In message , at 13:20:57 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?

British MEPs.

Which ones?

You made the assertion, you back it up.

Pointless, you'll just move the goal posts for the tenth time.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:42:37 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:20:57 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?

British MEPs.

Which ones?

You made the assertion, you back it up.

Pointless, you'll just move the goal posts for the tenth time.

Fine. I'll stick with my assertion that no one in the UK voted for Juncker,
he's been imposed upon us by people from other countries.

--
Spud

In message , at 14:41:58 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?

British MEPs.

Which ones?

You made the assertion, you back it up.

Pointless, you'll just move the goal posts for the tenth time.

Fine. I'll stick with my assertion that no one in the UK voted for Juncker,
he's been imposed upon us by people from other countries.

"You made the assertion, you back it up".
--
Roland Perry

On 09/11/2016 16:31, tim... wrote:
But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

Oh come on

The Tories are implementing it (because it was voted for), because to do
anything else would see them lose considerable support to UKIP at the
next election.

They are following the result of the referendum because politics forces
them to. not because they are legally required to do so.

I realize all that. But this, in turn, is only because they didn't
explain in the first place that it wasn't intended to be binding.

(Apparently when the Referendum Bill was going through Parliament they
*did* brief MPs that it wasn't binding.)

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could
have written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would
have also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

They didn't bother to do that because they had no expectation of losing,

Indeed. Idiocy on their part.

Mind, if they'd made it binding in the Bill it might not have passed.

On 08/11/2016 22:53, Optimist wrote:
But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Totally irrelevant.

In fact, the Queen could refuse to take that advice. Which would cause
a(nother) constitutional crisis.

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Scottish independence and the 1997 referendums weren't written to be
binding.

The Alternative Vote referendum was explicitly binding:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/8

"The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule
10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if —
(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes”
than in favour of the answer “No”, and
[...]
(2) If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer
“Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order
repealing the alternative vote provisions."

The latter was done:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

Europe in 1975 wasn't binding. I heard an interview with one of the
ministers involved in that who said that a "no" vote would have been
used to negotiate better terms with the rest of the EEC and would *not*
have led to us leaving.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:53:53 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 08/11/2016 22:53, Optimist wrote:
But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises
the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only
advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in
practice means
"instructed".

Totally irrelevant.

In fact, the Queen could refuse to take that advice. Which would cause
a(nother) constitutional crisis.

Reminds me of the "policing by consent" schtick that inevitably gets churned
out eventually whenever a police force is embroiled in some controversy or
scandal. If that were actually the case then probably half the estates in some
parts of south london would tell the police to bugger off and not come back and
they'd have to oblidge.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:06:12 on Thu, 10 Nov
2016, Roland Perry remarked:

This isn't hypothetical, there's a huge Data Protection shake-up due to
be in force by May 2018.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ce.svc/evidenc
edocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/responsibilities-of-the-
secretary-of-state-for-culture-media-and-sport/oral/42119.html

Minister (Q72): "I had a meeting in the Department for Exiting the
European Union on Thursday with the Secretary of State. We went through
a number of matters. An example might be the General Data Protection
Regulation, which of course comes into effect in the spring of 2018. We
will be members of the EU in 2018 and therefore it would be expected and
quite normal for us to opt into the GDPR and then look later at how best
we might be able to help British business with data protection while
maintaining high levels of protection for members of the public."

I wonder if "help British business" means water it down a tad?
--
Roland Perry

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote in message
news
On 09/11/2016 16:31, tim... wrote:
But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

Oh come on

The Tories are implementing it (because it was voted for), because to do
anything else would see them lose considerable support to UKIP at the
next election.

They are following the result of the referendum because politics forces
them to. not because they are legally required to do so.

I realize all that. But this, in turn, is only because they didn't explain
in the first place that it wasn't intended to be binding.

But they did explain

see the conversation elsewhere about the contents of the leaflet HMG spent
12 million (was it) sending to every household

that that leaflet didn't reflect the act that they passed doesn't give the
act (political) primacy here

IMHO it is the information in the leaflet that the punter's believed, with
*every* reason to do so.

tim

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:41:15 +0000, wrote:

snip

Unless your home is something like Blenhiem palace

My God, how obvious now you've pointed it out! The scales have fallen
from my eyes.

Consider this:
reactionary old fart: tick
never known to admit being wrong: tick
frequent use of wardroom language: tick
often gets mouth and brain in wrong order: tick
has trouble with pet hairs on the carpet: tick
posts in a London newsgroup: tick

Not Blenheim Palace, but Buckingham Palace. Spud AKA Boltar is none
other than Phil the Bubble's sock.

Looking good for 95, Your Royal Highness, Sir. Aiming for the
telegram, are we? Oh, hang on a mo...

:-)

On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

Not quite.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to
overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given.
This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the
Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the
Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I.