Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[Saracen999]

Well, as I understand it, the government comprises individuals that we the people have elected to run the country on our behalf. We elect those who we feel best represent our interests and our values, but they ultimately make the decisions, supposedly based on superior expertise and knowledge of how to run a country. This also means that they ought to know what is best for the country and how to achieve it more than any of us should. So if they decide that Brexit really is not the best option, in the end, that's what we pay them to do.
If it were just them doing exactly what we tell them to, they'd be no more than puppets collating voting slips and serve no purpose - We'd be better off all voting at once and The Queen simply enacting everything based on the majority count.
As I understand it, anyway... The reality of course may differ somewhat!!

But even then, they've always said the Referendum was basically just an opinion poll, and since it was voted before we knew exactly what kind of deal(s) would be on the table, it was arguably an uninformed (and thanks to the media bunfight, highly misinformed in many respects) vote.
We voted to leave. We did not vote on how, and if there is no agreement on how, we cannot in all good consciousness simply leave just because people think we should.

I agree with that, especially the first bit .... up to a point.

But three things.

First, we elected people to run things for us, to make decisions, in our best interests, based on a manifesto. They aren't supposed to then just decide to freestyle. Also, it was those reoresentatives, in the form of an elected government, that called the referendum and said, repeatedly, that they would abide by it. Now while the framing of the referendum may not impose a legal duty to follow it, given what they said, given tje manifesto's and given that about 90% of them voted to invoke art.50 and pass the Withdrawal Act, it's not unreasonable to expect them to bleeping well do it.

Second, we supposedly have a democracy that involves us making ONE decision, every 5 years or so, and doing so under a loaded situation, a 2-party system (for all practical purposes) and the FPTP voting system that effectively locks in that two-party system.

The result is like roulette .... the odds are stacked in the house's favour, but above and beyond that, the wheel is rigged.

Third .... if this is a "democracy", when did we, the people, vote to have a representative democracy whereby the only voice we get is which candidate to vote for, in a loaded system?

Oh, and by the way, exactly who gets to select the party candidates we get to chose from, because in almost all cases (barring fully open primaries) it sure as hell isn't us. What that should remind people of is the magician fanning out a deck of cards and saying "Pick a card, any card" secure in the fact that the trick is it makes little difference which one you pick.



Oh, and finally, if we're going to have a "representative" democracy (democracy, my .... chuff) where people supposedly more qualified or experienced do our thinking for us, how come we don't judge those candidates based on their qualifications or experience? And how come, once elected, those "fine thinkers" get subjected to a 3--line whip and instructed to think what someone almost none of us elected tells thrm to think? It sure isn't us they represent.

Whatever our system is, and I can think of a few names but the mods would go up in flames if I used them, it sure doesn't much resemble democracy.

[TooNice]

Whatever our system is, and I can think of a few names but the mods would go up in flames if I used them, it sure doesn't much resemble democracy.

All well and all, but the only argument May has against a 2nd ref.. or anything that would put Brexit at risk (I think she is far more likely to go for no deal than 2nd ref, let alone revoking A50), is that it would "damage/be catastrophic for democracy in the UK".

So I ask.. how can you damage something that.. even someone who isn't very involved in politics like myself, can see is a mere illusion of what it is stated to be?

[blueball]

Whatever our system is, and I can think of a few names but the mods would go up in flames if I used them, it sure doesn't much resemble democracy.

...especially as the referendum was never binding, May was warned by lawyers that if it had been binding it would have been blocked for illegality and numerous "leavers" are facing prosecution but the Police are dragging their heels (funny that)

[petercook7]

All well and all, but the only argument May has against a 2nd ref.. or anything that would put Brexit at risk (I think she is far more likely to go for no deal than 2nd ref, let alone revoking A50), is that it would "damage/be catastrophic for democracy in the UK".

So I ask.. how can you damage something that.. even someone who isn't very involved in politics like myself, can see is a mere illusion of what it is stated to be?

Because it will be factual proof.
They will agree on Mays deal this week, they would never allow a hard brexit.
.

[Saracen999]

...especially as the referendum was never binding, May was warned by lawyers that if it had been binding it would have been blocked for illegality and numerous "leavers" are facing prosecution but the Police are dragging their heels (funny that)

"Numerous"? How numerous?

Would that be thd Grimes/Elliott thing where the Electoral Commission first ruled on way, thrn reversed itself, then got taken to court and the High Court judges ruled tbat the Electoral Commission had "misinterpreted" Electoral law?

So, which leavers are facing prosecution? How do you know po,ice are dragging their feet, and would that be the above case which, last time I heard, was awaiting the Electoral Commission decision whether to appeal the High Court ruling.

And even if it is, is there any evidence that any of these reporting issues would have affected the referendum result? I haven't seen any.

[TooNice]

Because it will be factual proof.
They will agree on Mays deal this week, they would never allow a hard brexit.
.

A look at the system provides all the factual proof that we need. Let's face it, "democracy" is basically an excuse to get one's way.

It is true for the leavers, it is true for the government.. and it is true for the remainers.

I don't think that there is any outcome I would consider to be a win for democracy.. (though that is not to say that I favour each outcome equally)

[spacein_vader]

My one hope for some good to come out of what I think both sides can agree is the sorry mess the government/parliament has made of the past 2 years is that it brings about a recognition that our current system of government is no longer fit for purpose.

Something more representitive with a wider choice of parties would be a start.

[Corky34]

"Numerous"? How numerous?

Would that be thd Grimes/Elliott thing where the Electoral Commission first ruled on way, thrn reversed itself, then got taken to court and the High Court judges ruled tbat the Electoral Commission had "misinterpreted" Electoral law?

So, which leavers are facing prosecution? How do you know po,ice are dragging their feet, and would that be the above case which, last time I heard, was awaiting the Electoral Commission decision whether to appeal the High Court ruling.

And even if it is, is there any evidence that any of these reporting issues would have affected the referendum result? I haven't seen any.

Two are being investigate by the National Crime Agency, Leave.EU and Better for the Country.

I guess the police dragging their feet accusation stems from the police not logging a formal case into three leave supporting campaigns despite being handed dossiers of potential crimes almost a year ago because of what they claim are political sensitivities.

RE: The any evidence that any of these reporting issues would have affected the referendum result, if one group has spent more than the other then i think it's safe to say that it did, otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of spending money on political campaigns in the first place, how much and to what extent is obviously debatable, however I'm to lazy to bother looking up how much each side overspent (i know leave overspent more than remain) and what studies estimate the cost of each vote is in the UK.

[spacein_vader]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other

I may or may not have read the document this article refers to in a professional capacity.

If I had I'm sure I'd say that the article was fairly accurate and that the full documents are actually quite detailed on the various risks and the challenges no deal may create, even if they provide relatively few answers other than the ones the various Local Resilience Forum members have worked bloody hard to come up with themselves over the previous weeks.

If I had.

[Saracen999]

My one hope for some good to come out of what I think both sides can agree is the sorry mess the government/parliament has made of the past 2 years is that it brings about a recognition that our current system of government is no longer fit for purpose.

Something more representitive with a wider choice of parties would be a start.

Now THAT has my 100% agreement.

The only problem is what "something" is. And how to get it.

[stevie lee]

here's my guess as to what might happen:

May finally relents and allows public to vote on whether to accept deal or not.
they make it legally binding. election commission decide on whats on ballot.
and they think same was as May already has, that we cant have another vote on leave/remain - similar rule as to what Bercow mentioned last week on voting on same thing twice.
so the options on ballot are - Accept deal, no deal.
both of which result in leaving EU.

anyone wantto bet?

[OilSheikh]

I am going to bow out of this discussion. Clearly, I have failed to show you what I wanted you to see. Nothing has changed since I brought up all these issues years ago on here.

May God help our country.

