Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission’s investigation into Leave’s funding

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission’s investigation into Leave’s funding could halt Brexit

Butterflies are beloved of writers of alternate history and counterfactuals. The notion that but for the eddies created by the meanderings of an individual butterfly, a hurricane would (or would not) have developed is as old as it is misleading; there are many butterflies, there are few hurricanes and there is precious little connection from the one to the other.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,025
    First?
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,709
    What a load of convoluted preposterous ultra-mega-doubleplus-nincompoopism. The People have spoken, the Saboteurs will be crushed, the Remoaniacs will probably carry on moaning until Hell freezes over anyway, and the UK will be free on 29th March 2019.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.
  • A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    with the latest Damien Green claims is anyone else disturbed that confidential information uncovered in a police investigation is being leaked fir political purposes?
  • Charles said:

    with the latest Damien Green claims is anyone else disturbed that confidential information uncovered in a police investigation is being leaked fir political purposes?

    Sir Paul Stephenson reportedly does.

    Bob quick, possibly not so much......
  • Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    This seems a nonsensical legal argument to me although David tries gamely to make the case.
    Probably therefore it will turn out to be somehow legally correct.

    I doubt anyone will care that much about campaign finance and I strongly suspect Remainers like myself won’t even see this as a particularly powerful argument.

    If you compare to the 30 or so Tory MPs in trouble for battle buses - as far as I recall it was barely mentioned by Labour in the last election. Doubt this will cut through either.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,709
    Yelling in lurid glee, like a demons' pantomime: see the silhouettes agape; see the gibbering shadows
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
  • Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
  • RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    Rats! They've been rumbled.......
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    edited November 2017

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
    On the flip side, keeping FOM was not the main motivator for all Remain voters, so perhaps keeping FOM is not at all compatible with the referendum result.

    Also, it asked us if we wanted to remain, or if we wanted to leave. Leaving in name only would not meet the referendum mandate, as you put it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2017
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
    The Norway option was extensively discussed, indeed we are discussing it now. It is clearly possible as an option to be in the SM and out of the EU. Whether it would be wise or acceptable to the public is a different matter.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
    The Norway option was extensively discussed, indeed we are discussing it now. It is clearly possible as an option to be in the SM and out of the EU. Whether it would be wise or acceptable to the public a different matter.
    Yeah, it was discussed, but not by the leaders of the campaigns. For example, Cameron was explicitly clear that voting to leave would mean we are out of the SM.

    https://youtu.be/XA37mdFjSRA?t=4m51s
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
    Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson:

    LORD Mandelson was left humiliated yesterday after claiming no Brexit voter was ever told leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

    Within hours it emerged the Labour peer and arch Europhile HIMSELF had warned exactly that - two weeks before last year’s Referendum


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4734816/lord-mandelson-left-humiliated-after-claiming-no-brexit-voter-was-told-leaving-the-eu-meant-leaving-the-single-market/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
    Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson:

    LORD Mandelson was left humiliated yesterday after claiming no Brexit voter was ever told leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

    Within hours it emerged the Labour peer and arch Europhile HIMSELF had warned exactly that - two weeks before last year’s Referendum


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4734816/lord-mandelson-left-humiliated-after-claiming-no-brexit-voter-was-told-leaving-the-eu-meant-leaving-the-single-market/
    Rumbled!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
    On the flip side, keeping FOM was not the main motivator for all Remain voters, so perhaps keeping FOM is not at all compatible with the referendum result.

    Also, it asked us if we wanted to remain, or if we wanted to leave. Leaving in name only would not meet the referendum mandate, as you put it.
    Keeping in the SM (hence FOM) and remaining in many EU institutions was the primary motivator of Remain voters.

    EEA is more than LINO, not least because it would mean ending CAP and CFP, and the budget contributions that would go with this.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
    On the flip side, keeping FOM was not the main motivator for all Remain voters, so perhaps keeping FOM is not at all compatible with the referendum result.

    Also, it asked us if we wanted to remain, or if we wanted to leave. Leaving in name only would not meet the referendum mandate, as you put it.
    Keeping in the SM (hence FOM) and remaining in many EU institutions was the primary motivator of Remain voters.

    EEA is more than LINO, not least because it would mean ending CAP and CFP, and the budget contributions that would go with this.
    Was it now? The polling evidence disagrees with you. The majority of remainers want EU migrants teated the same as non-EU migrants: no FOM.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-eu-freedom-of-movement-scrap-free-trade-europe-keep-uk-survey-a7641541.html
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
    On the flip side, keeping FOM was not the main motivator for all Remain voters, so perhaps keeping FOM is not at all compatible with the referendum result.

    Also, it asked us if we wanted to remain, or if we wanted to leave. Leaving in name only would not meet the referendum mandate, as you put it.
    Keeping in the SM (hence FOM) and remaining in many EU institutions was the primary motivator of Remain voters..
    Not according to the Ashcroft data. 'Project Fear' was the primary motivation of most Remain voters. Under a third cited 'Single Market' as a motivator.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Of course.

    Ending FOM was clearly the motivator for many Leave voters, but not all of them. Keeping FOM is certainly compatible with the referendum result.

    The referendum was a blunt instrument, without subtlety or nuance. It asked what we did not want, not what we wanted.
    On the flip side, keeping FOM was not the main motivator for all Remain voters, so perhaps keeping FOM is not at all compatible with the referendum result.

    Also, it asked us if we wanted to remain, or if we wanted to leave. Leaving in name only would not meet the referendum mandate, as you put it.
    Keeping in the SM (hence FOM) and remaining in many EU institutions was the primary motivator of Remain voters..
    Not according to the Ashcroft data. 'Project Fear' was the primary motivation of most Remain voters. Under a third cited 'Single Market' as a motivator.
    Fake news! :D
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,214

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    Golly - a sensible post I agree with. Can you give some of what you're on to the likes of Glenn and Meeks :-D
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,648
    It is not clear to me that, even if HMG were to decide to go down this route and even with a compliant ruling of the Supreme Court, that the EU would accept that this invalidated the Article 50 notification.
  • It's a terrific piece from David. Could the referendum result be voided like an ordinary election result where a candidate was found to have breached spending rules ? I'm neither a lawyer or an expert but my lay persons view is no.

    #1 The referendum was advisory. For instance the legislation made no provision for either recounts or a tied vote. When these points were raised in the Bill passage the Commons was told it was advisory. #2 The outcome of the Miller case backed up point #1 which is why parliament had to pass an Act. #3 Even that Act didn't make the notification but empowered the PM to do so which she then did.

    As a none lawyer it seems a bit like quiting your job because of X assesment of a companies future then finding out that assessment was misinformed. But if you've legally resigned in terms of your contract can you really enforce getting your job back ?

    To me in the absence of the Referendum Act either ( a) having provisions to void the result ( b ) making the referendum it's self a decision I think we are in caveat emptor territory.
  • On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/
  • " The city’s appeals court is planning to set up an English-language chamber by January 2018, so that big international companies do not have to turn to London to resolve commercial disputes."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/frankfurt-brexit-germany-uk-eu
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,056

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    A couple of things. Firstly, I thought you wanted hard Brexit?

    Secondly, how would the government be respecting the 48% had the result been the other way around? The answer is, they wouldn't.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
  • MTimT said:

    It is not clear to me that, even if HMG were to decide to go down this route and even with a compliant ruling of the Supreme Court, that the EU would accept that this invalidated the Article 50 notification.

    Well you are certainly right it's the ECJ not our Supreme Court who are the final arbiters of the EU treaties of which A50 is part. While I can't see the ECJ deciding it understands UK constitutional law better than the UK supreme court and over ruling it you are quite right that they could.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342
    Charles said:

    with the latest Damien Green claims is anyone else disturbed that confidential information uncovered in a police investigation is being leaked fir political purposes?

