FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EU Referendum to be declared illegal
EU Referendum to be declared illegal
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"I have been fed unicorn shit and i liked it "The real problem is is that a lot of BREXITERS can't tell the difference between an imaginary flying unicorn and a real pig in a poke. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Well parliament have seized Facebook documents between Cambridge Analytical which apparently is going to open a can of worms!" I read a rather complicated story in an American newspaper about the ties between Cambridge Analytica, Banks and his Leave campaign, and the Trump team. Basically, about all the rules that were being broken. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household?" If they had spent the 9 million on a better campaign instead of a poxy leaflet drop which probably made someone very rich maybe they would have won | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. " It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!  | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household?" I disagreed with the 9 million spent on that as it was whilst legally OK it was not right unless the funds were split between both sides in the referendum but if electoral law etc has been broken then the law needs to be enforced.. | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household?" Your refering to the leaflets produced by the government in accordance with their legal requirement to advise the population of the facts. As you have quite rightly said "within the rules" - it's all about rules and legal requirement so your post is somewhat redundant! Leave could have done the same before the referendum rules kicked in! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon!" This isn't the Olympics..... | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon! This isn't the Olympics....." No it isn't, but when we catch a cheat we do something about it - that's the point! | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon! This isn't the Olympics..... No it isn't, but when we catch a cheat we do something about it - that's the point!" Agreed....someone breaking a law should be punished, but it won't get Brexit reversed. It is too late. | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon!" They do not re-run the race, though. | |||
| |||
"I have only seen this reported in one media outlet and I would have thought that something so fundamental would be receiving much wider coverage? My own thought is that no Government could simply sit on their hands if the biggest donor to the Leave campaign has committed serious crimes and allowed overseas funding of their campaign. It is a pretty big deal to knowingly use foreign funds to promote an internal political campaign, particularly if the funder would realise a benefit from a successful outcome. We don’t know yet if Banks has accepted and used foreign funding, but if he has - there is no way that this country could survive by ignoring it. What kind of precedent does that set?" More thoughts for the hot tub! lol  | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon! They do not re-run the race, though. " Good point! However, I think that there would be trouble either way - vote/no vote! | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household?" "within the rules". That's the important and fundamental difference. So, yes, it really is much worse. One side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law, the other side did not. | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope! "LOL. | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!
LOL.
"A trip to the doctors for an injection of some dignity might help, you seem to be lacking any! Lol | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope! "Sovereignty of parliament means enforcement of electoral Laws. It means due process. If you don't support the procedure you can't really say you support the sovereignty of parliament. | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household? "within the rules". That's the important and fundamental difference. So, yes, it really is much worse. One side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law, the other side did not. " Hopefully what happens after all this is the Law is updated so it's suitable for the digital era. Clearly the fact that our MP's are at least a decade behind regarding data usage, Rights and Responsibilities, shows the legal framework the operate upon needs to be debated. | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!
LOL.
A trip to the doctors for an injection of some dignity might help, you seem to be lacking any! Lol "Whereas you think your comments so far on this thread suggest you have. ROFL! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household? "within the rules". That's the important and fundamental difference. So, yes, it really is much worse. One side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law, the other side did not. Hopefully what happens after all this is the Law is updated so it's suitable for the digital era. Clearly the fact that our MP's are at least a decade behind regarding data usage, Rights and Responsibilities, shows the legal framework the operate upon needs to be debated." I agree, the law on electoral campaigning does need to be updated to so that it's suitable for the digital age. However this is much simpler than that. This is about campaign funding and one side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law in two areas. They over spent by about £600,000 and they illegally sourced £8,000,000 of their campaign funds. We're not talking about a campaign bus being put down as a national campaign expense when it should have been a local expense, or a few leaflets with the wrong agents address posted in them, or food and refreshments being offered to campaigners for free and not including them in election expenses. All those things happen all the time, mostly by accident rather than design, but when found out are punished. This was a clearly willful and deliberate attempt to sway the result of a democratic ballot by illegal means. If this goes unchecked, more so than any rerun of a referendum or backsliding on BREXIT, we will have truly undermined democracy in this country. This is the point. | |||
