You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast
Format:  Go
2016 referendum was illegal
AuthorMessage
userpelmetman
Posted: 8 March 2019 8:30 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Bulletguy - 2019-03-08 8:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2019-03-08 7:35 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-08 6:18 PM

Violet1956 - 2019-03-08 5:26 PM

Ever the “knitpicker” (according to Dave P), I believe there’s a distinction to be drawn between illegal practices involved in the referendum campaign and what is currently being described by some as an “illegal” referendum. From my reading of Mr Justice Ouseley’s decision he found that the referendum was not illegal under statute (in particular “The Representation of the People Act) or at common law. I’ve only skimmed his judgement and that’s the best I can make of it as it’s time for my afternoon nap but for those who like reading the dry stuff here’s a link to his judgment.

https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/260395-Judgment-10.12.2018-Version-for-publication.pdf


So basically its got bog all to do with democracy ...........

Its just a legal bitchfest by losers ..........and they lost AGAIN ......

No, it has got everything to do with democracy. The points in issue was whether TM acted in accordance with the law, and more importantly whether she acted reasonably. The claimaints maintained that the consequence of TM triggering Article 50 before the investigation into the unlawful conduct was complete was not reasonable because the offences committed undermined democracy by skewing/influencing the vote. Whilst TM was not bound by statute or under common law to say we must re-run the referendum or declare the result void some maintain that she was neverthless honour bound under democratic principles to do so.

Pelmets interpretation of democracy is to applaud the use of criminality to subvert it. Post referendum much more has now come to light. Viewing C4's reports on the Banks files has been truly chilling and can only hope the NCA are following the money as that's the only way they will get to the bottom of this, but it's a massive task with a PM who knows time isn't on the NCA's side. A50 should never have been triggered when it was.

Yes i had to whack the speaker volume up on those clips. Both sides had very poor mic's set too far away and Miss Simor QC was barely audible. If you run any normal YT clip through after you'll find you have turn the volume level back down. Pity the entire court transcript doesn't seem available.


Did you win this case?............Nope ......

Has Bank's been charged?......Nope ......

userjumpstart
Posted: 9 March 2019 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 170
1002525
Location: Somerset


Harvey heaven is obviously a Russian troll. So all your Information has come from.....wait for it ..yes the press. Presumably the same press you claim put out false news.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 9 March 2019 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pottypam - 2019-03-08 3:27 PM
I don’t usually get involved in these discussions but I am sick and tired of people saying the 2016 Referendum was advisory. The following is a quote from the Government’s leaflet that was sent to every household in the country:
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
In what way can that be taken as advisory.………………….

The point about the referendum being advisory appears primarily to be constitutional. Under our constitution only parliament is sovereign, and only the sovereign parliament has the power to enact law.

All parliament did was to authorise the conduct of a referendum, to do which it had to pass an Act of Parliament (The European Union Referendum Act 2015), which was itself introduced under powers granted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The result of the referendum is then valid only if the legal framework under which it was conducted was observed to the satisfaction of the Electoral Commission (whose powers come from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is why the dispute over the legality Arron Banks various donations resides with them).

This leaves the government is legally free to ignore the result of a referendum if it so chooses. It could also declare the referendum result void if the Electoral Commission finds that its conduct had been in some way fraudulent. This is where the legal argument about parliament authorising the government to submit its notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty comes in. (It did this before the Electoral Commission had completed its examination of the Leave Eu etc. donations. What if the Commission finds against Banks, and rules that the donations were so grossly excessive that it considers the referendum outcome "unsafe"? What if that ruling is not made until after we have, actually, left the EU? That really would be interesting! )

Constitutionally, no government can bind a future government to a particular course of action, simply because it is not government that makes law (saving under enabling legislation), it is parliament (which legislates in stead of the Monarch, whose signature is still required before any parliamentary legislation is legally enforceable). Parliament, with Royal Assent, can repeal or revise any extant law at any time of its choosing.

