[Politics] Brexit

[seagulls4ever]

Yes, the Referendum Act 2015 stated it was advisory only. The Court of Appeal recently said that if the referendum had been binding, it would be cancelled for corruption, but ironically because it was advisory, it cannot. I am not saying I haven't vehemently defended Remain when it is obvious that I have.

Do you have a link where the Court of Appeal said that?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I am saying I don't understand why it is different.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I voted Remain in 2016. I have seen literally nothing in the last 3 years to indicate to me that I was wrong to make that decision.

Leave. I feel even more anti-EU now than I did at the time of the referendum.

That's part of the problem. People's views are even more polarised now than they were before...… including my own.


I think the headline on the Daily Mail yesterday or the day before was something along the lines of "get this sorted out and unite the country". I think the "unite the country" bit is verging on the impossible.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

This unprecedented period of division and chaos in our country is entirely the Tories' doing. No-one else's - it is literally entirely theirs. If you are in any way unconvinced I think it's time for a recap.

Firstly, Cameron decided to foist a referendum on us in the mistaken belief that it would settle the Tories' split on Europe once and for all by showing the 'Eurosceptics' that the majority wanted to stay in the EU. He never dreamed for an instant that the slavering bigots of the tabloid press, dark money and the likes of Cambridge Analytica would prove cleverer and more influential than his countless corporate backers when it came to influencing voters. A ghastly coalition of liars won the referendum in a welter of fake news and appalling xenophobia.

Then May called a snap general election in the mistaken belief (re-enforced, let us remember, by 99% of all known mainstream media) that she would trounce the 'unelectable' Jeremy Corbyn and gain the huge majority to complete Brexit in the way she wanted to. Instead she lost her slim majority and could only cling on to power by bribing the unspeakable 17th century boggle eyed rednecks of the DUP.

(An aside here: if you are going to inveigh against 'terrorist sympathisers' then the DUP are as much in that category as Sinn Fein. Of course, one person's 'terrorist sympathisers' are another woman's route to power in a country with a tame right wing press and cowed BBC. Imagine the utter furore if the situation had been reversed, Labour were the largest party and Corbyn then persuaded Sinn Fein to take their seats to give him a majority....)

And then May made the most appalling and yes, disloyal, unpatriotic decision of all the festering, diarrhoea sodden, burst colostomy bag in a leaking bucket of unspeakably crap decisions she has come up with in the past three years....

Instead of recognising the severity of the situation and reaching out to other parties, she put the interests of the Conservative Party above those of the country and allowed her Brexit strategy to be dictated by the appalling Lord Snooty Rees Mogg and the aforementioned DUP.

And that brings us on to the backstop issue. Let us not forget that the DUP are supposed to be representing a province which voted 63% to stay in the EU. Although a huge obstacle which needed to be high on the agenda in any Brexit negotiations, the Irish border issue had no real traction during what was (surprise, surprise) a thoroughly Anglocentric referendum campaign. So when it came up in Brussels the DUP, holding the balance of power in Parliament, could hold the country to ransom on the backstop issue to appease their ghastly followers with no problem at all - in no way reflecting the views of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

If May had reached out to other parties during negotiations and sidelined the slavering bigots on the Tory Right the DUP would have turned against her, binning her majority, and the Conservative Party would have split. As a literally lifelong Tory loyalist apparatchik devoid of empathy, humanity or imagination (those being self evidently the qualities required for that role) she was determined to avoid those eventualities at all costs.

Like Cameron who foisted the filthy referendum on us in the first place, she deliberately chose to split the country in two to avoid the Tory Party falling apart. Families and friendships torn asunder and British citizens literally fighting in streets and pubs is preferable to her than the end of the disgusting organisation to which she has dedicated her life.

I hope the Tory Party self-destructs anyway. I think it will. To coin a phrase, Parliament has to take back control now and save us from the abyss. There will be cross party co-operation and Lord Snooty won't like that. Rot in hell, Rees Mogg. Rot in hell.

And the rest of us? Weep, Britain, weep. And if you care about this country, as I most certainly do, remember what the Tories - no one else, just the selfish, self-obsessed, navel gazing Tory Party - have done to us and never, ever, ever vote for them again.

*Nods in agreement*

 

[Superphil]

Don't forget the scumbag Tony Blair started this ball rolling back in 2004;

"On 20 April 2004 the PM told Parliament it should debate the European constitutional question "in detail and decide upon it" and "then let the people have the final say".

He ended the Commons statement with the war-cry: "Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined."


Labour election manifesto in 2005 and the language is as forthright.

Blair promises: "We will put it [the constitution] to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote."

I guess we should be thankful that, as usual, he lied about this, as was his way on so many important things.

 

[Audax]

Needs a poll for the third vote too. And the fourth.

