Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Electoral Commission’s investigation into Leave’s funding
politicalbetting.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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And it will be seen as an excuse.
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?
Bob quick, possibly not so much......
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://youtu.be/XA37mdFjSRA?t=4m51s
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/
EEA is more than LINO, not least because it would mean ending CAP and CFP, and the budget contributions that would go with this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-eu-freedom-of-movement-scrap-free-trade-europe-keep-uk-survey-a7641541.html
#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.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/frankfurt-brexit-germany-uk-eu
Secondly, how would the government be respecting the 48% had the result been the other way around? The answer is, they wouldn't.
(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.
Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
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.
Try running that argument with the death penalty....
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.
just bollocks
Mind you, the vehemence on this subject of those in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking.
If only they had harnessed 5.6% of their energies invested in Remoaning, and put it into the Referendum campaign itself.....
As I said in my original post on the lead, I don't see David's scenario leading anywhere.
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?
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.
Cameronism - taking the moral high ground by standing in a swamp
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.
Hard to know how many years after we've left that they will finally get the memo.
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’
< / sarcasm >
Anyone who thinks another forced vote might produce a reversal of the result should remember the story of the 1997 Winchester by-election.
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.
on a weekend
in a dark room
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.
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.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/kommentar-wofuer-steht-jamaika-15297627.html
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 (2), hmm. Wouldn't a third party, in this case the AfD, get squeezed by the big two in a second election?
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
Just the Sunday Sport these days.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5094837/Only-three-100-UK-towns-building-houses.html
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ?