Brexit - Post Match Reaction

But surely now we know more information, that vote should be re-run? The vote should have been handled completely different, with the initial vote in 2016 as an advisory vote (as it was) to look into what was possible, and then a further vote once the issues were outlined so the public could decide what they wanted.

 

Just because it was setup badly, does not mean that we should not look to change the process to one that makes sense. The vote, how it has been put together, and implemented, has been fraught with issues because it is a deeply flawed process.

You could say that about any election or referendum really. Trump wouldn't have been elected if after a couple of month's they'd have had a do-over, Macron neither probably. And yet in the UK you had a general election a while afterwards, the Conservatives still came out on top (just) and they were still pushing Brexit from the little I remember.

The whole problem with the processus is the meaningful vote of the HOC. I don't think that was ever in the plans was it?

Obviously with Labour pushing for a General Election all of the time and a big dose of Nationalist nay sayers, nothing will ever be clear cut in the HOC, what is more without an overall majority.

Looking at a few articles that have appeared in France this morning looks as if the EU may not allow a delay beyond the first polls in the European Parliament elections, ie the 22/23 May. Won't change anything anyway.

You could say that about any election or referendum really. Trump wouldn't have been elected if after a couple of month's they'd have had a do-over, Macron neither probably. And yet in the UK you had a general election a while afterwards, the Conservatives still came out on top (just) and they were still pushing Brexit from the little I remember.

The whole problem with the processus is the meaningful vote of the HOC. I don't think that was ever in the plans was it?

Obviously with Labour pushing for a General Election all of the time and a big dose of Nationalist nay sayers, nothing will ever be clear cut in the HOC, what is more without an overall majority.

The point is that someone comes into power straight away in a GE - we don't wait 3 years and then find out that the person you voted for has changed, and they've changed all their policies.

This isn't an election - there is a maximum of 5 years that can pass without another vote coming. Would you support a new Brexit vote in 2021 then?

But surely now we know more information, that vote should be re-run?

I'm not in favour of re-running the original referendum. I think we should have a different one now....

The first one asked whether we wanted to leave or stay in principle. I think a new referendum should now ask whether we want to leave in practice. Seems logical to me.

I'm with Jacob Reece-Mogg on this. IIRC, he was originally in favour of two votes (before the terms of the original referendum were agreed). i.e. an opinion based referendum followed by a ratification referendum.

Looking at a few articles that have appeared in France this morning looks as if the EU may not allow a delay beyond the first polls in the European Parliament elections, ie the 22/23 May. Won't change anything anyway.

But they may allow a much longer one...

The point is that someone comes into power straight away in a GE - we don't wait 3 years and then find out that the person you voted for has changed, and they've changed all their policies.

 

This isn't an election - there is a maximum of 5 years that can pass without another vote coming. Would you support a new Brexit vote in 2021 then?

Doesn't matter, people like me were excluded from the first vote and still would be in 2021. If we expats had been called upon to vote the Remain camp would have won anyway. But then most of us are dual-nationals anyway so apart from the financial loss due to the fall of sterling it really doesn't matter to us anyway. The fact is that the will of the UK public should be respected.

But they may allow a much longer one...

No; that's a myth drummed up by the remain camp I'm afraid. Macron isn't having any of it apparently. You stay or you leave as far as he's concerned, doesn't want any half-way houses.

I'm not in favour of re-running the original referendum. I think we should have a different one now....

 

The first one asked whether we wanted to leave or stay in principle. I think a new referendum should now ask whether we want to leave in practice. Seems logical to me.

 

I'm with Jacob Reece-Mogg on this. IIRC, he was originally in favour of two votes (before the terms of the original referendum were agreed). i.e. an opinion based referendum followed by a ratification referendum.

Which makes perfect sense.

So you're dismissing the petition due to the potential for foreign interference in the result, and that's fine. But if you're going to do that, then you also need to consider the well-evidenced widescale foreign interference in the 2016 referendum as well.

There was an hour-long piece on the dark money and electoral fraud that went into the Leave campaign on German TV yesterday, which paints a very dire picture of the validity of the result. But I have yet to encounter a single leave voter who is willing to even acknowledge it, let alone accept that it might have influenced the result. No, it's always - "we would have won anyway" or "we won, you lost - get over it".

Good try, but that argument has been found to be a crock of sh!t at the Appeal Court on March 8th...

