View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #9981
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I mean ANY trade deal will be a delegation of power.
    Some of them come with a ceding of power and sovereignty... if you have them with the USA as the smaller party for example.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Because for the last two-ish years, practically everyone's been assuming that the referendum was binding, from ordinary people all the way on up to the (Remainer) PM Theresa May, Juncker, et al. Now if some un-elected High Court judge steps in and says "nope, it's illegal, back to square one everyone" it turns the whole thing into a farce. To me, this would say that the Remoaner elites are desperate enough to do anything to stop Brexit, and that I should no longer place any trust in the democratic process. Logically then if I can't do that... yeah.
    Why is it automatically on the "Remoaner elites" if the High Court judges the referendum as illegal?
    Is it because your definition of "Remoaner elites" is "those who have an opinion different from mine"?

  2. #9982
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    Why is it automatically on the "Remoaner elites" if the High Court judges the referendum as illegal?
    Anti-Brexit = Remoaner.
    Elite = speaks for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    Is it because your definition of "Remoaner elites" is "those who have an opinion different from mine"?
    No, those would just be Remoaners :P .
    Still not tired of winning.

  3. #9983
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I don't think the outcome will make any difference to Brexit however we must absolutely know the legality of the Brexit referendum and that rules were followed. If anything this may allow us to put the accusations against Leave.EU to bed and to move on.
    I believe if I read correctly the referendum from a legal standpoint was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll (Yes in practice it was more) with spending limits. But in the end due to nature of British laws the non binding part pretty much means only the campaigns can be hurt, not the result because in legal terms there is no result to overturn.

  4. #9984
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Anti-Brexit = Remoaner.
    Elite = speaks for itself.
    So you are telling me that judges doing their job are potential remoaners solely on the basis of whether someone broke the law?
    It has nothing to do with their personal opinions, as soon as some Brexiteers (who fought for Brexit) happen to be criminals the judges that happen to get to preside over the case automatically get to be "Remoaners".
    What if say Farage gets accused of theft? Would the judge presiding get to be a "Remoaner" in the hypothetical case that there was undeniable evidence?

    You are aware that judging the referendum "illegal" would have legal consequences for the ones responsible but would not affect the parliaments decision to have a Brexit anymore than invocing the "Will of the People" takes away the responsibility of the MP to act in the best interest of the UK?
    The referendum was a non-binding opinion poll, the parliament is sovereign, if they tell you the "have to respect the will of the people" then they are simply lying to you to use it as a scapegoat.

    It being illeal would mean nothing for Article 50, either, the EU only cares for what the official representative of the UK had to say, not how that came to be internally. That is part of being a sovereign nation.

  5. #9985
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    So you are telling me that judges doing their job are potential remoaners solely on the basis of whether someone broke the law?
    No. I am telling you that judges invalidating the result of the referendum on the basis of this case are Remoaners.

    It may be that the Leave.EU campaign broke the law. It may also be that they did it by following the advice of the Electoral Commission. It may be something else. Whatever the case may be, that's not what I'm concerned about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    You are aware that judging the referendum "illegal" would have legal consequences for the ones responsible but would not affect the parliaments decision to have a Brexit anymore than invocing the "Will of the People" takes away the responsibility of the MP to act in the best interest of the UK?
    In the context of the article, the idea clearly being put forward is this:

    1. Judge rules against Leave.EU.
    2. Also, the referendum is now illegal.
    3. Therefore Brexit is stopped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    The referendum was a non-binding opinion poll
    There's some debate over that, but w/e.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    the parliament is sovereign, if they tell you the "have to respect the will of the people" then they are simply lying to you to use it as a scapegoat.
    The Crown in Parliament under God is sovereign. They still have to respect the will of the people however, because (a) MPs get voted into office, and (b) lampposts make great gallows :P .

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    It being illeal would mean nothing for Article 50, either
    So you don't think the anti-Brexit crowd, both in the UK & EU, would do their best to say it invalidates the result, and that the whole process must stop, or at least start over?
    Still not tired of winning.

