I agree it should not bind a Labour Party Government...although there might be an argument that that should be based on a Manifesto commitment to not implement ,however It would at least be morally reprehensible for a Tory Prime Minister to not implement after Cameron's promise....and May's election manifesto commitment .
A binding Ref can only be based on a super majority. We will leave the EU. We will stay in the CU and join the EEA. All we will achieve is losing any say we had over things and losing a fair few important things like Euratom.
I wouldn’t try and have a logical discussion with a knuckle dragging racist if I were you it’ll just drive you mad.
Rumour going round tonight (from channel 4 news) is David Davis our top nigotiator is about to resin from the government , the government meet tomorrow to dicuss this white paper on leaving the EU of which they have no idea how the Irish boarder is to be tackled and taking about boarders what about the boarder on Gibraltar of which no one gives a f*** but one day they will have to. Any one with 1/2 a brain knows we are rowing a boat up **** Creek without a paddle.
To pretend that if we stay in Europe all will be good , and that if we leave will be a path to enlightenment is missing the big picture that the whole of Europe is in trouble . Even the rather prosperous central Europe are completely neive to the fact that the ECB s QE monetary policies will completely devalue their pensions . I'm afraid we are screwed either way . Short term maybe a soft Brexit . Of course we loose voting rights in the EU but to be honest they stand for very little anyway . Long term it's going to hurt either way .
In terms of super majority it is more custom and practice for any sort of constitutional change. To be fair I’m happy to leave the Eu. It will clearly be an absolute disaster and we can then rejoin and put all the racists in the past where they belong. https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...y-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt
You must believe this tripe? If you won a grand you’d whinge cos you’d need to buy a bigger wallet. Everything is doom. There is about as much right in your rant as there was on the side of that bus. The same exaggerated crap is now coming from the likes of you and the press, but in the opposite direction. Now where’s my trimmings...
As far as I see it, we'll leave without a deal, but in the transitional 2 years, half a dozen large manufacturing plants will announce plans to move overseas during that time. At the next election you will have 2 (qualified) plans to re-join some parts of the EU. I do genuinely believe the war in the middle east has unstabilized a lot of southern Europe & played into the hands of fascists in Holland and France. As a result there may be a consensus for different levels of membership, before long. Political & economic factors come into play. Countries like Greece do need to get out of the Euro. They are just really badly run in terms of tax collection from the rich. They have zero chance without devaluating, as they have in the past, leaving pensioners in poverty.
We can’t use a firm hand, because our hand is on display as it’s now got to be run through Parliament first.... our hand is well and truly shown. If this was a business deal, the other business would be laughing their tits off... as I suspect the EU is.
So your company already knows the score and the deal... maybe you could let the rest of the world know so that they can do it. We’ve not always been in the EU you know?
It wasn't binding- just found this There was nothing in the EU Referendum Act that made the result legally binding The European Union Referendum Act 2015 – the law that allowed the referendum to take place – didn’t specify what would happen in the event of a vote to leave. We know that because it didn’t contain any explicit statement to make clear that the result would be legally binding. The House of Lords Constitution Committeeexplained in a 2010 report why that’s the case. It said “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”. In other words, unless Parliament actively agrees to bind itself to the result of a future referendum, it is not legally obliged to enact the outcome. In fact, the government recognised the need to make these things explicit in 2011, when Parliament passed the legislation to allow for a referendum on electoral reform. Section 8 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 makes very clearthat the government would have to enact a new voting system in the event of a “yes” vote. There was no such provision in the EU Referendum Act, which in legal terms means that the result was not binding. Indeed, this was the basis of the supreme court ruling in January 2017, which clarified that an act of Parliament was required before the government could trigger Article 50. Not legally binding, but politically inevitable? But of course, the political reality is very different. In the same House of Lords report that said referenda were not legally binding, the committee concluded that “it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion”. Polling from earlier this year suggests around 70 per cent of the public believe Brexit should go ahead – including some “Re-leavers”, who voted to remain last year, but who now accept that the UK should withdraw.