Another new Brexit thread

[Len Rum]

Leaving has just simply not been implemented, we've discussed to death the reasons why.
The point is, that this 'Didn't understand, or know then, but we do now,' is a fabrication by those who
lost the vote.

It's not a fabrication mate it's the truth.
Whether or not that justifies a second referendum is the crucial question.

 

[Vic]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...-for-corruption-if-only-it-was-binding/26/02/

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ve-campaign-undermines-brexit-vote-court-told

There's plenty more links if you look for them.

I’m sure there are all saying the exact same thing.

Fact is a case was brought and dismissed for want of merit.

Can we kill this issue?

The spin by the losing applicant is that the result could have been declared void if it had been a binding referendum but couldn't be because it was only advisory.

While the court said that "An advisory referendum is a very different animal from a binding election" it would not necessarily have allowed that the corrupt overspending meant the result should have been void. First, you'd have to show that 600,000 would have voted Remain rather than Leave (*) to affect the result and second, the Act to have the referendum made no provision for overspending breaches so you'd have to prove a "common law" right to apply other legislation. The judges didn't think either case was proved. * If my maths is right there's a mistake in how that was argued based on the number of facebook users who were targeted by the illegal overspending but that makes little difference to the case.

The only real comfort I can see for the Remain case is you can kill the claim that the referendum was binding (it was only ever advisory in law) and a little obiter about the political aspect - the court said they were not going to "enter a political arena to determine questions well outside its proper remit" (though that hasn't stopped judges making political judgements) but there was still a little hint as to whether it was still a good idea to leave: "The referendum was merely advisory; and it was up to those that it advised to consider whether, in all the circumstances, the EU referendum result was and continues to be sufficiently robust as to reflect the will of the people on the question of withdrawal from the EU".

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html

 

[BobKowalski]

State of this. #BrexitOpportunities my arse. Well fucking name one otherwise fuck off with this lame shite

 

[aguero93:20]

It’s all going swimmingly well lol...

‘EXCL: Post-Brexit US trade deal in doubt as documents leaked to Telegraph reveal chronic Whitehall staff shortages, lack of progress in key areas and signs that US administration may be losing interest’ @ Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...trade-talks-laid-bare-cache-leaked-documents/

You won't get one without our approval anyway, 75m Irish Americans remember? Wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Can we kill this issue?

The spin by the losing applicant is that the result could have been declared void if it had been a binding referendum but couldn't be because it was only advisory.

While the court said that "An advisory referendum is a very different animal from a binding election" it would not necessarily have allowed that the corrupt overspending meant the result should have been void. First, you'd have to show that 600,000 would have voted Remain rather than Leave (*) to affect the result and second, the Act to have the referendum made no provision for overspending breaches so you'd have to prove a "common law" right to apply other legislation. The judges didn't think either case was proved. * If my maths is right there's a mistake in how that was argued based on the number of facebook users who were targeted by the illegal overspending but that makes little difference to the case.

The only real comfort I can see for the Remain case is you can kill the claim that the referendum was binding (it was only ever advisory in law) and a little obiter about the political aspect - the court said they were not going to "enter a political arena to determine questions well outside its proper remit" (though that hasn't stopped judges making political judgements) but there was still a little hint as to whether it was still a good idea to leave: "The referendum was merely advisory; and it was up to those that it advised to consider whether, in all the circumstances, the EU referendum result was and continues to be sufficiently robust as to reflect the will of the people on the question of withdrawal from the EU".

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/304.html

I think the key phrase is ‘

1. 
   ‘they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result’

From what I have read there is analysis to show that it ‘may’ have. Wether that would have been enough in a court of law to get the result quashed we will never know.

What I do know is the argument that both sides cheated is a false one. The scale of misdemeanour being very different.

What is still outstanding is where Banks funding came from. Something that should have taken a matter of days to clear up is still outstanding after a year of the Police investigation being initiated. If it is proven in future that it came from Russia as has been suggested, then that puts a fundamentally different light on the sorry mess.

 

[aguero93:20]

You're making the same mistakes here as others these days do with politics. Pigeonholing a stance and viewpoint as being one for negative approaches and one for positive.

Conservatives can be liberal also and fight for the same standards you hold important. Conservatives are not your enemy, selfish people are.

Conservative and Liberal are opposite viewpoints mate.

 

[Metal Biker]

Conservative and Liberal are opposite viewpoints mate.

Only to the ignorant and close minded.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

State of this. #BrexitOpportunities my arse. Well fucking name one otherwise fuck off with this lame shite

He's saying 'You are Here'

 

[Chris in London]

State of this. #BrexitOpportunities my arse. Well fucking name one otherwise fuck off with this lame shite

Pointing out how to exit in an emergency?

