Bravo Boris!

[Stooo]

The ones who voted.
The majority vote.

You got the first part right.

You think they should have just ignored the result?

As if it had never happened?

Of course not, it should have been debated. That is what you do with an advisory plebiscite by definition.

[Lady Murasaki]

The ones who voted.
The majority vote.

You got the first part right.

You think they should have just ignored the result?

As if it had never happened?

Of course not, it should have been debated. That is what you do with an advisory plebiscite by definition.

Cameron jumped ship and Maybot wouldn’t debate.

[Stooo]

The ones who voted.
The majority vote.

You got the first part right.

You think they should have just ignored the result?

As if it had never happened?

Of course not, it should have been debated. That is what you do with an advisory plebiscite by definition.

Cameron jumped ship and Maybot wouldn’t debate.

I didn't vote for them or their party.

[Cactus Jack]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

[Cannydc]

Chaos descends into farce...

Boris Johnson was left humiliated and his claims of progress in the Brexit negotiations in tatters after a chaotic visit to Luxembourg ended in the prime minister being mocked by a fellow European leader for cancelling a press appearance to avoid protesters.

Johnson was booed and jeered as he left a working lunch with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, before opting out of plans to speak alongside Luxembourg’s prime minister, Xavier Bettel, after being targeted by a larger crowd.

The cancellation left Johnson scuttling past the waiting lecterns in a courtyard outside the prime minister’s office to chants of “bollocks to Brexit” and “bog off Boris” by protesters a few metres away.

As the chaotic scenes were played out, the European commission issued a statement disclosing that Juncker had told the prime minister that it was his responsibility to come forward with legally operational solutions and that “such proposals have not yet been made”, in contradiction of the government’s recent claims.


Truth will out - the idiot has no plan, no hope of a plan, and relies solely on blustering bonhomie.

Time to get rid.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

[Cactus Jack]

Chaos descends into farce...

Boris Johnson was left humiliated and his claims of progress in the Brexit negotiations in tatters after a chaotic visit to Luxembourg ended in the prime minister being mocked by a fellow European leader for cancelling a press appearance to avoid protesters.

Johnson was booed and jeered as he left a working lunch with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, before opting out of plans to speak alongside Luxembourg’s prime minister, Xavier Bettel, after being targeted by a larger crowd.

The cancellation left Johnson scuttling past the waiting lecterns in a courtyard outside the prime minister’s office to chants of “bollocks to Brexit” and “bog off Boris” by protesters a few metres away.

As the chaotic scenes were played out, the European commission issued a statement disclosing that Juncker had told the prime minister that it was his responsibility to come forward with legally operational solutions and that “such proposals have not yet been made”, in contradiction of the government’s recent claims.


Truth will out - the idiot has no plan, no hope of a plan, and relies solely on blustering bonhomie.

Time to get rid.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

The Australians have dubbed him The Un-Credible Sulk

[Guest]

[Lady Murasaki]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

Point being, the vote was put to the people, they/we voted. It should have been debated properly in Parliament.
The internal shannigans the Tories have been doing thus far is the reason that advisory result hasn’t been properly implemented. There was no real mandate, as evidenced.

[art0hur0moh]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

so what was the government majority vote to join?

[MungoBrush]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

This post is wrong
Please post a reference to this so-called convention
In Switzerland, for example, referendums for constitutional changes only need a simple majority.

[Cannydc]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

This post is wrong
Please post a reference to this so-called convention
In Switzerland, for example, referendums for constitutional changes only need a simple majority.

Even Switzerland has rules on voting for constitutional change. The minimum participation has to be higher than 40%, a threshold often failed, as most votes muster under 50% - even the "Join EU" vote had a turnout of barely 50%. And of course, you have a large threshold of 100,000 signatures required to even trigger such a vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

In Britain, qualified majorities have been required only in the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. In these referendums, as well as a majority yes vote, a 40% majority of the electorate was needed for parliament to implement the devolution legislation.

Under those rules the EU Referendum result would have been Remain (the status quo) as less than 40% of the electorate voted for change (Leave).

[Cannydc]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

This post is wrong
Please post a reference to this so-called convention
In Switzerland, for example, referendums for constitutional changes only need a simple majority.

Even Switzerland has rules on voting for constitutional change. The minimum participation has to be higher than 40%, a threshold often failed, as most votes muster under 50% - even the "Join EU" vote had a turnout of barely 50%. And of course, you have a large threshold of 100,000 signatures required to even trigger such a vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

In Britain, qualified majorities have been required only in the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. In these referendums, as well as a majority yes vote, a 40% majority of the electorate was needed for parliament to implement the devolution legislation.

Under those rules the EU Referendum result would have been Remain (the status quo) as less than 40% of the electorate voted for change (Leave).

[Cactus Jack]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

This post is wrong
Please post a reference to this so-called convention
In Switzerland, for example, referendums for constitutional changes only need a simple majority.

Even Switzerland has rules on voting for constitutional change. The minimum participation has to be higher than 40%, a threshold often failed, as most votes muster under 50% - even the "Join EU" vote had a turnout of barely 50%. And of course, you have a large threshold of 100,000 signatures required to even trigger such a vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

In Britain, qualified majorities have been required only in the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. In these referendums, as well as a majority yes vote, a 40% majority of the electorate was needed for parliament to implement the devolution legislation.

Under those rules the EU Referendum result would have been Remain (the status quo) as less than 40% of the electorate voted for change (Leave).

For those who don't understand the word Convention.

In Ireland there have been a few votes that barely scrapped over the 50%, and the same is true of other countries most did not make it into law without at least a second referendum.

A referendum, even a binding one, in a system of representative democracy is followed by an bill or act that enacts the decision of the referendum and puts it into law. By convention lawmakers do not pass such bills where the decision to change the status quo does not meet the required threshold.

They could, absolutely, but by convention in representative democracies they don't.

[Cobs]

The convention is that a change to status quo requires a 60% vote in a referendum - it means that marginal votes don't get to make permanent changes.

Would this lofty principle survive a future Lab-SNP coalition I wonder.

[Jon55]

I am very interested in the law as some of my close family members are lawyers.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7475161/Boris-Johnson-warns-Supreme-Court-judges-not-enter-political-arena.html