Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
MatskiMonk
People going on about defending and honoring the will of the people does my head in.... 51.9% of 72.2% of 73% of the "people" wanted this action that was offered by a government that only 37% of the voters (or 17% of the "people" wanted in power in the first place) ... and it's being undertaken by a government that only hold power thanks to the votes of 292,000 people in Northern Ireland - who actually voted for someone else...

Will of the people my bumhole.
Click to expand...
It is for this reason that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding - but unfortunately triggering Article 50 is legally binding.

Ironically, the only credible way to avoid a No Deal Brexit now is... (wait for it!)... to hold another referendum!... but one wonders why the EU/ECJ have left it until well beyond the point where a second referendum can legally be held to tell us (well, almost) that Article 50 can be revoked if a second referendum were held!

-

I personally hope that the EU come to their senses when this travesty of a Brexit deal is shot down by a huge majority of MPs on Tuesday next week, and realise that they now face the UK's disorderly exit from the EU or allowing us the time to hold a second referendum on the subject. Hopefully they will agree no strings attached to the latter, and then the UK can revoke Article 50 when it becomes clear that there is no support for No Deal in Parliament either.

But... while it looks very much like the UK can withdraw Article 50 at any time up until March 29th 2019 and maintain its membership of the EU on its current terms (which I personally would like to see for the time being), I seriously doubt that there will be no strings attached. A careful reading of the ECJ's opinion released the other day makes it fairly clear that the fate of future Article 50 proceedings lies squarely with the ECJ. It may sound like splitting hairs, but there are very serious implications for the UK if we find ourselves in a situation in a few years time where we are not allowed to invoke Article 50 again, if the ECJ make the judgement that we are using Article 50 to get ourselves more favourable terms (which, let's face it, that would be the case if we were to request to leave again once this current debacle is over and done with). So, what then of our sovereign right to trigger Article 50 and/or withdraw it? It will, hopefully, be purely hypothetical, but the trouble is that it very well may not be.

edit: What is more likely, however, is that the UK will retain its sovereign right to trigger Article 50 again, but the ECJ will probably determine that revoking it a second time was 'abusing' the process and thus deny the UK the right to revoke it again.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
Ironically, the only credible way to avoid a No Deal Brexit now is... (wait for it!)... to hold another referendum!... but one wonders why the EU/ECJ have left it until well beyond the point where a second referendum can legally be held to tell us (well, almost) that Article 50 can be revoked if a second referendum were held!
Click to expand...

Would we actually need a referendum for the government to revoke article 50?
 
Touring Mars
It is for this reason that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding - but unfortunately triggering Article 50 is legally binding.

Ironically, the only credible way to avoid a No Deal Brexit now is... (wait for it!)... to hold another referendum!... but one wonders why the EU/ECJ have left it until well beyond the point where a second referendum can legally be held to tell us (well, almost) that Article 50 can be revoked if a second referendum were held!

-

I personally hope that the EU come to their senses when this travesty of a Brexit deal is shot down by a huge majority of MPs on Tuesday next week, and realise that they now face the UK's disorderly exit from the EU or allowing us the time to hold a second referendum on the subject. Hopefully they will agree no strings attached to the latter, and then the UK can revoke Article 50 when it becomes clear that there is no support for No Deal in Parliament either.

But... while it looks very much like the UK can withdraw Article 50 at any time up until March 29th 2019 and maintain its membership of the EU on its current terms (which I personally would like to see for the time being), I seriously doubt that there will be no strings attached. A careful reading of the ECJ's opinion released the other day makes it fairly clear that the fate of future Article 50 proceedings lies squarely with the ECJ. It may sound like splitting hairs, but there are very serious implications for the UK if we find ourselves in a situation in a few years time where we are not allowed to invoke Article 50 again, if the ECJ make the judgement that we are using Article 50 to get ourselves more favourable terms (which, let's face it, that would be the case if we were to request to leave again once this current debacle is over and done with). So, what then of our sovereign right to trigger Article 50 and/or withdraw it? It will, hopefully, be purely hypothetical, but the trouble is that it very well may not be.
Click to expand...
In other words, if the people vote to leave, the court can say no?

baldgye
All referendum's in the UK are, as Parliament is sovereign
Click to expand...

Scottish Referendum had legal empowerment.
 
At this point in time it doesn't look as if anyone is capable of pulling of a successful Brexit. Might be time to initiate Brnevermindladspleaseletusstay
 
Tired Tyres
In other words, if the people vote to leave, the court can say no?
Click to expand...

All referendums are advisory in the UK, the government can ignore them. It is why they are not only very rare, but also usually require a decent threshold to have been crossed in order for them to be meaningful or having something changed (~70%).
If the referendum had been held correctly and not as a political gamble non of this would be happening and Cameron would still be PM.
 
