1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

British Indy: What Happens Now?

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by Loz, May 23, 2015.

?
  1. Full Brexit with "no EU deal" on the 29th March.

  2. Request Extension to article 50 to allow a general election and new negotiations.

  3. Request Extension to article 50 to allow cross party talks and a new deal to be put to EU.

  4. Request Extension to article 50 to allow a second referendum on 1. Remain in EU or 2. Full Brexit.

  5. Table a motion in parliament to Remain in EU WITHOUT a referendum.

  6. I don't know or I don't care anymore

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. That’s rich coming from someone “north of the Tweed” ;)

    It’s certainly wordy and it reads more like florid Victorian advocacy than the modern style but, and I say this half wincing with one eye closed, in some ways Scots law and practice is more old fashioned than England and Wales (but in other ways it’s a lot more progressive).

    That’s not really legalese but “pleadings” are drafted in a much more turgid and technical third person vernacular. Our profession has its language like any other I suppose and even though I try to stick to the plain English style of drafting I find myself relapsing from time to time and recently a newly qualified solicitor had to ask me what “Save as expressly admitted or otherwise averred herein, each averment of the Claimant is denied as if set out in full and traversed herein seriatim." meant (it means “If I’ve forgotten something, then we meant to deny that as well”)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. what? you didn't get what was offered to secure the result?
    you have my sympathies noob.
     
  3. Let me try again. Forget the afterwards reference. All referenda are advisory something known before hand by everyone (except me) however, this fact would only be referred to if the result was to be ignored. Is ignoring the result reasonable.

    Also, the point about parliament. I'm getting more than a little frustrated by parliament insisting upon a deal. its not insisting on a deal that frustrates me but that they've rejected TMs deal and they won't say what deal they want or how they would get it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. so it beterer. I agree. :p
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Fake News!!! They are made in China :rolleyes:
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Well, that’s the battleground isn’t it, and much breath has been wasted, ink spilled and bandwidth used debating that very question.


    I hear you. And so does the EU. One continual refrain from them during the negotiation process was “what is it that you guys actually want?”

    Negotiation is a people process as much as a commercial/legal one and to appoint Theresa May, who was just about the least “people person” the Tory party could find (and that’s saying something), wasn’t a great start either.

    They would have been much better off with BoJo from the get go because notwithstanding his cynicism, mendacity and narcissism, he can be very likeable and charming, and I think he would have made a much better job of both getting a deal and then selling it to Parliament, the people and the press. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.....
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Now it's funny you should mention that. In 1973 we were just taken into the eec with no vote by the people, none

    but promising a european referendum vote by harold wilson and labour in the 1974 general election, they decided to ask the people 2 years after joining.

    So in 1975 they organised United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, and the vote was to stay in the eu.

    The question therefore would be why was the 1975 considered to be legally enforceable to stay in the eu but the 2016 referendum not deemed legally enforceable?

    The only logical answer would be that we were illegally kept in the eu by a non binding 1975 referendum or the 2016 referendum is as binding and legally enforceable as the 1975 referendum was
     
  8. I think I would phrase it slightly differently.

    In 1975 the shareholders gave the result the board wanted and so it was easy for them to comply with the shareholders instructions.

    In 2016 the shareholders gave the result the board didn't want and the board have been kicking and screaming against it ever since.

    TB
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  9. That's an extremely poor analogy to adopt if you're a Leaver.

    For a start, companies appoint directors for much the same reason as countries elect MPs - namely that directors are (it is to be hoped) experts in whatever business the company carries on and shareholders are not. Hence, the day to day management is delegated to the directors, but the shareholders have the power to vote them out at the AGM. Shareholders do not and in fact should not run the company directly* because granny who won some money on the pools and sunk it into the British Gas offering 30 years ago, isn't competent to decide, for example, whether they should invest billions drilling new wells in the North Sea or if they should spend that money to exploit fracking beds on the mainland instead.

    That is precisely why the company has a board of elected directors and precisely why a democratic country has a "board" of elected MPs rather than the electorate exercising those management functions directly. To have the shareholders running the company directly would be a disaster. The same applies to countries (see, Brexit)

    In a situation where the directors of a company are considering an unusual or potentially risky course of action (changing its name or status, changing the articles of association, reduction in share capital etc) then they are required to hold a vote of the shareholders which is broadly analogous to a referendum. However, that vote requires a special resolution in which a 75% majority is needed and not just a simple majority, as was the case with the Brexit vote.

