A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
That's a losing move too.
The Leave voters would all label you 'undemocratic'. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well.
Unfortunately, at this point there really are no "winning" moves. Probably just a few moves that might be less bad than other moves.
This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct?
What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?
We would call it that. Hmm. What do you call it in the UK? A crisis caused by the challenge of technically legal but completely unfounded government/monarchy actions.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_K...
It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.
Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?
Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)
I appreciate the joke (really!), but that's not what's perplexing, here. Even if there are disagreements in (e.g.) US constitutional matters, the reference documents and their order of succession is well-known.
Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?
I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/
Don't worry, people who have lived here all their lives often get this stuff wrong!
>Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?
IANAL, but as far as I know it generally doesn't happen.
Parliament is sovereign, so what it says (when it creates Acts of Parliament) goes. And newer Acts trump older Acts.
There are exceptions, though. For example:
- Common law, which is entirely created by case law. However statute does override this where it exists
- 'Constitutional Acts', which are certain Acts of Parliament that are held to be more foundational. For example the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. These are exceptions to the "newer Act trumps older Act" doctrine and can only ever be explicitly repealed, modified or ignored.
For example, in Canada the dissolution of Parliament (aka. triggering an election) occurs because the Prime Minister asks the Governor General (who is basically a proxy for the Queen of Canada) to issue a proclamation stating as much.
So does that mean the Prime Minister could simply never do that, causing their party to form the official government indefinitely?
Well... Maybe. Nothing says they can't do that. It's just that no PM has ever thought of trying it.
It must sound loosey goosey and kind of dangerous, but it seems to work fine.
Some rules aren't written unless some jerk makes us write them down.
But you make a good point. Why can't their queen or whatever just say no we're not leaving? I'm not sure? I'm from the US. We don't have the whole monarchy thing going on.
The last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708:
Merely giving a televised speech that she respects the will of the people, but hopes they will take into consideration here years of experience and view it will be dreadfully harmful would have probably nudged a no. I know she normally does not comment on politics, but I also thought it's not out of the realm of possibility she'd pull a Silent Bob and speak up briefly when it is deeply needed.
Again I ask: what is the point of the monarchy, if they do not step in as some sort of check on the legislative branch when things go off the rails?
It would cause a huge problem, as they have to sign off every law, and every large cheque. It would require an actual real constitution, which would be impossible give the current damp paper bags we have in parliament.
To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit IMO. I think that they will drag it out so long that they say the mandate of the referendum has expired, and then re-rerun the referendum. They will rinse and repeat until they get the result they want.
As an example Ireland voted not to join the EU the first time they did a referendum, they simply had more referendums until they got a yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ire...
One of these was the now defunct concern around abortion.
All the brixteers saying to not have another referendum and that's it's not democratic is a cognitive dissonance. It's saying it's not the will of the people to ask the people if they want.
Ireland as you said kept voting until they joined the referendum. So initially they didn't want to join, but then over time they did. Nothing is stopping them from having another referendum to leave the EU (like the UK did). And if the sentiment of the people show they do they, they will.
If you go on about the will of the people, then having another referendum makes more sense. 2 years ago was a long time, and peoples opinion changes. That referendum 2 years ago was given as a NON-BINDING referendum, to see what people thought about and if they should actually look at is a valid option. People said yes. So now we've looked at it, we've seen what deals we can get and we know a bit more of what is involved (and the people managing it). So now would be a good idea to have a binding referendum on which deal, or even to remain. This would be the will of the people.
It's like buying house, you make an offer first and then you get a survey. If the survey says something is bad that you missed, would you still buy the house at the same price?
If we have another referendum and people think the deals suck we would rather remain, that is literally the will of the people. If really feels like the argument to not have another vote is that you're afraid it might go the other way (since it was so close anyway). But you shouldn't be. If we have another vote and we remain, the brexit people can continue the discussion and convince us that it would be better over time. Then when we have enough national support, have another referendum. You're meant to keep having referendum to judge peoples intent. For something as major as leaving the EU we shouldn't be rushing it and jumping the gun with no plan in place. We can stay, make our plans, present these plans to the people, get them to see it's the right move. Not jump in and saying 50% of people want to leave so we must leave, that creates a big wedge down the country of leave vs remain and no one gets along.
A big change should come around slowly. This isn't a revolution.
If she went and dissolved parliament now, during the Brexit negotiations everyone would rightly say she is interfering with democratic process.
This gives rise to the concept of the King or Queen in Parliament. That is to say absolute authority resides with the Monarch but is delegated to his/her parliament. Parliament then generates legislation to which the Sovereign assents. The Royal Assent has not happened in person since 1854.
If it doesn't satisfy most Leave voters, I'd just tell them that we can have another referendum in a generation's time to decide whether to stay where we are, leave the SM&CU, or rejoin the EU, if there's any demand for one then.