Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Go wave a banner outside Parliament then, or Holyrood. In fact, shouldn't you be lobbying Nicola? She represents Scotland after all.

If Leave are all so fired up, and desperate to get going, then they can put the leg work in and come up with a bloody plan. Where's IDS' vision now?
In fact where are Farage et all? They wanted this, they should be working their balls off to get this sorted out. But it seems they are content to sit back and let the rest do all the bloody work whilst piss and whinging that it's not going "fast" enough.

If they're not prepared to do anything other than give off, then they can sit and wait like the rest of us whilst the bloody adults sort this mess out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And now we have a concentrated campaign by lawyers, judges, the media, and the losing side, to over-turn a democratic referendum becuase they don't like the result.

This campaign is not going to court to overturn the result, that's misleading. They are going to court to ensure that issue is debated and voted on within the Houses of Parliament. It is to prevent one individual from enacting Article 50. This applies both ways, if May never invokes Article 50 then parliament get a say and vice versa. That *is* Democracy because those MPs debating and voting on it are our elected representatives. To have one person be given the decision as to whether to enact something or not is not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.

And the population are allowed to voice there concerns, go the high court etc. That is freedom of speech and the rights we have in this land. If we remove those rights of people to make these sort of representations then that is a dark place as Country we are heading down.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Today marks 2 months since the referendum, and we're still no nearer to article 50 being invoked.

Spiked is saying that a bloodless coup has been launched against British democracy, and it's not hard to disagree with that.

Max Keiser is calling it "Schrodinger's BREXIT," and he's bang on the money.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-oppose-the-bloodless-coup-against-brexit-article-50-eu/18685#.V7w-wE0rI2w

We've been here before with this debate on dakka

The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc

and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

No. Piss off. You've won the "Let's throw the vase on the ground" vote, but I'll be fethed if we're going to do it without a plan on how to deal with the goddamn broken vase.


Also, Spiked? Really? Spiked is the fething source you go for? I can't actually critique the article from work sadly, because the website is blocked for goddamn hate speech.

 r_squared wrote:
Go wave a banner outside Parliament then, or Holyrood. In fact, shouldn't you be lobbying Nicola? She represents Scotland after all.

If Leave are all so fired up, and desperate to get going, then they can put the leg work in and come up with a bloody plan. Where's IDS' vision now?
In fact where are Farage et all? They wanted this, they should be working their balls off to get this sorted out. But it seems they are content to sit back and let the rest do all the bloody work whilst piss and whinging that it's not going "fast" enough.

If they're not prepared to do anything other than give off, then they can sit and wait like the rest of us whilst the bloody adults sort this mess out.

That's the point - the government isn't doing anything. They're on holiday!!!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And now we have a concentrated campaign by lawyers, judges, the media, and the losing side, to over-turn a democratic referendum becuase they don't like the result.

This campaign is not going to court to overturn the result, that's misleading. They are going to court to ensure that issue is debated and voted on within the Houses of Parliament. It is to prevent one individual from enacting Article 50. This applies both ways, if May never invokes Article 50 then parliament get a say and vice versa. That *is* Democracy because those MPs debating and voting on it are our elected representatives. To have one person be given the decision as to whether to enact something or not is not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.

And the population are allowed to voice there concerns, go the high court etc. That is freedom of speech and the rights we have in this land. If we remove those rights of people to make these sort of representations then that is a dark place as Country we are heading down.

We're going over old ground here

But again, why hold the referendum if Parliament gets to decide...

Because presumably,by that logic, it was only the 'correct' result if the country voted to remain?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:and if need be, packing the House of Commons with UKIP MPs. If that's what it takes, so be it...

I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...

Yeah! We should get Joe Bloggs from down the road to sort out all of the legal wrangling involved in extricating ourselves from a legal institution that we've been part of for the past 40 years! I realised that "britain is tired of experts" but that statement right there takes the biscuit. Who the feth else are we going to get to deal with the legal problems arising from leaving the EU?! Farage?!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What have they been doing these past 2 months? painting the Sistine chapel?

