Hillman avenger wrote:Royal24s wrote:Hillman avenger wrote:Royal24s wrote:Hillman avenger wrote:The fact remains that for whatever reason the referendum was not binding. If you don't like that go talk to the judges.
But even if it was, dare I mention common sense? Should we carry on with something which will patently be disastrous just because we said we would three years ago based on what could euphemistically be called incomplete information?
Then there's the whole question of what is the "result"? Even without going outside the Tory party there are at least two, and possibly four, different versions of what "Leave" meant. That ambiguity is one of the reasons it has gone all around the houses.
Why would you talk to Judges ? They don't make laws you know.
Nor is anyone seriously suggesting that the referrendum be ignored because it's not technically legally binding, so it's not a question for Judges.
If not in law, in practicality and by Convention the result is binding.
You can't resist trying to be a smart arse and it blows up in your face.
For someone with such an allegedly high-powered career you show little grasp of many things.
No-one suggested that judges make law.
But in determining its interpretation and application, they define the law in practice, frequently.
And that is especially true of regulations and so on.
In this case, Leave had been found guilty of exceeding the expense limits, by the Electoral Commission. They appealed and it ended up in the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The final ruling was that Leave was not guilty of exceeding spending limits, BECAUSE THEY DON'T APPLY TO AN ADVISORY VOTE.
Not me, them.
Perhaps your reliance on Reuters and your mates for information, missed that?
Whether voters believed it was binding, why it wasn't, who knows?
Equally it would help if we could accept that the 17.4m Leave voters would not all have had the same interpretation of what they were voting for. I am certainly aware of some who thought it would lead to asians being expelled from the UK. I am also aware of some who thought we could "regain our sovereignty" ( that myth) without losing the economic benefits of membership. And so on.
You have told us many times about how dumb-downed the populace is, why were they suddenly really smart when they addressed this issue?
Yeah nice try but you should have the sense not to argue with me about the law because it used to be my job.
You seem to be suggesting that a decision in the High Court sitting as an appellant Court in the administration of electoral rules is binding as a precedent upon the Palace of Westminster, the House of Commons and ultimately the Crown in affairs of state and primary legislation.
Dear me. I am telling you WHAT HAPPENED. That's how Leave didn't get prosecuted. Done and dusted. And don't try trying to blind people with science; you know perfectly well, or you should, that much law gets in practice defined and shaped by court judgements, whatever was originally intended. That's why in the US Trump is stuffing the judiciary with his cronies to allow the winding-back to the Stone Ages. And if the decisions of the courts end up pointing the action away from what the legislature intended, at some point the legislature may revise the legislation.
In this case, for whatever reason, when Parliament approved the referendum, through error or calculation it was not established as a binding vote.
- I don't think it's me trying to be a smart arse and getting it wrong you know .
Now, I've told you many times ,it's true, that there's a deliberate campaign to dumb down the population. It's also true that it's been horribly successful in many ways, but I ve certainly never said that everyone has fallen for it, and I've certainly never suggested that we do exactly what the establishment wants and does it for - ie. Ignore the will of the people , abandon democracy and establish a new breed of kings appointed not by God but by multi national companies and political theorists .
And I don't think anyone intends that, so that's OK isn't it? I find your stance that people are dumbed-down, but that all changes when they support what what you want. I will continue to oppose it anyway, as I think it will set us back decades
Perhaps the people weren't so smart when they chose Blair or Obama, but those decisions had to be respected and so does this one.
Okay, well in simple terms the decisions and interpretations of judges in courts are only binding on equivalent or lower Courts. Even then there are exceptions and never ever on legislators .
Thus, and in short, you're talking bollocks on the subject.
Not going to repeat myself about dumbing down .