This is why the various Referendum Acts do not set out to create conditions under which the result of a referendum supplants the power of the Crown, and is why, constitutionally, their results can only be advisory to the government, who must then seek (or not) the assent of parliament (and through parliament the Crown) for any legislative change that may be necessary to realise the referendum outcome.

So, what the government actually did was to give a written assurance to every eligible voter that it would carry through the result of the referendum, but it was not, and could not be, legally obliged to do this. At least, that is how I understand the position.
userpelmetman
Posted: 10 March 2019 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-09 5:04 PM

pottypam - 2019-03-08 3:27 PM
I don’t usually get involved in these discussions but I am sick and tired of people saying the 2016 Referendum was advisory. The following is a quote from the Government’s leaflet that was sent to every household in the country:
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
In what way can that be taken as advisory.………………….

The point about the referendum being advisory appears primarily to be constitutional. Under our constitution only parliament is sovereign, and only the sovereign parliament has the power to enact law.

All parliament did was to authorise the conduct of a referendum, to do which it had to pass an Act of Parliament (The European Union Referendum Act 2015), which was itself introduced under powers granted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The result of the referendum is then valid only if the legal framework under which it was conducted was observed to the satisfaction of the Electoral Commission (whose powers come from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is why the dispute over the legality Arron Banks various donations resides with them).

This leaves the government is legally free to ignore the result of a referendum if it so chooses. It could also declare the referendum result void if the Electoral Commission finds that its conduct had been in some way fraudulent. This is where the legal argument about parliament authorising the government to submit its notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty comes in. (It did this before the Electoral Commission had completed its examination of the Leave Eu etc. donations. What if the Commission finds against Banks, and rules that the donations were so grossly excessive that it considers the referendum outcome "unsafe"? What if that ruling is not made until after we have, actually, left the EU? That really would be interesting! )

Constitutionally, no government can bind a future government to a particular course of action, simply because it is not government that makes law (saving under enabling legislation), it is parliament (which legislates in stead of the Monarch, whose signature is still required before any parliamentary legislation is legally enforceable). Parliament, with Royal Assent, can repeal or revise any extant law at any time of its choosing.

This is why the various Referendum Acts do not set out to create conditions under which the result of a referendum supplants the power of the Crown, and is why, constitutionally, their results can only be advisory to the government, who must then seek (or not) the assent of parliament (and through parliament the Crown) for any legislative change that may be necessary to realise the referendum outcome.

So, what the government actually did was to give a written assurance to every eligible voter that it would carry through the result of the referendum, but it was not, and could not be, legally obliged to do this. At least, that is how I understand the position.


So a LOSERS VOTE would be advisory to? ........

Unless you won and then you'd soon change your hypocritical tune ..........

userViolet1956
Posted: 10 March 2019 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


2000500100252525


I’ve read Brian’s post and I know the answer to your question Dave why don’t you? If you had really understood or followed the Miller case you would know that the government agrees with him.

It will be interesting to see if leave to appeal is sought against the Court of Appeal decision in the Wilson case heard on 21 February once the written judgement is handed down. I think there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court but I am not sure. A delay in Brexit of a short period might facilitate a speedy onward appeal process but it’s a bit touch and go to say the least.

This article provides an excellent expose of the issues in the Wilson Case and arguments in favour of it. The Court of Appeal doesn’t always get things right.

http://www.brexitshambles.com/dr-robert-c-palmer-explains-the-significance-of-the-wilson-case-and-the-intriguing-law-behind-it/
userBarryd999
Posted: 10 March 2019 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5597
5000500252525
Location: North Yorkshire Dales - Kontiki 640 Hank the Tank


pelmetman - 2019-03-10 8:30 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-09 5:04 PM

pottypam - 2019-03-08 3:27 PM
I don’t usually get involved in these discussions but I am sick and tired of people saying the 2016 Referendum was advisory. The following is a quote from the Government’s leaflet that was sent to every household in the country:
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
In what way can that be taken as advisory.………………….

The point about the referendum being advisory appears primarily to be constitutional. Under our constitution only parliament is sovereign, and only the sovereign parliament has the power to enact law.