  6. #9986
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    There's some debate over that, but w/e.
    There isn't any debate over that at all. It wasn't binding, which is the reason why the discovery that it was a flawed vote hasn't automatically stopped it. If it had been binding, there wouldn't have been any choice about cancelling the outcome and having a rerun. Isn't it odd that you wouldn't know that?
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  7. #9987
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    I agree, but it looks like the Electoral Commission is (a) biased and (b) utterly incompetent.
    It is now in the hands of the High Court and not the Electoral Commission.

    I must say that I find it worrisome that people now attack the institutions that are there to protect our democracy rather than the people that seek to undermine it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Because for the last two-ish years, practically everyone's been assuming that the referendum was binding, from ordinary people all the way on up to the (Remainer) PM Theresa May, Juncker, et al. Now if some un-elected High Court judge steps in and says "nope, it's illegal, back to square one everyone" it turns the whole thing into a farce. To me, this would say that the Remoaner elites are desperate enough to do anything to stop Brexit, and that I should no longer place any trust in the democratic process. Logically then if I can't do that... yeah.

    Incidentally, if this is enough to overturn the entire referendum process it will bring all future such referendums to a grinding halt. Let's say I desperately want to block Scottish independence - all I do is join an unofficial pro-independence campaign, get it to break the law, and anonymously give the authorities a tip-off, assuming nobody out there is watching & able to do it anyway. Even if I get caught, a few years in prison or w/e is a small price to pay for stopping it. Provided you have enough willing saboteurs you can rinse & repeat ad infinitum.

    Finally, there is also a legal principle I believe that basically says that if a law was passed and everyone assumed it was legal etc, but it was much later found out to be illegal, then the proper response is to treat the law as having been legal for anything done under it. To give an example, if it turned out that the birthers were right and Obama wasn't born in the US, and thus was never eligible to be President, you wouldn't suddenly undo everything passed during his 8 years.
    Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law. If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers then we should all be asking serious questions as to how this has happened and what was the motivation behind there actions. And surely it should be those that seek to undermine our democratic processes that should be the focus our anger and not the remoaner elites. I would say that if we allow people to undermine democracy it does far more damage to our democracy than ignoring it.

    In order for this point to come to pass we would need to assume that our authorities are really quite dim.

    I have never heard of this law.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    I believe if I read correctly the referendum from a legal standpoint was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll (Yes in practice it was more) with spending limits. But in the end due to nature of British laws the non binding part pretty much means only the campaigns can be hurt, not the result because in legal terms there is no result to overturn.
    Yep, I remember reading that when both remain and leave's overspending came to light that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been ruled void.

  8. #9988
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Posts
    4,975
    May wrote a letter of invocation of Art50 herself, not the 17m people. it was also taken to HoC, which represents the populace.
    to attack the first referendum will lead to nowhere but of course the simple truth: it was advisory at best.
    so government can stop their "but but will of the people !!!" campaign and revoke on their own, without a second ref.

  9. #9989
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    It is now in the hands of the High Court and not the Electoral Commission.

    I must say that I find it worrisome that people now attack the institutions that are there to protect our democracy rather than the people that seek to undermine it.




    Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law. If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers then we should all be asking serious questions as to how this has happened and what was the motivation behind there actions. And surely it should be those that seek to undermine our democratic processes that should be the focus our anger and not the remoaner elites. I would say that if we allow people to undermine democracy it does far more damage to our democracy than ignoring it.

    In order for this point to come to pass we would need to assume that our authorities are really quite dim.

    I have never heard of this law.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yep, I remember reading that when both remain and leave's overspending came to light that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been ruled void.
    Yeah, but sadly, that is becoming more and more the norm these days. I made this point earlier today, but the US is still a focal point for most of the world. If it becomes possible in the US to simply decry bias and incompetence at any judge that does not rule the way you want them to, then it becomes normal to do the same at home as well.