[Saracen999]

Two are being investigate by the National Crime Agency, Leave.EU and Better for the Country.

I guess the police dragging their feet accusation stems from the police not logging a formal case into three leave supporting campaigns despite being handed dossiers of potential crimes almost a year ago because of what they claim are political sensitivities.

RE: The any evidence that any of these reporting issues would have affected the referendum result, if one group has spent more than the other then i think it's safe to say that it did, otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of spending money on political campaigns in the first place, how much and to what extent is obviously debatable, however I'm to lazy to bother looking up how much each side overspent (i know leave overspent more than remain) and what studies estimate the cost of each vote is in the UK.

Okay, so the Electoral Commission has passed some suspicions to the NCA who, under the circumstances, are obliged to investigate.

But those allegations are, at this point, no more than allegations and, obviously, are vigorously denied by the they're against. Need I remind you of "innocent until proven guilty", or are we going fir trial by media and allegation, now? Smear camoign justice?

We won't know the truth about those allegations until, first, the NCA conclude their investigation, and second, pass the case to the CPS, ans third, the CPS proceed with the case. Bear in mind, to do so the CPS need to be satisfied that there's a realistic prospect of conviction AND a prosecution is in the public interest.

And after all that, there's .... fourth .... actually getting a conviction.

Nobody other than those involved currently know who did what and whether it was illegal or not, let alone whether it impacted the result.

Not all election/referendum offences are about over-spending. For instance, fail to declare by the deadline and it's an offence, even if the spending was legit. Spend, but mis-categorise it and it's an offence, even if the spending was legit.

Andcas Banks claims, his spending, donating etc was all legal and he's a British citizen, but funny how spending the other way by Soros, who isn't, never seems to be.

Also, funny how the pro-Remain Cameron/Osborne government can spend, what was it, £10m and more, and a whole shedload of staff time preparing and distributing a multi-page colour Remain propaganda leaflet to every household in the country, and that diesn't seem to count.


So again, where's the evidence that the referendum was biased because of soending?

It may have been, but unless we're working on the basis of guilt by smear and allegation now, there isn't yet, and may or may not ever be, evidence confirming that assertion.

And may I remind you, the Electoral Commission is the same one that first advised one way, then decided it was wrong, then levelled punishment over it, only the be reversed by the High Court who told them they'd misunderstood, of all things, election law and who have been condemned by numerous politicians on both sides as being rank incompetent.

Whether that categorisation is correct or not, whether the case is valid or not, it doesn't exactly lend credence to allegations referred to the NCA, now does it?


Unless you're of the "no smoke without fire" perspective on justice, none of the above is evidence. It's merely allegation .... so far.

It might prove to be correct, but we are supposed to believe in innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until someone accuses you.

Aren't we?

[Disturbedguy]

I am going to bow out of this discussion. Clearly, I have failed to show you what I wanted you to see. Nothing has changed since I brought up all these issues years ago on here.

May God help our country.

You mean you can't find the "proof" you claimed you would find?
Or did you not get the instant rallying of support you expected?

[Corky34]

Okay, so the Electoral Commission has passed some suspicions to the NCA who, under the circumstances, are obliged to investigate.

Not really, the Electoral Commission have found at least three of the leave campaigns guilty of electoral offenses and issued fines, they've passed their investigation dossiers to the police and NCA because during their investigation some of the sources of the money and overspend couldn't be accounted for and they (the Electoral Commission) don't have the required powers to investigate further, hence why they've involved the police and the agency responsible for investigating international crime.

I mean they say they have/had reasonable grounds, which is a higher evidence standard than reasonable suspicion.

But those allegations are, at this point, no more than allegations and, obviously, are vigorously denied by the they're against. Need I remind you of "innocent until proven guilty", or are we going fir trial by media and allegation, now? Smear camoign justice?

Not really, see above link, Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission for offences committed under electoral law along with at least 3 other leave supporting campaigns.