All parliament did was to authorise the conduct of a referendum, to do which it had to pass an Act of Parliament (The European Union Referendum Act 2015), which was itself introduced under powers granted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The result of the referendum is then valid only if the legal framework under which it was conducted was observed to the satisfaction of the Electoral Commission (whose powers come from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is why the dispute over the legality Arron Banks various donations resides with them).

This leaves the government is legally free to ignore the result of a referendum if it so chooses. It could also declare the referendum result void if the Electoral Commission finds that its conduct had been in some way fraudulent. This is where the legal argument about parliament authorising the government to submit its notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty comes in. (It did this before the Electoral Commission had completed its examination of the Leave Eu etc. donations. What if the Commission finds against Banks, and rules that the donations were so grossly excessive that it considers the referendum outcome "unsafe"? What if that ruling is not made until after we have, actually, left the EU? That really would be interesting! )

Constitutionally, no government can bind a future government to a particular course of action, simply because it is not government that makes law (saving under enabling legislation), it is parliament (which legislates in stead of the Monarch, whose signature is still required before any parliamentary legislation is legally enforceable). Parliament, with Royal Assent, can repeal or revise any extant law at any time of its choosing.

This is why the various Referendum Acts do not set out to create conditions under which the result of a referendum supplants the power of the Crown, and is why, constitutionally, their results can only be advisory to the government, who must then seek (or not) the assent of parliament (and through parliament the Crown) for any legislative change that may be necessary to realise the referendum outcome.

So, what the government actually did was to give a written assurance to every eligible voter that it would carry through the result of the referendum, but it was not, and could not be, legally obliged to do this. At least, that is how I understand the position.


So a LOSERS VOTE would be advisory to? ........

Unless you won and then you'd soon change your hypocritical tune ..........



Nope. If its a referendum based on whatever the final deal is and remain then its likely it will be legally binding and the choice will have to be implemented. The numbers are not quite there yet in parliament but they are growing and it will come down to if Article 50 is extended and we fail to agree an outcome as to whether there will be enough support for such a vote. It looks more likely that article 50 will get extended and either Theresas red lines will shift towards a softer Brexit with a customs union or there will be a public vote on the deal or remain. If that happens the government will have lost control of Brexit and parliament will have taken over essentially.
userpelmetman
Posted: 10 March 2019 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Barryd999 - 2019-03-10 10:29 AM

pelmetman - 2019-03-10 8:30 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-09 5:04 PM

pottypam - 2019-03-08 3:27 PM
I don’t usually get involved in these discussions but I am sick and tired of people saying the 2016 Referendum was advisory. The following is a quote from the Government’s leaflet that was sent to every household in the country:
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
In what way can that be taken as advisory.………………….

The point about the referendum being advisory appears primarily to be constitutional. Under our constitution only parliament is sovereign, and only the sovereign parliament has the power to enact law.

All parliament did was to authorise the conduct of a referendum, to do which it had to pass an Act of Parliament (The European Union Referendum Act 2015), which was itself introduced under powers granted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The result of the referendum is then valid only if the legal framework under which it was conducted was observed to the satisfaction of the Electoral Commission (whose powers come from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is why the dispute over the legality Arron Banks various donations resides with them).

This leaves the government is legally free to ignore the result of a referendum if it so chooses. It could also declare the referendum result void if the Electoral Commission finds that its conduct had been in some way fraudulent. This is where the legal argument about parliament authorising the government to submit its notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty comes in. (It did this before the Electoral Commission had completed its examination of the Leave Eu etc. donations. What if the Commission finds against Banks, and rules that the donations were so grossly excessive that it considers the referendum outcome "unsafe"? What if that ruling is not made until after we have, actually, left the EU? That really would be interesting! )

Constitutionally, no government can bind a future government to a particular course of action, simply because it is not government that makes law (saving under enabling legislation), it is parliament (which legislates in stead of the Monarch, whose signature is still required before any parliamentary legislation is legally enforceable). Parliament, with Royal Assent, can repeal or revise any extant law at any time of its choosing.