 

[aguero93:20]

Only to the ignorant and close minded.

No, they were literally coined to name two opposite schools of thought.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Not a new article by Washington Post but one I hadn’t read before;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...11517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html

 

[Grassland Blue]

Leave or remain. There is no middle ground on this.

The choice was binary. This is the heart of the problem.
There are different types of brexit though,
hard, soft and many points in between.
Remain has only one point of view.
Much of the world thinks we are crazy.

 

[Grassland Blue]

The reality is to revoke is to bin it and parties and MP's know this and they know huge swathes of the electorate simply wont have it.

The call is will they just say fuck em and do it anyway?

The Government needs to take responsibility and GOVERN. They need to make a decision which is best for the whole nation - but they won't

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The choice was binary. This is the heart of the problem.
There are different types of brexit though,
hard, soft and many points in between.
Remain has only one point of view.
Much of the world thinks we are crazy.

Which is why I have issues with a second Ref. Is leave really deliverable on any level, i don't think so - or to be more specific you would need a clear majority of MPs all signed up to 1 detailed vision/plan of how we leave. I have never seen that plan let alone any indication that a party could unite behind one and win an outright election.

So that said what would be the point of any leave option in a referendum. Its either vague and useless or any attempt to define it would instantly result in someone somewhere claiming a fix. This is partly why we have had an ever increasing slide towards no deal. The brexiteer, politicians all want to appear more firm and resolute than the next. The Tory leadership contest a classic example of this. The reality of the situation was abandoned at the start.

The result of this internal rankle within the leave movement has resulted in the WA being voted out (the only genuine opportunity to leave I think that there was and is). This deal is dead in the water now. The shift toward no deal means that there is less and less support for leaving. We wont leave. Boris will get destroyed by the HoC who didn't like him before the disaster of this last week.

It all hangs on the next GE but there will not be a leave majority - hung parliament almost guaranteed. And that means no brexit.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Which confirms exactly what I keep saying about lots of you: you just want your Brexit victory and you don't care about the costs or implications.

What matters to me is the future my children will live their lives in, not some flaky, hijacked definition of the word "democracy" or being right down the pub.

I actually think most of you know it in your heart of hearts: there's only one way out of this catastrophe and I've said it since 2016: a second referendum which will result in us remaining in the EU.

I am a remainer, however, stay or leave, we are in a cleft stick as it stands.
A dog cannot serve two masters,so,
I would be in favour of being governed from Brussels and making our current government and its minions redundant.
They are a millstone round our necks, unfit to govern and could be a prime example to fall victim to their policies.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I am a remainer, however, stay or leave, we are in a cleft stick as it stands.
A dog cannot serve two masters,so,
I would be in favour of being governed from Brussels and making our current government and its minions redundant.
They are a millstone round our necks, unfit to govern and could be a prime example to fall victim to their policies.

Wow you will get a few with that one mate.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Wow you will get a few with that one mate.

Lamentably, wind up or not, there’s a ring of truth in what he’s posted. Our politics is utterly broken and we are being governed by people deserving nothing but contempt. On that basis, why should I, or anyone who also holds that opinion, view being ruled from Brussels in an entirely negative light?

 

[Grassland Blue]

No it’s not ‘nationalists’. It’s a majority of Scots and the Irish. All you are saying is ‘this is what the English want so suck it up sunshine’. This is a conscious choice by Brexit supporters. You want Brexit then say goodbye to the Union. You want Brexit then it’s a land border in Ireland or a sea border. So do you want nationalist trouble or Unionist trouble? Pick a border. Do you guys want ‘no deal’ or you want good relations with Europe and especially Ireland? Pick one.

Every Brexit decision has knock on consequences not just inside the U.K. but outside the U.K. You want it then you own the consequences. And banging on about a vote over three years ago when none of this shit got spelled out or even acknowledged isn’t going to cut it anymore.

Strong words but sadly very true.

 

[Metal Biker]

No, they were literally coined to name two opposite schools of thought.

Hence why there are liberal conservatives and conservative liberalism, which many conservative voters in this country descrive themselves as being, which is what i'm pointing out.

Apologies for not considering those with a conservative mindset as being "evil" or "the enemy".

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Lamentably, wind up or not, there’s a ring of truth in what he’s posted. Our politics is utterly broken and we are being governed by people deserving nothing but contempt. On that basis, why should I, or anyone who also holds that opinion, view being ruled from Brussels in an entirely negative light?

I don’t disagree with your premise but it’s a gigantic constitutional leap for the uk that.