seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Do you have a link where the Court of Appeal said that?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Do you have a link where the Court of Appeal said that?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
No, I am saying I don't understand why it is different.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,573
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
Not seen such Bravery!
*Nods in agreement*
Superphil
Dismember
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.
"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.
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
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
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
Well-known member
Silverhatch
Well-known member
Ist Vote 1975
2nd Vote 2016
best of three ??
2nd Vote 2016
best of three ??
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
The full findings are here as well if someone asks you again - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html
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.
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.
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
Not seen such Bravery!
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.
Thought this was quite illuminating! Any other leavers realising the same?
https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/1105576277115891714
https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/1105576277115891714
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
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
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
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
Well-known member
Wholeheartedly agree with that - just pointing out that the referendum results are currently 1-1
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
It doesn't matter what link is provided, they didn't say what she said they said.