Richmond By Election

[JP]

I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union was the question and the two choices were pretty much...

Leave

Remain

Was indyref1 advisory? I cannot remember that either. I could just see Salmond telling the hordes of jubilant Saltire waving Scots "hang on folks, its only advisory and we will have another ballot later once we have a chat with Westminster"

[ProfessorDavey]

I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.

Then you clearly weren't paying close enough attention my friend.

Parliament voted in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. They could have gone for the latter, but they didn't.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union was the question and the two choices were pretty much...

Leave

Remain

The nature of the questions are irrelevant - the relevance is the nature of the referendum that has been enacted by parliament. In this case the referendum was advisory.

The last time the whole of the UK voted in a referendum - in 2011 on the method of voting in general elections we had this question:

At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?

with 'Yes' or 'No' as options.

But that referendum was binding - the government/parliament were required to enact the outcome, unlike in the EU referendum.

Was indyref1 advisory? I cannot remember that either. I could just see Salmond telling the hordes of jubilant Saltire waving Scots "hang on folks, its only advisory and we will have another ballot later once we have a chat with Westminster"

Yes it was advisory - and for obvious reasons, in that the referendum was called by the Scottish parliament who have no authority to enact independence - that authority resides in Westminster.

There are also similarities between IndyRef and EURef (which are distinct to AV vs FPTP-Ref) which makes it necessary for the former to be advisory. Namely that in IndyRef and EURef there was no agreed settlement at the time of the referendum, so voters could only vote on a concept rather than an actual plan - so in IndyREF all sorts of critical issues, e.g. currency were up in the air. Likewise for the massive range of brexit options from Norway-like to the hardest of hard brexits. Hence the need for the referendum to advisory only and subject to negotiation and assessment of whether the actual deal agree is in the national interest.

The AV voting ref was different - the deal was clear and enactable without further negotiation/agreement. An alternative approach would have been to have a more speculative referendum on voting e.g. should we continue to use FPTP. If people voted no they were voting against FPTP, but not for anything specific, except not FPTP (a bit like EU ref and IndyREF). If that had been the vote it should have been advisory only. because the deal still needed to be struck, not just not FPTP, but what as an alliterative - pure PR, STV, AV, AVplus etc, etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.

These are the exact words from the official Parliamentary Briefing paper on the EU Referendum bill, which was enacted as the EU Referendum Act of 2015.

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses.'

I have pulled out the critical section:

'It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

[JP]

Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?

[Nearly Sane]

Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?

Well I did, but what does it what you or others were aware of matter given that it is factually correct?

[ProfessorDavey]

Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?

Of course - it was pretty well publicised that it was an advisory referendum. Anyone actually following the parliamentary process that lead to the Bill would have known.

And whether or not people were aware is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that the referendum is, in law, advisory only and not binding. You might as well claim that someone speeding should be let off if they weren't aware that they were driving in a 30 mph speed limit area. That's their look out.

[JP]

Of course - it was pretty well publicised that it was an advisory referendum. Anyone actually following the parliamentary process that lead to the Bill would have known.

Well publicised where? Any sources that the wider population would read. I had literature through the door from both sides including that thing from Cameron and nowhere anywhere can I recall anything being mentioned about the advisory nature of the vote.

And whether or not people were aware is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that the referendum is, in law, advisory only and not binding. You might as well claim that someone speeding should be let off if they weren't aware that they were driving in a 30 mph speed limit area. That's their look out.

You think the probable fact that millions upon millions of people did not know is irrelevant? Fuck me that's incredible.

[Nearly Sane]

Well publicised where? Any sources that the wider population would read. I had literature through the door from both sides including that thing from Cameron and nowhere anywhere can I recall anything being mentioned about the advisory nature of the vote.

You think the probable fact that millions upon millions of people did not know is irrelevant? Fuck me that's incredible.

It's irrelevant to the fact that it was advisory.

[JP]

Just found this. Poor Sarah had to be saved from the interview by her PR people. She lasted about 2 minutes bless her.

http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-sarah-olney-dragged-air-pr-after-grilling-julia-1612027334

[JP]

It's irrelevant to the fact that it was advisory.

Of course it is, anyway I expect it was best the thicko racist bigots didn't know as it would have confused them even more.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course it is, anyway I expect it was best the thicko racist bigots didn't know as it would have confused them even more.

The referendum was advisory - that is simply a fact. And to try to force it into being binding, firstly would fail at the first legal challenge, but also show deep contempt for our sovereign parliament who specifically enacted a bill for an advisory referendum rather than a binding one. I thought your brexit guys believed that the sovereignty of the UK parliament was sacrosanct. Apparently not, or rather only when it suits you.

[JP]

I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.

[JP]

I voted in.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.

There is a difference between mis-selling and the referendum - it was entirely clear to anyone who bothered to look that the referendum was advisory only.

Indeed I think it almost certain that parliament would never have passed a bill that called for a binding referendum, given that they would have know there were far, far too many unknowns in the negotiations to an actual brexit deal (most of which are entirely out of the hands of the UK parliament) that fettering the discretion of parliament to decide at any point that the actual brexit settlement isn't in the best interests of the country.

[ProfessorDavey]

I voted in.

Well done you - I trust you will do the same in the second referendum on the agree brexit deal in 2020.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.

Out of interest in what way do you think that confusion over whether the referendum was advisory or binding would have changed anyone's votes.

