BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Jamzmania]

You want to hold another referendum?

It wasn't binding. The recent election was about Brexit according to Theresa May.

Not according to voters though. I hear that the U.K. also had a whole vote dedicated just to this question, and the vote went for brexit.

[Vassenor]

It wasn't binding. The recent election was about Brexit according to Theresa May.

Not according to voters though. I hear that the U.K. also had a whole vote dedicated just to this question, and the vote went for brexit.

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

[Proctopeo]

Not according to voters though. I hear that the U.K. also had a whole vote dedicated just to this question, and the vote went for brexit.

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

The UK has a constitution? I thought it was a jumble of laws with slightly more importance than regular ones.

[Jamzmania]

Not according to voters though. I hear that the U.K. also had a whole vote dedicated just to this question, and the vote went for brexit.

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

It still happened though, with pretty high turnout if I remember correctly. The people have spoken.

[Vassenor]

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

It still happened though, with pretty high turnout if I remember correctly. The people have spoken.

"The matter will only be considered settled with a two thirds majority".

And the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty that the Leave side championed so hard is what makes this non-binding. The only body that can bind parliament to act is parliament.

[Imperializt Russia]

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

It still happened though, with pretty high turnout if I remember correctly. The people have spoken.

And?
Doesn't make it legally binding.

It is not legally binding.
It would, of course be hugely politically damaging to just tear it up and say "fuck it" if it votes to leave, but again, that's due to the whole "the people" thing, and not because it's legally binding.

[Fartsniffage]

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

It still happened though, with pretty high turnout if I remember correctly. The people have spoken.

So you believe Hilary should be the president of the US then?

[Jamzmania]

It still happened though, with pretty high turnout if I remember correctly. The people have spoken.

And?
Doesn't make it legally binding.

It is not legally binding.
It would, of course be hugely politically damaging to just tear it up and say "fuck it" if it votes to leave, but again, that's due to the whole "the people" thing, and not because it's legally binding.

I know it's not legally binding, I never said it was. I'm merely pointing out that the "people's mandate" is clear.

[Vassenor]

And?
Doesn't make it legally binding.

It is not legally binding.
It would, of course be hugely politically damaging to just tear it up and say "fuck it" if it votes to leave, but again, that's due to the whole "the people" thing, and not because it's legally binding.

I know it's not legally binding, I never said it was. I'm merely pointing out that the "people's mandate" is clear.

So yes, Hillary should be president then.

[Proctopeo]

I know it's not legally binding, I never said it was. I'm merely pointing out that the "people's mandate" is clear.

So yes, Hillary should be president then.

Should've been Sanders, but we're not allowed to have nice things. Having nice things is against DNC rules.

[Ifreann]

The UK's constitutional framework does not allow for binding referenda.

Technically it doesn't allow for referenda at all.

The UK has a constitution? I thought it was a jumble of laws with slightly more importance than regular ones.

That jumble of more important laws is their constitution.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Even laws aren't legally binding.

[Proctopeo]

The UK has a constitution? I thought it was a jumble of laws with slightly more importance than regular ones.

That jumble of more important laws is their constitution.

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.
Is it better than Canada's, at least?

[Jamzmania]

That jumble of more important laws is their constitution.

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.
Is it better than Canada's, at least?

I mean the office of prime minister isn't even an official thing, it's just tradition and so forth. That seems to be how much of the U.K. works. There are no rules written down anywhere, it's just a case of "well that's how it's always been!"

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

That jumble of more important laws is their constitution.

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

[Jamzmania]

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

Well the constitution didn't do that, but otherwise correct.

[Proctopeo]

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

[Salandriagado]

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

The problem there is the lack of flexibility.

[Proctopeo]

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

The problem there is the lack of flexibility.

Too much flexibility isn't a good thing, either, of course.
Besides, it can be re-interpreted and amended if necessary.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

Your constitution permits all weapons for private ownership that have a military use. You don't enforce that.

Your constitution permits states to establish churches, just not the federal government. You made up a prohibition on that.

Your constitution prohibits basically all federal regulation and entitlement programs. You just handwaved that.

US Constitution is dead - it died long ago. The real institutional difference between the US and the UK is that the highest legislature in the UK is elected whereas in the US it is appointed.

[Ifreann]

That jumble of more important laws is their constitution.

That doesn't sound very sane, and depending on how it works, not very stable, either.
Is it better than Canada's, at least?

It's got them this far.

[Proctopeo]

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

Your constitution permits all weapons for private ownership that have a military use. You don't enforce that.

Your constitution permits states to establish churches, just not the federal government. You made up a prohibition on that.

Your constitution prohibits basically all federal regulation and entitlement programs. You just handwaved that.

US Constitution is dead - it died long ago. The real institutional difference between the US and the UK is that the highest legislature in the UK is elected whereas in the US it is appointed.

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

[Calladan]

Your constitution permits all weapons for private ownership that have a military use. You don't enforce that.

Your constitution permits states to establish churches, just not the federal government. You made up a prohibition on that.

Your constitution prohibits basically all federal regulation and entitlement programs. You just handwaved that.

US Constitution is dead - it died long ago. The real institutional difference between the US and the UK is that the highest legislature in the UK is elected whereas in the US it is appointed.

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

This is an honest question, not me mocking the American governmental system (which I admit I do far more than I should) :-

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, wasn't that them creating a law? Or was that them creating a universal, lasting ruling that laws against gay marriage were illegal and unconstitutional?

And what, if any, is the difference between the two?

[Athrax]

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

This is an honest question, not me mocking the American governmental system (which I admit I do far more than I should) :-

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, wasn't that them creating a law? Or was that them creating a universal, lasting ruling that laws against gay marriage were illegal and unconstitutional?

And what, if any, is the difference between the two?

It's the latter. It's the formal statement that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bans on SSM are an unconstitutional form of discrimination and must be done away with. Only Congress can pass laws, but the courts have some leeway to interpret the law, though usually with precedent and as narrowly as possible

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

This is an honest question, not me mocking the American governmental system (which I admit I do far more than I should) :-

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, wasn't that them creating a law? Or was that them creating a universal, lasting ruling that laws against gay marriage were illegal and unconstitutional?

And what, if any, is the difference between the two?

So I understand it, the gay marriage thing basically ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated their 14th(?) amendment right, to not be discriminated against for any reason.

Therefore, any explicit prohibition against gay marriage was unconstitutional and de facto repealed; and any legal consideration of marriage that omitted gays entirely was de facto considered to include them.