    Sometimes however, after following that special resolution procedure, companies do find they have taken a wrong turn at the behest of their shareholders, or a situation can arise where the majority of the shareholders are happy with it, but a proportion of the minority shareholders are not. In that case, those minority shareholders can bring an "unfair prejudice" claim by petitioning the court under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006. Subsection (1) is worth a look, as it provides,

    (1) A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

    (a) that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or

    (b) that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial.


    Under s.996 of the Act, the court can make "any order that it sees fit to give relief from the matters complained of", including an injunction prohibiting the company (ie: through the directors running it) from doing or continuing to do an act.

    Alternatively, aggrieved minority shareholders (as few as 5% of them) can, by s.303, call for a shareholders meeting and a vote on a resolution without the consent of the board of directors or the majority shareholders. That would be analogous to a second referendum.

    There are other remedies, such as bringing a "derivative claim", but you get the idea...

    So, as you can see, in an analogous situation with a company, there are a number of safety valves by which a "special resolution" which has turned out badly can be undone. Directors are not simply required to chain themselves to the wheel of the company car and ignore the cries of panic from the rear seat passengers as they drive it over a cliff because 3 years ago, a bare majority voted to take a particular fork in the road.

    By raising the company director/shareholder analogy, you have unwittingly argued in favour of a second referendum.



    * Obviously in this example, I am not referring to the small companies which many of people on here may run where they and maybe one or two others are sole or joint shareholders, and are also directors of their own company.
     
    #38989 Zhed46, Sep 18, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  10. Isn’t that the important bit here, they basically do what they were asked, if it turns out to be wrong they then do something about it ?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. And that ^^^^ladies and gentlemen is why barristers charge by the hour and still do not answer the question, what a lot of old shit. :D
     
  12. Wise words :bucktooth:
     
  13. LMAO. Just because an explanation blows your narrow views clean out of the water doesn't make it "a load of old shit".

    Let's hear your take on the analogy between Brexit and company law then Noob. Come on. The world (or at least part of it that rides Italian L-twin motorbikes) is listening. ;)
     
  14. i have two, so i'm twice as impatient. so, c.mon. oot with it noob.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. my question was the simplest to answer without trying to write an episode of rumpole dear sir, instead you went off tangent in a way even bercow would have been appluading

    so I'll try the question again

     
  16. That is a very easy one to respond to.

    You’re wrong. Miles wide of the mark in fact.

    As I’ve explained many times (including as recently as yesterday) until I’m a lovely shade of EU flag blue in the face, referenda are not binding, therefore ignoring the outcome of one is perfectly legal. Likewise, abiding by the outcome is also legal.

    In the very simplest of terms, for something to be legal or illegal there must be a law covering it. Law is made by a bill being presented to both Houses of Parliament for them to vote on it and then it receives Royal Assent (the Queen signs it off). At that point and not before it becomes “law”, although there is a further step to be taken, in that a lot of modern legislation does not come into force immediately and instead relies on the passing of secondary legislation by way of a statutory instrument to do so at a later date. Sometimes, bizarrely, sections and in fact whole parts of an Act are never brought into force.

    There is no law in the UK which says that referenda are binding. Therefore, once again, there is no question of what happened in 1975 or what is happening now being legal or illegal.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Okay I can see your word wriggling so I'll try something different

    given you say referenda are not a legal obligation to apply the result,

    why do you think it was applied in the 1975 referenda to keep us in europe and some are seeking to not apply the 2016 referenda result to leave the eu

    Could it just be that referenda is only applied when it is in the eu's benefit but not when it is not?
     
  18. [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #38998 Lightning_650, Sep 18, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. the EU dosent decide what is or isnt leagal for our electoral systems. the uk Gov decides.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. That’s another easy one.

    A significant proportion of the UK electorate, which, let's not forget, is not the same as it was in 2016, as a proportion will have died and a further proportion will have reached voting age, are concerned that leaving is an absolutely terrible idea. As a result, MPs in Parliament (as representatives of the electorate) are not, at this stage at least (with the exception of the Lib Dems, whose “revoke Art 50” I strongly disagree with) trying to stymy the result of the 2016 Ref, but are seeking to further delay the implementation of it in order to try to make that more orderly. Alternatively, Labour now they have finally pinned their colours to the mast, will seek to bring about another vote on it now that the electorate can see what they’re actually voting for, rather than the childish pipe dream which was sold to them by the Leave campaign and, equally, now that Remain voters have been able to take on board the reality that if we don’t leave now, we will be locked in forever.

    As a side note - I suspect that a fair proportion of the EU probably now don’t want us to stay anymore because we are, and for about the past 30 years have been, the chavvy neighbour from hell and god only knows what sort of chaos we may cause if we remain a member, so the request for an extension may not even be granted.
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information