|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 22:03:29 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 Oh, alright. I just wondered what Sandy was basing his remarks on. I would have thought that the test for deciding whether the corrupt actions had an impact would have been the ordinary civil standard (balance of probabilities) rather than the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2022 23:24:01 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 Oh, alright. I just wondered what Sandy was basing his remarks on. I would have thought that the test for deciding whether the corrupt actions had an impact would have been the ordinary civil standard (balance of probabilities) rather than the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). One of the aides was found guilty and given a suspended sentence. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-46749743Like all these things it is impossible to say what impact it had on the result but it was fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2022 23:41:01 GMT
Oh, alright. I just wondered what Sandy was basing his remarks on. I would have thought that the test for deciding whether the corrupt actions had an impact would have been the ordinary civil standard (balance of probabilities) rather than the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). One of the aides was found guilty and given a suspended sentence. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-46749743Like all these things it is impossible to say what impact it had on the result but it was fraud. So, when Brexiters say it was the will of the people, they really mean it might have been the will of the people? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 15:13:09 GMT
So, when Brexiters say it was the will of the people, they really mean it might have been the will of the people? Not necessarily, if you wish to be pedantic you could say probably the will of the people, but there again the illegal point as regards the referendum was an overspend by one of the appointed groups. So even if that overspend changed the minds of some (and it would have to be 800,000 voters at least) then it would still be the will of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 18:41:38 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 19:18:51 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect. Right. So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the 2016 result might have been the will of the people. 'It was probably the will of the people that we should leave the EU, so you should stop moaning about it', doesn't quite have the same moral force, does it, Doc? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 11, 2022 19:34:17 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect. Considering the leave camp used insinuated lies and actual lies the referendum result should have been kicked into touch. Now the country has to live with that dishonesty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 20:06:00 GMT
The issue of whether or not the overspend affected the results is secondary. The primary consideration is that Leave campaign groups broke electoral laws rendering the referendum fraudulent, corrupt and unsafe, therefore undemocratic, and therefore needed to be re-run.
The only thing that saved the referendum results from being legally voided was the fact that the referendum did not have legal standing. It was not legally binding, therefore, the courts could not intervene.
It is a testament to Teresa May's tenacity (duplicity, even) that she managed to straddle the line between "advisory" and "binding" by raising the notion of "will of the people" and that it must be followed however corrupt and fraudulent the manner by which it was obtained.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Dec 11, 2022 20:23:04 GMT
I don't see how it can be corrupt.
The Tories won the previous election on the promise of a referendum on continued membership of the EU.
They then executed the referendum, everyone on the voting roll had the choice.
Everyone voting was over 18 so it was not about fooling children.
Also let's recall the Scots had already had their first independence referendum before Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 22:31:33 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect. Right. So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the 2016 result might have been the will of the people. 'It was probably the will of the people that we should leave the EU, so you should stop moaning about it', doesn't quite have the same moral force, does it, Doc? The referendum was simply a poll - all polls are by their very nature flawed, but they are the best we have. If you can come up with a better method of assessing the will of the people then please share. It's rather ironic that you of all posters are casting aspersions on the accuracy of polls given the amount of threads you create that are based on the results of polling.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 22:32:54 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect. Considering the leave camp used insinuated lies and actual lies the referendum result should have been kicked into touch. Now the country has to live with that dishonesty. both sides lied - it was like a General Election in that respect. If you are after ideological purity the politics is probably not the best place for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 22:34:15 GMT
The only thing that saved the referendum results from being legally voided was the fact that the referendum did not have legal standing. It was not legally binding, therefore, the courts could not intervene. you cannot have a binding referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 22:38:27 GMT
Right. So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the 2016 result might have been the will of the people. 'It was probably the will of the people that we should leave the EU, so you should stop moaning about it', doesn't quite have the same moral force, does it, Doc? The referendum was simply a poll - all polls are by their very nature flawed, but they are the best we have. If you can come up with a better method of assessing the will of the people then please share. It's rather ironic that you of all posters are casting aspersions on the accuracy of polls given the amount of threads you create that are based on the results of polling. We know this particular poll was flawed in significant ways. See the link in the OP. It wasn't an assessment of the will of the people. Never mind. Change is coming. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 22:43:27 GMT
The referendum was simply a poll - all polls are by their very nature flawed, but they are the best we have. If you can come up with a better method of assessing the will of the people then please share. It's rather ironic that you of all posters are casting aspersions on the accuracy of polls given the amount of threads you create that are based on the results of polling. We know this particular poll was flawed in significant ways. See the link in the OP. It wasn't an assessment of the will of the people. Never mind. Change is coming. yeah - I looked at that link, all it contained was a series of allegations by the lawyer who lost the case.. it's not very convincing. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 22:47:54 GMT
We know this particular poll was flawed in significant ways. See the link in the OP. It wasn't an assessment of the will of the people. Never mind. Change is coming. yeah - I looked at that link, all it contained was a series of allegations by the lawyer who lost the case.. it's not very convincing. Maybe you could teach her something. Tell her how the common law judges don't make the common law. She'll appreciate that. |
|