This is why the various Referendum Acts do not set out to create conditions under which the result of a referendum supplants the power of the Crown, and is why, constitutionally, their results can only be advisory to the government, who must then seek (or not) the assent of parliament (and through parliament the Crown) for any legislative change that may be necessary to realise the referendum outcome.

So, what the government actually did was to give a written assurance to every eligible voter that it would carry through the result of the referendum, but it was not, and could not be, legally obliged to do this. At least, that is how I understand the position.


So a LOSERS VOTE would be advisory to? ........

Unless you won and then you'd soon change your hypocritical tune ..........



Nope. If its a referendum based on whatever the final deal is and remain then its likely it will be legally binding and the choice will have to be implemented. The numbers are not quite there yet in parliament but they are growing and it will come down to if Article 50 is extended and we fail to agree an outcome as to whether there will be enough support for such a vote. It looks more likely that article 50 will get extended and either Theresas red lines will shift towards a softer Brexit with a customs union or there will be a public vote on the deal or remain. If that happens the government will have lost control of Brexit and parliament will have taken over essentially.


Oh I see a Losers Vote will be legally binding ............

Unless of course you lose ........

userViolet1956
Posted: 10 March 2019 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


2000500100252525


No, it would likely be advisory because Parliament is sovereign. However there should be anxious scrutiny of the conduct of campaigners, particularly of pro-Brexit groups given that we now know that they broke the rules the first time round.
userpelmetman
Posted: 10 March 2019 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Violet1956 - 2019-03-10 2:41 PM

No, it would likely be advisory because Parliament is sovereign. However there should be anxious scrutiny of the conduct of campaigners, particularly of pro-Brexit groups given that we now know that they broke the rules the first time round.


And Cameron didn't when he used 9 million of tax payers money? ..........

Oh silly me.......I forgot its Remoaners who make the rules ........

userBarryd999
Posted: 10 March 2019 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5597
5000500252525
Location: North Yorkshire Dales - Kontiki 640 Hank the Tank


pelmetman - 2019-03-10 2:46 PM

Violet1956 - 2019-03-10 2:41 PM

No, it would likely be advisory because Parliament is sovereign. However there should be anxious scrutiny of the conduct of campaigners, particularly of pro-Brexit groups given that we now know that they broke the rules the first time round.


And Cameron didn't when he used 9 million of tax payers money? ..........

Oh silly me.......I forgot its Remoaners who make the rules ........



That is correct Dave, he never broke the rules.

userpelmetman
Posted: 10 March 2019 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Barryd999 - 2019-03-10 3:11 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-10 2:46 PM

Violet1956 - 2019-03-10 2:41 PM

No, it would likely be advisory because Parliament is sovereign. However there should be anxious scrutiny of the conduct of campaigners, particularly of pro-Brexit groups given that we now know that they broke the rules the first time round.


And Cameron didn't when he used 9 million of tax payers money? ..........

Oh silly me.......I forgot its Remoaners who make the rules ........



That is correct Dave, he never broke the rules.



Yeah Barry......coz he is a Remoaner who made the rules .........

userBulletguy
Posted: 10 March 2019 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


The special one

Posts: 10139
5000500010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


pelmetman - 2019-03-10 5:36 PM

Barryd999 - 2019-03-10 3:11 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-10 2:46 PM

Violet1956 - 2019-03-10 2:41 PM

No, it would likely be advisory because Parliament is sovereign. However there should be anxious scrutiny of the conduct of campaigners, particularly of pro-Brexit groups given that we now know that they broke the rules the first time round.


And Cameron didn't when he used 9 million of tax payers money? ..........

Oh silly me.......I forgot its Remoaners who make the rules ........



That is correct Dave, he never broke the rules.



Yeah Barry......coz he is a Remoaner who made the rules .........