    Doubly so when the police raid in the first place was conducted for highly political purposes.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342
    RobD said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
    It’s pretty much the definition of a two line bill, one of the shortest and most concise Acts of Parliament ever passed. And it was passed unamended, despite a whole bunch of attempts to insert unrelated things into it.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 403
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    with the latest Damien Green claims is anyone else disturbed that confidential information uncovered in a police investigation is being leaked fir political purposes?

    Doubly so when the police raid in the first place was conducted for highly political purposes.
    If the porn viewed was so bad, as is currently being made out, who has benefited from this being held over Green for the last 9 years? Him being arrested in 2008 didn't pass any smell test back then. This current Bob Quick inspired twist smells even worse.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 403

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
  • RobD said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
    The legal argument which some distinguished lawyers have made and this case is testing is pretty clear. That A50 distinguishes between a decision to leave and notification of that decision, that A50 refers to a member states own constitutional requirements and that the Miller Judgement says that " constitutional requirement " is an Act of Parliament.

    Their argument is the two clause Act passed on notification doesn't constitute a decision as it's so poorly worded. For instance there is nothing in the text at all that says " We've decided to leave " and it gives the PM the power to notify but not the duty to do so. There is nothing in the Act advising let alone forcing any PM to use that power. If for instance May hadn't used that power to date in what way would she be in breach of the Act ? See also the use of the word " intention " rather than " decision ".

    I'm not saying their argument is correct. I'm not a lawyer. Merely that the point they are arguing is clear and intelligible. The Courts will decide which is their job.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    It would meet the referendum mandate, and allow latitude for sovereignty in other areas such as external trade agreements, agriculture and fisheries. What changes to FoM would be compatible would be much smaller.

    I don't think that the Tories are capable of such a compromise, though a Lab led coalition probably would. As such it is not viable at present, which is why the Tories reluctance to face the realities of Hard Brexit is so worrying. The Tory ostrich has its head in the sand.
    Would it? A big part of the leave vote was ending freedom of movement. That won't happen in the EEA.
    Didn't see that on the ballot paper.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,
    One man's 'sensible compromise' is another man's 'betrayal'.

    I'm not sure Remain voters voted 'remain' out of any great deep love for the EU or 'European institutions'

    For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).......fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
    Sure, compromise does require giving way on some things in return for others.

    Studying the entrails is not a way to find compromise. We do not know however how popular an EEA deal would be if voted on, short of having a referendum. A fairly significant part of the Leave campaign did suggest staying in the Single Market as an option post Brexit.
    Not this old chestnut again. Do I have to dig up that Daily Politics clip showing campaigners on both sides saying we'd have to leave the SM?
    And others on both sides said that we would not have to leave the Single Market.
    I'm pretty sure the lead campaigners on both sides said we'd have to leave. In all the big set-piece interviews it was clear we'd have to leave.
    Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson:

    LORD Mandelson was left humiliated yesterday after claiming no Brexit voter was ever told leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

    Within hours it emerged the Labour peer and arch Europhile HIMSELF had warned exactly that - two weeks before last year’s Referendum


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4734816/lord-mandelson-left-humiliated-after-claiming-no-brexit-voter-was-told-leaving-the-eu-meant-leaving-the-single-market/
    Rumbled!
    Could we get some Leavers saying that now?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
    The legal argument which some distinguished lawyers have made and this case is testing is pretty clear. That A50 distinguishes between a decision to leave and notification of that decision, that A50 refers to a member states own constitutional requirements and that the Miller Judgement says that " constitutional requirement " is an Act of Parliament.

    Their argument is the two clause Act passed on notification doesn't constitute a decision as it's so poorly worded. For instance there is nothing in the text at all that says " We've decided to leave " and it gives the PM the power to notify but not the duty to do so. There is nothing in the Act advising let alone forcing any PM to use that power. If for instance May hadn't used that power to date in what way would she be in breach of the Act ? See also the use of the word " intention " rather than " decision ".

    I'm not saying their argument is correct. I'm not a lawyer. Merely that the point they are arguing is clear and intelligible. The Courts will decide which is their job.
    That sounds like a very weak argument. The decision to leave the EU was made by the nation in a referendum. The PM gave notice of the intention to leave, based on that decision, by invoking article 50.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise,

    A sensible Govt. would not try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise between binary choices.

    Try running that argument with the death penalty....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    If there is a second referendum because it becomes obvious to a majority that Brexit is going to be immensely difficult and damaging to implement, in a scenario where Labour plumps for it as a way off its fence, there is a reasonable prospect that the decision to Leave will be overturned.

    If there is a second referendum in David's scenario, where the Leave campaign is faulted on what many will see as a technicality, then the Winchester effect will come into play, and a second vote will return another, larger, Leave majority.

    I would imagine that anyone clutching at David's straw will be well aware of this, which is why it won't happen.

    The 'best' outcome is that any adverse finding against Leave.eu becomes another chip off the credibility of the whole exercise. But it will be public and political opinion that drives us towards a second vote, not the lawyers and the courts.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
    The legal argument which some distinguished lawyers have made and this case is testing is pretty clear. That A50 distinguishes between a decision to leave and notification of that decision, that A50 refers to a member states own constitutional requirements and that the Miller Judgement says that " constitutional requirement " is an Act of Parliament.

    Their argument is the two clause Act passed on notification doesn't constitute a decision as it's so poorly worded. For instance there is nothing in the text at all that says " We've decided to leave " and it gives the PM the power to notify but not the duty to do so. There is nothing in the Act advising let alone forcing any PM to use that power. If for instance May hadn't used that power to date in what way would she be in breach of the Act ? See also the use of the word " intention " rather than " decision ".

    I'm not saying their argument is correct. I'm not a lawyer. Merely that the point they are arguing is clear and intelligible. The Courts will decide which is their job.
    That sounds like a very weak argument. The decision to leave the EU was made by the nation in a referendum. The PM gave notice of the intention to leave, based on that decision, by invoking article 50.
    Formally and legally the decision was made by politicians, acting on the 'advice' of the people via the referendum.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269
    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
  • The public are never going to believe that their votes were bought, never mind that they were bought with dodgy money.

    Mind you, the vehemence on this subject of those in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417
    And so, another thread to give succour to the Sore Losers.

    If only they had harnessed 5.6% of their energies invested in Remoaning, and put it into the Referendum campaign itself.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417
    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    Your vehemence on this subject when in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
    From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    And so, another thread to give succour to the Sore Losers.

    If only they had harnessed 5.6% of their energies invested in Remoaning, and put it into the Referendum campaign itself.....

    youre trying to explain numbers to people so stupid they lost to a bus
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    Your vehemence on this subject when in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking....
    I am not vehement about it, it's a simple fact.

    As I said in my original post on the lead, I don't see David's scenario leading anywhere.
  • This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    edited November 2017
    So wait, Ruth Davidson is appearing on bake off and Kezia Dugdale is gonna be on I'm a Celebrity?

    These are the two that have spent the last 3 years endlessly banging on that Sturgeon should get on with the day job. Are you shitting me?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,725
    IanB2 said:

    If there is a second referendum because it becomes obvious to a majority that Brexit is going to be immensely difficult and damaging to implement, in a scenario where Labour plumps for it as a way off its fence, there is a reasonable prospect that the decision to Leave will be overturned.

    If there is a second referendum in David's scenario, where the Leave campaign is faulted on what many will see as a technicality, then the Winchester effect will come into play, and a second vote will return another, larger, Leave majority.

    I would imagine that anyone clutching at David's straw will be well aware of this, which is why it won't happen.

    The 'best' outcome is that any adverse finding against Leave.eu becomes another chip off the credibility of the whole exercise. But it will be public and political opinion that drives us towards a second vote, not the lawyers and the courts.

