Interesting article from Herdson on the court judgement re referendum but I am afraid he vastly overrates the status of referenda in the British constitution. They are essentially an alien populist device with little weight in law or politics, which is partly why they are deemed advisory. He admits his law is rusty and to rest a whole court judgement on the Referendum would be desperately bad law indeed. On a purely practical level it might also be pointed out that Referenda are usually hijacked by those who want to give the government a kicking (as this one undoubtedly was) yet even here the result was essentially a pretty even split., To give this unedifying exercise all the dignity of law and talk about it in hushed tones as expressing the sovereignty of the people is ridiculous. We have a parliamentary democracy and that is the end of it.
By the way, Michael Tuner, Research Director of BMG pollsters, and I gave talks last night at Nottingham University on politicians and polling, and he mentioned that they have been asked to tender on doing another Richmond Park poll (they did the last one). No further details given. His talk would have interested PBers - main new element for me is that BMG have found the most reliable predictors of voting certainty to be age (no surprise) and residential stability (i.e. in practice owning vs renting). Presumably this is partly because renters tend to move more often and trail behind in registration, and partly because they tend to be younger and less engaged in local matters in particular. He saw little evidence that assertions of certainty to vote correlated with actual voting, and thinks that lots of people have no real certainty on whether they're registered or not.
Perhaps we have become a property-owning democracy rather more literally than Mrs Thatcher meant.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
She seems to be quite Brownian IMO. He dithered on the big decisions as well. In another universe Mrs May isn't such a ditherer and the "Bill to enable Article 50" would already be in the Lords and she would either be gearing up for an election or the most important negotiations this country has had since the end of WW2.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
The thing with referendums, though, is that the voters think they are deciding shit. We may seek to pooh-pooh them from a legal angle but that carries eff all weight with the voter who says he's staying in the UK or leaving the EU thanks very much. We have an unwritten constitution and the unwritten truth is that the voters are indeed deciding.
PA MI OH FL PA NH OH PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
According to an article I read, the internal campaign polls for Ohio are slightly better for Clinton than the public ones, and they think there is a real chance that they can get enough people out for early voting to give them a chance. Makes sense!
The Clinton early voting numbers from Ohio have significantly picked up from a poor start, although as yet not quite at 2012 levels.
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
No, it wouldn't. General elections elect people to decide policies, referendums decide policies directly.
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. " - Wikipedia
By the way, Michael Tuner, Research Director of BMG pollsters, and I gave talks last night at Nottingham University on politicians and polling, and he mentioned that they have been asked to tender on doing another Richmond Park poll (they did the last one). No further details given. His talk would have interested PBers - main new element for me is that BMG have found the most reliable predictors of voting certainty to be age (no surprise) and residential stability (i.e. in practice owning vs renting). Presumably this is partly because renters tend to move more often and trail behind in registration, and partly because they tend to be younger and less engaged in local matters in particular. He saw little evidence that assertions of certainty to vote correlated with actual voting, and thinks that lots of people have no real certainty on whether they're registered or not.
Perhaps we have become a property-owning democracy rather more literally than Mrs Thatcher meant.
Also people who stay in one place for a long period are more likely to know their local politicians, feel engaged in the local area and actively get involved in local issues. If you're going to move every year, you care much less. I'm much more involved in looking at schools, hospitals etc now I'm in the area I expect to be buried in.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Who is atop the infamous Lewes bonfire this year?
I wish I knew, it is always a pleasant surprise to find out as Alex Salmond and others can attest.
It is alleged that Ian Pailsey praised the bonfire burning of The Pope, so the big man was burnt in effigy the following year.
As I recall David Cameron was burned at Lewes last year. And we thought they were behind the times down there...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
I think she knows if it is put to a vote now, she'll have to explain just what 'Brexit means Brexit' actually entails as well as explaining the Nissan deal to Parliament and that might be tricky.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
I think she knows if it is put to a vote now, she'll have to explain just what 'Brexit means Brexit' actually entails as well as explaining the Nissan deal to Parliament and that might be tricky.
Not really, a two line enabling bill is going to have an incredibly dry debate. The stock answer from Boris, Davis and the PM will be "Brexit mean Brexit" they really don't need anything else, whip the vote and it's done.
PA MI OH FL PA NH OH PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
That's a defensive strategy. Only the three visits to OH and FL are marginally offensive. The hubris of visiting deep crimson states to help down ticket races seems to have gone which is probably a good thing.
Looks like they are scared of a shock in PA, since no early vote.
Trump outperformed the polls in Nevada in the primaries and won the Hispanic vote in the state against expectations, he will not beat Hillary with Hispanics but may do better than predicted
You think the huge spike in Hispanic voters is determined by a wave of builders hoping for a slice of Trump's wall contract or perhaps it's taco van drivers enthralled at the prospect of one on every street corner ....
