Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely an Article 50 extension should be used to allow a prope
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely an Article 50 extension should be used to allow a proper investigation into the legitimacy of Leave’s victory
From the Washington Post – The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks https://t.co/rmejtfcSzK
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.
So I fear emphasising this part is actually ineffective.
A sentence almost worthy of Thucydides, though I suspect he could've got a few more clauses in.
It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.
Yes, especially the massive overspend of Remain compared to Leave.
No it isn't, an extension (Which I'm reluctantly in favour of) is heavily odds on right now.
football.
Throughout the campaign voters were inundated with a barrage of online messaging . There’s no control group so you can’t make clear correlations .
The Electoral Commission really doesn’t have enough powers and the financial penalties are far too small . These aspects certainly need looking at but I can’t see a legal basis to overturn the referendum result .
And I’m saying this as a staunch Remainer so I’m in no way trying to defend the Leave campaign .
The issues surrounding Aaron Banks continue though. And the NCA investigation needs to come to a conclusion fast otherwise people are going to suspect there’s some political interference at play . And of course if that charges him and the money was Russian based there’s bound to be an outcry and of course in the eyes of many Remainers call into doubt the legitimacy of the result but again I’ll stress this still isn’t enough legally to overturn the result .
US Democrat Elizabeth Warren has proposed breaking up tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google if elected to the US presidency in 2020.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47509945
That doesn't imply that you want the result revisited.
Some people seem a little too keen to sweep Aaron Banks activities and Russian involvement under the carpet. The fact that Remain spent more than Leave is not relevant unless it is being alleged that it was illegal.
It is unedifying and sad and says all you need to know about Remainers and their attitude to democracy.
Let’s say Banks gets charged and the UK hasn’t left the EU yet .
In the jury you’ll have a mix of Remainers and Leavers . How on earth do you cope with any bias . A guilty verdict would of course strengthen calls for another vote , non guilty helps to stop some of that momentum .
Because Brexit has become such a fundamental issue for many on both sides how can jury members really separate that and just look objectively at the evidence . I know many cases can be subject to some jury bias but this one would be difficult to overcome .
If Banks has committed a criminal act, and the case is proven to beyond a reasonable doubt, then (as a Leaver) I have no problem in convicting him.
Banks does not represent me.
Interesting that it is a Remainer who seems to think that people won't look objectively at the evidence !
I think England should only play Italy.
It makes the BBC commentators so happy.
"The government's position that it's impossible to go and get people out of these camps because it's too dangerous is repeatedly shown to be not entirely accurate, because journalists are able to get to these camps relatively safely.
"Working with the Red Crescent there for example, it should be possible to go and get people from the camps - if there was a political will."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145
https://www.ft.com/content/ebaeebcc-3f9b-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44
The unstable nature of Brexit, the fact that it bears little resemblance to promises made, *and* the “Putin problem” - all make good reasons for a confirmatory public vote on May’s Deal.
What a guy!
BINO after an extension with the possibility of re - joining at sometime in the future if conditions and attitudes change may well be the best outcome
In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
Which is lucky for the LDs, given they’re regularly fined, including for the referendum:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/liberal-democrats-fined-18-000-over-eu-referendum-campaign-breaches-11177197
Voters should ask themselves why...
Poster whose opinion I don't like / Opinion poll I don't like
It is, however, wryly amusing, in a grim way, that it is the writer of 2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
Bet he's getting paid more than that.
She'll follow Corbyn whatever he says I think, or possibly break the whip on the remain side.
I helped run the Leave campaign in my town and the marginal constituency voted narrowly for Leave, we did it by holding public meetings to explain our position, door to door leafleting and holding street stalls where we explained our case to people and gave out literature.
There were two black men and one Indian woman involved and everyone else, about 30 of us was white British, there were no Russians, not one and we got paid nothing.
In contrast the Remain campaign here was led by a man who lives here but who is I believe, an Italian national.
I'm not saying we don't try to stop it or at least quantify its impact, but if we say the EU referendum was illegitimate for this it's going to be hard to say any future elections in the near term have any legitimacy, and I say that as a Remainer.
Besides, how many votes were actually changed compared to how many people's existing worldviews and voting intentions were merely reinforced by whatever dodgy stuff they happened to encounter.
The real problem with the EU referendum was the level of the campaigning on both sides was abysmal and the level of the media scrutiny of both campaigns was no better.
[cries silently]
https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/judge-crushes-remainers-claims-referendum-result-invalid/
If the Leave campaign was that good, why didn't it manage to win in the Scottish Highlands (where it nearly won) thus utterly taking the wind out of the 'Scotland voted Remain' argument. Surely a bit of Putin's money and some of these magical Facebook ads could have done that?
Vladimir has just promised me use of the same bed in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton used by President Trump, as well as services of the same urinating prostitutes,
You're too smart for us, PClipp !!
These accusations involve acts that were hidden, closed, and quite possible illegal.
There's a world of difference, and it's quite crass to suggest they're the same.
Unfortunately our constitution has been seemingly amended on the hoof - we have Parliamentary Sovereignty apparently EXCEPT for this referendum, which we are told must be abided by at all costs, even in the face of Parliamentary opposition and the potential damage to the populace that didn’t vote for it. The view of the minority, and the harm it may cause them, is irrelevant.
In truth, we are in a position where no one knows where, domestically, where sovereignty lies. Legally, Parliament is sovereign. Politically, it is taken as axiomatic that on this occasion it was delegated from Parliament to the people. But surely you can’t delegate sovereignty temporarily on one issue? If this delegation is permanent shouldn’t it be formally expressed somehow? Cameron has thus created a massive constitutional mess.
Traditionally Parliament has inbuilt checks, the Lords on the Commons, both on the Crown, the Crown in both Houses etc. Now the Commons has primacy and it has thrown away its right to govern to a result that is, as this board shows, open to massive interpretation as to its ending. As a lawyer, I take not being a signatories to the Treaties of Union as abiding by the result of the referendum but I am told that is not necessarily, if it is in the guise of some form of Norway option, respecting the will of the people. If the legal definition is not correct then what IS the will of the people? If you want the will of the people to be sovereign!, and you can’t agree what their will is, then ask them again a more detailed question about outcome. But a Second Referendum is seemingly out of the question - so the arguments continue.
All this shows to me that we need some form of constitutional convention to sort this mess out. A proper constitutional settlement might be able to reintroduce some checks on the ability of the majority to make damaging changes without jumping some hurdles (eg a super majority, a comfirmatory vote, or preferably a ban on referendums) that would enshrine the sort of liberal democracy that Mike (and I) seem to want.
The Six Nations should have incorporated relegation and promotions several seasons ago. Georgia are far superior to Italy and have won the European Rugby Championship in seven out of the last eight seasons. They have nowhere to go. How are they supposed to develop?
The blazers insist on keeping the 6N a closed shop presumably because the fans enjoy an annual trip to Rome.
The set up is anti competitive - the antithesis of sport - it is embarrassing.
The result was close, and I think if there is a new deal that improves the terms of Cameron's, it is reasonable to put it before the people and it might well pass.
Having Italy relegated might be acceptable the blazers but they wouldn't want to risk that happening to any of the other nations.
However, relegation would be a nonstarter. Scotland certainly, Ireland and Wales probably, would be in serious financial trouble without the income from 6N.
And, as you say a weekend on the piss in Rome suits better than Tblisi. Or indeed Bucharest.