food
was bland, beer was warm, lager was trendy and wine was for the
wealthy. Brandy and Babycham was a cocktail. Everybody drank tea, all
the bloody time.

British cars looked awful, were badly built and you usually had to
wait months for delivery because the car makers were on strike; or the
trains or the power stations etc.

Still it was the good old days: women, children, foreigners,
homosexuals and blacks still knew their place. There was no domestic
violence, although a lot of women walked into doors. There was no rape
or child abuse or, if it did happen, it was the "slut's" own fault
"for leading men on". Everybody trusted bankers, businessmen, doctors,
journalists, policemen, politicians, priests, and Rolf Harris.

If you were rich, white and a man the UK was great place to live in
the early 1970s. Boris Johnson would have loved it.
</quote>

By joining the EU we were dragged kicking and screaming into the
modern world.

MM

[Joe]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:08:55 +0100

Post by MM
The UK in the early 1970s was dull, prudish, hyocritical, boring and,
mostly, still in black and white. The banks closed at three, the shops
closed at five and the pubs closed at 10.30. On Sundays and on
Wednesday afternoons everything was shut. Late night television
finished at midnight, and that was only on Friday and Saturday. Food
was bland, beer was warm, lager was trendy and wine was for the
wealthy. Brandy and Babycham was a cocktail. Everybody drank tea, all
the bloody time.
British cars looked awful, were badly built and you usually had to
wait months for delivery because the car makers were on strike; or the
trains or the power stations etc.

You must have hit 'post' before you included your explanation of how
membership of the EU has improved these things. Not all, of course,
there are still people who like to drink lager, and it is still
incorrect to serve bitter near freezing point.

I know for certain that the EU made no difference at all to the union
problems. Even you must know who changed that, with absolutely no help
from our 'partners'. And you must realise that it's now nearly three
times as long since WWII as it was in 1972, and that the post-war UK
government did not spend the Marshall aid money on rebuilding and
modernising, besides the fact that much of our social change has its
roots in the Sixties, when we finally did have a bit of spare cash.

Now tell us what the *EU* has done for us, that we didn't do for
ourselves...

[Incubus]

Post by Joe
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:08:55 +0100

Post by MM
The UK in the early 1970s was dull, prudish, hyocritical, boring and,
mostly, still in black and white. The banks closed at three, the shops
closed at five and the pubs closed at 10.30. On Sundays and on
Wednesday afternoons everything was shut. Late night television
finished at midnight, and that was only on Friday and Saturday. Food
was bland, beer was warm, lager was trendy and wine was for the
wealthy. Brandy and Babycham was a cocktail. Everybody drank tea, all
the bloody time.

That sounds civilised to me.

Post by Joe

Post by MM
British cars looked awful, were badly built and you usually had to
wait months for delivery because the car makers were on strike; or the
trains or the power stations etc.

Thank the unions for that.

Post by Joe
You must have hit 'post' before you included your explanation of how
membership of the EU has improved these things. Not all, of course,
there are still people who like to drink lager, and it is still
incorrect to serve bitter near freezing point.

We have computers in every home now. Praise the EU!

We have mobile 'phones now. Praise the EU!

Televisions are larger these days. Praise the EU!

Cadbury's, Land Rover, Hornby, Ford Transit &c. moved overseas with EU grants.
Praise the EU!

Post by Joe
I know for certain that the EU made no difference at all to the union
problems. Even you must know who changed that, with absolutely no help
from our 'partners'. And you must realise that it's now nearly three
times as long since WWII as it was in 1972, and that the post-war UK
government did not spend the Marshall aid money on rebuilding and
modernising, besides the fact that much of our social change has its
roots in the Sixties, when we finally did have a bit of spare cash.
Now tell us what the *EU* has done for us, that we didn't do for
ourselves...

MM doesn't do facts. He only does FUD. He's a bit like Spammy only sporting
bigger tits.

[MM]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:22:45 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

No.
However, the overwhelming vote in favour of allowing the PM to implement
A50 did not occur because an overwhelming majority of MPs genuinely
thought it was a good idea that we should leave the EU. On the contrary
- an overwhelming majority reluctantly felt obliged to allow TWOTP to be
carried out (even though they need not have done this). Only the
Liberals stuck to their guns, and were prepared to look after the real
interests of the country.

Or, to put it another way, only the Liberal Democrats were prepared to show
contempt for democracy and make their name a joke.

There was no contempt because the referendum was advisory, i.e. you
asked for advice, you got it. Doesn't mean I have to carry it out.

MM

[MM]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 09:22:57 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

When Parliament voted to give notice under Article 50, was that advisory also?

The vote was to enable negotiations for a withdrawal deal to commence,
not a green light for leaving with no deal.

MM

[i***@iniref.org]

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?
--
Joe

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for an error or a crime. That is accepted in all judiciaries.