In the froth of the last few weeks, the hapless antics of the tiny remaining cabal of diehard anti-Brexit lawyers have almost been overlooked, as yet another legal challenge to Brexit was crushed. Jessica Simor QC was judged wrong on more or less every argument she tried to make as she went down in flames Jolyon-style…Simor tried to seek a judicial review of May’s triggering of Article 50, arguing that it was unlawful because it was “based upon the result of a referendum that was itself unlawful as a result of corrupt and illegal practices, notably offences of overspending committed by those involved in the campaign to leave the EU”. Simor’s initial case had already been rejected in December, she appealed against this on seven grounds. The judges hearing the appeal shredded every single one…

Simor’s first ground was that the referendum failed to comply with Common Law due to “corrupt and illegal practices” and therefore “could not properly be taken to express the democratic will of the people”. The judge said he was “unable to accept [simor’s] submission as even arguable”…

The judge rejected any notion that any breaches of the rules affected the outcome of the referendum result, stating “there is simply no evidential basis for the proposition that the breaches, or any of them, are material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the referendum would have been different.” The car crash attempt from the Oxford Internet Institute to try to “prove” that Vote Leave’s alleged overspending had already been dismissed by the original judge as “essentially speculative and based on propositions that were patently unsound.” The Carole crowd won’t enjoy hearing that…

To quote the Lord Justice Hickinbottom, “Ms Simor’s difficulties do not end there.” Simor submitted three other substantive grounds, trying to argue that May’s Article 50 notification was unlawful and that she was guilty of a “continuing failure to respond to the developing evidence of illegality in the EU referendum”, which were all also rejected by the judge as “unarguable”. Three further technical grounds were also dismissed. About as crushing a defeat as you can get…

The judge noted that “the Applicants clearly oppose the UK leaving the EU; and hold strong views to that effect”, before adding a warning that “Judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means.” Not that it’ll stop Jolyon & Co. taking gullible people’s money for his never-ending series of unsuccessful lawfare campaigns any time soon…

Good try, but that argument has been found to be a crock of sh!t at the Appeal Court on March 8th...

All of which is just a technicality on the basis of the fact that the 2016 referendum was non-legally binding.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

But well done for further reinforcing my point.

All of which is just a technicality on the basis of the fact that the 2016 referendum was non-legally binding.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

 

But well done for further reinforcing my point.

That wasn't your point moron, which you confirm by quoting a radio talk show host against three High Court judges in support of your real point. So, it should really be pointless moron, who is back on ignore (when will I ever learn?)

And I will go to Parliament and propose that the British people decide our future in Europe through an in-out referendum on Thursday, the 23rd of June.

"You will decide and whatever your decision I will do my best to deliver it"

Cameron, announcing the referendum in 2016.

So you see if the referendum was non-binding the people were mislead by the man who proposed it and then just ran away from the consequences.

And I will go to Parliament and propose that the British people decide our future in Europe through an in-out referendum on Thursday, the 23rd of June.

"You will decide and whatever your decision I will do my best to deliver it"

 

Cameron, announcing the referendum in 2015.

 

So you see if the referendum was non-binding the people were mislead by the man who proposed it and then just ran away from the consequences.

They probably were misled by him, but there is no doubt - it is not legally-binding.

Either way, "...do my best..." is a best endeavors statement, not one of certainty.

No; that's a myth drummed up by the remain camp I'm afraid. Macron isn't having any of it apparently. You stay or you leave as far as he's concerned, doesn't want any half-way houses.

I don't think it's a myth, considering Juncker has said that it is on the table, and there i no doubt it will have been discussed with both Merkel and Macron. If Macron decides to veto, then that's up to him, but we'll know more by the end of today.

Doesn't matter, people like me were excluded from the first vote and still would be in 2021. If we expats had been called upon to vote the Remain camp would have won anyway. But then most of us are dual-nationals anyway so apart from the financial loss due to the fall of sterling it really doesn't matter to us anyway. The fact is that the will of the UK public should be respected.

The will of the UK public is being respected - in fact it is a more up-to-date will of the people, with the people now being more educated on the result.

The will of the UK public was not to facilitate a return to sectarian violence and terrorism in the UK, and this was not known before the referendum.

They probably were misled by him, but there is no doubt - it is not legally-binding.

Semantics, to the voting public there was one question, in or out. The result was out and Cameron himself should have been prepared to try to deliver on that or have the political courage to go before the people at that time and tell them that the referendum had no legal value and propose a new parliamentary election. Not just dump the responsability for his rash electioneering onto some other poor bugger. As I've said a few times it makes no difference to me personally but you just can not that sort of rash action to affect a country's politics.

Semantics, to the voting public there was one question, in or out. The result was out and Cameron himself should have been prepared to try to deliver on that or have the political courage to go before the people at that time and tell them that the referendum had no legal value and propose a new parliamentary election. Not just dump the responsability for his rash electioneering onto some other poor bugger. As I've said a few times it makes no difference to me personally but you just can not that sort of rash action to affect a country's politics.