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
@Otto_English: ReesMogg who backed Brexit because EU was 'undemocratic' opposed AV & Lords reform & now thinks we should make 1000 peers to push it through
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
I think she knows if it is put to a vote now, she'll have to explain just what 'Brexit means Brexit' actually entails as well as explaining the Nissan deal to Parliament and that might be tricky.
Not really, a two line enabling bill is going to have an incredibly dry debate. The stock answer from Boris, Davis and the PM will be "Brexit mean Brexit" they really don't need anything else, whip the vote and it's done.
And it should have been done four months ago.
Any amendments to the Bill in the Lords will result in 100 new peers.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
Would it actually not be better to put this to a vote ASAP and for that vote to be lost? We'll then get a quick GE and a revote on A50 and a parliament that will see the whole deal through much more smoothly.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Don't forget Boris originally had the line: vote for Leave so we can have a proper negotiation then...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
I think she knows if it is put to a vote now, she'll have to explain just what 'Brexit means Brexit' actually entails as well as explaining the Nissan deal to Parliament and that might be tricky.
We were told there could be no negotiations before Art 50 is triggered so why would any bill have to spell out Brexit terms ?]
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
Why a massive Con majority? If the vote fails, it will be because the Cons couldn't marshall their own majority.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Don't forget Boris originally had the line: vote for Leave so we can have a proper negotiation then...
Yes. This is presumably the government's secret strategy right now. They just can't come clean about it yet...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
Why a massive Con majority? If the vote fails, it will be because the Cons couldn't marshall their own majority.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
I wonder if May's reluctance to go down this route and get a large Tory majority is due to worry about how secure her position would be in the event of a hundred new Tory MPs.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
I think she knows if it is put to a vote now, she'll have to explain just what 'Brexit means Brexit' actually entails as well as explaining the Nissan deal to Parliament and that might be tricky.
We were told there could be no negotiations before Art 50 is triggered so why would any bill have to spell out Brexit terms ?]
By the way, Michael Tuner, Research Director of BMG pollsters, and I gave talks last night at Nottingham University on politicians and polling, and he mentioned that they have been asked to tender on doing another Richmond Park poll (they did the last one). No further details given. His talk would have interested PBers - main new element for me is that BMG have found the most reliable predictors of voting certainty to be age (no surprise) and residential stability (i.e. in practice owning vs renting). Presumably this is partly because renters tend to move more often and trail behind in registration, and partly because they tend to be younger and less engaged in local matters in particular. He saw little evidence that assertions of certainty to vote correlated with actual voting, and thinks that lots of people have no real certainty on whether they're registered or not.
Perhaps we have become a property-owning democracy rather more literally than Mrs Thatcher meant.
That's very interesting thanks. It also makes sense.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Well I'm nationalistic (would have voted Brexit) - which means that Parliament (not the Government) is sovereign. The Government can bring forward legislation for Parliament to consider - but has to accept the votes of the members.
Of course the members of Parliament have to remember that they have been elected (elego = i pick out) to represent the wishes of the people they represent and not their own wishes.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
The referendum bill went through parliament. The decision was handed to the people.
Certain individuals are now trying to stop that as they don't like the way the people voted.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
It's seems the Leavers don't merely object to the European Parliament but to the Westminster Parliament too.
If it's not going to do what we tell it to do, of course.
It's perhaps appropriate that the English nationalist element of the Leave coalition will end up as hostile to Westminster as the Scottish and Irish nationalists. We'll finally have some symmetry in our politics.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Yeah, but the govt didn't have the power to enact it. It could have been granted that power. But it wasn't, down to poor legislation. In short Cameron screwed it up.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
In fact, there's an opposing argument: we were a significant brake on the ambition of the high-church EU, and that our leave vote has made the chances of faster integration for the remainder more likely. If that's the case, I'm not sure the high church understand how many people within the EU are feeling.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Material change in the circumstances. Repeal the FTPA or declare that the house has no confidence.
"Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast."
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
The referendum bill went through parliament. The decision was handed to the people.
Certain people are now trying to stop that as they don't like the way the people voted.
Certain people are trying to stop it, but it looks like, on the point of law, they are correct. The reason they're doing it is irrelevant to the point of law (AIUI-IANAL).
The people arguing against yesterday's judgement might spend their time more effectively in wondering where the precedent of a contrary vote would have left the constitution and country.
Mr. Cooke, it's a technicality. There have been numerous democratic hurdles passed (the General Election, the vote in Parliament enabling the referendum to be held, the referendum itself).
This is a tactic to frustrate and deny the referendum result. In legal terms, it appears correct. In the same way celebrities have got off charges of dangerous driving for using mobile telephones by claiming they were using the calculator or dictaphone functions rather than speaking to someone.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
The referendum bill went through parliament. The decision was handed to the people.
Certain individuals are now trying to stop that as they don't like the way the people voted.
