The 2016 Referendum was Corrupt (for Red).

No because the issue she refers to is the record breaking illegal expenditure by Leave. Neither referendum had legal constraints on lying - not that you can find any lies in the 1975 campaign. You can find lots of lies from people alleging lies in that campaign.

Note that that link precedes the 2019 General Election

But the referendum was not binding - Parliament could have ignored it and the people at the subsequent 2 General Elections could have voted to have it annulled.

How many votes do you need before you accept the result?

Where? Using the search function, I searched for veto and tax. Nothing came up.

If these are present, you will still have to show that there was no veto in 1975 in order to demonstrate the British people were lied to.

You appear to take the view that both the 1975 and 2016 referendums were undemocratic. If that is correct, perhaps you won't refer to the 2016 result as the 'will of the people' going forward. It wasn't. The High Court has ruled to that effect.

You said the people were lied re a veto and tax in 1975. Can you be more specific about that? As I said, my search of the document you linked using the words veto and tax produced nothing.

In a 1971 white paper PM Edward Heath wrote “There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty.” This was a lie and is at odds with what Heath verifiably already knew about the EEC and its plans. He knew in advice from both senior legal and foreign office sources and indeed from his own personal meetings as Britain’s negotiator for EEC entry exactly what the consequences were. 

www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ted-heath-kept-eecs-federal-aims-public-1157490

EDWARD HEATH had been warned about the constitutional implications of joining the European Economic Community (EEC) in a letter written by the Lord Chancellor - but he decided to keep quiet and promise the British people the country's entry would not involve any loss of essential sovereignty.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1283232/brexit-news-eu-uk-trade-talks-edward-heath-referendum-letter-spt

EVER since Britain first toyed with the idea of entering what was then called the Common Market, governments of both main parties have consistently lied about the far-reaching implications for this country's future. When the public has got wind of plots to remove large areas of our country's sovereignty, the usual tactic has been for ministers to pretend that the consequences of signing any treaty or giving more powers to Brussels is of very little import indeed.

www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-228953/HOW-FOR-40-YEARS-THE-BRITISH-PUBLIC-HAS-BEEN-LIED-TO--.html

Much, much more if required.

How many lies from 1970 onwards do you want. Rippon lied to parliament, Heath lied in terms of 'full hearted consent of the people and parliament', and the 70 manifesto


Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.



"A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."

It is interesting the same manifesto said


"We will promote the prosperity of the fishing industry, and will ensure that the home fishing industry is enabled to compete effectively in British markets without unfair competition from dumped imports."

It was Wilson that said it and it was an item  of a referendum vote giving the conditions upon which acceptance of a restriction of their democratic rights would be predicated. It was not a promise of any government. No government can bind a following one, in the same way no government (if we are indeed looking at the common law definition of democracy) can remove from the electorate that  for which their permission was originally sought. The 1975 referendum was a mandate from the people giving to government the right to proceed as directed. If that direction was changed in a meaningful way, and there is little doubt it was, then common law consideration of democracy should apply if we are indeed discussing the meaning of the will of the people. Are we?