|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 18:17:12 GMT
Suggest read it yourself because I did not break it but as it happens I have edited the post |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 14, 2022 18:23:01 GMT
Yep, Remain cheated and still lost. Both sides cheated Steve, what do you expect of Conservative politicians ? David Cameron was notorious for cheating, just look what happened in Newark, Thanet South etc. He broke electoral commission rules over and over. You cannot pretend that the man who called the referendum and campaigned badly for remain, didn't try cheating to win. We both know that both sides cheated. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 18:31:51 GMT
BIG FAT LIE ^as you full well know because over several years you have been challenged to show any cheating by Remain and woefully failed to do so Both sides cheated Steve, what do you expect of Conservative politicians ? David Cameron was notorious for cheating, just look what happened in Newark, Thanet South etc. He broke electoral commission rules over and over. You cannot pretend that the man who called the referendum and campaigned badly for remain, didn't try cheating to win. We both know that both sides cheated. How interesting that you have woefully failed yet again to give an example of the Remain campaign supposedly cheating because you know it's a false line you're continuing to push and you're doing that to try and somehow absolve your guilt at endorsing the cheating that you know has not only harmed the UK but is increasingly being realised as having done so |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 18:39:27 GMT
BIG FAT LIE ^as you full well know because over several years you have been challenged to show any cheating by Remain and woefully failed to do so Both sides cheated Steve, what do you expect of Conservative politicians ? David Cameron was notorious for cheating, just look what happened in Newark, Thanet South etc. He broke electoral commission rules over and over. You cannot pretend that the man who called the referendum and campaigned badly for remain, didn't try cheating to win. We both know that both sides cheated. I would say, going by his last response to me, that he won't accept responsibility, not even for something that is obvious to all who can read. It literally has become a playground... nah nah nah.
Objectively, the media and mainsteam establishment were ruthlessly remain, because they convinced themselves, using their own propaganda, that this would be the outcome. It's easy to do when driven by the belief that it was just a few racists and xenophobes they were up against.
Reality stung them and I would say it has left many rather traumatised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 14, 2022 18:41:57 GMT
What is unfair about outspending an opponent? Well if spending a bit more than you declare (but still spending an awful lot less than the other side) is a case for voiding the result then why is not spending more than the other side a reason to void the result? - after all the only thing in discussion is how much was spent. An associated point is was it right to spend £9 million of taxpayers money promoting one side of the argument when the majority of taxpayers were in favour of the other side? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 18:58:03 GMT
What is unfair about outspending an opponent? Well if spending a bit more than you declare (but still spending an awful lot less than the other side) is a case for voiding the result then why is not spending more than the other side a reason to void the result? - after all the only thing in discussion is how much was spent. An associated point is was it right to spend £9 million of taxpayers money promoting one side of the argument when the majority of taxpayers were in favour of the other side? More false arguments ^ Remain did not spend more than the other side and Remain obeyed the rules so stopped campaigning in the crucial last 7 days while Vote Leave illegally campaigned overspending sending those 'Serbia is joining' and other messages to potential swing voters. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 18:59:15 GMT
Both sides cheated Steve, what do you expect of Conservative politicians ? David Cameron was notorious for cheating, just look what happened in Newark, Thanet South etc. He broke electoral commission rules over and over. You cannot pretend that the man who called the referendum and campaigned badly for remain, didn't try cheating to win. We both know that both sides cheated. I would say, going by his last response to me, that he won't accept responsibility, not even for something that is obvious to all who can read. It literally has become a playground... nah nah nah.
Objectively, the media and mainsteam establishment were ruthlessly remain, because they convinced themselves, using their own propaganda, that this would be the outcome. It's easy to do when driven by the belief that it was just a few racists and xenophobes they were up against.
Reality stung them and I would say it has left many rather traumatised.
How interesting that you can't evidence this supposed cheating by Remain either. I say interesting but 'pathetic' would be more accurate |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 19:05:16 GMT
What is unfair about outspending an opponent? Well if spending a bit more than you declare (but still spending an awful lot less than the other side) is a case for voiding the result then why is not spending more than the other side a reason to void the result? - after all the only thing in discussion is how much was spent. An associated point is was it right to spend £9 million of taxpayers money promoting one side of the argument when the majority of taxpayers were in favour of the other side? Many people were rather disgusted by the propaganda in those highly immoral tax-payer funded leaflets that Cameron dished out. But then again, Remain were indoctrinating the young with ideas that grandma is racist and will soon die. Anything goes with them, because history says so. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 14, 2022 19:14:00 GMT
Both sides cheated Steve, what do you expect of Conservative politicians ? David Cameron was notorious for cheating, just look what happened in Newark, Thanet South etc. He broke electoral commission rules over and over. You cannot pretend that the man who called the referendum and campaigned badly for remain, didn't try cheating to win. We both know that both sides cheated. How interesting that you have woefully failed yet again to give an example of the Remain campaign supposedly cheating because you know it's a false line you're continuing to push and you're doing that to try and somehow absolve your guilt at endorsing the cheating that you know has not only harmed the UK but is increasingly being realised as having done so Cheating, example 1, the leaflet that David Cameron had sent to every house in the country. He deliberately chose to send it before the official campaign was underway so as to circumvent Purdah rules. George Osborne tried scaremongering, telling the country that the moment a leave vote occurred, there would be an instant severe economic shock triggering a year long recession with 820,000 jobs lost, minimum. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564They tried using treasury reports to lie. They barred the civil service from making any written plans for the eventuality of Brexit, so that nothing could be published to benefit the leave campaign. inews.co.uk/news/politics/governments-lack-preparation-brexit-leave-vote-laid-bare-parliamentary-report-58635Civil servants were also banned from helping ministers campaigning for Brexit:
Spending rules benefited remain and limited the spending options for leave campaigning. You know full well that both sides had cheats on them. So don't pretend otherwise. Both sides ended up not smelling of roses, but the stuff you put on rose beds. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 19:19:49 GMT
None of those allegation were cheating Vinny as you full well know. It was to the rules of the referendum as per the enabling Act
Throw a six, have another go? But all you're doing now is communicating your discomfort that your chums cheating has hurt the UK
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 14, 2022 19:31:00 GMT
None of those allegation were cheating Vinny as you full well know. It was to the rules of the referendum as per the enabling Act Throw a six, have another go? But all you're doing now is communicating your discomfort that your chums cheating has hurt the UK Although cheating refers to fairness and unfair is defined as "not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice:" Now I suppose we could push that argument around for hours and pages but fairness is not restricted to the rules as laid out as we all know that breaking the principles of equality and justice mean you are being unfair but not necessarily illegal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 19:32:26 GMT
None of those allegation were cheating Vinny as you full well know. It was to the rules of the referendum as per the enabling Act Throw a six, have another go? But all you're doing now is communicating your discomfort that your chums cheating has hurt the UK Although cheating refers to fairness and unfair is defined as "not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice:" Now I suppose we could push that argument around for hours and pages but fairness is not restricted to the rules as laid out as we all know that breaking the principles of equality and justice mean you are being unfair but not necessarily illegal. Yep, and Steve could have argued in support of Slavery prior to abolition with his argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 14, 2022 19:36:36 GMT
Of course it's cheating Steve. It's creating an advantage for one side rather than a level playing field before the competition even started. Then there's the spending rules. The spending limits favoured remain. Remain were legally allowed to outspend leave and did. Remain were legally allowed to send project fear propaganda to every household in the country. Despite all the advantages to the remain side, it still lost. And it didn't lose because leave broke the spending rules, it lost because David Cameron and George Osborne were about as convincing as one of Putin's fan club's arguments for the invasion of Ukraine on here. www.itv.com/news/2021-06-10/it-was-project-fear-and-it-didnt-work-head-of-remain-campaign-says-economic-dangers-of-brexit-were-exaggeratedLord Rose, official head of Britain Stronger In Europe - "It was project fear and it didn't work". They just came across as being absolutely paranoid and ridiculous. The remain campaign might have done a lot better if them two had taken a step back, not gotten involved and not sent government propaganda to every home in the country. But David Cameron, control freak, fucked everything up, by doing what comes naturally to him. Trying to control everything, trying to cheat. Trying to scare everyone. People didn't vote leave because of a big red bus. People voted leave because no credible case for EU membership was made by the people at the top, and credible cases for leaving were made. You aren't telling me you voted remain because of David Cameron are you ? I didn't vote leave because of Boris, or for that matter, Nigel Farage. I voted because I've looked at everything, since the days of the Maastricht debates when I was a kid. I look at the EU I don't see enough to justify the money we were throwing at it each year. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 19:42:36 GMT
It is a fact that by definition and in principle, an election that is not free and fair is undemocratic. It is a fact that by definition and in principle, an undemocratic election must be re run to maintain democratic credibility. The only qualification there is that the courts will make such rulings if it is a legally binding vote. I'm just stating those facts. I may be wrong in my interpretation of such facts but what I state are certainly not my opinion. Of course, we can all make an argument about whether or not it is right and justifiable to accept the results of an undemocratic election. My understanding is that the courts were not asked to consider the results. The results of the 2016 referendum had very little, if nothing, to do with the case against leave campaign groups for breaking electoral laws like over spending and unlawful email blasts. As I said before, no court could touch the results of the referendum because the referendum did not have legal standing. They could and did rule on the law breaking but that was it as far as they were concerned. No election is free and fair what you have to do is some form of measure of what makes it free and fair taking into consideration any illegal acts. If a legal act occurs, and most elections involve in some way or another illegal acts, a decision has to be made if it contravenes free and fair sufficiently to demand it be rerun. For some reason you seem to wish to dodge consideration of effect and just repeat there were illegal acts within it so it should have been rerun. The courts were asked to consider the actions of teh PM in triggering article 50 as far as I can see and the judge concluded "In the circumstances, she submits that the Respondent is therefore in a position to take steps in response to the illegalities established by the Electoral Commission after 29 March 2017; and she has acted – and continues to act –irrationally in failing to take any such steps and failing even to have any regard to the illegalities which have now been established. However, for the reasons I have already given, the Respondent cannot arguably have acted irrationally in giving the notification at a time when there were no outstanding investigations; nor is there any force in the contention that the Respondent acted under a mistake of fact falling within the scope of E. Nor did she arguably act irrationally in not seeking to withdraw the notification – or further consider whether the notification should be withdrawn – in circumstances in which there is no evidence that any irregularities were material. And, I repeat, the fact that Parliament has maintained control over withdrawal makes it patently inappropriate for the court to intervene." I would draw your attention to the comment in circumstances in which there is no evidence that any irregularities were material. I already said and I repeat: That "an undemocratic election must be re run to maintain democratic credibility" is qualified by the fact that "the courts will make such rulings." The definition of free and fair elections has been already established. What you want and propose is to redefine what free and fair election means to suit your own convenience. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry. The question is not whether the overspending and unlawful email blast affected the results of the 2016 referendum. The question is whether such law breaking rendered the 2016 referendum undemocratic. Again by definition and in principle, the answer to that question can only be Yes. And since 2016 referendum was undemocratic, it should have been -- by rights -- re run. As simple as that. So, when you say: "The courts were asked to consider the actions of teh PM in triggering article 50...." do you mean that the courts were asked to consider setting aside the results of the referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 14, 2022 19:50:28 GMT
None of those allegation were cheating Vinny as you full well know. It was to the rules of the referendum as per the enabling Act Throw a six, have another go? But all you're doing now is communicating your discomfort that your chums cheating has hurt the UK Although cheating refers to fairness and unfair is defined as "not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice:" Now I suppose we could push that argument around for hours and pages but fairness is not restricted to the rules as laid out as we all know that breaking the principles of equality and justice mean you are being unfair but not necessarily illegal. Vinny's allegation was cheating by Remain and he has failed woefully to back it just like he failed on the old site. He knows it's a false accusation yet he keeps making it full knowing it to be false. If you want to bring in the subjectivity of 'unfair' then maybe start with the gross unfairness of these continued false accusations by uber Leavers |
|
