Brexit: Article 50 author says Theresa May is misleading the public on reversing result

Discussion in 'Society, Culture and Politics' started by PD, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. PD

    PD Retired

    Lord Kerr will use speech to condemn the Prime Minister for making a ‘political decision’ to withhold the fact that the Government can unilaterally stop Brexit if it wants to ...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-public-author-lord-kerr-claims-a8046676.html

    Second referendum anyone?
     
  2. Rickshaw Phil

    Rickshaw Phil Regular Member

    Location:
    Salop
    Please no! Don't make us go through all that lot again.:blink:
     
    pubrunner likes this.
  3. Pale Rider

    Pale Rider Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Are you missing the Brexit thread in the other place already?
     
    Rickshaw Phil likes this.
  4. Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    The vote has been taken and the people have made their voice heard. The end, or does Lord Kerr want to continue to disregard the vote of the people of the United Kingdom and carry on having referendums until he/the labour party gets the vote that THEY want? Democracy at it's finest?
     
    Jezza likes this.
  5. Spinney

    Spinney Regular Member

    Hmm. You mean like Farage & Co said they were going to had the vote been the same percentages in the other direction?
     
  6. Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member


    And the SNP's and breaking away from the Uk. All much the same in my oppinion. But the fact remains, the majority of people did vote to leave. And although the Labour party are continually saying that they are not trying to get the outcome changed, this piece along with others seems to be saying the opposite.
     
  7. Pale Rider

    Pale Rider Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I can't recall what Farage said about losing, but I suppose you cannot expect anyone to change their view.

    As a stay vote would have been a vote for the status quo, the Leave lot wouldn't have had any constituency to press for change.

    The idea of calling for another vote until you get the result you want seems a new one to me, with those who want an independent Scotland being the worst offenders.

    I don't recall lots of antis calling for another vote when we voted to join what was then called the Common Market.
     
  8. robjh

    robjh Member

    Largely because we didn't have a vote on joining. There was a referendum two years later on staying in, which was won by a thumping majority. It didn't stop the 'antis' as you call them campaigning to overthrow this decision, with Labour even going into the 1983 election committed to leaving, and the current generation of leavers have been banging on openly about another referendum for at least 20 years now.
     
  9. stowie

    stowie Member

    From my understanding, Lord Kerr is saying that "reversing Brexit" is legally possible. Theresa May -and many of her Brexit colleagues - have implied that Article 50 is irreversible legally. Because it is legally possible doesn't mean it politically possible, and certainly doesn't mean a second referendum.
     
    Jezza and Welsh dragon like this.
  10. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    That dog don't hunt.
    What Lord Kerr claims is possibly true.
    That what Lord Kerr claims be manifest, is incredible.
    The referendum result was, and is; binding upon Parliament.
    Out we pop.
    :smile:
     
  11. Spinney

    Spinney Regular Member

    The result was not legally binding.

    Politically binding, maybe, but that's not the same thing as legally binding.
     
  12. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Maybe over in Zimbabwe that argument might work.
    Not here in Blighty though. I'm democrat enough to believe that a democratic judiciary will not flout the expressed will of the electorate.
    Others believe otherwise, as is their right.
     
  13. Spinney

    Spinney Regular Member

    The judiciary will uphold the law. That is what they are for. If politicians try to do something that is against the law (like Trump's anti-immigration acts when he first took office), they have the power to stop them. The judiciary have no powers to go against the will of parliament in any other circumstances.

    The Act of Parliament that set up the referrendum stated that it was not binding. This is nothing to do with different interpretations of the law. The Act clearly states this.

    Kerr is saying that, legally, Article 50 can be reversed, if politicians decide to do so, and that the government has been lying when it says Article 50 - as a legal action - cannot be reversed.

    None of that is anything to do with whether the government will or should stick with or reverse it. It is only a statement that it could be reversed.

    What do you mean by a democratic judiciary? They are not elected to office.

    The people who may, but almost certainly won't, 'flout the expressed will of the electorate' are the politicians, not the judiciary.
     
    robjh, Aitch and Nazz like this.
  14. Pale Rider

    Pale Rider Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I think Spinney's description as 'politically binding' is a good one.

    The all but technicality of the referendum not being legally binding was seized on by those desperate to reverse the result.

    Everyone who was entitled to vote was told voting was worthwhile because the result would be acted upon.

    That's really the end of it.
     
    Jezza likes this.
  15. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Precisely.
    :smile:
    Kudos.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice