OT: was it, in fact, only advisory?

I just searched the text of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and could not find the word "advisory" anywhere.
--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You wouldn't.
How many more times must it be explained to you that ultimate power in this country rests with the Queen in Parliament - or Parliament in short ? And has done so ever since the passing of the Bill of Rights of 1689.
In fact were you to be presented with questions on this topic in a Citizenship Test of some kind, on entry into this Country, most likely you would fail and be subject to deportation back to wherever it was you originally came from. Lucky old them, eh ?
As a result of this Parliament cannot be bound by the result of any referendum; or for that matter any other manifestation of mob rule, as engineered by yourself and your chums. Initially so at to settle a squabble amongst yourselves as members of the Conservative Party, and latterly so as to secure power for yourselves and your own little clique at the expense of the vast majority of the population of this country.
The fact that you were able to successfully bamboozle a sizeable number of people with your lies and deceptions doesn't in any way legitimise your activities in seeking to destroy the economy of this country.
michael adams
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*applause*
Quoted in full because it's worth re-reading.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 58th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good. Thanks for confirming what I already thought. There is no legal obligation, but there is an obvious political one. After all, the referendum in Wales for the Welsh Assembly was only passed by a small margin IIRC. Perhaps you think Blair should have ignored that.
--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


The Welsh Assembly was established not as a direct result of the outcome of the referendum, as you pretend to believe, but as a result of debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament; voting on what became the Government of Wales Act of 1998. While to quote -
"The Act limited the National Assembly to the making of secondary legislation only when authorised by the UK Parliament. Such powers were broadly equivalent to those previously held by the Secretary of State for Wales.
http://www.assembly.wales/en/abthome/role-of-assembly-how-it-works/Pages/history-welsh-devolution.aspx
To repeat - "only when authorised by the UK Parliament".
So that in fact, the particular "political" measure you chose as your example, simply provided the Welsh with a talking shop and very little else. At that stage, at least.
But then maybe that's the difference between Tony Blair and your erstwhile leader David Cameron, the person who got the country into this mess.
Blair knew beforehand that he could quite happily accommodate any outcome such a promised referendum might throw up. Whereas Cameron clearly didn't. But instead was quite happy to gamble his own political future and that of the future economic prosperity of this country, on a vote he had no guarantee of winning.
michael adams
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/10/17 13:05, michael adams wrote:

He did what he was told to do. It went wrong, he left whistling
--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/10/17 11:15, michael adams wrote:

What a nasty piece of work you are to be sure. why dont you fuck off to the continent.
--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Streater wrote:

I think once Cameron had said 'whatever you say - we will do', he'd created a situation where the result was either followed through, or any remaining vestige of faith in politicians would be lost. OTOH, he could hardly say 'whatever you say - we will debate it and let you know what we decide' :-) It was probably a mistake for him to say that, but he must have had a good reason. One could suggest that it was a mistake to have the referendum in the first place, but I think the issue was never going to go away. Perhaps he thought that by dealing with it sooner, he'd be more likely to get a remain result, and membership would then somehow have been legitimised? I wonder what would have happened if they'd done it maybe ten years ago? It'll be in his memoirs, no doubt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 11:45:12 +0100, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

It would have been the work of a couple of primary school kids to add a bit to the referendum to ensure that a 50/50 split would translate as a "carry on as we are" result.
Minimum turnout for a start. Some sort of convergence across the constituent parts of the UK. A required majority (2/3 maybe) before further action.
FWIW, every single constituency in the country ignores the mathematical fact that an MP is almost always elected by a minority of voters. So being forced to accept a 50/50 split - either way - isn't necessarily anti-democractic by UK standards. And I say that as someone who came down with the wrong 50%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 11:45:15 UTC+1, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Didn't seach very thoughly then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendu m to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland an d Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Uni on or leave it.
SO what do you think the term non-binding referendum means ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 11:45:15 UTC+1, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Didn't seach very thoughly then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Union or leave it.
SO what do you think the term non-binding referendum means ?
...
Sorry chum. That's simply how Wiki characterises it.
The point Tim Streater is making, and in which he is correct, is that there is no reference to it's being "advisory" in the Act itself.
As indeed there can't be.
Supposing instead that due to an oversight by whoever drafted it, an enabling Bill which was passed in some future Parliament for a referendum - say the "2025 Refendum Act" included the following clause
25:The outcome of this refendum is binding
this would be equally meaningless.
As regardless of the actual result, legislation in the UK can only be enacted by a vote on a Bill in the UK Parliament. And basically if Parliament refused to pass whatever it was that was voted for in the referendum there's damn all anyone could do about it.
It might force a General Election but even then there's no guarentee that it would be enacted even then.
That's what Parliamentary Democracy actually means.
The same applies to all EU laws and the UK's supposed "loss of sovereignty". It has always been open to the UK Parliament to refuse to enact any EU Law it chose and by so doing end the UK's membership of the EU.
There has never been any doubt about this, although Eurosceptics have always claimed otherwise.
As it happens the UK Parliamant having given due consideration to all the issues involved has never voted to refuse to enact any EU law and thus leave the EU;seeing it as being in the UK's best interests to remain.
This has always been the perogative of the UK Parliament to decide; by the MP's we chose to represent us.
Again this is what representative democracy actually means.
What it isn't, is the perogative of the mob, stirred up the lies and falsehoods emanating from a small clique of interested parties solely interested in grabbing and holding onto power and influence solely for themselves.
michael adams
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:25:08 +0100, "michael adams"

Well said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:24:11 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

No it isn't.

There wouldn't be in teh act itself as this is down to what a referedum actually is it IS NOT a VOTE otherwise we would have had a vote NOT a referedum.
It was said at the time a referedum is advisory.
A referedum is a vote on a proposal and that is it. Referendums can be advisory or mandatory. But there was no mention of it being mandatory either.
a referedum is also the entiey electorate rather than just those that voted , which is how it was explained to me years ago, in that if you get 5 people voting to do X and 4 to do Y then if the number of those eligible to vote is 30 then only 5 out of 30 voted for X and only 4 out of 30 voted for Y then nothing changes because less than 50% i.e. 15 people agreed on anything.
https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/05/what-is-the-difference-between-an-election-and-a-referendum/

exactly so a result in a referedum isn't binding in any way.

Yes I know, and that is what should have happend the referedum should have waited until the party suggesting it was in power. In this case UKIP would have had top win the last general election.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:04:52 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave

Unless the constitution says that referendums are mandatory then they're not. Oh look, the UK hasn't even got a constitution. Therefore all referendums are advisory.

True.
--snip--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So unlike all other elections, a referendum takes into account the "failed to express a preference" people? That sounds very bizarre, even if it is true. Are there any other "elections" (in the widest sense of the word) where those people who fail to vote are assumed to have voted one way or the other, rather than being ignored and excluded from the decision-making process?
It's like petitions that protest groups ask you to sign: if it's an issue that I strongly disagree with, I want to be able to sign an counter-petition (or cancel out one of the signatures in favour) rather than simply choosing not to sign. Whenever I hear "X thousand people signed a petition in support of issue Y", the first thought that occurs to me is "... and how many people signed to say they were *opposed* to issue Y?".
Anything that canvasses the public's opinion needs to present the number in favour and opposed, and maybe the total electorate who could have voted, though I would say that if 20% voted in favour and 10% voted against, that is a clear vote in favour and should be acted upon, even though 70% of the electorate have failed to express any preference either way. To react any differently is to tacitly assume that the 70% who failed to vote would have side with "not in favour", and you cannot assume that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 17:13:18 UTC+1, Mark wrote:

That's what I have always thought. Even before the referedum I remmeber some saying that the vote was only advisory and that the govenrment wouldn;t need top act on it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:04:52 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

The Act is all about the mechanics of the thing, as well as what it's about. The 'advisory' thing was said explicitly, and back in 2013 or so a cross-party committee decided that referendums were all to be advisory.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes.

The reason was obviously to get more of the voters to get off their lard arses and vote because they would believe that the vote would determine what would happen.

Corse it wouldn’t, just like independence for the hairy legged cross dressers and the catalans isnt going to either.

Yes, he stupidly believed that the majority wanted to remain in the EU.
He did however accurately predict that the majority of the hairy legged cross dressers would vote to remain in the UK if bribed effectively enough.
Its impossible to get all those predictions right and he did have the balls to quit when he had fucked up so spectacularly.

We'll never know.

But is just as likely to be as self serving as Blair's shit is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

They should have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The Lib-Desm held the balance of votes in the commons but bottled out on the claim it would turn into an in-out referendum.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/10/17 11:45, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

No one understood the 'leave' support.
It was supposed to once and for all stop the tory infighting, so the plan was to have a referendum and then put the whole idea of leaving the EU to bed for at a least a generation.
They fucked it up. Cameron fucked it up. The EU fucked it up. 'Bog' Geldof fucked it up.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/geldof-sneer.jpg
And now its a right buggers muddel because in general the majorotyu of politians - especially in the EU - are EUphiles. Thats where old politicians and revolutionary student activists end up. In the EU.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit - on the barricades in 1967, now in the EU.
None of these peole are competent. And thats why they want the EU, because it saves tham actually having to run the country. The EU does that and they just take the money abnd fuck off.
--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.