Also, "...do my best..." is a best endeavors statement, not one of certainty.

I don't know why you keep on going back 3 years on this - the point is the facts have materially changed the vote, hence a new vote is the most democratic action to take.

"You will decide and whatever your decision I will do my best to deliver it"

 

Cameron, announcing the referendum in 2016.

 

So you see if the referendum was non-binding the people were mislead by the man who proposed it

Why didn't he just say "....I will deliver it"?

It could be argued that the fact he sowed an element of doubt into his proposed action is the opposite of being misleading. He was in fact indicating there's a chance that he (or his successor) might not be able to deliver it.

If he had straightforwardly said "I will deliver it" then, yes, that would have been misleading...

Also, "...do my best..." is a best endeavors statement, not one of certainty.

But as he did absolutely nothing except run away his words have no value anyway. The referendum was promised I suppose to undermine the then rising support for the UKIP and others populist and it backfired on him.

But as he did absolutely nothing except run away his words have no value anyway. The referendum was promised I suppose to undermine the then rising support for the UKIP and others populist and it backfired on him.

So if his words have no value, and it is not legally binding, then the referendum is ******** anyway and we can walk away from it.

I'm struggling to understand what point you are making here. Either it is legally binding, or it isn't.

So if his words have no value, and it is not legally binding, then the referendum is ******** anyway and we can walk away from it.

 

I'm struggling to understand what point you are making here. Either it is legally binding, or it isn't.

For the voting public the referendum was binding and that's the only thing, 3 years down the line, that matters. If you wanted them to understand differently, then the time to speak out about that was on the morrow before the result had economic effects on the country, it's populace and basically the whole of the EU. Three years down the line and what 8 days before deadling day is not the time to be putting up the arguments.

Macron: "It's a no-deal Brexit if MPs reject deal again" (BBC News)

For the voting public the referendum was binding and that's the only thing, 3 years down the line, that matters. If you wanted them to understand differently, then the time to speak out about that was on the morrow before the result had economic effects on the country, it's populace and basically the whole of the EU. Three years down the line and what 8 days before deadling day is not the time to be putting up the arguments.

But no-one said it was binding, did they - and surely if it was misunderstood by that much of the population then the vote should be re-run with the correct understanding?

If, as I think we can all see, the vote and process was that deeply flawed, then surely the most democratic thing to do is re-run with the correct information in people's minds.

Macron: "It's a no-deal Brexit if MPs reject deal again" (BBC News)

 

But it's not, as Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked.

However, CB Fry and his prediction is making the Brexiteers look a bit silly.

For the voting public the referendum was binding

I knew it was only an advisory referendum because it was widely publicised as such. If others thought otherwise then it just goes to show how little attention some people pay to important details.

But it's not, as Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked.

Yep, I know that, you know that.... but of course Macron can't be seen to be explicitly advocating such an eventuality at this moment in time....

Macron: "It's a no-deal Brexit if MPs reject deal again" (BBC News)

 

Told you so. He has his own troubles, quite serious ones actually and he just wants the end of it.

France has spent a fortune on preparing for a no-deal, probably less than the UK though and Macron just does not undestand, (well he does cos he's a bright bloke, probably too bright for his own public) the Uk's tarting about. The current arguments should have taken place many moons ago and not still going on 8 days before exit day.

Yep, I know that, you know that.... but of course Macron can't be seen to be advocating that at this moment in time.

I know you do, was just making sure it was said explicitly.

Told you so. He has his own troubles, quite serious ones actually and he just wants the end of it.

France has spent a fortune on preparing for a no-deal, probably less than the UK though and Macron just does not undestand, (well he does cos he's a bright bloke, probably too bright for his own public) the Uk's tarting about. The current arguments should have taken place many moons ago and not still going on 8 days before exit day.

But if May's deal goes through, he will allow an extension, so not sure what your "Told you so" is about.

So, I think we'll see some interesting amendments now, including the revocation of article 50 IF May's deal doesn't get approved.

That wasn't your point moron, which you confirm by quoting a radio talk show host against three High Court judges in support of your real point. So, it should really be pointless moron, who is back on ignore (when will I ever learn?)

Resorting to childish insults, as usual.

No, I was quoting the actual applicant in the court case - versus you quoting an article from that well-known bastion of truth and balance Guido Fawkes.

And my point was that whenever the possibility of dark money and foreign interference in the referendum is raised, leave voters just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALAAAA. I'M NOT LISTENING". Which is exactly what you have done.

But if May's deal goes through, he will allow an extension, so not sure what your "Told you so" is about.

I told you that he won't allow a longer extension.