  10. #9990
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    In the context of the article, the idea clearly being put forward is this:

    1. Judge rules against Leave.EU.
    2. Also, the referendum is now illegal.
    3. Therefore Brexit is stopped.
    Just saying for a second that Brexit is stopped due to this, I think the only course of action would be to re-run the original referendum (although I do not think this a good idea going forward but I have no other solution). Isn't in the whole of the UK's interests to ensure that the result is not tainted regardless of the outcome?

  11. #9991
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Just saying for a second that Brexit is stopped due to this, I think the only course of action would be to re-run the original referendum (although I do not think this a good idea going forward but I have no other solution). Isn't in the whole of the UK's interests to ensure that the result is not tainted regardless of the outcome?
    There is no way for the UK to not act on Brexit without having a second referendum that would not lead to a lasting crisis of confidence on UK democracy imo, whatever the facts may be.
    Hail Lilith and see you in Hell!

  12. #9992
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    There is no way for the UK to not act on Brexit without having a second referendum that would not lead to a lasting crisis of confidence on UK democracy imo, whatever the facts may be.
    I don't think there is any solution that is not going to result in people losing faith in UK democracy which is why I hope that the court thoroughly examines the case before them and finds that there is no case to answer. If it is found that the referendum should be declared void then it is not going to be pretty.

  13. #9993
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    It is now in the hands of the High Court and not the Electoral Commission.

    I must say that I find it worrisome that people now attack the institutions that are there to protect our democracy rather than the people that seek to undermine it.
    If they deserve it, why not? The High Court found the Electoral Commission to have completely screwed up its one job already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law.
    Ideally, yes. In reality... well, ever heard of George Jeffreys?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/George...Baron_Jeffreys

    Not to mention the US Supreme Court. If the judges were all impartial then the narrative about them being left- or right- wing wouldn't make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers
    What about the potentially illegal actions of certain Remoaners? Those Guido Fawkes linked I gave above mentioned some very suspicious activity on the part of pro-EU campaigns, particularly at the end of the referendum process, yet there's been no proper investigation of them. If they're both breaking the law does it cancel out? What about if they broke the law but sincerely thought the were not, because they were following botched Electoral Commission advice? Would they have voided the referendum if the illegal actions involved only £4M instead of £8M, or whatever (and what does that say about our view of the public and its gullibility)? Plenty more questions to ask IMHO before any judge can try to void the referendum.

    Again though, the key thing is that this is all about crafting a particular narrative. If the referendum is void then everything based on that referendum, such as invoking Article 50, is void, thus the whole Brexit thing needs to be cancelled so we can (preferably at some very indeterminate point in the future) hold a new referendum, and this time make sure those damn Brexiteers don't win it, etc etc etc. Even if that's not how it works legally, that can be how it works politically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    In order for this point to come to pass we would need to assume that our authorities are really quite dim.
    Looking at Theresa May & her negotiations, that seems a perfectly sensible thing to assume :P .

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I have never heard of this law.
    Legal principle, not law - and I admit, it's only one of those things I've heard of. I mean, it makes sense - per my example, imagine the utter chaos that would result from trying to undo everything under Obama's presidency - but I couldn't even tell you the name of the principle itself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Just saying for a second that Brexit is stopped due to this, I think the only course of action would be to re-run the original referendum (although I do not think this a good idea going forward but I have no other solution). Isn't in the whole of the UK's interests to ensure that the result is not tainted regardless of the outcome?
    No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.
    Still not tired of winning.

  14. #9994
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    21,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.
    You understand that the logical conclusion from your point is that you are ok with buying votes?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  15. #9995
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    If they deserve it, why not? The High Court found the Electoral Commission to have completely screwed up its one job already.
    Right? And doesn't the fact that Electoral Commission's errors have been highlighted and dealt with by the courts show that the system works?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Ideally, yes. In reality... well, ever heard of George Jeffreys?
    I am not sure that we should label the judges of today as biased because of the actions of one over 300 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Not to mention the US Supreme Court. If the judges were all impartial then the narrative about them being left- or right- wing wouldn't make any sense.
    US courts have nothing to do with the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    What about the potentially illegal actions of certain Remoaners? Those Guido Fawkes linked I gave above mentioned some very suspicious activity on the part of pro-EU campaigns, particularly at the end of the referendum process, yet there's been no proper investigation of them. If they're both breaking the law does it cancel out? What about if they broke the law but sincerely thought the were not, because they were following botched Electoral Commission advice? Would they have voided the referendum if the illegal actions involved only £4M instead of £8M, or whatever (and what does that say about our view of the public and its gullibility)? Plenty more questions to ask IMHO before any judge can try to void the referendum.

    Again though, the key thing is that this is all about crafting a particular narrative. If the referendum is void then everything based on that referendum, such as invoking Article 50, is void, thus the whole Brexit thing needs to be cancelled so we can (preferably at some very indeterminate point in the future) hold a new referendum, and this time make sure those damn Brexiteers don't win it, etc etc etc. Even if that's not how it works legally, that can be how it works politically.
    If they have broken the law they should be punished regardless of which side of the debate they are on. I would also add that Guido is far from impartial and that thus far it is only the actions of those on the leave side that have attracted the attention of the National Crime Agency.


    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Looking at Theresa May & her negotiations, that seems a perfectly sensible thing to assume :P .
    That's as may be, however it would be people that are experienced and trained in investigating criminals and criminal actions that would be looking into it and not May and her team. I suppose you could hope that Theresa May was put in charge of any investigations but I think that is as likely as your plan be a) successful and b) remaining undetected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Legal principle, not law - and I admit, it's only one of those things I've heard of. I mean, it makes sense - per my example, imagine the utter chaos that would result from trying to undo everything under Obama's presidency - but I couldn't even tell you the name of the principle itself.
    Ultimately it is a lot easier to undo one referendum in the face of illegalities than it would be to undo the actions of a two term president, however had Obama been found not to have been eligible to hold office I am sure that his presidency would be declared void and the policies he passed would be reviewed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.
    You are basically saying that not applying the law is greater deterrent to those who wish to break the law than enforcing it and punishing criminals. It makes no sense whatsoever.

  16. #9996
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    You understand that the logical conclusion from your point is that you are ok with buying votes?
    Yes, because clearly the logical thing to do is to go right to the other extreme . There's no way I could have been making a more nuanced view, say about these specific circumstances.

    BTW, isn't buying votes exactly what politicians do all the damned time anyway? "Vote for me and I'll do X" is buying votes when all is said and done.

    = = =

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Right? And doesn't the fact that Electoral Commission's errors have been highlighted and dealt with by the courts show that the system works?
    Have they been dealt with though? The High Court found the EC to have screwed up big time, but that doesn't mean the EC is reformed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I am not sure that we should label the judges of today as biased because of the actions of one over 300 years ago.
    No, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    US courts have nothing to do with the UK.
    They're still fellow humans like us, and still work with much of the same legal code (US law incorporates all pre-Revolutionary English Common Law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    If they have broken the law they should be punished regardless of which side of the debate they are on.
    Agreed. My issue is more with the political / partisan issues involving trying to void the referendum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I would also add that Guido is far from impartial and that thus far it is only the actions of those on the leave side that have attracted the attention of the National Crime Agency.
    True, but given the heavy support given to the anti-Brexit side by Whitehall in the referendum itself, you'll find plenty of Brexiteers ready & willing to believe that the NCA's attention may have been politically influenced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Ultimately it is a lot easier to undo one referendum in the face of illegalities than it would be to undo the actions of a two term president, however had Obama been found not to have been eligible to hold office I am sure that his presidency would be declared void and the policies he passed would be reviewed.
    I think a lot of Republicans would be just dying to declare everything he'd done null & void (and vice versa if Trump turned out to not be born in the USA or w/e), but I don't think it'd get through the courts. Re "undoing the referendum" though, in terms of cancelling Brexit it isn't obviously on the same scale as 8 years of a president or w/e, but rolling it back would still be a mammoth task, given all the decisions people have been making based on it going ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    You are basically saying that not applying the law is greater deterrent to those who wish to break the law than enforcing it and punishing criminals. It makes no sense whatsoever.
    It's more a case of trying to be realistic. If £8M of money is enough to invalidate a nationwide referendum years after the fact, frankly that doesn't bode well for any future referendums, or elections. That's about 12p per person for the entire UK population, or 22p per voter in the referendum. By all means lock up Arron Banks or w/e if he committed a crime, but let's not pretend this invalidates the result.

