|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 22:50:06 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. The issue of affecting it is critical for a case to be made in law. If the discovery of fraud was able to overturn a result then losing parties would be scanning all sorts of actions looking for any legal loophole to call the election into question. No case was made that the result was in doubt due to the overspend nor any evidence presented to show how the result was affected. The court did not intervene because the respondents did not make a case in that respect. I thought that was reasonably clear in the judgement. Presenting the overspend and saying the result is flawed is insufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 22:59:04 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. The issue of affecting it is critical for a case to be made in law. If the discovery of fraud was able to overturn a result then losing parties would be scanning all sorts of actions looking for any legal loophole to call the election into question. No case was made that the result was in doubt due to the overspend nor any evidence presented to show how the result was affected. The court did not intervene because the respondents did not make a case in that respect. I thought that was reasonably clear in the judgement. Presenting the overspend and saying the result is flawed is insufficient. The process was so fundamentally flawed, it would have been set aside if it had not been advisory. We've covered this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 23:02:46 GMT
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. Why are you obsessed with Common law - is it a big thing in your country? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:04:53 GMT
The issue of affecting it is critical for a case to be made in law. If the discovery of fraud was able to overturn a result then losing parties would be scanning all sorts of actions looking for any legal loophole to call the election into question. No case was made that the result was in doubt due to the overspend nor any evidence presented to show how the result was affected. The court did not intervene because the respondents did not make a case in that respect. I thought that was reasonably clear in the judgement. Presenting the overspend and saying the result is flawed is insufficient. The process was so fundamentally flawed, it would have been set aside if it had not been advisory. We've covered this. You have not shown that any judge actually said this as far as I can see. You quote the QC who represented the complainants in court but she cannot make that judgement, she can seek to get a judge to make that judgement. Is that available. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:09:57 GMT
The process was so fundamentally flawed, it would have been set aside if it had not been advisory. We've covered this. You have not shown that any judge actually said this as far as I can see. You quote the QC who represented the complainants in court but she cannot make that judgement, she can seek to get a judge to make that judgement. Is that available. I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. If the legislation had required Parliament to leave the EU in the event of a vote to do so in a referendum, then it would have had to leave. That begs the question: what is a referendum? A referendum that doesn't adhere to the basic principles of natural justice is not a referendum, so the UK couldn't have left on the basis of the 'referendum'. But the legislation didn't make leaving conditional on a referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 23:15:22 GMT
You have not shown that any judge actually said this as far as I can see. You quote the QC who represented the complainants in court but she cannot make that judgement, she can seek to get a judge to make that judgement. Is that available. I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. well not very well apparently if you think that losing Barristers make the Law... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:17:37 GMT
I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. well not very well apparently if you think that losing Barristers make the Law... She stated the law. She didn't claim to make it. That's something you've just made up, Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:24:38 GMT
You have not shown that any judge actually said this as far as I can see. You quote the QC who represented the complainants in court but she cannot make that judgement, she can seek to get a judge to make that judgement. Is that available. I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. If the legislation had required the Parliament to leave the EU in the event of a vote to do so in a referendum, then it would have had to leave. That begs the question: what is a referendum? A referendum that doesn't adhere to the basic principles of natural justice is not a referendum, so the UK couldn't have left on the basis of the 'referendum'. But the legislation didn't make leaving conditional on a referendum. You would still need to give evidence that the result was in doubt due to the overspend. If I recall you said a judge said he would have overturned the result if it had been binding. Do you have that link. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:26:23 GMT
I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. If the legislation had required the Parliament to leave the EU in the event of a vote to do so in a referendum, then it would have had to leave. That begs the question: what is a referendum? A referendum that doesn't adhere to the basic principles of natural justice is not a referendum, so the UK couldn't have left on the basis of the 'referendum'. But the legislation didn't make leaving conditional on a referendum. You would still need to give evidence that the result was in doubt due to the overspend. If I recall you said a judge said he would have overturned the result if it had been binding. Do you have that link. It's mentioned in the OP. It's also in every constitutional and administrative law book ever published in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 12, 2022 0:13:30 GMT
Considering that the Remain camp outspent the Leave camp then any notional 'overspend' obviously didnt have much of an effect. Oh not that false story again  |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 12, 2022 6:22:07 GMT
I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. If the legislation had required Parliament to leave the EU in the event of a vote to do so in a referendum, then it would have had to leave. That begs the question: what is a referendum? A referendum that doesn't adhere to the basic principles of natural justice is not a referendum, so the UK couldn't have left on the basis of the 'referendum'. But the legislation didn't make leaving conditional on a referendum. If you read the judgment and, no doubt you have, you will be aware it doesn't support the claim made in the OP.
Your post does raise an interesting, at least to me, point; what is a referendum in the context of the UK? Based on the principle of parliamentary supremacy it is impossible to have a 'binding' referendum. For the sake of argument, let's assume the legislation enabling the referendum had purported to be binding and, if there were a result to leave, empowered the sitting Prime Minister to give Article 50 notice under the power of Royal Prerogative.
Would Miller have been successful? Given that the prerogative is always amenable to judicial review and the issue turned on HR grounds, it might have been. If it had, however, it would have meant that the SC had, in effect, struck down an act of Parliament, and it did not have the power to do that. A constitutional crisis??
Then, back on topic, assuming Wilson had got as far as JR and all the way to the SC. Would the SC have attempted to usurp Parliament by declaring the election void on some common law precedent while ignoring the very specific powers of challenge laid down by Parliament? It might have, and created a different constitutional crisis, but I doubt it.
No doubt the constitutional experts involved in drafting the legislation for the referendum were mindful of the issues surrounding notionally binding referendums and would have chosen to avoid the concept like the plague. And, of course, we both know the 'will of people' issue was finally settled in 2019.
Still, always good fun for a wind-up!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 12, 2022 7:11:38 GMT
I don't need a judge's statement. I know how the law works. If the legislation had required Parliament to leave the EU in the event of a vote to do so in a referendum, then it would have had to leave. That begs the question: what is a referendum? A referendum that doesn't adhere to the basic principles of natural justice is not a referendum, so the UK couldn't have left on the basis of the 'referendum'. But the legislation didn't make leaving conditional on a referendum. If you read the judgment and, no doubt you have, you will be aware it doesn't support the claim made in the OP.
Your post does raise an interesting, at least to me, point; what is a referendum in the context of the UK? Based on the principle of parliamentary supremacy it is impossible to have a 'binding' referendum. For the sake of argument, let's assume the legislation enabling the referendum had purported to be binding and, if there were a result to leave, empowered the sitting Prime Minister to give Article 50 notice under the power of Royal Prerogative.
Would Miller have been successful? Given that the prerogative is always amenable to judicial review and the issue turned on HR grounds, it might have been. If it had, however, it would have meant that the SC had, in effect, struck down an act of Parliament, and it did not have the power to do that. A constitutional crisis??
Then, back on topic, assuming Wilson had got as far as JR and all the way to the SC. Would the SC have attempted to usurp Parliament by declaring the election void on some common law precedent while ignoring the very specific powers of challenge laid down by Parliament? It might have, and created a different constitutional crisis, but I doubt it.
No doubt the constitutional experts involved in drafting the legislation for the referendum were mindful of the issues surrounding notionally binding referendums and would have chosen to avoid the concept like the plague. And, of course, we both know the 'will of people' issue was finally settled in 2019.
Still, always good fun for a wind-up!!
I'm ever puzzled by the idea that referenda are advisory in cases where a prime minister makes a written statement they would enact the will of the people. The PM acts on behalf of the sovereign and thought the sovereign could reject such a statement, that wasn't the case. In fact, the PM's promise was no different to that made by Harold Wilson in the 1975 referendum. Of course the Wilson promise was enacted and we remained which might have made it difficult to ignore the Cameron result, both morally and legally. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 12, 2022 7:31:49 GMT
I'm ever puzzled by the idea that referenda are advisory in cases where a prime minister makes a written statement they would enact the will of the people. The PM acts on behalf of the sovereign and thought the sovereign could reject such a statement, that wasn't the case. In fact, the PM's promise was no different to that made by Harold Wilson in the 1975 referendum. Of course the Wilson promise was enacted and we remained which might have made it difficult to ignore the Cameron result, both morally and legally. As far as I know, the Sovereign has no power to bind 'Parliament' any more than the PM does. I think it's generally accepted that referendums cannot be finally binding because if they were, it would negate the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 12, 2022 8:08:16 GMT
well not very well apparently if you think that losing Barristers make the Law... She stated the law. She didn't claim to make it. That's something you've just made up, Doc. No she did not - she stated what she thought the court judgement would be, but as we all know Barristers get that wrong 50% of the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2022 8:09:23 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. The issue of affecting it is critical for a case to be made in law. If the discovery of fraud was able to overturn a result then losing parties would be scanning all sorts of actions looking for any legal loophole to call the election into question. No case was made that the result was in doubt due to the overspend nor any evidence presented to show how the result was affected. The court did not intervene because the respondents did not make a case in that respect. I thought that was reasonably clear in the judgement. Presenting the overspend and saying the result is flawed is insufficient. No case was made that the result was in doubt due to the overspend because that was not the issue. The issue was not the effect or consequence of the action but the action itself. And the fact that Leave campaign broke electoral laws and were proven to have done so rendered the referendum itself fraudulent, corrupt and unsafe, therefore undemocratic. The appropriate action to preserve and maintain the integrity of democratic processes would have been to set aside the results and re run the referendum. That would have entailed dragging the entire thing through the court system. But there was no legal case to be made. Or a legal case to set aside the results could not be made. Not possible. Because the referendum was advisory. Did not have any legal standing. |
|