Not if they do it the way that has been proposed - which is to make any new referendum legally binding. I actually quite like the idea that was most recently put forward, as once run and won (by either side) it would give absolute certainty: we either leave with May's deal, or remain.

 

[seagulls4ever]

No, I am saying I don't understand why it is different.

I don't think there's any point in continuing with this.

Do you have a link where "The Court of Appeal recently said that if the referendum had been binding, it would be cancelled for corruption, but ironically because it was advisory, it cannot"?

 

[nicko31]

This unprecedented period of division and chaos in our country is entirely the Tories' doing. No-one else's - it is literally entirely theirs. If you are in any way unconvinced I think it's time for a recap.

Firstly, Cameron decided to foist a referendum on us in the mistaken belief that it would settle the Tories' split on Europe once and for all by showing the 'Eurosceptics' that the majority wanted to stay in the EU. He never dreamed for an instant that the slavering bigots of the tabloid press, dark money and the likes of Cambridge Analytica would prove cleverer and more influential than his countless corporate backers when it came to influencing voters. A ghastly coalition of liars won the referendum in a welter of fake news and appalling xenophobia.

Then May called a snap general election in the mistaken belief (re-enforced, let us remember, by 99% of all known mainstream media) that she would trounce the 'unelectable' Jeremy Corbyn and gain the huge majority to complete Brexit in the way she wanted to. Instead she lost her slim majority and could only cling on to power by bribing the unspeakable 17th century boggle eyed rednecks of the DUP.

(An aside here: if you are going to inveigh against 'terrorist sympathisers' then the DUP are as much in that category as Sinn Fein. Of course, one person's 'terrorist sympathisers' are another woman's route to power in a country with a tame right wing press and cowed BBC. Imagine the utter furore if the situation had been reversed, Labour were the largest party and Corbyn then persuaded Sinn Fein to take their seats to give him a majority....)

And then May made the most appalling and yes, disloyal, unpatriotic decision of all the festering, diarrhoea sodden, burst colostomy bag in a leaking bucket of unspeakably crap decisions she has come up with in the past three years....

Instead of recognising the severity of the situation and reaching out to other parties, she put the interests of the Conservative Party above those of the country and allowed her Brexit strategy to be dictated by the appalling Lord Snooty Rees Mogg and the aforementioned DUP.

And that brings us on to the backstop issue. Let us not forget that the DUP are supposed to be representing a province which voted 63% to stay in the EU. Although a huge obstacle which needed to be high on the agenda in any Brexit negotiations, the Irish border issue had no real traction during what was (surprise, surprise) a thoroughly Anglocentric referendum campaign. So when it came up in Brussels the DUP, holding the balance of power in Parliament, could hold the country to ransom on the backstop issue to appease their ghastly followers with no problem at all - in no way reflecting the views of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

If May had reached out to other parties during negotiations and sidelined the slavering bigots on the Tory Right the DUP would have turned against her, binning her majority, and the Conservative Party would have split. As a literally lifelong Tory loyalist apparatchik devoid of empathy, humanity or imagination (those being self evidently the qualities required for that role) she was determined to avoid those eventualities at all costs.

Like Cameron who foisted the filthy referendum on us in the first place, she deliberately chose to split the country in two to avoid the Tory Party falling apart. Families and friendships torn asunder and British citizens literally fighting in streets and pubs is preferable to her than the end of the disgusting organisation to which she has dedicated her life.

I hope the Tory Party self-destructs anyway. I think it will. To coin a phrase, Parliament has to take back control now and save us from the abyss. There will be cross party co-operation and Lord Snooty won't like that. Rot in hell, Rees Mogg. Rot in hell.

And the rest of us? Weep, Britain, weep. And if you care about this country, as I most certainly do, remember what the Tories - no one else, just the selfish, self-obsessed, navel gazing Tory Party - have done to us and never, ever, ever vote for them again.

Great post.

Have to say I'm riddled with guilt for once voting for these w**kers

 

[Silverhatch]

Ist Vote 1975
2nd Vote 2016
best of three ??

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Do you have a link where the Court of Appeal said that?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html

 

[ManOfSussex]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html

The full findings are here as well if someone asks you again - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html

 

[Triggaaar]

We're totally up the creek without a *****ing paddle, we're an utter international joke all of our own making

That wasn't being debated.

and I was referring to you and others pointing out the well known mutually assured damage from no deal, as the straw clutching by leave voters on this thread for the purposes of 'balance' enters the 11th desperate hour.

Yeah, you said "Oh here we go again - The EU need us more than we need them", but no one had said that.

KinkyG had said "Dude on the tele just said the 27 is unlikely to offer an extension as UK has no idea what it wants."
and I said "It depends what would happen if they don't. If not giving an extension means we'd automatically leave with No Deal, it would be pretty stupid for them not to extend it."