    Meanwhile, the government spent over £9M on pro-EU leaflets to be sent to every home in the country (the official Remain budget was capped at £7M, BTW). Then in the last week of campaigning, five new Remainer campaigns popped up and possibly colluded, but the EC won't investigate them, and similarly refuses to investigate evidence of Remain campaign overspending brought to it by Priti Patel MP. It will however investigate Leave.EU because it suspects foreign money to the tune of about £8M of having been involved.

    It strikes me as one of those situations where you have to say:

    1. Yes, Bob broke the law & has been punished (or didn't and hasn't been, as the case may be).
    2. Shut up and stop trying to turn the clock back because the other side won.

    I see parallels in all this of some of the opposition to Trump as GEOTUS. The result is the "wrong" one, so it must be made delegitimised, and any flaws of the "right" result swept under the carpet.
    Still not tired of winning.

  17. #9997
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Have they been dealt with though? The High Court found the EC to have screwed up big time, but that doesn't mean the EC is reformed.
    No, it means that a mistake was made, the mistake was discovered and rectified. The EC making a mistake doesn't mean that it needs reforming. And let's not forget that although the High Court found that the EC had misinterpreted the rules it still agreed that Vote Leave had broken the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Agreed. My issue is more with the political / partisan issues involving trying to void the referendum.
    If it is found that no rule breaking took place there will be no need to void anything however if the court does find that serious rule breaking has taken place then I think that we should at least examine the referendum result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    True, but given the heavy support given to the anti-Brexit side by Whitehall in the referendum itself, you'll find plenty of Brexiteers ready & willing to believe that the NCA's attention may have been politically influenced.
    The NCA do not act at the behest of politicians nor will they be swayed one way or the other. Quite frankly I feel your mistrust is misguided and should instead be directed at those who have brought the Brexit result under the scrutiny of the law

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    I think a lot of Republicans would be just dying to declare everything he'd done null & void (and vice versa if Trump turned out to not be born in the USA or w/e), but I don't think it'd get through the courts. Re "undoing the referendum" though, in terms of cancelling Brexit it isn't obviously on the same scale as 8 years of a president or w/e, but rolling it back would still be a mammoth task, given all the decisions people have been making based on it going ahead.
    Whilst it would be a mammoth task I have no doubt that every single policy enacted whilst he was in office would be independently scrutinised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    It's more a case of trying to be realistic. If £8M of money is enough to invalidate a nationwide referendum years after the fact, frankly that doesn't bode well for any future referendums, or elections. That's about 12p per person for the entire UK population, or 22p per voter in the referendum. By all means lock up Arron Banks or w/e if he committed a crime, but let's not pretend this invalidates the result.

    Meanwhile, the government spent over £9M on pro-EU leaflets to be sent to every home in the country (the official Remain budget was capped at £7M, BTW). Then in the last week of campaigning, five new Remainer campaigns popped up and possibly colluded, but the EC won't investigate them, and similarly refuses to investigate evidence of Remain campaign overspending brought to it by Priti Patel MP. It will however investigate Leave.EU because it suspects foreign money to the tune of about £8M of having been involved.

    It strikes me as one of those situations where you have to say:

    1. Yes, Bob broke the law & has been punished (or didn't and hasn't been, as the case may be).
    2. Shut up and stop trying to turn the clock back because the other side won.

    I see parallels in all this of some of the opposition to Trump as GEOTUS. The result is the "wrong" one, so it must be made delegitimised, and any flaws of the "right" result swept under the carpet.
    We don't know exactly what Banks is being investigated for, all we know is that he and others are being investigated on suspicion of committing multiple criminal offences.

    The difference being that the government leaflets were all above board. The EC has not refused to investigate Patel's claims, it investigated and found that there were no grounds to suspect that the rules had been broken stating "The Commission has not been provided with, or found evidence for an investigation to be opened."

    It seems to me that this is a case of flinging muck at the wall and seeing what sticks and rather than proving that EC is biased or remain acted dishonestly it instead calls in to question Patel's motivations.

    The claim that EC refuses to investigate remain is not accurate, it investigated and fined the Lib Dems £18,000 for "failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments” and Britain Stronger in Europe (now Open Britain) £1,250 with regard to not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.

    The fact that leave have been fined more and are under further investigation suggests that their rule breaking was more serious than remains rather than there being bias against them.

    I don't know if stopping Brexit is the right answer however I believe that whatever result anyone of us wanted it should never be more important than ensuring our democratic process is fair and free from bias.
    Last edited by Pann; 2018-11-25 at 08:54 PM.

  18. #9998
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    Because like most politicians in the UK, and including the most unpopular French president in history right now, the limpets don't know when to go and keep clinging on, but a brexiteer UK leader is coming don't worry...perhaps in France soon too...
    Macron is unpopular because he is aligning more with hard capitalism ideas, like making it easier to hire and fire workers. French population is attached to its very heavy worker protection laws, which may or may not be why our industries aren't as competitive as they could be.

    The UK have far less worker protection programs, and the UK government is far less generous than French government regarding unemployment benefits. Of course, the French don't like when their cushy life is taken away, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do in order to remain competitive.

    How to you lean in the balance of industry competitiveness vs worker protection laws?
    Last edited by Vankrys; 2018-11-25 at 09:18 PM.

  19. #9999
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    And let's not forget that although the High Court found that the EC had misinterpreted the rules it still agreed that Vote Leave had broken the law.
    Based on EC advice though, which is... amusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    If it is found that no rule breaking took place there will be no need to void anything however if the court does find that serious rule breaking has taken place then I think that we should at least examine the referendum result.
    Maybe - but again, my point was that, per the Indie article's narrative, the High Court should not be voiding any results based on this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The NCA do not act at the behest of politicians nor will they be swayed one way or the other.
    I wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Quite frankly I feel your mistrust is misguided and should instead be directed at those who have brought the Brexit result under the scrutiny of the law
    It's not like I don't have some misgivings over Arron Banks, it just seems to me that the other side is engaged in far worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Whilst it would be a mammoth task I have no doubt that every single policy enacted whilst he was in office would be independently scrutinised.
    I shudder at the thought - and I'm a Trump guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    We don't know exactly what Banks is being investigated for, all we know is that he and others are being investigated on suspicion of committing multiple criminal offences.
    It's over £8M that was used to fund some of the Brexit campaigns. The EC said it was suspicious over the source of the money, and here we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The difference being that the government leaflets were all above board. The EC has not refused to investigate Patel's claims, it investigated and found that there were no grounds to suspect that the rules had been broken stating "The Commission has not been provided with, or found evidence for an investigation to be opened."
    This is the same Commission that doesn't need to hear both sides of the story and all that, though. I guess it just boils down to my having far less faith in the independence of these bodies than you.
    Still not tired of winning.

  20. #10000
    Those bodies aren't supposed to be independent. They're supposed to represent our interests.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    “It’s majoritarian, the majority wins, it’s ruled by the majority for the majority – sod the minority. Whereas true democracy includes everybody’s opinion in society,” - Margaret Georgiadou, 2019 about Brexit referendum.
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •