|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 18:59:22 GMT
Red doesn't appear to understand why the 2016 referendum was corrupt. This will be old news for most, but it appears some need a reminder. The 2016 referendum would have seen set aside by the courts if it had been mandatory. The only thing that saved it was the fact that it was advisory. I'm going to provide a link to explain that. It's the James O'Brien show. I know, he's not exactly objective. But he hardly speaks at all in the clip. Most of the talking is done by a lawyer. The referendum was not 'democratic' by the common law definition of democracy. As I said, the courts would have voided the result for being undemocratic but for the fact that the result was not meant to be binding on Parliament. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/ |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 19:02:44 GMT
'In fact, a High Court judge has since ruled that if the referendum result had been binding, thus mandating the government to take us out of the EU, then the courts would have had to set that decision aside due to the number of flaws in the process. So, while it was certainly a “choice” for the British people, it was ill-informed and far from democratic.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 9, 2022 20:52:56 GMT
No wonder I couldn't find it, why have you put it here? The question asked in the referendum may have been 'do we want to stay/leave the EU' but it was a UK referendum, held in the UK at the behest of the British government, for the benefit of the British electorate. It had fuck all to do with the EU. Put the thread in it's proper place you peasant.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2022 20:56:28 GMT
Red doesn't appear to understand why the 2016 referendum was corrupt. This will be old news for most, but it appears some need a reminder. The 2016 referendum would have seen set aside by the courts if it had been mandatory. The only thing that saved it was the fact that it was advisory. I'm going to provide a link to explain that. It's the James O'Brien show. I know, he's not exactly objective. But he hardly speaks at all in the clip. Most of the talking is done by a lawyer. The referendum was not 'democratic' by the common law definition of democracy. As I said, the courts would have voided the result for being undemocratic but for the fact that the result was not meant to be binding on Parliament. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/Several points. The court could not overturn the result because it was not binding and the complaint was lodged legally too late. So it was not set aside. I also think what she said was a bit rich "The will of the people is meaningless if the people were victims of corrupt practices or lied to." Perhaps she could explain, some 50 years too late what full hearted consent of the people and parliament means. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 20:58:21 GMT
Red doesn't appear to understand why the 2016 referendum was corrupt. This will be old news for most, but it appears some need a reminder. The 2016 referendum would have seen set aside by the courts if it had been mandatory. The only thing that saved it was the fact that it was advisory. I'm going to provide a link to explain that. It's the James O'Brien show. I know, he's not exactly objective. But he hardly speaks at all in the clip. Most of the talking is done by a lawyer. The referendum was not 'democratic' by the common law definition of democracy. As I said, the courts would have voided the result for being undemocratic but for the fact that the result was not meant to be binding on Parliament. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/Several points. The court could not overturn the result because it was not binding and the complaint was lodged legally too late. So it was not set aside. I also think what she said was a bit rich "The will of the people is meaningless if the people were victims of corrupt practices or lied to." Perhaps she could explain, some 50 years too late what full hearted consent of the people and parliament means. Was the 1975 referendum undemocratic under the common law definition? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 21:02:25 GMT
No wonder I couldn't find it, why have you put it here? The question asked in the referendum may have been ' do we want to stay/leave the EU' but it was a UK referendum, held in the UK at the behest of the British government, for the benefit of the British electorate. It had fuck all to do with the EU. Put the thread in it's proper place you peasant. God will be my judge! |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2022 21:03:38 GMT
Several points. The court could not overturn the result because it was not binding and the complaint was lodged legally too late. So it was not set aside. I also think what she said was a bit rich "The will of the people is meaningless if the people were victims of corrupt practices or lied to." Perhaps she could explain, some 50 years too late what full hearted consent of the people and parliament means. Was the 1975 referendum undemocratic under the common law definition? I was not referring to the 75 referendum But since you mention 75 how about this bit from the leaflet to advise the public “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.” Now is that the case? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 21:06:24 GMT
Was the 1975 referendum undemocratic under the common law definition? I was not referring to the 75 referendum But since you mention 75 how about this bit from the leaflet to advise the public “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.” Now is that the case? Was it the case in 1975? And can you provide a link demonstrating that statement was made prior to the 1975 referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2022 21:07:31 GMT
Moreover, if there were two referendums that were contrary to the common law, don't you think it's time there was one that isn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 9, 2022 21:11:07 GMT
Red doesn't appear to understand why the 2016 referendum was corrupt. This will be old news for most, but it appears some need a reminder. The 2016 referendum would have seen set aside by the courts if it had been mandatory. The only thing that saved it was the fact that it was advisory. I'm going to provide a link to explain that. It's the James O'Brien show. I know, he's not exactly objective. But he hardly speaks at all in the clip. Most of the talking is done by a lawyer. The referendum was not 'democratic' by the common law definition of democracy. As I said, the courts would have voided the result for being undemocratic but for the fact that the result was not meant to be binding on Parliament. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/No they would not have voided the result per se but they would have voided May's serving of Article 50 (as being contrary to natural justice after the rule breaking) but for one thing and one person: Gina Miller Because she rightly forced there to be a parliamentary vote on Article 50 and that takes precedence over the referendum. See Wilson and Others v The Prime Minister Leavers often hate Gina Miller but actually she saved their pyrrhic victory for them. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2022 21:13:24 GMT
I was not referring to the 75 referendum But since you mention 75 how about this bit from the leaflet to advise the public “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.” Now is that the case? Was it the case in 1975? And can you provide a link demonstrating that statement was made prior to the 1975 referendum? Yes www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/1975ReferendumGov.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2022 21:15:43 GMT
Moreover, if there were two referendums that were contrary to the common law, don't you think it's time there was one that isn't? Yes but you want to only overturn the one that takes us out. All the other lies and misinformation resulted in us going in. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2022 21:17:06 GMT
Red doesn't appear to understand why the 2016 referendum was corrupt. This will be old news for most, but it appears some need a reminder. The 2016 referendum would have seen set aside by the courts if it had been mandatory. The only thing that saved it was the fact that it was advisory. I'm going to provide a link to explain that. It's the James O'Brien show. I know, he's not exactly objective. But he hardly speaks at all in the clip. Most of the talking is done by a lawyer. The referendum was not 'democratic' by the common law definition of democracy. As I said, the courts would have voided the result for being undemocratic but for the fact that the result was not meant to be binding on Parliament. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/No they would not have voided the result per se but they would have voided May's serving of Article 50 (as being contrary to natural justice after the rule breaking) but for one thing and one person: Gina Miller Because she rightly forced there to be a parliamentary vote on Article 50 and that takes precedence over the referendum. See Wilson and Others v The Prime Minister Leavers often hate Gina Miller but actually she saved their pyrrhic victory for them. So we are where we are. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 9, 2022 21:17:57 GMT
Moreover, if there were two referendums that were contrary to the common law, don't you think it's time there was one that isn't? Yes but you want to only overturn the one that takes us out. All the other lies and misinformation resulted in us going in. There was no electoral law issues with the 1975 referendum so what are you on about? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 9, 2022 21:19:37 GMT
No they would not have voided the result per se but they would have voided May's serving of Article 50 (as being contrary to natural justice after the rule breaking) but for one thing and one person: Gina Miller Because she rightly forced there to be a parliamentary vote on Article 50 and that takes precedence over the referendum. See Wilson and Others v The Prime Minister Leavers often hate Gina Miller but actually she saved their pyrrhic victory for them. So we are where we are. Yes we are - as I've said over and over. The 2019 General Election is the definitive electoral OK for us to leave. Doesn't mean those that wilfully broke the law in the 2016 referendum and 3 years after shouldn't be in jail. And hopefyully still will be. |
|