MatskiMonk
Would we actually need a referendum for the government to revoke article 50?
Click to expand...
Perhaps not - however the fact that the original decision to leave was taken after a referendum may imply that another referendum would be required to overturn the decision...

Tired Tyres
In other words, if the people vote to leave, the court can say no?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so (see the edit I added to the last post)... but a second decision to leave the EU would almost certainly be met with an ECJ ruling that revoking Article 50 again would be out of the question.
 
baldgye
All referendums are advisory in the UK, the government can ignore them. It is why they are not only very rare, but also usually require a decent threshold to have been crossed in order for them to be meaningful or having something changed (~70%).
If the referendum had been held correctly and not as a political gamble non of this would be happening and Cameron would still be PM.
Click to expand...
Again. The Scottish Referendum had legal empowerment.
 
Wasn't the 2011 Electoral system referendum vote pre-determined as being binding also?

I mean, I'm not saying that we shouldn't take the word of a man that has sex with pigs heads as golden... but it does help when these things are agreed upon before hand.
 
MatskiMonk
Wasn't the 2011 Electoral system referendum vote pre-determined as being binding also?

I mean, I'm not saying that we shouldn't take the word of a man that has sex with pigs heads as golden... but it does help when these things are agreed upon before hand.
Click to expand...
This?

I think they simply needed to have a bill passed in Parliament in order to hold the referendum and how it would be worded and what would be voted on. But I'm only reading Wikipedia and am not a political legal expert :D
 
baldgye
This?

I think they simply needed to have a bill passed in Parliament in order to hold the referendum and how it would be worded and what would be voted on. But I'm only reading Wikipedia and am not a political legal expert :D
Click to expand...
Reading Wikipedia shows that you aren't. :mischievous:
 
A law was pushed through to make the Scottish Referendum binding. This was a one-off case.

As a general rule, any UK referendum is simply advisory.
 
EamerRed
A law was pushed through to make the Scottish Referendum binding. This was a one-off case.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something?

...strictly speaking, any Scottish independence referendum—whether held with the agreement of Westminster or not—would be an “advisory” political instruction to Scottish and UK lawmakers to act upon.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be rude, but two people have claimed that the Scottish Referendum result was legally binding, I've cited two links that are trusted seemingly refuting this. Can those who are disagreeing with this please post some links or something?
 
Last edited:
EamerRed
A law was pushed through to make the Scottish Referendum binding. This was a one-off case.
Click to expand...
Source? I haven't read or heard anything to suggest that the Scottish independence referendum was legally binding - it was legal, but not legally binding AFAIK.
 
I think the point here is that a referendum can be legally binding, but the EU one wasn't, so personally, I don't see why we'd need another referendum to revoke article 50.
 
ITV have scrapped their plans to televise the May/Corbyn debate. I suspect that one or both sides have simply been (deliberately) too difficult to work with.
 
There's no point in a public debate anyway. If there's no mechanism for involvement of the public, what does it matter? The time for public debate was before the referendum... not 113 days before we leave.
 
baldgye
What would they debate?
Both leaders want Brexit :lol:
Click to expand...
Yes but May wants a not-brexit where we have to comply with all the rules of our new lords and masters the EU.

jezzer wants his cake and to it eat it with six rules which cannot be accepted by the EU.
 
TenEightyOne
Nope. The one-off case was the Alternative Vote referendum.

Is this the source you're using for your claim? :D

View attachment 784731
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. My point actually was that referenda in the UK in general are simply advisory. I did some research to see if the Scottish Referendum fit this but found something which contradicted that claim, which typically I now can't find!

I stand corrected. But my point was that in (nearly?) all cases a referendum is simply advisory. Not that the EU one should have been.
 
Tired Tyres
Yes but May wants a not-brexit where we have to comply with all the rules of our new lords and masters the EU.

jezzer wants his cake and to it eat it with six rules which cannot be accepted by the EU.
Click to expand...
Can’t you reply to my post?
Again. You claimed something to be a true which no one seems to be able to verify.
 
baldgye
Can’t you reply to my post?
Again. You claimed something to be a true which no one seems to be able to verify.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough I can't find any verification either. I heard it on the BBC in context to the difference between the Scottish and EU Referendums, but nothing on the gov.uk site.
 

Similar threads

DK
Brexit and motorsport
Replies
8
Views
1K
mustafur
mustafur
KSaiyu
The EU
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Hun200kmh
Hun200kmh
syntex123
  • Poll
POLL: The GT7 Photo Mode Competition Revival #1 (My First Gran Turismo) - CLOSED
Replies
3
Views
1K
syntex123
syntex123
Touring Mars
SNP win overall majority in Scottish parliament elections
Replies
18
Views
3K
Shaun
Shaun
MagpieRacer
  • Poll
WRC Modern Classics Season 3 voting
Replies
14
Views
3K
RYAN
RYAN

Latest Posts

Back