Thommo wrote:GrahamH wrote:tuco wrote:The tricky part of Brexit plan is that its not unilateral declaration but rather consensus between the UK and the EU. In this sense, what can anyone promise to deliver except general statements?
Sure, it's all fucked up and a GE is not a good vehicle, but without GE with Brexit plan in the manifesto, or a second referendum on such a plan, what mandate does any PM have to act, beyond delivering notice under Article 50?
In or out of the EEA? No mandate.
Free movement? No mandate.
Paying money to the EU? No mandate.
Surely we have to either start with a plan that has a mandate, or just press the button, see what we can get, and present that deal to the people. Do you think it would be adequate to just present the negotiated deal to a Europhile Parliament?
Big changes that are not tested by referendum are usually introduced through GE manifestos.
The mandate on those issues stems from the fundamental character of a representative democracy and passing a bill in the houses of parliament, accepting that whatever has been negotiated represents the best the negotiating team under the auspices of a prime minister and cabinet can achieve. The concept of a "mandate" is pretty nebulous and a general election fought among constituencies rather than for a president, on a range of issues involving disparate views on hundreds of important issues condensed down into a couple of options is unlikely to resolve any of those things.
Yes, quoting from an article in the Times today:
Lucy Fisher wrote:New UK legislation to trigger the formal treaty mechanism that would take Britain out of the EU will be required to facilitate Brexit, top QCs have warned.
The requirement for a new law could scupper the move to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which sets out the legal process for a nation's secession from the EU, because a majority of MPs backed Ramain and could in principle block the Leave result in the Commons.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, founder of Doughty Street Chambers, told the Times: "People think Brexit is a done deal; it's not. Our democracy rests on parliamentary sovereignty, which is in the keeping of MPs, who make or break laws, and peers, who can block laws.
"Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament has to act by repealing the legislation that keeps Britain in the EU. And in that vote MPs are entitled to act according to their conscience and what is best for Britain."
He predicted that MPs representing London and Scottish seats would likely "have no moral difficulty" in rejecting the result because their constituents did not vote for it. He insisted that others could "quite properly decide that by the time the repeal comes before parliament, probably in November, that Brexit would turn out badly for Britain, and decide to vote against it".
Another leading QC also said that new legislation would be required. Charles Flint, QC, from Blackstone Chambers, says in a letter to The Times published today: "Under the European Union Act 2011....a change to the treaty on European Union, agreed between member states, would have required approval both by referendum and by act of parliament."
So Scot Dutchy in post #1988 had a better point than I realised:
Scot Dutchy wrote:The House of Commons should reject the referendum result. A few people could be angry but it would be worth it. Any other position to that of being a full member will be a disaster and turn out very expensive with less rights.
The British constitution doesn't exist as such, but in general nothing's mandated until parliament says so. At the same time, the article suggests parliament not voting on the matter until November, rather than now, which would leave more time for the ramifications to have become clearer and, with any luck, for general opinion to have shifted, so that English MPs who back remain, but whose constituencies voted leave, would not be voting (or at least not so blatantly) against their own electorate.
by 
Do you think its possibly historic?