I think a shrinkingly small number of people would have thought, OK if this is binding I'll vote this way, but if it is advisory I'll vote a different way. Actually if there is any effect I would have thought it would push more people into voting leave, on the basis that it could be changed at a later date. Indeed don't you remember Boris making that point, that voting to leave wouldn't actually mean we left, but would force the EU into more significant change allowing us to stay.

[JP]

Well done you - I trust you will do the same in the second referendum on the agree brexit deal in 2020.

Depends, but I'm pro Europe so....

[JP]

Out of interest in what way do you think that confusion over whether the referendum was advisory or binding would have changed anyone's votes.

Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.

Regardless of that I think an already divided country may will only become more divided and bitter.

I think a shrinkingly small number of people would have thought, OK if this is binding I'll vote this way, but if it is advisory I'll vote a different way. Actually if there is any effect I would have thought it would push more people into voting leave, on the basis that it could be changed at a later date. Indeed don't you remember Boris making that point, that voting to leave wouldn't actually mean we left, but would force the EU into more significant change allowing us to stay.

I didn't watch anything Boris had to say as he is a self serving arrogant cock.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.

Indeed.

Regardless of that I think an already divided country may will only become more divided and bitter.

Agreed - the referendum was supposed to settle things once and for all, effectively to deal with factions in the tory party. What has happened is that a gaping great wound has opened in our society which is going to take a mighty long time to heal. Will Cameron go down as the worst PM of modern times - probably, particularly if the EU schism triggers the breakup of the UK if Scotland leaves.

I didn't watch anything Boris had to say as he is a self serving arrogant cock.

Agreed - although I did watch him because although is only interested in himself he has power. A dangerous combination.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.

I think there was already a strong strand of 'spin' that gave the impression that whatever happened with the vote we wouldn't actually leave. So whether or not that was an overt recognition that the referendum was advisory or not, I can't say, but it was certainly a common view.

I think there was a whole lot of politics that was played on both sides that perhaps obscured the fact that the referendum was advisory. Same as for the Scottish referendum with all that nonsense that it would be a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence from Salmond et al, knowing full well that that SNP retained the levers of power allowing them to call for another referendum at any time - which Westminster is frankly powerless to stop, albeit they can stop independence.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there was already a strong strand of 'spin' that gave the impression that whatever happened with the vote we wouldn't actually leave. So whether or not that was an overt recognition that the referendum was advisory or not, I can't say, but it was certainly a common view.

I think there was a whole lot of politics that was played on both sides that perhaps obscured the fact that the referendum was advisory. Same as for the Scottish referendum with all that nonsense that it would be a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence from Salmond et al, knowing full well that that SNP retained the levers of power allowing them to call for another referendum at any time - which Westminster is frankly powerless to stop, albeit they can stop independence.

They only retain 'levers of power' if they win elections

[ProfessorDavey]

They only retain 'levers of power' if they win elections

Of course, which they did, in 2016 after the IndyRef.

I don't remember Salmond saying that the IndyRef was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence because we (i.e. the SNP) think they are going to be out of power for generations.

Nope, it was a classic political stunt to try to persuade people that if they didn't do it now they'd never have another opportunity. That looks like a rather hollow claim now, doesn't it with full on debate about a second independence referendum.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, which they did, in 2016 after the IndyRef.

I don't remember Salmond saying that the IndyRef was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence because we (i.e. the SNP) think they are going to be out of power for generations.

Nope, it was a classic political stunt to try to persuade people that if they didn't do it now they'd never have another opportunity. That looks like a rather hollow claim now, doesn't it with full on debate about a second independence referendum.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that he couldn't know that would get elected again, particularly given that this was on a proportional system deliberately chosen to make any majority extremely difficult to get. Indeed in 2016, despite an increase in their vote, they lost their majority and any referendum would be dependent on other party, likely Green, support.


Actually at the time, I think most people, including Salmond, did think this would be a once in a lifetime vote but not surprisingly they didn't foresee the huge increase in membership, nor that the EU referendum would end up with the result that it did. The 2016 manifesto covered this by talking of the possibility of a referendum if there was substantive change e.g. the Euro vote. Given that No made a substantial part of the case the difficulty of staying in the EU andchow this could only be guaranteed by No, then 'hollow claims' is a bit rich.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that he couldn't know that would get elected again, particularly given that this was on a proportional system deliberately chosen to make any majority extremely difficult to get. Indeed in 2016, despite an increase in their vote, they lost their majority and any referendum would be dependent on other party, likely Green, support.

Sure he couldn't know that the SNP would have enoug support to get a bill for another IndyRef through - but to state that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity suggests he knew that they wouldn't, which wasn't true - and indeed has proven not to be true on the basis of the 2016 result.

Actually at the time, I think most people, including Salmond, did think this would be a once in a lifetime vote but not surprisingly they didn't foresee the huge increase in membership, nor that the EU referendum would end up with the result that it did. The 2016 manifesto covered this by talking of the possibility of a referendum if there was substantive change e.g. the Euro vote. Given that No made a substantial part of the case the difficulty of staying in the EU andchow this could only be guaranteed by No, then 'hollow claims' is a bit rich.

I disagree - I think Salmond, the consumate politician knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to ensure that as many people voted independence as possible, by fooling them into thinking that they couldn't ever get another chance.

You are of course right about the irony of the IndyRef debate over Scotland's membership of the EU.

[Nearly Sane]

And while there is debate about the possibility of another referendum, I am still unconvinced it will happen. The numbers are such that it looks unlikely to get a YES vote, and I suspect the gradualists will back away from another vote that they are not at least reasonably sure they can win.