|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 10, 2022 16:40:41 GMT
If it's this case, which is one I looked at some time ago when something similar was claimed, I can't see where it was said. It seems to say in total that no grounds existed for calling the Referendum into question, particularly as the respondents presented no evidence that the result would be affected by the overspend. The thing that struck me was the doubt cast on there being common law power to declare elections void.
I recall the claim in the op being made previously, but I've never been able to find the claim as part of a judgment. Of course, that's not to say there isn't one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 16:44:03 GMT
It seems to say in total that no grounds existed for calling the Referendum into question, particularly as the respondents presented no evidence that the result would be affected by the overspend. The thing that struck me was the doubt cast on there being common law power to declare elections void.
I recall the claim in the op being made previously, but I've never been able to find the claim as part of a judgment. Of course, that's not to say there isn't one.
Yes, that is an interesting aspect. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I couldn't say. I'm not quite sure why no action was taken under the Vienna Convention, either. The deciding grounds in the case discussed in the link appear to be that it was out of time for whatever legislative remedy was available. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 16:45:12 GMT
It seems to say in total that no grounds existed for calling the Referendum into question, particularly as the respondents presented no evidence that the result would be affected by the overspend. The thing that struck me was the doubt cast on there being common law power to declare elections void.
I recall the claim in the op being made previously, but I've never been able to find the claim as part of a judgment. Of course, that's not to say there isn't one.
Yes that seems to be one of the grounds of the case. The court it seems was not convinced. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 16:46:56 GMT
It's just occurred to me that the Vienna Convention may not have been available because international law doesn't trump national legislation in a domestic court. The courts make every effort to construe the legislation in a manner that is consistent with international law, but I don't know how far they could take that. I really don't know whether they could take it so far as to void the results, even if those results are demonstrably obtained by corrupt means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 16:50:02 GMT
I see, so basically, you just post for attention and feed off the negative energy you're trying to create on obscure forums, whilst mistaking all of this for stardom. Also, since I can count the number of exchanges I've had with you using only the digits from my hands and feet, I would hazard to guess that this condition is in a serious state. There's so much more happening within the EU that could be discussed by genuinely knowledgeable people, instead of going around in insane circles just to entertain you.
Moving on (LOL) what do you think about the rise of right wing parties within the eurozone? Do you believe this is the result of the EU losing support, or the EU's ultimate goal?
I'd say that's a pretty fair summary. Of course it is. I would also imagine that the question was difficult to answer, but that's OK, I already knew the possible outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 16:53:33 GMT
I'd say that's a pretty fair summary. Of course it is. I would also imagine that the question was difficult to answer, but that's OK, I already knew the possible outcome. The question about movement to the right in the EU? You mean Italy? You can't mean Germany because they had elections relatively recently and a far-right party didn't gain power. Unless you're talking about the coup plot by the Qanon conspiracy theorists. That wouldn't have got very far, as anyone who has ever spent any time in Germany could tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 17:06:41 GMT
It's just occurred to me that the Vienna Convention may not have been available because international law doesn't trump national law in a domestic court. The courts make every effort to construe the legislation in a manner that is consistent with international law, but I don't know how far they could take that. I really don't know whether they could take it so far as to void the results, even if those results are demonstrably obtained by corrupt means. They are not demonstrably so though are they? There may well have been fraud within the process but it is hard to conclude that the result was obtained by fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 17:09:58 GMT
It's just occurred to me that the Vienna Convention may not have been available because international law doesn't trump national law in a domestic court. The courts make every effort to construe the legislation in a manner that is consistent with international law, but I don't know how far they could take that. I really don't know whether they could take it so far as to void the results, even if those results are demonstrably obtained by corrupt means. They are not demonstrably so though are they? There may well have been fraud within the process but it is hard to conclude that the result was obtained by fraud. Good to see you admitting to the fraud, Sandy. As was pointed out, it's impossible to demonstrate that a rider in the Tour de France won because he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 17:14:49 GMT
They are not demonstrably so though are they? There may well have been fraud within the process but it is hard to conclude that the result was obtained by fraud. Good to see you admitting to the fraud, Sandy. As was pointed out, it's impossible to demonstrate that a rider in the Tour de France won was he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. He was open to the possibility, possibly to humour you. He wasn't conclusive. Seriously, you should read things properly without relying on your first reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 17:15:53 GMT
Good to see you admitting to the fraud, Sandy. As was pointed out, it's impossible to demonstrate that a rider in the Tour de France won was he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. He was open to the possibility, possibly to humour you. He wasn't conclusive. Seriously, you should read things properly without relying on your first reaction. I like to live dangerously, Cuddles. Sometimes I don't even read the posts I'm responding to - much more exciting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 17:19:00 GMT
OK, well enjoy telling lies about what people have said. I have limited time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 17:22:28 GMT
OK, well enjoy telling lies about what people have said. I have limited time. Toodles. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 17:46:42 GMT
They are not demonstrably so though are they? There may well have been fraud within the process but it is hard to conclude that the result was obtained by fraud. Good to see you admitting to the fraud, Sandy. As was pointed out, it's impossible to demonstrate that a rider in the Tour de France won was he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. It seems to have been shown to be so in a court case, the degree of intent is always in question. Every election we have has elements of fraud and rarely are any overturned. One of the most important was South Thanet where Farage was denied a seat by a significant Tory overspend to bring in the Tory big guns and lots of volunteers. One has to present evidence that the result was affected and that is difficult. With a rider in the Tour all that has to be shown is illegal action by having drugs in his body then it is his appeal for mitigation. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 20:14:21 GMT
Good to see you admitting to the fraud, Sandy. As was pointed out, it's impossible to demonstrate that a rider in the Tour de France won was he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. It seems to have been shown to be so in a court case, the degree of intent is always in question. Every election we have has elements of fraud and rarely are any overturned. One of the most important was South Thanet where Farage was denied a seat by a significant Tory overspend to bring in the Tory big guns and lots of volunteers. One has to present evidence that the result was affected and that is difficult. With a rider in the Tour all that has to be shown is illegal action by having drugs in his body then it is his appeal for mitigation. Did Farage's case go to court? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 10, 2022 21:42:47 GMT
Only didn't because the EC dragged their heels and just when it would have gone to an election court May dissolved parliament which negated any such action
|
|
