From a FB poster. Pretty much sums up what is happening. I just hope the Supreme Court sees sense before we head towards horrible times!
"My take on the judges decision. I'll start with a few quotes:
(sic.) "We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome."
[Page 75, "The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015" Crown Publishing, 2015]
(sic.) "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
[page 14, 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK', Crown Publishing, 2016]
I can't see how the referendum process could have been made ANY clearer. With live in a Parliamentary Democracy, but in this instance, Parliament chose to give THE PEOPLE the vote, in the form of a referendum. The government may have proposed the referendum, but it was Parliament themselves that enacted the referendum. They made the decision to give THE PEOPLE the choice.
Furthermore, the referendum leaflet (sent to every single household) contained content that had been agreed across ALL the main parties, prior to publication.
It was clear: "The Government will implement what YOU decide".
They can use legal 'airs-and-graces' all they like, but it doesn't conceal the fact that they are taking tentative steps towards overturning what they consider an unexpected and unwelcome referendum result. It's now established that, from a legal perspective, the referendum is NOT 'legally-binding'. To me, the caveats suggest one of two things:
1. Either they were complacent/inept when they were scrutinising the law and drafting up the terms of the referendum.
or
2. It was entirely deliberate, in order to provide a legal 'get out clause' and thus, the intention was never to GENUINELY let the people decide.
Either way, it's not very good, is it? I think irrespective of whether you are pro or anti EU, you should find this latest legal-manoeuvring very unsettling, not for what it can achieve, but for what it represents. It basically ensures that the voice of unelected peers and MP's who wish to defy the wishes of their electorate, will ALWAYS supersede the voice of the people.
They are cleverly trying to "dress this up" by saying that it is to allow Parliament a voice on HOW Brexit is conducted, and not IF Brexit is conducted. Don't fall for this. This is a decision that will give MP's an opportunity to delay and ultimately kill off the result.
The term 'Parliamentary Democracy' has become an oxymoron. The word 'Democracy' comes from the Greek term 'demōs' meaning 'the people', and the definition of the term 'Democracy' is:
"The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is EITHER held by elected representatives OR directly by the people themselves"
I would suggest that in this instance, the use of a referendum (authorised by Parliament, remember!) gave the democratic choice to the people directly.
This is nothing more than a cynical manoeuvre to SUPPRESS the democratic result. Wherever you sit on the 'Brexit' debate, this precedent SHOULD have you worried!"
