This could be interesting; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8649001.html
This could be interesting; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8649001.html
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...
Yes I can imagine you want the mess to be over, me too. How is Toulouse btw? As Paris, your capital, is razed to the ground this weekend do you think French citizens are enjoying the benefits of EU membership? You do have to ask if it wasn't for EU climate change regulation enforcement on fuels if the Arc de triomphe wouldn't be in flames today.tick tock indeed. In Europe too, we can't wait for this mess to be over.
If only remainers at the time of the referendum had pointed out the benefits of EU membership I've seen some cry on here. The reason they didn't and still don't now is because there aren't any. Look at France this weekend for an example of what the EU does to its members....
No wonder refugees from the EU are attempting to swim the English channel this weekend trying to escape it, it's winter, how desperate and how bad life must be in the EU to take such a risk?
Not long now eurochums, I hear Dec 12th ish for non ratification by the UK sovereign parliament of Junckers junk deal and our very lucky escape.
13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"
So you are agreeing with me?
The UK cannot do it anyway, even if the leave the EU.
They did not lose any sovereignty that way.
Same as they would not lose any sovereignty when entering into an international treaty stating "the moon is not made of cheese and no government shall have to right to use it to feed to their homeless". You cannot lose something you do not have in the first place.
If they're sensible they'll leave the validity of the referendum out of it. You don't screw with this stuff if you want people to have any faith left in the system.
Beyond that... meh. Highly partisan piece trying to push a narrative, colour me shocked :P .
Incidentally, yeah there were irregularities in the campaign, something that old Guido Fawkes has enjoyed pointing out:
https://order-order.com/tag/electoral-commission
The Leave.EU campaign was also not the official pro-Brexit one, so given the Independent article's focus on them, it seems a bit dodgy that this could somehow undo Brexit.
The same Electoral Commission that the High Court described as... well, not too good:Meanwhile, spending by both Leave.EU and the main Vote Leave campaign, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/f...-court-defeat/
https://order-order.com/2018/09/21/a...-court-ruling/
Oh, and this is a fun one too:
https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/e...ain-collusion/
Still not tired of winning.
On the blame topic, I think it comes down to how one bridges the gap from collectives to individuals. If one wants to blame the brexiteer, one can point out that is is their duty to remain informed, and if the system of disinformation is overpowering, to become politicians themselves and fix it. If one wants to blame a class of people, they can point out what the collective does independently of some good apples being dragged along.
On this particular, I said before that I would be angry at the political class, because I feel swayed the same way at home. But, in honesty, I recognize that I apply these methods arbitrarily.
Even when one makes the case of blaming the systems, the individuals affected by the system will at some point bridge that gap and see how it translates onto themselves. What would a brexiteer think when they hear "it's not your fault, you're just immunized against facts"?.
There's probably some political science behind this, but I wouldn't know where to start :S.
I just gave the death penalty as a random example of something the EU forbids the UK from doing. Which it does. Worst case scenario, I gave a poor example because that specific example is also covered by the Council of Europe's ban on the death penalty. Oh well. Pick any one of the scores of things where the EU has supremacy over UK law and where the Council of Europe is not involved.
Now if you want to get really specific about the death penalty, then sure, the UK would also have to withdraw from, or change the rules in, the Council of Europe too.
Where in that ghastly block of text does it say that Article 2 is not binding on a member state, exactly?
Still not tired of winning.
I disagree with this stance; we have rules to ensure that elections and referendums are as a level playing field and free from bias as possible, although they are not perfect there are something that both leave and remain votes should hold dear.
I fail to see how ignoring the potential flouting of our laws would restore any faith in the system.
Why would I have to pick one, you do so and we will see if you do better this time.
I don't think you will be able to find one that was forced upon the UK without their consent.
BTW.:Temporary delegation of sovereign duties is not a loss of sovereignty, because the ability to delegate said duties and powers itself is a core part of sovereignty.
It is always going to be tied to Brexit simply because the allegations centre around the Brexit referendum unfortunately this brings a lot of noise with it.
The Government promised to enact the result of the referendum therefore May has political responsibility to follow through the Will of the People regardless of whether or not the law compels her to do so.
Quite frankly if it is found that the rule breaches were serious enough to deem the referendum result as void I would hope that the people would be sufficiently outraged that their will shifts to protecting our democracy. However this is unlikely to happen and to be quite honest the best outcome for the UK is that the court concludes there was no wrong doing.
Last edited by Pann; 2018-11-25 at 02:09 PM.
I agree, but it looks like the Electoral Commission is (a) biased and (b) utterly incompetent.
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.
Still not tired of winning.
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 - - -
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's some debate over that, but w/e.
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 .
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.
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.
Originally Posted by George CarlinOriginally Posted by Douglas Adams
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.
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.
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.