"Well parliament have seized Facebook documents between Cambridge Analytical which apparently is going to open a can of worms! I read a rather complicated story in an American newspaper about the ties between Cambridge Analytica, Banks and his Leave campaign, and the Trump team. Basically, about all the rules that were being broken. " That American article must have been a crock of shit then. The Information Commission in the Uk already did an investigation into it and ruled that the official Vote Leave campaign paid no money to Cambridge Analytica. The Information Commission also found that the unofficial Leave.Eu campaign had no working relationship with Cambridge Analytica. | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household? Your refering to the leaflets produced by the government in accordance with their legal requirement to advise the population of the facts. As you have quite rightly said "within the rules" - it's all about rules and legal requirement so your post is somewhat redundant! Leave could have done the same before the referendum rules kicked in!" No they couldn't as Leave had no access to taxpayers money. If the government were going to be fair and balanced on this they should have afforded an equal amount to each campaign. | |||
"I have only seen this reported in one media outlet and I would have thought that something so fundamental would be receiving much wider coverage? My own thought is that no Government could simply sit on their hands if the biggest donor to the Leave campaign has committed serious crimes and allowed overseas funding of their campaign. It is a pretty big deal to knowingly use foreign funds to promote an internal political campaign, particularly if the funder would realise a benefit from a successful outcome. We don’t know yet if Banks has accepted and used foreign funding, but if he has - there is no way that this country could survive by ignoring it. What kind of precedent does that set?" The Leave.EU campaign was not the official campaign. If you're going to be a stickler about rules then you need to realise that the Electoral Commission had to pick from 3 separate Leave campaigns and designate only one to be the official one. The Electoral Commission designated Vote Leave as the official Leave campaign. The Grassroots Out (Go) campaign and Leave.Eu were separate unofficial campaigns. You can't null and void a referendum result on anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household? "within the rules". That's the important and fundamental difference. So, yes, it really is much worse. One side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law, the other side did not. " Once again the Leave.EU campaign was not the official leave campaign. The Electoral Commission designated Vote Leave as the official Leave campaign. Also nothing has been proven, these are so far only allegations. | |||
"Is this really any worse than the overspending that the remain campaign did, but "within the rules" by spending millions of taxpayers money on a pro remain government leaflet that was delivered to every household? "within the rules". That's the important and fundamental difference. So, yes, it really is much worse. One side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law, the other side did not. Hopefully what happens after all this is the Law is updated so it's suitable for the digital era. Clearly the fact that our MP's are at least a decade behind regarding data usage, Rights and Responsibilities, shows the legal framework the operate upon needs to be debated. I agree, the law on electoral campaigning does need to be updated to so that it's suitable for the digital age. However this is much simpler than that. This is about campaign funding and one side (the Leave Campaign) deliberately broke the law in two areas. They over spent by about £600,000 and they illegally sourced £8,000,000 of their campaign funds. We're not talking about a campaign bus being put down as a national campaign expense when it should have been a local expense, or a few leaflets with the wrong agents address posted in them, or food and refreshments being offered to campaigners for free and not including them in election expenses. All those things happen all the time, mostly by accident rather than design, but when found out are punished. This was a clearly willful and deliberate attempt to sway the result of a democratic ballot by illegal means. If this goes unchecked, more so than any rerun of a referendum or backsliding on BREXIT, we will have truly undermined democracy in this country. This is the point. " Since when did you turn into Judge Dread, (judge, jury and executioner)? Your use of language on this post suggets they're already guilty. Nothing has been proven and these are only allegations. You would do well to remember the convention in law in this country is innocent until proven guilty. | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!
LOL.
A trip to the doctors for an injection of some dignity might help, you seem to be lacking any! Lol
Whereas you think your comments so far on this thread suggest you have.
ROFL!"You don't strike me as a person who does much laughing let alone rolling about on the floor, just a big bag of wind who can't except reality! I will wait to see if the referedum is declared invalid on Tuesday and come back to you for your excuses when it isn't! | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon! This isn't the Olympics..... No it isn't, but when we catch a cheat we do something about it - that's the point! Agreed....someone breaking a law should be punished, but it won't get Brexit reversed. It is too late." Oh no it isn't | |||
"Ok let's look at precedents - the only political ones I know of are Russian and mainly dictatorships in Africa. So let's use another: Olympics - Russian athlete cheats, wins race by fraudulent means, is found out, Gold medal stripped from them! So could it happen - court case happening soon! This isn't the Olympics..... No it isn't, but when we catch a cheat we do something about it - that's the point! Agreed....someone breaking a law should be punished, but it won't get Brexit reversed. It is too late. Oh no it isn't " Not sure wishful thinking is a strategy for the future......either way. Let's just see where we are on 29th March....... | |||
"I have only seen this reported in one media outlet and I would have thought that something so fundamental would be receiving much wider coverage? My own thought is that no Government could simply sit on their hands if the biggest donor to the Leave campaign has committed serious crimes and allowed overseas funding of their campaign. It is a pretty big deal to knowingly use foreign funds to promote an internal political campaign, particularly if the funder would realise a benefit from a successful outcome. We don’t know yet if Banks has accepted and used foreign funding, but if he has - there is no way that this country could survive by ignoring it. What kind of precedent does that set? The Leave.EU campaign was not the official campaign. If you're going to be a stickler about rules then you need to realise that the Electoral Commission had to pick from 3 separate Leave campaigns and designate only one to be the official one. The Electoral Commission designated Vote Leave as the official Leave campaign. The Grassroots Out (Go) campaign and Leave.Eu were separate unofficial campaigns. You can't null and void a referendum result on anything an unofficial campaign allegedly did. " Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. " The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!