C'mon, if not now, when?

You mean apart from the fact that we don't actually have any negotiators? We're having to try and get hold of foreign negotiators to do it on our behalf because we don't actually have any? Might that be part of the hold up?

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Today marks 2 months since the referendum, and we're still no nearer to article 50 being invoked.

Spiked is saying that a bloodless coup has been launched against British democracy, and it's not hard to disagree with that.

Max Keiser is calling it "Schrodinger's BREXIT," and he's bang on the money.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-oppose-the-bloodless-coup-against-brexit-article-50-eu/18685#.V7w-wE0rI2w

We've been here before with this debate on dakka

The same people will be saying we need a plan, get a team together, don't spook the markets, it's non-binding etc etc

and people like me will be saying it's anti-democratic to ignore the result.

But I honestly believe the UK is no longer a democracy, I think the establishment is preparing us for one almighty stitch up, the media is priming the British people, and the Remain side will try every dirty trick in the book to ignore or overturn the result...

I predict dark times ahead if this continues...

No. Piss off. You've won the "Let's throw the vase on the ground" vote, but I'll be fethed if we're going to do it without a plan on how to deal with the goddamn broken vase.


Also, Spiked? Really? Spiked is the fething source you go for? I can't actually critique the article from work sadly, because the website is blocked for goddamn hate speech.

It's an opinion piece, of which I happen to agree with...

And why would they be blocked for hate speech?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That pre-referendum leaflet we all got said in black and white that the result would be implemented.

I'll refer you back to Ian Duncan Smith's thoughts...it was a "possible promise". Seriously the campaigns were fought on prejudices, lies and misleading headlines, does it comes as any surprise that something else they all said might not come to pass?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, the British people voted in good faith on June 23rd. If their decision is not implemented, then British democracy is dead...

Not really you still get to have you say in 3.5 years time, the risk being of course that the Country divides neatly down the middle with pro and anti - EU being the most prominent.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...

These types of thoughts are actually pretty scary. The reason you have judges, lawyers and 'free' media is that it is a lawful way of challenging Governments and their actions. The moment you start saying this or that is too important for these challenges to occur you are travelling a path where Government is free to what it wishes. This is the route Turkey are currently taking. This route eventually leads to a Dictatorship because eventually the Government becomes 'too important' to be left to the populace to decide.

 Goliath wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:and if need be, packing the House of Commons with UKIP MPs. If that's what it takes, so be it...

I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...

Yeah! We should get Joe Bloggs from down the road to sort out all of the legal wrangling involved in extricating ourselves from a legal institution that we've been part of for the past 40 years! I realised that "britain is tired of experts" but that statement right there takes the biscuit. Who the feth else are we going to get to deal with the legal problems arising from leaving the EU?! Farage?!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What have they been doing these past 2 months? painting the Sistine chapel?

C'mon, if not now, when?

You mean apart from the fact that we don't actually have any negotiators? We're having to try and get hold of foreign negotiators to do it on our behalf because we don't actually have any? Might that be part of the hold up?

What's wrong with the British people electing a UKIP government if that's what they want?

Secondly, there is talk of BREXIT not happening until 2020. Do they need 4 years to hire negotiators?

Bloody hell, we could send a rocket to Mars in that time!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That pre-referendum leaflet we all got said in black and white that the result would be implemented.

I'll refer you back to Ian Duncan Smith's thoughts...it was a "possible promise". Seriously the campaigns were fought on prejudices, lies and misleading headlines, does it comes as any surprise that something else they all said might not come to pass?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, the British people voted in good faith on June 23rd. If their decision is not implemented, then British democracy is dead...

Not really you still get to have you say in 3.5 years time, the risk being of course that the Country divides neatly down the middle with pro and anti - EU being the most prominent.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I get what you're saying, but this is too important to be left to lawyers, judges, newspapers, et al...

