Would a June EU be illegal??

[buckthorn]

Cameron wants a vote on are membership of the EU on June 23rd, however I’ve got news for him and his hangers-on. The referendum cannot take place until the autumn at the earliest.

 

The fact is that this early referendum is not possible because it will be should be blocked by the Electoral Commission, which insists that at least ten months should pass between Royal Assent being given for a referendum and the vote itself.

 

Dr Richard North said The Royal Assents was given

end Jan; beginning Feb;. This means that the referendum cannot be held until October—at the earliest.

 

Of course, the recommendations of the Electoral Commission could be ignored, but woe betide any politician who meddles with a lawful procedure.

 

P.S. Some extra information for you.

Some EU migrants will get more child benefit than families in this country. The UK will be forced to pay higher rates of child benefit to some EU migrants with children living in other countries under Cameron’s deal, Brussels officials said.

 

Cameron’s agreement allows payments to such workers to be made at ‘local rates’ after his failure to get an outright ban on payments being sent abroad.

 

But an EU official said the payment rate in some EU countries could end up being higher than those currently paid, because they would need to be adjusted according to the local cost of living.

 

That means some EU migrants working in the UK would get paid more in child benefit than British workers raising their children here.

Edited February 26, 2016 by buckthorn
add

[citizenB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33141819

 

 

The European Union Referendum Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech. This is the UK legislation required to allow the referendum to take place. It has now cleared Parliament and become law, after the government twice saw off attempts in the House of Lords to lower the proposed voting age in the in-out poll to 16. At the same time as the bill made its parliamentary journey, Mr Cameron was seeking approval from other EU leaders for the reforms he wants to achieve before the referendum can take place.

 

So I think it is quite legal

[Consumer dude]

Did anyone ever vote in the first place for a political union and if not, the idea that we are having a vote to come out of something that the people never had a say about in the first place is well dodgy, in my opinion..

[obiter dictum]

The Maastricht Treaty was signed by our elected representatives, that being the British Prime Minister John major on our behalf

[Consumer dude]

It was only supposed to have been a common market..

[tobyjugg2]

It was only supposed to have been a common market..

 

No, that was the common market, not the EU

 

The Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty on European Union or TEU)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

 

Are you perhaps suggesting John Major (and the entire British Parliament (except maybe a few naysayers)) didnt notice?

[Consumer dude]

The idea started with a common market and evolved into what we have today. The British people were conned then and they are being conned now..

[tobyjugg2]

The idea started with a common market and evolved into what we have today. The British people were conned then and they are being conned now..

 

Perhaps.

Seems to me more like most people dont really care enough to bother with what their elected officials do.

[tobyjugg2]

I think that is a positive act - just implemented poorly.

 

Now if they were nominal/provisional members, until they achieved parity in pay etc

So that there would not be a flood of poor to the richer extablished nations ...

 

Awkward to implement .. but seems more logical to me.

 

Without the migrant crisis - and lets not forget that Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc etc etc are NOT EU members .....

[Guest]

its odd, that when there were the mep elections there was a low turnout. and, who got voted in.

but, no the ref is not illegal.

[tobyjugg2]

its odd, that when there were the mep elections there was a low turnout. and, who got voted in.

but, no the ref is not illegal.

 

 

Too true Ford, I'll correct my statement

 

Seems to me more like too often; too many people dont really care enough to bother to vote for elected officials let alone care (other than whinge) about what the elected officials do.

[Consumer dude]

It wouldn't matter now if it was illegal or not, there isn't the political will to say it's a con, most people won't care unless trouble comes to there door..

[king12345]

Here I say it: The EU is the worst political move ever to have taken place in history.

Common people got poorer for the benefit of few rich ones.

Not even the second world war can come closer to it because this EU seems to be legally justified by the same few getting richer.

[Guest]

 

Seems to me more like too often; too many people dont really care enough to bother to vote for elected officials let alone care (other than whinge) about what the elected officials do.

and, now there is a ref, everyone seems to want to vote. yet, when they had a say prior.....

 

say for eg there is a 60 % turnout. 52% of those vote whatever. thats only around 30 odd % of the voting pop!

[tobyjugg2]

and, now there is a ref, everyone seems to want to vote. yet, when they had a say prior.....

 

say for eg there is a 60 % turnout. 52% of those vote whatever. thats only around 30 odd % of the voting pop!

 

I wonder how much is that people simply dont believe anything that politicians say, so feel it pointless?

It seems to me they have a point.

 

Perhaps why politicians rarely actually say anything concrete, as more people can be driven to vote by fear, so if they believe something they really dont want is going to happen - they will vote

 

Hence the politics of fear.

 

Whats worse is that Labour did it FOR the Tories...