    Sadly, I think that’s the case. I think we’ve several months to come of Davis sounding smug about achieving nothing very much and our European colleagues getting increasingly frustrated at our desire to cut off our noses before the Government collapses and Mr B2’s first paragraph applies.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
    From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
    really go play the fuckwit wit someone else

    Cameron had the whole power of the state, the City, big business which he used as his proxies. He had a so called truce period in the cabinet in which he cheated, He had a panoply of world leaders he wheeled in to do his dirty work.

    You lost despite having all the advantages, get over it and show some maturiity for once in your life.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269
    edited November 2017

    This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.

    what about that big troll with sticky out ears that got wheeled in to tell us we had to stand at the back of the queue ? and the short dumpy one who stopped shagging actresses for a day to tell us he would make us suffer ?

    Cameronism - taking the moral high ground by standing in a swamp
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
    From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
    really go play the fuckwit wit someone else

    Cameron had the whole power of the state, the City, big business which he used as his proxies. He had a so called truce period in the cabinet in which he cheated, He had a panoply of world leaders he wheeled in to do his dirty work.

    You lost despite having all the advantages, get over it and show some maturiity for once in your life.
    Lol. Having the government seen as "on my side" was probably the biggest disadvantage.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. This does remind me of the £9m or so taxpayer-funded pro-EU leaflet sent out by the Government. But that was totally fine, of course.

    The central point is correct. This *might* lead to another vote, but that might prove Pyrrhic.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417

    And so, another thread to give succour to the Sore Losers.

    If only they had harnessed 5.6% of their energies invested in Remoaning, and put it into the Referendum campaign itself.....

    youre trying to explain numbers to people so stupid they lost to a bus
    And yet, still they throw themselves, to be crushed under the wheels of that juggernaut.

    Hard to know how many years after we've left that they will finally get the memo.
  • Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417



    Cameronism - taking the moral high ground by standing in a swamp

    Whilst carrying the Anvil of Renegotiation.....the finest Anvil ever shown off to man, as he assured us.....
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,723
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    Sounds good. Where do I sign?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    Sounds good. Where do I sign?
    France?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342
    edited November 2017

    Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. This does remind me of the £9m or so taxpayer-funded pro-EU leaflet sent out by the Government. But that was totally fine, of course.

    The central point is correct. This *might* lead to another vote, but that might prove Pyrrhic.

    Of course the government leaflet was absolutely fine, it went out a week before the campaign officially started.
    < / sarcasm >

    Anyone who thinks another forced vote might produce a reversal of the result should remember the story of the 1997 Winchester by-election.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639



    Cameronism - taking the moral high ground by standing in a swamp

    Whilst carrying the Anvil of Renegotiation.....the finest Anvil ever shown off to man, as he assured us.....
    He would have done better to have risen above it and kept out of it, Wilson style.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639

    Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’

    The stuff they printed about the air crash is poorly researched and at best irrelevant, as well. They don't seem to do thinking journalism any more.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    Your vehemence on this subject when in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking....
    I am not vehement about it, it's a simple fact.

    As I said in my original post on the lead, I don't see David's scenario leading anywhere.
    To be fair, I say that myself too. But we should be aware of the possibility.

    I also say that the inevitable consequence would be a second referendum. I agree that there would be an immense outcry if the exercise were cancelled due to a technicality with no provision for a re-run. However, I'm not convinced the Winchester factor would apply. This is such a big decision with such great consequences flowing from it that I think most people would again address it on what they see as the merits. That's not to say some ex-Remainers wouldn't vote to uphold the first vote but I think their number would be few.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    So basically EU membership in all but name?
    Sounds good. Where do I sign?
    France?
    Lisbon

    on a weekend

    in a dark room
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’

    stick to the Daily Sport
  • We can't stop this now- would become the defining political issue for a generation in the way that which denomination you are from was in Ulster. The battle isn't do we leave its how we leave, and I'm glad to see that various posters are still on here with their own gun pointed at their own crotch insistent that pulling the trigger was on the ballot and anyway it will still leave them fertile
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’

    The stuff they printed about the air crash is poorly researched and at best irrelevant, as well. They don't seem to do thinking journalism any more.
    The thing that always strikes me about reading the news on a complicated subject, is that when the subject is something of which I have some knowledge (computing, aviation) the story is invariably full of bollocks - yet they expect me to implicitly trust them on the accuracy of the rest of their output.