And there was every option for the Government to ensure the agreement of Parliament in that earlier Bill. They didn't. Complain to them - not the judges. Or the law. Just get a short Bill through Parliament saying "we authorise the Government to invoke Article 50" and the job is done.
There's no need to cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
"We want decisions to be made by Parliament!!" (Ah, maybe not...) "We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!" (Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
Have you paid attention to anything the EC/EU has done over the last 30 years?
Yes, accession to the euro and Schengen would probably have required another referendum. That one wouldn't have been close.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
In fact, there's an opposing argument: we were a significant brake on the ambition of the high-church EU, and that our leave vote has made the chances of faster integration for the remainder more likely. If that's the case, I'm not sure the high church understand how many people within the EU are feeling.
How exactly were we a brake? Did we prevent them from starting a single currency? A passport-free continent wide borderless region?
PA MI OH FL PA NH OH PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
PA in play. Panic in Pittsburgh and Philly.
Well it would be pretty stupid to concentrate on states where 30 or 40% might already have voted, but I'm impressed by your obvious ability to read the minds of the Clinton campaign...
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Material change in the circumstances. Repeal the FTPA or declare that the house has no confidence.
Repeal requires the consent of the Lords. No confidence requires other parties to play ball.
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Hadn't David Davis used to be quite keen on that kind of thing ;-)
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
"Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast."
We purchased our house four years ago. Before that, we were renting and spending a trifle under £1,000 a month on our house. We were fortunate: we'd been saving for a long time (in fact, even before we got together) and could put down a big deposit.
I fail to see how many people could save for a deposit whilst paying rent anywhere near that level (and yes, our house was larger than we needed). But even a smaller house is still expensive to rent.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
Have you paid attention to anything the EC/EU has done over the last 30 years?
Yes, accession to the euro and Schengen would probably have required another referendum. That one wouldn't have been close.
how would they have forced us to sign a new treaty to do that?
Mr. Cooke, it's a technicality. There have been numerous democratic hurdles passed (the General Election, the vote in Parliament enabling the referendum to be held, the referendum itself).
This is a tactic to frustrate and deny the referendum result. In legal terms, it appears correct. In the same way celebrities have got off charges of dangerous driving for using mobile telephones by claiming they were using the calculator or dictaphone functions rather than speaking to someone.
All laws are technicalities and are put there to frustrate the ability of the powerful to run roughshod. It's hardly much of an imposition to put a one paragraph Bill through Parliament - and comply with British law, made by a British Parliament and judged by British judges in a British court.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Material change in the circumstances. Repeal the FTPA or declare that the house has no confidence.
Yes, the FTPA is no problem for a govt with a majority
@JGForsyth: Tempers running high in Westminster this morning, there are rumours a Tory MP might resign over criticisms of judges over Article 50 verdict
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Hadn't David Davis used to be quite keen on that kind of thing ;-)
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
"Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly."
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Yes, absolutely. Cameron's "renegotiation" didn't change the nature of the European Project - and it's that nature that meant that our refusal to engage with it caused our influence within the EU to decline over the past 20 years to virtually zero. Continuing to resist the Project after the people had endorsed it(*) would have removed the "virtually" and possibly turned it negative.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
That is all based in your assumptions. I see no way EU or UK politicians could have taken a narrowish remain win as a reason to encourage us to join the Euro. They'll be well aware that *any* such more would have been resisted and (at least) required another referendum.
Have you paid attention to anything the EC/EU has done over the last 30 years?
Yes, accession to the euro and Schengen would probably have required another referendum. That one wouldn't have been close.
how would they have forced us to sign a new treaty to do that?
How does it feel to be the only rational guy on the bus?
A good piece. I agree with the concluding two paragraphs but not the argument that got you there, David.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible * as much control over free movement of people as possible * as little direct financial contribution as possible
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament - The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament ... Judges point out the law to them ... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
We're seeing the emergence of the Augustinian Leavers: God give me Parliamentary democracy, but not yet.
"We want decisions to be made by Parliament!!" (Ah, maybe not...) "We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!" (Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
Do you or do you not accept the democratic decision of the British people as expressed in the referendum result?
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people arguing for the right of the Government to do whatever they like without worrying about such technicalities as the law and Parliament, because they're currently proposing to do something with which said people agree.
No, because they're currently proposing to do something which the people have explicitly instructed them to do.
Then there should be no problem getting it through Parliament, should there?
Of course not. It would sail through the Commons and Mrs May could create 100 peers if necessary.
Comments
Perhaps we have become a property-owning democracy rather more literally than Mrs Thatcher meant.
By this, I trust you mean the leavers' meme that a remain vote would have meant being fully in, joining the Euro etc. In this, they are wrong, at least for a narrow remain vote. The referendum was clearly on the terms of Cameron's renegotiation and nothing to do with Euro membership.