Legal status of referenda was clearly visible in the previous two national ballots. To make it even clearer, the following statement was published a year before the UK/EU 2016 ballot:

Commons Library Briefing Number 07212, 3 June 2015
excerpt: "This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

IMO it would be fair to "grant" the people a "confirmatory" vote about UK/EU relations. This could resolve "brexit" and allow us all to get on with important stuff.

Legally, Parliament and/or Government have the power to revoke Article 50 (Treaty on EU) and so keep the UK in the EU (for a while at least).

W-M
see www.iniref.org

[MM]

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

The leaflet has no legal weight whatsoever. It is nothing more than an
advertising campaign.

MM

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

The leaflet has no legal weight whatsoever. It is nothing more than an
advertising campaign.

How dumb *are* you?

You can't say in a leaflet 'This is your choice, we will implement what
you decide', then pretend you didn't really meant it!

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by Joe
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding
upon this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

OK.
But where in the leaflet delivered to every household in the UK does it
say that the referendum will be only advisory, and will only be
implemented if the government feels like doing so?

The leaflet has no legal weight whatsoever. It is nothing more than an
advertising campaign.

How dumb *are* you?
You can't say in a leaflet 'This is your choice, we will implement what
you decide', then pretend you didn't really meant it!

Of course you can! It's advertising! Do you believe all the promises
made in advertisements?

MM

[Pamela]

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)
Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David Tredinnick
Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the decision of the
British people to leave the European Union have?".
source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via
https://www.theyworkforyou.com
This weakens the claim of brexiteers and the (for the moment) prime
minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die" etc. to
comply with the "democratic" will of the people.
The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to respond
according to judgement and conscience.
W-M
see: www.iniref.org

Quite true. In desperation to find authorisation for his current actions,
Boris is prepared to falsely represent the referendum as a mandate.

[A. Filip]

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)
Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David
Tredinnick Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the
decision of the British people to leave the European Union have?".
source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via https://www.theyworkforyou.com
This weakens the claim of brexiteers and the (for the moment) prime
minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die"
etc. to comply with the "democratic" will of the people.
The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to respond according to judgement and conscience.
W-M
see: www.iniref.org

The People have The Right to get rid of Parliament, don't they?

[Keema's Nan]

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

No, but the majority commons vote to allow May to trigger A50 made that
decision legally binding.

If Labour didn’t want her to trigger A50, they should not have voted for
precisely that action.

It is no use whining years after the event.

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David
Tredinnick Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the
decision of the British people to leave the European Union have?".
source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via
https://www.theyworkforyou.com
This weakens the claim of brexiteers
and the (for the moment) prime
minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die"
etc. to comply with the "democratic" will of the people.

Is this what the HoC has been doing on its return from enforced holiday?

If so, they are wasting their time. A50 has taken precedence.

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to respond
according to judgement and conscience.

Nonsense. There has been an election since then. You may need to read the
relevant manifestos.

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
W-M
see: www.iniref.org

The People have The Right to get rid of Parliament, don't they?

[MM]

On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 22:01:18 +0100, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)

No, but the majority commons vote to allow May to trigger A50 made that
decision legally binding.

It most certainly did not do that.

MM

[MM]

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)
Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David
Tredinnick Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the
decision of the British people to leave the European Union have?".
source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via https://www.theyworkforyou.com
This weakens the claim of brexiteers and the (for the moment) prime
minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die"
etc. to comply with the "democratic" will of the people.
The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to respond according to judgement and conscience.
W-M
see: www.iniref.org

The People have The Right to get rid of Parliament, don't they?

No. No one gets rid of Parliament. The people have the right to get
rid of the government, however. (Which is NOT Parliament.)

MM

[Ian Jackson]

Post by MM

Post by A. Filip

Post by i***@iniref.org
"The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon
this Parliament. ... it was not binding as a matter of law."
(Citation: HC Deb, 25 September 2019, c667)
Reply in Parliament to a request for legal advice from David
Tredinnick Conservative, Bosworth, "what force in law does the
decision of the British people to leave the European Union have?".
source: Legal Advice: Prorogation (25 Sep 2019), Hansard via
https://www.theyworkforyou.com
This weakens the claim of brexiteers and the (for the moment) prime
minister that (paraphrased) "we must deliver brexit "do or die"
etc. to comply with the "democratic" will of the people.
The 2016 referendum was only advisory and MPs have the duty to
respond according to judgement and conscience.
W-M
see: www.iniref.org

The People have The Right to get rid of Parliament, don't they?

No. No one gets rid of Parliament. The people have the right to get
rid of the government, however. (Which is NOT Parliament.)

What happened to those suggestions that instead of Parliament handing
the ramifications of leaving the EU, regional councils of 'wise men' and
'citizens of standing' should be set up instead?