    And Bill Deedes would turn in his grave if he saw what the Telegraph has become in the last few years, full of click bait, poor editing and poor writing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    edited November 2017

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    Your vehemence on this subject when in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking....
    I am not vehement about it, it's a simple fact.

    As I said in my original post on the lead, I don't see David's scenario leading anywhere.
    To be fair, I say that myself too. But we should be aware of the possibility.

    I also say that the inevitable consequence would be a second referendum. I agree that there would be an immense outcry if the exercise were cancelled due to a technicality with no provision for a re-run. However, I'm not convinced the Winchester factor would apply. This is such a big decision with such great consequences flowing from it that I think most people would again address it on what they see as the merits. That's not to say some ex-Remainers wouldn't vote to uphold the first vote but I think their number would be few.
    Not convinced. British people would cry 'foul' and it would poison the whole campaign, which would be more bad tempered than the original.

    More likely, a finding that challenges the legitimacy of the referendum result might just encourage some of the MPs hiding within Tory and Labour who can see the damage of Brexit coming down the track, but don't feel able to speak against the vote, to voice their convictions more confidently. Whether that makes any difference to public opinion is another matter.

    If a second vote is used to try and force a change in public opinion, it will end in disaster. It needs to follow, not lead, as people change their minds.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,642

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    "Parliament didn't know what they were voting for!"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342
    Second election looking increasingly likely. The parties as elected can’t compromise enough to form a coalition. Big danger of an increased AfD vote if the Germans are asked again.
  • RobD said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    The act, in it's entirety, is:

    (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.


    How on earth can that be misconstrued? It even uses the word notify.
    The legal argument which some distinguished lawyers have made and this case is testing is pretty clear. That A50 distinguishes between a decision to leave and notification of that decision, that A50 refers to a member states own constitutional requirements and that the Miller Judgement says that " constitutional requirement " is an Act of Parliament.

    Their argument is the two clause Act passed on notification doesn't constitute a decision as it's so poorly worded. For instance there is nothing in the text at all that says " We've decided to leave " and it gives the PM the power to notify but not the duty to do so. There is nothing in the Act advising let alone forcing any PM to use that power. If for instance May hadn't used that power to date in what way would she be in breach of the Act ? See also the use of the word " intention " rather than " decision ".

    I'm not saying their argument is correct. I'm not a lawyer. Merely that the point they are arguing is clear and intelligible. The Courts will decide which is their job.
    My view is that this challenge, even if it gets off the ground, has no chance of success whatsoever. Parliament knew full well that A50 notice would be given if the bill was passed. If Parliament wanted to stop A50 notice being given it would have refused to pass the bill into law. Parliament decided we are leaving the EU by passing the bill. If the campaigners could point to MPs who voted for the bill and are now surprised that we have actually given notice they might have a case. As it is, the words snowball and hell spring to mind.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,642

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
    From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
    really go play the fuckwit wit someone else

    Cameron had the whole power of the state, the City, big business which he used as his proxies. He had a so called truce period in the cabinet in which he cheated, He had a panoply of world leaders he wheeled in to do his dirty work.

    You lost despite having all the advantages, get over it and show some maturiity for once in your life.
    +100
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,417
    Essexit said:

    On topic this is where the latest legal challenge has got to. ( I haven't donated myself as what ever the legalities I can't see the courts going for this scale of activism and in any case the Miller judgement was the main point in my view ) They are testing the legal argument the A50 Notification Act was so badly drafted it was a ' decision ' to invoke A50. That parliament confused decision with notification. If the claim is successful presumably the clock would reset and Parliament would need to pass another Act formally deciding to Leave and notifying.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

    "Parliament didn't know what they were voting for!"
    Perhaps they thought we should have driven our A50 Notification to Brussels on the side of a bus?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020
    I voted to remain, but I think the biggest piece of propaganda through the whole campaign, and the closest to 'cheating' was the gov't issued puff piece before the start of the official campaign.
    During the campaign, leave's claims and leaflets were definitely more full of bullshit than remain.