Okay, so the Electoral Commission has passed some suspicions to the NCA who, under the circumstances, are obliged to investigate.Nobody other than those involved currently know who did what and whether it was illegal or not, let alone whether it impacted the result.

Not all election/referendum offences are about over-spending. For instance, fail to declare by the deadline and it's an offence, even if the spending was legit. Spend, but mis-categorise it and it's an offence, even if the spending was legit.

As i said before if spending didn't effect anything then why bother spending anything at all, and we know what they've done, at least we know as far as the Electoral Commission have found them guilty of breaking electoral law, as detail in this PDF report.

True, not all election/referendum offenses are about over-spending, for instance the two fines levied at remain supporting groups were for what would be classed as administrative errors, however IIRC every offense committed by leave supporting campaigns were for overspending and for running a coordinated plan (see links already provided).

Andcas Banks claims, his spending, donating etc was all legal and he's a British citizen, but funny how spending the other way by Soros, who isn't, never seems to be.

Soros? Really?

Also, funny how the pro-Remain Cameron/Osborne government can spend, what was it, £10m and more, and a whole shedload of staff time preparing and distributing a multi-page colour Remain propaganda leaflet to every household in the country, and that diesn't seem to count.

You mean the information they were legally obliged to provide the electorate before holding a referendum? A legal obligation on all EU member states "imposed" on them from the EU BTW in order to make sure the electorate are well-informed, that being a prerequisites to democracy an all. That sure backfired on them as it allowed people to wrongly claim it was an establishment stitch-up.

So again, where's the evidence that the referendum was biased because of soending?

It may have been, but unless we're working on the basis of guilt by smear and allegation now, there isn't yet, and may or may not ever be, evidence confirming that assertion.

And may I remind you, the Electoral Commission is the same one that first advised one way, then decided it was wrong, then levelled punishment over it, only the be reversed by the High Court who told them they'd misunderstood, of all things, election law and who have been condemned by numerous politicians on both sides as being rank incompetent.

Whether that categorisation is correct or not, whether the case is valid or not, it doesn't exactly lend credence to allegations referred to the NCA, now does it?


Unless you're of the "no smoke without fire" perspective on justice, none of the above is evidence. It's merely allegation .... so far.

It might prove to be correct, but we are supposed to believe in innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until someone accuses you.

Aren't we?

It's late now and I'm off to bed, if no ones made another post during the night and i have time tomorrow I'll do an edit to discuss your further points.

[Saracen999]

....

I mean they say they have/had reasonable grounds, which is a higher evidence standard than reasonable suspicion.

....

It's late now and I'm off to bed, if no ones made another post during the night and i have time tomorrow I'll do an edit to discuss your further points.

On the first bit, no, they're two says, one kindzof shorthand, for the same thing. Ths actual phrase is "reasonable grounds to suspect". Of course there is then a significant body of both law and procedure, as to what constitutes "reasonable grounds".

Nothing is actually done on just "reasonable suspicion" because there has to be a rational and non-discriminatory legally justifiable basis, not just a pure judgement call on "reasonable"

Nonetheless, "reasonable grounds to suspect"isn't proof.


As for discussing my other points, please take this in the tone in which it is intended, wikch is friendly and non-offensive, but please don't bother on my sccount. I mean, if you want to do so anyway, obviously, go right ahead, but not to answer me.

For my part, I feel this has now gone way off topic and even when on-topic was going round in circles. I've spent most of the last week or so avoiding TV news, and despite normally watching current affairs programs like Newsnight, Marr, Politics Live, Peston, etc, have been avoiding them for months because they seem incapable of talking about much else beyond Brexit.

So, I've pretty much had enough of this thread too, and will be trying to remember to not even read it.

I've enjoyed, as much as I can with Brexit, bouncing it back and for with you Corky, and I think we've had an exemplary example of two people with very different views discussing it decently, politely and reasonably. But I'm about Brexited-out, at least for a while. As I say, I don't mean this in any way offensively.