Woah there. "Great Ormond Street NHS worker" wishes illness on #BBCQT panel's kids as Brexit punishment. Someone is getting fired tomorrow.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 39
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016.Reuters.Tracking.11.03.16.pdf
We'll end up refighting the civil war at this rate. Put me down as a Roundhead.
Well it's a view.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Any amendments to the Bill in the Lords will result in 100 new peers.
2 line bill.
That then gives UKIP a 500/1 opening.
Be carefull not to over exert it.
It matches my own, but in a forced choice I would go Clinton AZ and NC, Trump in Ohio.
(*) A narrow Remain wouldn't have been an endorsement of the Project but would have been taken as such in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament
- The Government cannot take away the rights of the people without going through Parliament
... The Government proposes taking away the rights of the people without going through Parliament
... Judges point out the law to them
... "Enemy of the People!"
All it means is that the Government have to go through Parliament - in which they have a majority.
"But what if Parliament say no! The Government promised!"
I'm a parent and I know the rule there: you shouldn't promise something not in your power to deliver. Duh.
And if Parliament say no, if May is too weak to be able to push it through, she should resign. I'm sure the joys of FPTP will ensure the side that won the referendum will be overwhelmingly represented in Parliament afterwards; it's all but guaranteed, right? Just like it was in Scotland, where almost all seats are now represented by Unioni... oh...
The referendum's job was to advise the government to enact it, which TMay tried to do by using A50.
It was not for parliament to have another look at it and consider our 'advice', which is how it is being misconstrued now.
Of course the members of Parliament have to remember that they have been elected (elego = i pick out) to represent the wishes of the people they represent and not their own wishes.
The referendum bill went through parliament. The decision was handed to the people.
Certain individuals are now trying to stop that as they don't like the way the people voted.
It might have well had been a referendum on implementing time travel. Which given the mess we're in, might not be such a bad idea.
Set your alarm clocks ....
In fact, there's an opposing argument: we were a significant brake on the ambition of the high-church EU, and that our leave vote has made the chances of faster integration for the remainder more likely. If that's the case, I'm not sure the high church understand how many people within the EU are feeling.
Which means that Florida is going for CLinton.
https://www.ft.com/content/679d6088-a1b5-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f#axzz4P1kAc7Fs
"Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast."
The people arguing against yesterday's judgement might spend their time more effectively in wondering where the precedent of a contrary vote would have left the constitution and country.
This is a tactic to frustrate and deny the referendum result. In legal terms, it appears correct. In the same way celebrities have got off charges of dangerous driving for using mobile telephones by claiming they were using the calculator or dictaphone functions rather than speaking to someone.
Complain to them - not the judges. Or the law.
Just get a short Bill through Parliament saying "we authorise the Government to invoke Article 50" and the job is done.
There's no need to cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
(Ah, maybe not...)
"We want British judges in British courts to make judgements on British laws!"
(Ah, maybe not...)
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
I agonised over the Leave/Remain choice for months and weighed up all the arguments. I knew the "£350 million" and "Turkish accession" arguments were bollocks, but the Leavers could have done me the courtesy of explaining that their arguments on sovereignty were also not meant.
fallen at the first hurdle.
UKIP Whittle('d) down.
We might get a by-election on whether we want to uphold the rule of law or not...
Yes, accession to the euro and Schengen would probably have required another referendum. That one wouldn't have been close.
Whilst it would have probably been better for the Government just to invoke A50 and thus change our constitution, once the case was brought the High Court's logic was [understandably] sound. The communication in the referendum ("The Government will implement what you decide") makes a moral and political case, but not a legal one.
So the government should resign if Parliament prevents it from invoking Article 50 by itself.
A very short Act is what's needed, with any amendments to be treated as confidence issues in themselves. If we must "set out our broad objectives," to use the weasel words of so many Opposition MPs, I would suggest the Act simply calls for the Government to secure:
* as much free trade in goods and services as possible
* as much control over free movement of people as possible
* as little direct financial contribution as possible
I fail to see how many people could save for a deposit whilst paying rent anywhere near that level (and yes, our house was larger than we needed). But even a smaller house is still expensive to rent.
And it seems rental prices have increased further:
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/property/cambourne/
It surely must be unsustainable?
It's hardly much of an imposition to put a one paragraph Bill through Parliament - and comply with British law, made by a British Parliament and judged by British judges in a British court.
Remarkable.
I was +20 on Kassam as well, but in general I am happy with a few pennies on the two options which are 99% likely to win between them.
If you do, sovereignty is moot as the people as a whole cannot be subservient to Parliament. Sovereignty has to reside with the people; it is just normally delegated to representatives in Parliament.
For many people it was a close decision which way to vote. But the worst of all worlds - far worse than to continue to deny the people a referendum - is to hold the referendum and then ignore it.