Anyway got to rush off to the wife's art exhibition. Catch you all tomorrow on D-7.

For the voting public the referendum was binding and that's the only thing, 3 years down the line, that matters. If you wanted them to understand differently, then the time to speak out about that was on the morrow before the result had economic effects on the country, it's populace and basically the whole of the EU. Three years down the line and what 8 days before deadling day is not the time to be putting up the arguments.

But we keep being told that all leave voters knew what they were voting for, I am sorry but if as you allude to they did not even understand the basis and legality of the vote, then asking me to believe they ALL knew what they were voting for is, as our absent LDH would say, Pony. When this is conflated with the known abuses of electoral law and funding in any other scenario a re-run of the vote would be a certainty.

Resorting to childish insults, as usual.

 

No, I was quoting the actual applicant in the court case - versus you quoting an article from that well-known bastion of truth and balance Guido Fawkes.

 

And my point was that whenever the possibility of dark money and foreign interference in the referendum is raised, leave voters just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALAAAA. I'M NOT LISTENING". Which is exactly what you have done.

I don't know why you bother with him. He announces that he has people on ignore like a 7 year old prima Donna but is the able to read whatever they post.

Mind you he is probably too busy sourcing piano wire in industrial quantities to spend time reading posts on here.

I don't know why you bother with him. He announces that he has people on ignore like a 7 year old prima Donna but is the able to read whatever they post.

 

Mind you he is probably too busy sourcing piano wire in industrial quantities to spend time reading posts on here.

Oh I know. I should have learned my lesson not to engage with him from his insane ramblings on the global warming thread. It's just that every now and again, I can't help myself.

I don't know why you bother with him. He announces that he has people on ignore like a 7 year old prima Donna but is the able to read whatever they post.

 

Mind you he is probably too busy sourcing piano wire in industrial quantities to spend time reading posts on here.

If JJ’s not threatening legal action against posters -and of course violence or running off crying to the mods, he’s making a total fool of himself on these threads. Still I find him good value

If JJ’s not threatening legal action against posters -and of course violence or running off crying to the mods, he’s making a total fool of himself on these threads. Still I find him good value

Who's he threatened legal action against?

Who's he threatened legal action against?

buctootim

buctootim

Pahahaha, awesome!!

Pahahaha, awesome!!

Yeo abd I sent Tim a supportive message at the time. The man's a mentalist.

I assume Tim did something extremely bad for GM to resort to that kind of threat.

I assume Tim did something extremely bad for GM to resort to that kind of threat.

Mark Carnage changing his tune, ladies:

Around 80pc of British businesses believe they are ready for a no deal Brexit as the Bank of England revealed that the economy is accelerating ahead of the UK's scheduled departure from the EU. The Bank's survey of businesses found that around two thirds were now implementing contingency plans for a disorderly departure and 40pc have started to stockpile. Its policymakers voted unanimously to leave interest rates unchanged at 0.75pc in their final meeting before March 29. The Monetary Policy Committee now expects growth to pick-up to 0.3pc in the first quarter of the year, compared to its February forecast of 0.2pc.

Cliff edge...

Whilst acknowledging that these online petitions are token gestures, I've never seen one go up quite as quickly as this one: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

 

(It keeps crashing btw)

 

Still going - over 1,030,000 now

He bad-mouthed John's job.

:lol:

I assumed he was too old now to work - what's he do?

So, I think we'll see some interesting amendments now, including the revocation of article 50 IF May's deal doesn't get approved.

And here it starts:

Angus B MacNeil MP

Been in touch with Speaker at #Commons

Next week i will, with other MPs, apply for a Debate under Standing Order 24 to push for Commons vote to #RevokeArticle50.

Revocation ends #Brexit in an afternoon & requires only one letter to EU .

Tweet/email your MP to support this.

I won't bother with my MP, as doubt Spreadsheet Phil will be interested.

The other interesting thing is, how many resignations from the Tory party will we see if May's deal fails for a 3rd time? Probably enough to see her out of power, a new GE and a near definite revocation of Article 50.

I told you that he won't allow a longer extension.

Anyway got to rush off to the wife's art exhibition. Catch you all tomorrow on D-7.

You want to take that "Told you so" back?

Sturgeon: Macron is not ruling out a longer extension. He is saying it would require deep political change at Westminster - and a great many people in the UK would agree that’s exactly what’s needed.

Anyone know where I can get some English Champagne? Got a party to go to next week.

Anyone know where I can get some English Champagne? Got a party to go to next week.

1. You're not allowed to call it champagne if it's brewed in England. It's sparkling wine.

2. You might want to put it on ice for a while. The chances of us actually leaving the EU a week tomorrow are diminishing fast.