You don't half spout a load of tripe. The laws have been in place for years long before Cameron was PM and the EC regulates.
userantony1969
Posted: 10 March 2019 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Jesus
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pelmetman - 2019-03-10 8:30 AM..............................So a LOSERS VOTE would be advisory to? ........

Yes Dave, as you should have understood from what I wrote.

Under the UK constitution, any referendum is advisory. All a referendum is, is a giant public opinion poll conducted under electoral rules. The conduct of the referendum has to have been legal (which in this instance was not the case) but, even if it were flawlessly legal, all it could do is indicate a public preference, or desire, for the outcome. It notifies parliament of a public demand for parliament to consider the issue. It cannot bind parliament to carry out the wishes of the public, because it is parliament that is sovereign. That is the essence of the British constitution.

"British laws for British subjects" was one of the reasons people voted for Brexit. Its a bit ironic that those who object to Britain being subject to laws made in the EU, now object to Britain being subject to law made (over several hundred years) in Britain. Whose law, apart from Dave's law, would you wish Britain to use instead? Martian law?

If you're not convinced, find your thinking cap, put it on, and read the article Veronica linked to above, from beginning to end. It lays it out far more clearly, and authoritatively, (though at some length) than I ever could.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 8:34 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


antony1969 - 2019-03-10 7:37 PM
Jesus

Not a legally sound argument, Antony. Facts before beliefs?
userpelmetman
Posted: 11 March 2019 9:02 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 8:33 AM

pelmetman - 2019-03-10 8:30 AM..............................So a LOSERS VOTE would be advisory to? ........

Yes Dave, as you should have understood from what I wrote.

Under the UK constitution, any referendum is advisory. All a referendum is, is a giant public opinion poll conducted under electoral rules. The conduct of the referendum has to have been legal (which in this instance was not the case) but, even if it were flawlessly legal, all it could do is indicate a public preference, or desire, for the outcome. It notifies parliament of a public demand for parliament to consider the issue. It cannot bind parliament to carry out the wishes of the public, because it is parliament that is sovereign. That is the essence of the British constitution.

"British laws for British subjects" was one of the reasons people voted for Brexit. Its a bit ironic that those who object to Britain being subject to laws made in the EU, now object to Britain being subject to law made (over several hundred years) in Britain. Whose law, apart from Dave's law, would you wish Britain to use instead? Martian law?

If you're not convinced, find your thinking cap, put it on, and read the article Veronica linked to above, from beginning to end. It lays it out far more clearly, and authoritatively, (though at some length) than I ever could.


So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............

Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian!

Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?
userpottypam
Posted: 11 March 2019 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 
Pops in from time to time

Posts: 108
100
Location: South West Scotland


Was the referendum illegal? Depends what is meant by “the referendum”. It was instituted by an Act of Parliament, so therefore the holding of it was legal.

Was the carrying out of the referendum legal? I don’ think anyone has suggested that there was anything illegal about way it was organised, no rigging of ballots, destroying of ballot papers, etc.

Was the conduct of the campaigners illegal? It appears that there may have been financial irregularities but, so far, no criminal charges have been brought.

Was the implementation of the referendum legal? Yes, Article 50 was implemented by an Act of Parliament.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pottypam - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM

Was the referendum illegal? Depends what is meant by “the referendum”. It was instituted by an Act of Parliament, so therefore the holding of it was legal.

Was the carrying out of the referendum legal? I don’ think anyone has suggested that there was anything illegal about way it was organised, no rigging of ballots, destroying of ballot papers, etc.

Was the conduct of the campaigners illegal? It appears that there may have been financial irregularities but, so far, no criminal charges have been brought.

Was the implementation of the referendum legal? Yes, Article 50 was implemented by an Act of Parliament.

On the last point, no. First, the referendum decision has not yet been implemented: we have not yet left. Second, as the article linked above by Veronica sets out, the article 50 notification was submitted on a false prospectus - that the conduct of the referendum, and so its outcome, cannot be said to have been constitutional, because of the alleged (but as yet unproved) fraud perpetrated by the leave campaign.

Charges may not yet have been brought, but that does not mean they will not be brought when all the evidence has been assembled and evaluated. If they are, and if they are proved in court, where would that leave us?

We should have submitted a notification under the Lisbon Treaty that was not in accordance with our own constitution, so cannot be valid under that treaty.

It seems to me that the legality of the referendum, and so all decisions made based on its outcome, have to be tested legally before we leave. It would be completely daft to leave, and then find we had no actual legal right to have done so. Where would that leave us?
userViolet1956
Posted: 11 March 2019 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


2000500100252525


I believe Pam’s statement about the law as it stands, as expressed in the Judgement of Mr Justice Ouseley and upheld by the Court of Appeal is right. Any judgement of the Court of Appeal is authoritative unless overturned by the Supreme Court. Though as is often said by Judges, they make judgments according to the law not morals.

Edited by Violet1956 2019-03-11 9:53 AM
userantony1969
Posted: 11 March 2019 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 8:34 AM

antony1969 - 2019-03-10 7:37 PM
Jesus

Not a legally sound argument, Antony. Facts before beliefs?


You can argue all you want on here no one is changing their minds on anything ... My call to Jesus is simply for him to perform a miracle and shut the whingers up
userpottypam
Posted: 11 March 2019 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 
Pops in from time to time

Posts: 108
100
Location: South West Scotland


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:25 AM

pottypam - 2019-03-11 9:09

We should have submitted a notification under the Lisbon Treaty that was not in accordance with our own constitution, so cannot be valid under that treaty /QUOTE]

Sorry Brian, don’t understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that the notification submitted should not have been in accordance with our constitution ? Or do you mean that the notification was not in accordance with our constitution? Either way, we don’t actually have a constitution, we have laws based on Acts of Parliament.
userViolet1956
Posted: 11 March 2019 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


2000500100252525


Here's a good article from the oracle on British Constitution

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pottypam - 2019-03-11 11:08 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:25 AM
We should have submitted a notification under the Lisbon Treaty that was not in accordance with our own constitution, so cannot be valid under that treaty


Sorry Brian, don’t understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that the notification submitted should not have been in accordance with our constitution ? Or do you mean that the notification was not in accordance with our constitution? Either way, we don’t actually have a constitution, we have laws based on Acts of Parliament.

Sorry Pam, I was using "should" in the conditional sense, not the imperative. What I meant is that as the referendum vote may have been influenced by the alleged funding irregularities, it may turn out to be unreliable, and so void. This link, posted above by Veronica, sets it out best: http://tinyurl.com/y3pgpm8e

To be valid under the Lisbon Treaty, the Article 50 notification has to be submitted in accordance with the constitution of the state concerned.

If the referendum result was not gained in accordance with the relevant UK laws (i.e. the Acts governing elections and referendums, including the 2016 Referendum Act) - which it seems it may not have been - then it would not have been gained in accordance with our constitution, and the government would have been wrong to rely on the referendum result when seeking parliamentary approval to submit the Article 50 notification.

It is not that we don't have a constitution, just that we don't have is a written constitution - where it is all spelled out in one document. As you say, it is built up from a variety of laws (a mix of common and statute law) that, in some cases, pre-date the existence of parliament. That was the reason the Government lost the "Gina Miller" case. The law the government tried to rely upon originated with Henry VIII, but could not be invoked by the Executive alone (the government), only by the sovereign power (which was then Henry, but is now Parliament).

This seems potentially another case of the government trying to push through its agenda without having (albeit for a different reason) the constitutional power to do so. It seems that issue can only be determined via the courts, and ultimately, as the issue is constitutional, by the Supreme Court.
userpelmetman
Posted: 11 March 2019 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM

pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian!

Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?


Really? ..........

Why does the EC website say this???? ..........

"Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum

We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums."

Perhaps you could link to where it says on the Electoral Commission website it states....... "the Referendum was not legal" ? .........



Edited by pelmetman 2019-03-11 4:25 PM
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 11 March 2019 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


500050005000100010010010010025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


pelmetman - 2019-03-11 4:22 PM
Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM
pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ;-) ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go :D ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian! :-D
Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?