These types of thoughts are actually pretty scary. The reason you have judges, lawyers and 'free' media is that it is a lawful way of challenging Governments and their actions. The moment you start saying this or that is too important for these challenges to occur you are travelling a path where Government is free to what it wishes. This is the route Turkey are currently taking. This route eventually leads to a Dictatorship because eventually the Government becomes 'too important' to be left to the populace to decide.

Verbal promises by politicians, and written promises by leaflets sent to every UK household by HM government, are two completely different things.

Secondly, I'm not saying that judges and lawyers are not important in a democracy to uphold the rule of law, far from it...

But consider this: the country voted on June 23rd. Everybody agrees that it was a free and fair election. The country voted to leave...

Never in a million years should lawyers, judges, high court cases, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to overturn this decision on a technically...

That would be anti-democratic...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But again, why hold the referendum if Parliament gets to decide...

Because presumably,by that logic, it was only the 'correct' result if the country voted to remain?

No not really, if the vote had been 70:30 in favour then you could have expected something more concrete. It wasn't so you can expect them to go carefully.

The point of a referendum is to get the mood/views of the populace on a specific issue which you can't really do at a GE because there are so many other issues being debated. The referendum result can then be used to inform Parliament, but Parliament are still our elected representatives who are still there to make decisions on our behalf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Verbal promises by politicians, and written promises by leaflets sent to every UK household by HM government, are two completely different things.

What about bus adverts? Seriously I could find any previous Government manifesto and point out things they didn't do.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But consider this: the country voted on June 23rd. Everybody agrees that it was a free and fair election. The country voted to leave...

Never in a million years should lawyers, judges, high court cases, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to overturn this decision on a technically...

That would be anti-democratic...

But that's the point it wasn't an election. It's a referendum; which is not there to decide who runs the Country, there's a distinct but subtle difference. And the 'Country' didn't vote to leave, there was a slim majority in favour of leaving (by 700,000 swing votes). 50% of the population that voted still want to remain. This is the difficulty the Government has, the referendum in the end gave no clear direction (and the same would have been said if positions were reversed).

And I state again the High court case is not there to overturn the decision, it is trying to ensure that the elected representatives of the Country make a decision through Parliament which is what they have been voted in to do (and that we are not sideling this process and giving the PM dictatorial powers).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.....What's wrong with the British people electing a UKIP government if that's what they want?

Secondly, there is talk of BREXIT not happening until 2020. Do they need 4 years to hire negotiators?

Bloody hell, we could send a rocket to Mars in that time!!!!
...

If the British people elect a UKIP govt, then pukka gen, I am getting my Irish passport and emigrating.

Also, we want quality negotiators, not bloody idiots like Boris. I'd like to think we'd make sure our representatives are good, but to be fair, 4 years is probably a bit excessive.

Sending a rocket to Mars is much, much easier to do than sort this out. It seems that some leave campaigners believe that we can pull the plug and get it all done and dusted by Christmas.

Even with top class negotiators this is going to take an age to figure out, as what we seem to want is completely opposed to (a) ourselves and (b) the EU.

From what I can gather what we want from the EU is:
* Not to send them any money
* Not to follow any of their rules
* Controlled migration (and possibly deportation of EU citizens)
* Full free trade access

We may as well ask for a pony each, whilst we're at it.

Herzlos wrote:
Even with top class negotiators this is going to take an age to figure out, as what we seem to want is completely opposed to (a) ourselves and (b) the EU.

From what I can gather what we want from the EU is:
* Not to send them any money
* Not to follow any of their rules
* Controlled migration (and possibly deportation of EU citizens)
* Full free trade access

We may as well ask for a unicorn each, whilst we're at it.

Always aim higher then what you'll settle for at the start of negotiations

Also in line with what Leave promised as well

EDIT: actually wrote "unicron" not "unicorn" the first time, I mean I'd love one, but even I think that's a ludicrous starting point

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But again, why hold the referendum if Parliament gets to decide...

Because presumably,by that logic, it was only the 'correct' result if the country voted to remain?

No not really, if the vote had been 70:30 in favour then you could have expected something more concrete. It wasn't so you can expect them to go carefully.

The point of a referendum is to get the mood/views of the populace on a specific issue which you can't really do at a GE because there are so many other issues being debated. The referendum result can then be used to inform Parliament, but Parliament are still our elected representatives who are still there to make decisions on our behalf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Verbal promises by politicians, and written promises by leaflets sent to every UK household by HM government, are two completely different things.

What about bus adverts? Seriously I could find any previous Government manifesto and point out things they didn't do.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But consider this: the country voted on June 23rd. Everybody agrees that it was a free and fair election. The country voted to leave...

Never in a million years should lawyers, judges, high court cases, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to overturn this decision on a technically...

That would be anti-democratic...

But that's the point it wasn't an election. It's a referendum; which is not there to decide who runs the Country, there's a distinct but subtle difference. And the 'Country' didn't vote to leave, there was a slim majority in favour of leaving (by 700,000 swing votes). 50% of the population that voted still want to remain. This is the difficulty the Government has, the referendum in the end gave no clear direction (and the same would have been said if positions were reversed).

And I state again the High court case is not there to overturn the decision, it is trying to ensure that the elected representatives of the Country make a decision through Parliament which is what they have been voted in to do (and that we are not sideling this process and giving the PM dictatorial powers).

Let's flip the vote and speculate for a minute: for argument's sake, let's say the country voted to remain, but a majority of MPs wanted to leave.

Would arguments about non-binding referendums or parliamentary sovereignty wash then? Hell no!

The same people screaming blue murder for Britain to stay in the EU, would be taking to the streets and probably storming parliament

It's sour grapes from the losing side, and it makes me mad, because however much the 2014 referendum result hurt me, and it bloody hurt

I have always respected the result...

Always...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Even with top class negotiators this is going to take an age to figure out, as what we seem to want is completely opposed to (a) ourselves and (b) the EU.

From what I can gather what we want from the EU is:
* Not to send them any money
* Not to follow any of their rules
* Controlled migration (and possibly deportation of EU citizens)
* Full free trade access

We may as well ask for a pony each, whilst we're at it.

Or we could look at the deals that Japan and Australia etc etc have with the EU and say, we'll have something like that, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.....What's wrong with the British people electing a UKIP government if that's what they want?

Secondly, there is talk of BREXIT not happening until 2020. Do they need 4 years to hire negotiators?

Bloody hell, we could send a rocket to Mars in that time!!!!
...

If the British people elect a UKIP govt, then pukka gen, I am getting my Irish passport and emigrating.

Also, we want quality negotiators, not bloody idiots like Boris. I'd like to think we'd make sure our representatives are good, but to be fair, 4 years is probably a bit excessive.

Sending a rocket to Mars is much, much easier to do than sort this out. It seems that some leave campaigners believe that we can pull the plug and get it all done and dusted by Christmas.

We're never going to agree on this one, but I'm invoking my democratic right to peacefully campaign for a quick article 50.

If I have to do a one man march on the HOC, then so be it...

If I have to do a John Lennon and stay in bed for months until it happens, so be it

Point is, I would urge my fellow dakka members to support me in this endeavor, because we're all democrats at the end of the day.

Britain voted to leave, let's make sure we do leave...

I'm not sure we can write of the Remainers are being a bitter minority making lots of noise - remember they were almost half of the votes, to within a statistical error margin.

With something that close I'd be expecting outrage whatever happens.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure we can write of the Remainers are being a bitter minority making lots of noise - remember they were almost half of the votes, to within a statistical error margin.

With something that close I'd be expecting outrage whatever happens.

Bitter is the wrong word, and I apologize for that, because there are a lot of remainers who contribute to this thread, and they have been articulate, well mannered and contributed to a good debate these past months. I'm not having a go at you guys.

It's the idiots in the Guardian, the commentators who casually brand leave voters as racists and idiots that get my goat.

No need to apologize, I can't decide if I'm bitter or if I'm coming to terms with it

I just wish it'd been a much wider margin, then even if I lost I wouldn't feel so robbed.

My biggest concern is that we're never going to get an agreement that half of the voting population are going to be happy with.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Kilkrazy

You're calling me pathetic?

Don't think for one second that because you're a mod I'll stand back and let you insult me for having different opinions.

I am calling it pathetic to claim that that tweet is evidence of the EU claiming GB gold medals. It very clearly is not.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Let's flip the vote and speculate for a minute: for argument's sake, let's say the country voted to remain, but a majority of MPs wanted to leave.

Would arguments about non-binding referendums or parliamentary sovereignty wash then? Hell no!

We should expect the same decision making process and that it should in the end be a decision for parliament however the vote/opinions are.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain voted to leave, let's make sure we do leave...

Surely it would be better us to make sure the decision is best for the UK and its citizens, rather than limiting ourselves to one option or another regardless?

Ahem. It was a referendum, not an election.

The result is not legally binding, whatever the leaflet may have said, because Parliament is paramount, not the government.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With something that close I'd be expecting outrage whatever happens.

Bitter is the wrong word, and I apologize for that, because there are a lot of remainers who contribute to this thread, and they have been articulate, well mannered and contributed to a good debate these past months. I'm not having a go at you guys.

It's the idiots in the Guardian, the commentators who casually brand leave voters as racists and idiots that get my goat.

Unfortunately and to be fair this is an issue on both sides as the comments on the pro-Brexit side can be just as bad, just look at the all the rage on the EU twitter page over athletes being congratulated.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ahem. It was a referendum, not an election.

The result is not legally binding, whatever the leaflet may have said, because Parliament is paramount, not the government.

I know, I know.

And like I said last time, you've got your story, I've got mine, and never the twain shall meet, or something like that.

My posts speak for themselves, and my avatar certainly speaks for itself, so my position is in no doubt.

But this lack of inactivity from our leaders is frustrating. You'll obviously disagree with me, but months from now, I'll be proven right - I think BREXIT will be the greatest stitch up this nation has seen since Munich.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With something that close I'd be expecting outrage whatever happens.

Bitter is the wrong word, and I apologize for that, because there are a lot of remainers who contribute to this thread, and they have been articulate, well mannered and contributed to a good debate these past months. I'm not having a go at you guys.

It's the idiots in the Guardian, the commentators who casually brand leave voters as racists and idiots that get my goat.

Unfortunately and to be fair this is an issue on both sides as the comments on the pro-Brexit side can be just as bad, just look at the all the rage on the EU twitter page over athletes being congratulated.

That's why I keep coming back to dakka - it seems to be the only place these days where you can get a decent debate about anything.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But this lack of inactivity from our leaders is frustrating. You'll obviously disagree with me, but months from now, I'll be proven right - I think BREXIT will be the greatest stitch up this nation has seen since Munich.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong...

It will definitely go down in the history books as to how not to do a referendum and not split your Country down the middle. Still it probably has got more people interested in politics than in the last couple of decades so it's not all bad.


Sigh... it just gets better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37163416

Feels like people are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing, to be frank. Sure, when we had an empire, we were jerks. But so was pretty much every other country who had an empire lol. Amazing how thin-skinned folks are nowadays.

@ Do_I_Not_Like_That

I'd love for a posse of Dakkanaughts to march on Parliament in the name of Brexit!

I've been looking for an excuse to go back to London anyway.

@ Kilkrazy

I got the wrong of the stick on the medals certainly, and I apologised for it.

But you were out of line. Nobody else here needed to resort to insults to make their point. Since you're a mod you should know better. And since your post has been edited, it looks like somebody else in authority thinks so too.

I don't expect you to apologise but don't expect me to let you walk all over me just because you're in a position of authority either.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Feels like people are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing, to be frank. Sure, when we had an empire, we were jerks. But so was pretty much every other country who had an empire lol. Amazing how thin-skinned folks are nowadays.

The problem is that it :-

a) questions what this MPs thoughts are on the role of the UK in the future
b) questions the common sense of the MP especially given the reaction to the EU version
c) basically tells a load of other countries that we still think they are part of the British empire and that we should still be considered 'top dog'
d) that we are deluded and still think there is a British Empire when there is no such thing
etc, etc
e) We've had the sudden realisation apology "It was all a joke...!"

Never mind that there are still wounds with regards the British empire and it could upset some people through showing lack of empathy.

On the other hand if she had said

"Congratulations to all the medal winners from our Commonwealth cousins. I look forward to seeing you all in 2 years for an amazing games in Australia. Here's a map of all those Countries that will be participating!"

then there would have been no issue. If Labour has any sense they can use this in the same way that they have been attacked recently. I expect she will be getting a call from Headteacher May this evening for being foolish.

<--- this guy is confused...

The Brexit vote was a non-binding referendum?

What's to stop Parliament from never EVER invoking article 50?

Don't ya'll have something like 4 years to trigger the article 50? What happens if the 4 years elapsed? Status quo?

EDIT: forgive me, I didn't read the entire thread as this may have been discussed before.

They don't trigger it, they're liable to suffer a revolt in MPs or get kicked out at next election.

Also as far as I know there is no limit. Why would there be?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
They don't trigger it, they're liable to suffer a revolt in MPs or get kicked out at next election.

Also as far as I know there is no limit. Why would there be?

Okay... so, the electorate could change their minds by voting in more "remain" MPs? Is there an election soon?

As to the limit, I have no idea... I read there was a 'four year period' relating to Article 50... I must be mistaken.

The referendum was an advisory vote for the populace to tell the government what they want.

The government doesn't have to follow the results of this, but it would be pretty politically bad for them. Unless things change drastically in the time before the article is triggered.

The only limit I know of is the 2 year one once the article is triggered.

 whembly wrote:
<--- this guy is confused...

The Brexit vote was a non-binding referendum?

What's to stop Parliament from never EVER invoking article 50?

Don't ya'll have something like 4 years to trigger the article 50? What happens if the 4 years elapsed? Status quo?

EDIT: forgive me, I didn't read the entire thread as this may have been discussed before.

Article 50 is a clause within the EU constitution that allows any member state to Leave the EU. It starts a two year clock after which time unless agreed with other states that Country stops being part of the EU and loses any benefits but conversely doesn't have to comply with its regulations. There's no date when you can issue it. There is an issue that the regulations are very open because no one thought anyone would be daft enough to Leave, but then we are the UK and have a habit of doing things the hard way. Until we issue the Article 50 and wait two years we are still part of the EU.

No our referendums aren't binding unless specifically legislated for (like the Scottish Independence vote), however we also don't have a constitution so how they work has never been formally written down. Our elections are based on how we've always done it, there was some concern that at the last but one election that if it was a hung parliament and there hadn't been a Lib Dem/Tory coalition that no one actually knew who should sit as the PM and it would be up to the incumbent PM to resign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:


The government doesn't have to follow the results of this, but it would be pretty politically bad for them. Unless things change drastically in the time before the article is triggered.

To be fair either way is likely to be politically bad for them. If they remain they risk losing annoyed leavers to UKIP (possibly Labour) and if they leave they risk losing annoyed remainers to Lib Dems (possibly Labour). If it had been a 60:40 or better vote one way or the other they would probably not have been too worried, but being a 50:50 split they risk losing votes either way. I think the current strategy is to play for time to see if things become more clarified in the coming years and both the Leave and Remain camp are waking up to this fact. We've had the first salvo over the vote but the real battle is likely still on the horizon.