That's not "The EU need us more than we need them", it's nothing of the sort. It's simply stating that us leaving without a deal is not good for the EU (something that has been widely accepted as fact, until now on NSC it seems), therefore I think they'd rather give us an extension than have No Deal.

 

[A1X]

As the default position is no deal, if there is no extension, on the 29th March we cease to be signatories of 750 plus international treaties, encompassing free trade, transportation, and even mobile phone roaming.

OK let me rephrase. No Deal without everything collapsing literally overnight is harder than the Withdrawal Agreement as there is more legislation to make it work.

 

[A1X]

I know they are broken.

However if you honestly think that promises made about the single most important decision post war, for the UK, are less important than those made in ordinary times, then i would be very surprised.

Promises about "the single most important decision post war" have been broken since basically the morning after the referendum. Ultimately they were manifesto promises, and if they end up being broken then so be it, that's the nature of them. Events, dear boy.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Ist Vote 1975
2nd Vote 2016
best of three ??

Double or quits, then we can go on forever.

Or perhaps not.

We need to ban future referendums in law, no point in letting unecessary poison be poured into society ever again.

 

[jaghebby]

Thought this was quite illuminating! Any other leavers realising the same?

https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/1105576277115891714

 

[ManOfSussex]

That wasn't being debated.
Yeah, you said "Oh here we go again - The EU need us more than we need them", but no one had said that.

KinkyG had said "Dude on the tele just said the 27 is unlikely to offer an extension as UK has no idea what it wants."
and I said "It depends what would happen if they don't. If not giving an extension means we'd automatically leave with No Deal, it would be pretty stupid for them not to extend it."

That's not "The EU need us more than we need them", it's nothing of the sort. It's simply stating that us leaving without a deal is not good for the EU (something that has been widely accepted as fact, until now on NSC it seems), therefore I think they'd rather give us an extension than have No Deal.

Give us an extension for what? This is a mess of our making not theirs, so just get on with it and as they know we'll be on our knees begging within 3 weeks of no deal they'll cope fine until then as they don't need us more than we need them.

 

[seagulls4ever]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html

Seems like you're spreading more misinformation?

In that article it says:

"On the main substantive ground relating to the validity of the 2016 referendum, the permission judgment of the court of appeal found that any breach of election rules was insufficiently material to trigger the application of common law that might render the 2016 referendum invalid.

Firstly, that there was insufficient certainty and finality in the findings of misconduct and, secondly, the court had no evidential basis to conclude that the referendum result would have been different. Thirdly, the court concluded that the advisory nature of the referendum put its outcome beyond the remit of the court to quash. The decision to notify the UK departure from the EU was made by the prime minister under a discretionary power granted by parliament. It “did not require her to await the outcome of any and all future investigations into actual or potential irregularities in the EU referendum”. "

So it does say, as you said, "The Court of Appeal recently said that if the referendum had been binding, it would be cancelled for corruption, but ironically because it was advisory, it cannot". This is just wrong.

This Court rejected any notion that any breaches of the rules affected the outcome of the referendum result. In relation to the charge of overspending, Hickinbottom LJ observed that

"campaigners registered for the UK to remain in the EU reported an aggregate spend of £19.3m and those registered to campaign for the UK to leave the EU reported a spend of £13.3m. Remain campaigners therefore reported spending about £6m more than leave campaigners."

The Commission did find that some bodies and individuals involved in the Referendum campaign breached spending limits or committed other breaches of campaign financing requirements. These findings are currently under appeal. However it had not been established that these breaches of campaign finance or other requirements meant that the result of the Referendum was ‘procured by fraud’, or that the outcome of the Referendum was affected by any wrongdoing or unlawful conduct.

The applicants sought to argue that there was still a basis in common law for voiding the referendum despite the fact that The Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out all the requirements for a vote to be binding. The Court of Appeal rejected this and all other arguments, stating

"there is simply no evidential basis for the proposition that the breaches, or any of them, are material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the referendum would have been different."

Hickinbottom LJ agreed with the judge at first instance that

"a minimum requirement for the exercise of any common law power in this new context of non-binding referendums would be that any breach of rules is material. It would be inconceivable for the common law to adopt a principle that requires or even enables a court of law to interfere with the democratic process where any breach of the voting rules is proved but not such as to affect the result; and, in my view, ….in this case, there is no evidence that gives rise to any soundly based ground for believing the outcome of the referendum result would have been different if the breaches of the rules had not occurred"

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/09/judicial-review-is-not-politics-by-another-means/

 

[Silverhatch]

Double or quits, then we can go on forever.

Or perhaps not.

We need to ban future referendums in law, no point in letting unecessary poison be poured into society ever again.

Wholeheartedly agree with that - just pointing out that the referendum results are currently 1-1

 

[seagulls4ever]

The full findings are here as well if someone asks you again - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html

It doesn't matter what link is provided, they didn't say what she said they said.