Really? *-) ..........
Why does the EC website say this???? ;-) ..........
"Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum
We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums."
Perhaps you could link to where it says on the Electoral Commission website it states....... "the Referendum was not legal" ? :D .........

Not bothered what the EC website says on the subject - though I'm shocked that you would quote them! :-D It was a UK referendum, held under UK rules, so it is UK requirements it had to meet.

This is the article that Veronica linked to, in which the reasoning, legal arguments, and comments regarding what the Electoral Commission enquiries have revealed are set out. http://tinyurl.com/y3pgpm8e

If you read it all, resisting the temptation to top-slice it - which seems your usual approach to anything longer that a tweet - you will see that the Electoral Commission are unhappy with the funding of the leave campaign.

If there were funding irregularities in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as the Electoral Commission seems to think, which is why they are looking into the leave campaign's funding streams), then the referendum result may well have been illegally gained, and may yet be ruled void and unconstitutional. At present, you won't find a great big sign hanging up somewhere, saying "EU referendum illegal". You'll just get a judgement that says whether or not there were infringements of the funding rules, and if so whether they are sufficiently serious that they call into question the referendum result.

After all, out of the 33.5 million votes cast, it only needed 636,000 (2%) to have been unfairly influenced for the result to have been fraudulent. So just two people in every hundred.

Edited by Brian Kirby 2019-03-11 5:54 PM
userpelmetman
Posted: 11 March 2019 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 5:51 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-11 4:22 PM
Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM
pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian!
Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?

Really? ..........
Why does the EC website say this???? ..........
"Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum
We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums."
Perhaps you could link to where it says on the Electoral Commission website it states....... "the Referendum was not legal" ? .........

Not bothered what the EC website says on the subject - though I'm shocked that you would quote them! It was a UK referendum, held under UK rules, so it is UK requirements it had to meet.

This is the article that Veronica linked to, in which the reasoning, legal arguments, and comments regarding what the Electoral Commission enquiries have revealed are set out. http://tinyurl.com/y3pgpm8e

If you read it all, resisting the temptation to top-slice it - which seems your usual approach to anything longer that a tweet - you will see that the Electoral Commission are unhappy with the funding of the leave campaign.

If there were funding irregularities in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as the Electoral Commission seems to think, which is why they are looking into the leave campaign's funding streams), then the referendum result may well have been illegally gained, and may yet be ruled void and unconstitutional. At present, you won't find a great big sign hanging up somewhere, saying "EU referendum illegal". You'll just get a judgement that says whether or not there were infringements of the funding rules, and if so whether they are sufficiently serious that they call into question the referendum result.

After all, out of the 33.5 million votes cast, it only needed 636,000 (2%) to have been unfairly influenced for the result to have been fraudulent. So just two people in every hundred.


So you are peddling FAKE NEWS by saying the referendum was illegal ...........

I note you're not bothered by Cameron using 9 million of taxpayers money to unfairly influence the result ..............

Typical Remoaner hypocrisy from yourself as per usual .............

Roll on the 29th ............

userViolet1956
Posted: 11 March 2019 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


2000500100252525


pelmetman - 2019-03-11 6:42 PM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 5:51 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-11 4:22 PM
Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM
pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian!
Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?

Really? ..........
Why does the EC website say this???? ..........
"Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum
We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums."
Perhaps you could link to where it says on the Electoral Commission website it states....... "the Referendum was not legal" ? .........

Not bothered what the EC website says on the subject - though I'm shocked that you would quote them! It was a UK referendum, held under UK rules, so it is UK requirements it had to meet.

This is the article that Veronica linked to, in which the reasoning, legal arguments, and comments regarding what the Electoral Commission enquiries have revealed are set out. http://tinyurl.com/y3pgpm8e

If you read it all, resisting the temptation to top-slice it - which seems your usual approach to anything longer that a tweet - you will see that the Electoral Commission are unhappy with the funding of the leave campaign.

If there were funding irregularities in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as the Electoral Commission seems to think, which is why they are looking into the leave campaign's funding streams), then the referendum result may well have been illegally gained, and may yet be ruled void and unconstitutional. At present, you won't find a great big sign hanging up somewhere, saying "EU referendum illegal". You'll just get a judgement that says whether or not there were infringements of the funding rules, and if so whether they are sufficiently serious that they call into question the referendum result.

After all, out of the 33.5 million votes cast, it only needed 636,000 (2%) to have been unfairly influenced for the result to have been fraudulent. So just two people in every hundred.


So you are peddling FAKE NEWS by saying the referendum was illegal ...........

I note you're not bothered by Cameron using 9 million of taxpayers money to unfairly influence the result ..............

Typical Remoaner hypocrisy from yourself as per usual .............

Roll on the 29th ............

The government were obliged to inform the electorate of its view in a balanced way. The leaflet dealt with the arguments for and against. Its spending on the leaflet was entirely lawful unless proved otherwise. Whereas we now know that there was unlawful overspend by Brexit groups.
userjumpstart
Posted: 11 March 2019 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 170
1002525
Location: Somerset


So what. Speculative infringement of funding. Grasping straws. As it stands it’s legal.
userpelmetman
Posted: 11 March 2019 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 referendum was illegal
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 26483
500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Violet1956 - 2019-03-11 6:55 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-11 6:42 PM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 5:51 PM

pelmetman - 2019-03-11 4:22 PM
Brian Kirby - 2019-03-11 9:09 AM
pelmetman - 2019-03-11 9:02 AM...………………….
So the 2016 referendum wasn't illegal ............
Glad we've got that sorted with just 18 days to go ..........

Dave: read, then comment. Either that, or tell us which language we should use to communicate with you, since plain English clearly doesn't work. However, I should warn you that I'm not even remotely proficient in Martian!
Short answer? As I said above, according to the investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, the 2016 referendum was not legal. Why do I endlessly have to repeat myself?

Really? ..........
Why does the EC website say this???? ..........
"Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum
We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums."
Perhaps you could link to where it says on the Electoral Commission website it states....... "the Referendum was not legal" ? .........

Not bothered what the EC website says on the subject - though I'm shocked that you would quote them! It was a UK referendum, held under UK rules, so it is UK requirements it had to meet.

This is the article that Veronica linked to, in which the reasoning, legal arguments, and comments regarding what the Electoral Commission enquiries have revealed are set out. http://tinyurl.com/y3pgpm8e

If you read it all, resisting the temptation to top-slice it - which seems your usual approach to anything longer that a tweet - you will see that the Electoral Commission are unhappy with the funding of the leave campaign.

If there were funding irregularities in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as the Electoral Commission seems to think, which is why they are looking into the leave campaign's funding streams), then the referendum result may well have been illegally gained, and may yet be ruled void and unconstitutional. At present, you won't find a great big sign hanging up somewhere, saying "EU referendum illegal". You'll just get a judgement that says whether or not there were infringements of the funding rules, and if so whether they are sufficiently serious that they call into question the referendum result.

After all, out of the 33.5 million votes cast, it only needed 636,000 (2%) to have been unfairly influenced for the result to have been fraudulent. So just two people in every hundred.


So you are peddling FAKE NEWS by saying the referendum was illegal ...........

I note you're not bothered by Cameron using 9 million of taxpayers money to unfairly influence the result ..............

Typical Remoaner hypocrisy from yourself as per usual .............

Roll on the 29th ............

The government were obliged to inform the electorate of its view in a balanced way. The leaflet dealt with the arguments for and against. Its spending on the leaflet was entirely lawful unless proved otherwise. Whereas we now know that there was unlawful overspend by Brexit groups.


You are a Remoaner Veronica ......So you would say that .........

I seem to recall the government also said we'd have an emergency budget, an immediate recession and 850,000 job losses by now ...........

So their balanced view has been completely wrong ...........



Edited by pelmetman 2019-03-11 7:01 PM
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator