Revoke Brexit On Day One......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49720863
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.

[jim360]

It's still far from certain we'll leave on October 31st, deal or otherwise. But even leaving that detail aside it's a bold and probably too strong promise. I am not convinced that winning a General Election on its own would be moral grounds for overturning the 2016 Referendum.

[ToraToraTora]

jim that's because, although you may not have agreed with the outcome, you do respect the result. These people have no such burden, they are quite happy to ignore the people's choice.

[Spicerack]

Especially a referendum she asked for.

[Ellipsis]

If there is an election before Brexit, and if as a result of that election the Lib Dems go from 12 MPs to 326+ MPs, I'd say they have a mandate. i.e. Election 2019 trumps Referendum 2016. It isn't going to happen though!

[andy-hughes]

I'll say what I said last time - when you have no chance on this side of the end of the world of being elected, you can promise whatever you like, safe in the knowledge that you will never have to dream of delivering it.

[Gromit]

My predictions published recently needs modifying.
After this week, whatever the Court Rules, The Government are going to have their Queens Speech.
And it will be the first one rejected by Parliament.
The Ex-Tory rebels, and the united Opposition will reject the Queens’ Speech, and the Governments Future legislation will be voided.

[vetuste_ennemi]

// I am not convinced that winning a General Election on its own would be moral grounds for overturning the 2016 Referendum.//

Interesting. Is the moral issue "overturning" v "subverting" as in one good, one bad?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Oops,. wrong way round: one bad, one good.

[Gromit]

If the next General Election is a choice between a party or Parties whose manifesto(s) is that we will abandon Brexit, and that Party, or more than one Party win, then their is clearly a new mandate from the people that supersedes the 2016 result.

[jim360]

General Elections are, at least nominally, fought on more than just one issue. So while I agree that the Lib Dems would have a mandate in the (more or less certainly impossible) case where they win an outright majority in the General Election, it wouldn't be unreasonable to feel uneasy about it. A referendum should really only be superseded (not subverted) by another referendum. Like with like seems a reasonable democratic principle.

As a matter of fact, I doubt that the Lib Dems would have the Legal power to revoke Brexit on "day one" anyway. At the very least, they would surely have to repeal the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is now primary legislation that (due to the Court ruling R (Miller) v SS Exiting the EU) can't be undermined by executive actions.

Of course, the Lib Dems would probably be able to push through the necessary legislation, which can just be modelled on the Notification Act 2017, very quickly indeed. The Lords would even be onside this time.

All of this is hypothetical. There is a slim chance at best that the LibDems will win a majority. I'd expect to see them increase their seat share, perhaps quite significantly, but no more than that.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The issue is not that you voted Tory (or Monster Raving Loony Party) in 2016, but, hey, you've now come to your senses. It's that I deliberately impeded the installation of that government chosen by the unwashed and stupid by parliamentary delay, and I've now got a get out for being a tunc.

[Jackdaw33]

//I'd expect to see them increase their seat share, perhaps quite significantly, but no more than that.\\

On the contrary, I'd expect it to decrease. The LD party and their leader are a standing joke and totally out of rouch with the mood of the electorate.

[jim360]

We shall see. But, so far, signs have been pointing in the other direction. There are a lot of "hard"(-ish) Remain voters that they can tap into.

[Ellipsis]

> A referendum should really only be superseded (not subverted) by another referendum. Like with like seems a reasonable democratic principle.

Nope, don't agree. Or at least it's debatable. Any Government has to be able to undo (or not carry on with) the work of the previous Government, otherwise what's the point of an election?

The referendum came about as a result of a promise in the manifesto of a party that came to power through an election. That, and other things, makes an election a "higher democratic authority" than a referendum held by a Government that was placed there by an election.

[naomi24]

//Is the moral issue "overturning" v "subverting" as in one good, one bad?//

Is either ‘moral’?

[Davemano]

Yes I agree Jackdaw, and some of the rebels who crossed over are more than likely to lose their seats.

[THECORBYLOON]

JIM, if the Court rules the prorogation unlawful, Parliament would be sitting again. The Queen would then need to prorogue Parliament for a Queen's Speech to take place.

[Jackdaw33]

I tend to agree with Ellipsis. As Dicey pointed out, no parliament can bind its successors. Of course, this was in the days when referenda were unheard of.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//A referendum should really only be superseded (not subverted) by another referendum. Like with like seems a reasonable democratic principle//

Cameron and parliamentiary claque: this is a binary decision; it is a once in a lifetime's choice; it will determine our children's future.

We, the Government, and the loyal Opposition promise to implement your decision.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I would have greater respect for the liars who pretend not to have been if they just did a Swinson on us and said, "OK, just kidding. Never had any intention of listening to the rabble."

I have no problem with people who want to remain out of principle of whatever sort, only with the pond life subset of those which pretended that it would respect a popular mandate.