    So overall I'd say it was about a tie.
  • Mr. Sandpit, I had the Austrian presidential election in mind, to be honest. The far right chap should've won the first time, but voting irregularities (turnout in certain areas exceeding 100%) helped the other chap, so they re-ran it (after a strange glue delay). The ex-Green went on to win fairly easily.

    Mr. Sandpit (2), hmm. Wouldn't a third party, in this case the AfD, get squeezed by the big two in a second election?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269
    Sandpit said:

    Second election looking increasingly likely. The parties as elected can’t compromise enough to form a coalition. Big danger of an increased AfD vote if the Germans are asked again.
    it's a right muddle

    CSU want a limit to immigration greens want the doors thrown open
    FDP want tax reduxtions CDU want no giveaways
    Greens want no coal power Merkel wants more lignite
    CSU want law and order Greens want to legalise pot
    All want more Europe but they all mean different things by it

    and in the background the other parties are all calling for fresh elections
  • Couldn't some insect based metaphor be fashioned around maggots? Associating Banks & Farage with butterflies seems inapposite.
  • Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’

    stick to the Daily Sport
    The Daily Sport closed down years ago.

    Just the Sunday Sport these days.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    Further proof that the Telegraph is a joke.

    This morning’s front page story seems not to know that we deduct the rebate at source.

    The EU never gets it to ‘hold on to’

    stick to the Daily Sport
    The Daily Sport closed down years ago.

    Just the Sunday Sport these days.
    yes but it takes you a week to read a tablod
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tlg86 said:

    Charles said:

    Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.

    And it will be seen as an excuse.

    The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
    I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.

    A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
    A couple of things. Firstly, I thought you wanted hard Brexit?

    Secondly, how would the government be respecting the 48% had the result been the other way around? The answer is, they wouldn't.
    I think that the government is wating its time when it should be making concrete plans for hard Brexit.

    My point was that a Soft EEA Brexit would meet the democratic mandate. I just think that it would be impossible for the current government to negotiate.

    Soft Brexit would only become possible with a change of government, either to a Lab led coalition or to a National government.

    An extended transition phase beyond the next election comes to much the same thing.
  • Hard Brexit won't work.

    2018 will bring that reality into sharp focus when business starts chopping limbs off the UK economy. Expect the mood to shift fairly rapidly towards "I didn't vote for this" as a major car factory gets the chop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,439

    This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.

    Mr Eagles, I am deeply disappointed. You start quoting Enoch Powell, and then leave out the classical reference at the end. I would never have thought somebody of your classical bent would miss the opportunity to refer to the Aeneid.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    Hard Brexit won't work.

    2018 will bring that reality into sharp focus when business starts chopping limbs off the UK economy. Expect the mood to shift fairly rapidly towards "I didn't vote for this" as a major car factory gets the chop.

    which one ?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244

    Does that Remain figure include the government's £9.3 million?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

    Or is the true comparison £16.4m vs £24.4m?

    Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.

    Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
    This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
    lol

    just bollocks
    From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
    really go play the fuckwit wit someone else

    Cameron had the whole power of the state, the City, big business which he used as his proxies. He had a so called truce period in the cabinet in which he cheated, He had a panoply of world leaders he wheeled in to do his dirty work.

    You lost despite having all the advantages, get over it and show some maturiity for once in your life.
    Now Brexiters are losing despite having a cabinet & a referendum result because it's pish.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,210
    rkrkrk said:

    This seems a nonsensical legal argument to me although David tries gamely to make the case.
    Probably therefore it will turn out to be somehow legally correct.

    I doubt anyone will care that much about campaign finance and I strongly suspect Remainers like myself won’t even see this as a particularly powerful argument.

    If you compare to the 30 or so Tory MPs in trouble for battle buses - as far as I recall it was barely mentioned by Labour in the last election. Doubt this will cut through either.

    I tend to agree - the case for saying that the Conservative Party has won seats by illegitimate bending of spending rules, possibly altering the overall election result, seems to me more direct and stronger. David's article is an interesting thought experiment, but doesn't convince me.

    That said, both British and to a lesser extent European politics is primarily political rather than judicial. If in late 2018 popular opinion has turned strongly against Brexit, a way will be found to stop it - very senior EU figures have repeatedly made it clear that if we wanted to forget the whole thing, we could, without penalties, and British Governments are famous for their ability to find legally-valid reasons for doing whatever they want. The belief by some Leavers that the law will prevent a U-turn is based on sand - that's not how politics works. To make Brexit work, they need to prevent a clear change of mood in the electorate.
  • Hard Brexit won't work.

    2018 will bring that reality into sharp focus when business starts chopping limbs off the UK economy. Expect the mood to shift fairly rapidly towards "I didn't vote for this" as a major car factory gets the chop.

    which one ?
    They're all warning what will happen. Honda detailed the 18 months it would take them to transform their supply chain to carry the heavy inventory needed to continue building cars. At which point Swindon is cost heavy and uncompetitive vs factories elsewhere still participating in free trade. BMW build engines here for cars built in Germany with parts built in Germany and France. Doesn't work with customs delays and costs.

    Or take Hitachi's train factory up here. Bodyshells imported from Japan, engines and practically all of the high cost components from the EU. Their factory in Italy is already building a significant number of the same trains, I expect it to get a lot busier as Newton Aycliffe will be woefully uncompetitive from April 19.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,210

    Sandpit said:

    Second election looking increasingly likely. The parties as elected can’t compromise enough to form a coalition. Big danger of an increased AfD vote if the Germans are asked again.
    it's a right muddle

    CSU want a limit to immigration greens want the doors thrown open
    FDP want tax reduxtions CDU want no giveaways
    Greens want no coal power Merkel wants more lignite
    CSU want law and order Greens want to legalise pot
    All want more Europe but they all mean different things by it

    and in the background the other parties are all calling for fresh elections
    That's right. The problem is that the polls haven't moved significantly, see

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

    - the result in the election is on the right, and all the polls show MOE movements only. It's possible that a new election would set off some dynamic, but the Germans are not easily shifted in recent years, and the likelihood is that the result would be muh te same. What then?
  • I'm very surprised David Herdson wrote this blogpost, rather than OGH.

    The idea that a bit of grubby money about a grubby man like Aaron Banks could be used as (yet another) excuse to stop Brexit in its tracks is not only fanciful, it's extremely dangerous.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,269

    Hard Brexit won't work.

    2018 will bring that reality into sharp focus when business starts chopping limbs off the UK economy. Expect the mood to shift fairly rapidly towards "I didn't vote for this" as a major car factory gets the chop.

    which one ?
    They're all warning what will happen. Honda detailed the 18 months it would take them to transform their supply chain to carry the heavy inventory needed to continue building cars. At which point Swindon is cost heavy and uncompetitive vs factories elsewhere still participating in free trade. BMW build engines here for cars built in Germany with parts built in Germany and France. Doesn't work with customs delays and costs.

    Or take Hitachi's train factory up here. Bodyshells imported from Japan, engines and practically all of the high cost components from the EU. Their factory in Italy is already building a significant number of the same trains, I expect it to get a lot busier as Newton Aycliffe will be woefully uncompetitive from April 19.
    car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies

    of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.

    as for the outcry there was none when


    Ford Dagenham closed
    Ford Southampton closed
    Peugeot Ryton closed
    LDV Birmingham closed
    Vauxhall Luton stopped car production
    Jaguar Coventry closed
    AGCO Coventry closed

    only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based

    this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?

This discussion has been closed.