LOL.
A trip to the doctors for an injection of some dignity might help, you seem to be lacking any! Lol
Whereas you think your comments so far on this thread suggest you have.
ROFL!
You don't strike me as a person who does much laughing let alone rolling about on the floor, just a big bag of wind who can't except reality!
I will wait to see if the referedum is declared invalid on Tuesday and come back to you for your excuses when it isn't! "You'll be waiting a long time on Tuesday to hear the result from the High Court on the referendum matter, the High Court is not sitting on that matter until mid December at the earliest. On Tuesday the matter being considered at the ECJ is whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50. | |||
"Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. " Wasn't the referendum only a consultation? The Government said it would abide by the result. So if the result is voided, then we still leave as the referendum is not binding, the EU have now signed off on the exit, there is no mechanism to reverse the exit in EU law, the only way back is for the EU to admit us as a new member with whatever condition is negotiated AND the UK parliament would have to back the mechanism for readmission (a position that was maintained by the Supreme Court when the Remain side wanted parliamentary approval for invoking article 50). In other words....isn't this a case of either wishful thinking or alternatively....horse, door, bolted? | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? " The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. " What, like thinking you're divorced and then finding out that actually, you're not? Perhaps that's been May's game all along! | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. It strikes me that you become more and more desperate as each day goes by and will clutch at any straw to give you some hope!
LOL.
A trip to the doctors for an injection of some dignity might help, you seem to be lacking any! Lol
Whereas you think your comments so far on this thread suggest you have.
ROFL!
You don't strike me as a person who does much laughing let alone rolling about on the floor, just a big bag of wind who can't except reality!
I will wait to see if the referedum is declared invalid on Tuesday and come back to you for your excuses when it isn't!
You'll be waiting a long time on Tuesday to hear the result from the High Court on the referendum matter, the High Court is not sitting on that matter until mid December at the earliest. On Tuesday the matter being considered at the ECJ is whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50.
"You will be the one waiting a long time for a slice of pie in the sky! I think a threat of mass suicide on the 28/3/19 might be the only option to stop it all happening now, I will have to get some bottled water ready just in case any desperate remainers need some to stop the tablets getting stuck! | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. " Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? | |||
"Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. Wasn't the referendum only a consultation? The Government said it would abide by the result. So if the result is voided, then we still leave as the referendum is not binding, the EU have now signed off on the exit, there is no mechanism to reverse the exit in EU law, the only way back is for the EU to admit us as a new member with whatever condition is negotiated AND the UK parliament would have to back the mechanism for readmission (a position that was maintained by the Supreme Court when the Remain side wanted parliamentary approval for invoking article 50). In other words....isn't this a case of either wishful thinking or alternatively....horse, door, bolted?" The matter as to whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50 is being considered at the ECJ on Tuesday. Most, but not all, legal opinion believes that we can. We'll know soon enough. However, even if we can't, it's possiblity possible if all 28 agree and it's also possible that, if the High Court declares the Leave referendum campaign illegal and the result invalid, then the Article 50 letter that triggered the Article 50 process and used the referendum result as its premise, was invalid and therefore Article 50 may not have actually been legally triggered at all. You may call it grabbing at straws, I call it making sure that due process and the law is properly followed whether we leave or remain. | |||
| |||
"Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. Wasn't the referendum only a consultation? The Government said it would abide by the result. So if the result is voided, then we still leave as the referendum is not binding, the EU have now signed off on the exit, there is no mechanism to reverse the exit in EU law, the only way back is for the EU to admit us as a new member with whatever condition is negotiated AND the UK parliament would have to back the mechanism for readmission (a position that was maintained by the Supreme Court when the Remain side wanted parliamentary approval for invoking article 50). In other words....isn't this a case of either wishful thinking or alternatively....horse, door, bolted?" No, still plenty of time for a reversal. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter?" Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. | |||
"I wouldn't put my money on remaining in a two horse race.....it will not void the result as the party in question was not the officially endorsed leave campaign. " The actual criteria will be whether the illegal action significantly altered the result. | |||
"Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. Wasn't the referendum only a consultation? The Government said it would abide by the result. So if the result is voided, then we still leave as the referendum is not binding, the EU have now signed off on the exit, there is no mechanism to reverse the exit in EU law, the only way back is for the EU to admit us as a new member with whatever condition is negotiated AND the UK parliament would have to back the mechanism for readmission (a position that was maintained by the Supreme Court when the Remain side wanted parliamentary approval for invoking article 50). In other words....isn't this a case of either wishful thinking or alternatively....horse, door, bolted? No, still plenty of time for a reversal." No there isn't. We have a Parliament split. Labour are still sticking to the anti vote as any deal will not meet their 6 tests. The Tories are split, the DUP don't want the feal and don't want to invoke an election. The SNP will oppose anything which doesn't point towards independence. Many MPs do not want to overturn the result as their constituents voted leave. Put simply, without an immediate and forceful parliamentary surge to reverse the result (which doesn't exist), the time is now up. It is not the Jungle with a quick phone vote. It will not happen. | |||
"I wouldn't put my money on remaining in a two horse race.....it will not void the result as the party in question was not the officially endorsed leave campaign. The actual criteria will be whether the illegal action significantly altered the result. " *alleged illegal action. Considering remain got an extra £9 million of taxpayers money and it didn't significantly alter the result, then what makes you think Aaron Banks allegedly giving a smaller amount (£8 million) to an unofficial leave campaign would significantly alter the result? Honestly your clutching at straws here is becoming increasingly desperate day by day. | |||
"I wouldn't put my money on remaining in a two horse race.....it will not void the result as the party in question was not the officially endorsed leave campaign. The actual criteria will be whether the illegal action significantly altered the result. *alleged illegal action. Considering remain got an extra £9 million of taxpayers money and it didn't significantly alter the result, then what makes you think Aaron Banks allegedly giving a smaller amount (£8 million) to an unofficial leave campaign would significantly alter the result? Honestly your clutching at straws here is becoming increasingly desperate day by day. " We'll see what the judge says  | |||
"Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. Wasn't the referendum only a consultation? The Government said it would abide by the result. So if the result is voided, then we still leave as the referendum is not binding, the EU have now signed off on the exit, there is no mechanism to reverse the exit in EU law, the only way back is for the EU to admit us as a new member with whatever condition is negotiated AND the UK parliament would have to back the mechanism for readmission (a position that was maintained by the Supreme Court when the Remain side wanted parliamentary approval for invoking article 50). In other words....isn't this a case of either wishful thinking or alternatively....horse, door, bolted? No, still plenty of time for a reversal. No there isn't. We have a Parliament split. Labour are still sticking to the anti vote as any deal will not meet their 6 tests. The Tories are split, the DUP don't want the feal and don't want to invoke an election. The SNP will oppose anything which doesn't point towards independence. Many MPs do not want to overturn the result as their constituents voted leave. Put simply, without an immediate and forceful parliamentary surge to reverse the result (which doesn't exist), the time is now up. It is not the Jungle with a quick phone vote. It will not happen." We'll see | |||
| |||
"I wouldn't put my money on remaining in a two horse race.....it will not void the result as the party in question was not the officially endorsed leave campaign. The actual criteria will be whether the illegal action significantly altered the result. *alleged illegal action. Considering remain got an extra £9 million of taxpayers money and it didn't significantly alter the result, then what makes you think Aaron Banks allegedly giving a smaller amount (£8 million) to an unofficial leave campaign would significantly alter the result? Honestly your clutching at straws here is becoming increasingly desperate day by day. " Sed lex, Dora lex. I've never said that the £9 million spent by the government didn't affect the result. What I have said is that it was legal. The actual criteria will be whet | |||
| |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. " If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it. | |||
| |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it. "Looks like you could do with a nap yourself Bob, either your spelling is atrocious or you typed that half asleep. | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it.
Looks like you could do with a nap yourself Bob, either your spelling is atrocious or you typed that half asleep. "Cheap personal jibe again Centy | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it.
Looks like you could do with a nap yourself Bob, either your spelling is atrocious or you typed that half asleep.
Cheap personal jibe again Centy"Most of your posts are personal jibes against me so pot and kettle springs to mind. Besides wasn't Bob's comment a personal jibe against the person he quoted to begin with? Why didn't you call Bob out on it earlier then? | |||
| |||
"grasping at straws its happening wether people like it or not.just a question of how good or bad its gona be.personaly i getting to the stage where im givin less and less of a fuck about it.getting sick of listening to both sides behaving like children.all the name calling on both sides.grow the fuck up" This  | |||
"I have been fed unicorn shit and i liked it
The real problem is is that a lot of BREXITERS can't tell the difference between an imaginary flying unicorn and a real pig in a poke.
"I voted leave . I cannot relpy to your comment as I cunt spell proper . Me is thick me is . | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it.
Looks like you could do with a nap yourself Bob, either your spelling is atrocious or you typed that half asleep.
Cheap personal jibe again Centy
Most of your posts are personal jibes against me so pot and kettle springs to mind. Besides wasn't Bob's comment a personal jibe against the person he quoted to begin with? Why didn't you call Bob out on it earlier then? "Because he’s easily riled whereas it’s more fun digging at you | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. If your all tuckered maybe you should have a nap and come back sfresh to take on the remoaners because tou evgit the rest of your life to live in the same country as them. I suppose you could leave if you felt strong enough about it.
Looks like you could do with a nap yourself Bob, either your spelling is atrocious or you typed that half asleep.
Cheap personal jibe again Centy
Most of your posts are personal jibes against me so pot and kettle springs to mind. Besides wasn't Bob's comment a personal jibe against the person he quoted to begin with? Why didn't you call Bob out on it earlier then?
Because he’s easily riled whereas it’s more fun digging at you"IDGAF these days. | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. " Why is this a fake news story? The case is going to court. | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. " Sample size of 1 isn't going to hold much strength is it? For some, 'fake' is a synonym for something they dislike but over-use of the word devalues any attempt to try to say anything. | |||
| |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. Why is this a fake news story? The case is going to court." Correct about the case. But fake news is being generated on the fallout..... | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. Why is this a fake news story? The case is going to court." Speaking of which, the European Court has just thrown out a Brexit case - brought by expats who had not been entitled to vote in the referendum | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. Why is this a fake news story? The case is going to court. Speaking of which, the European Court has just thrown out a Brexit case - brought by expats who had not been entitled to vote in the referendum" And the relevance of this is what? Are you trying to suggest that two completely different cases with completely different legal arguments should be somehow connected in reality because they are both related to Brexit? | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. " So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). " The ECJ have heard the case and have promised a "quick" ruling. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). " Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol ""Quick" in ECJ terms usually means under 6 months..... "Quick" in Everysmile terms is usually under 10 seconds | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol
"Quick" in ECJ terms usually means under 6 months.....
"Quick" in Everysmile terms is usually under 10 seconds "As the BBC said then....."months for the ECJ to reach a verdict". We're out of the EU in 4 months. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol
"Quick" in ECJ terms usually means under 6 months.....
"Quick" in Everysmile terms is usually under 10 seconds
As the BBC said then....."months for the ECJ to reach a verdict".
We're out of the EU in 4 months. "And your point is?  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Interesting to learn the legal position of the EU. Their lawyer argued today an Article 50 notice should not be allowed to be withdrawn unilaterally. It should require the consent of the other member states. Otherwise, any state in future could play a game of hokey-y in order to extract concessions. The idea that the UK is even asking the question, two years later, must leave the other states utterly bemused. The UK used to see itself as a stabilising force in the affairs of other countries. Now the UK is the country that looks destabilised. It is not pretty. " The UK isn't officially asking the ECJ's opinion on this. The UK government released a statement saying that the ECJ ruling on this is a hypothetical anyway because the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 - that is the official UK line. This case is being called by a bunch of bitter and twisted remoaners who are looking for any chink or loop hole they can think of to overturn a democratic decision. | |||
"Interesting to learn the legal position of the EU. Their lawyer argued today an Article 50 notice should not be allowed to be withdrawn unilaterally. It should require the consent of the other member states. Otherwise, any state in future could play a game of hokey-y in order to extract concessions. The idea that the UK is even asking the question, two years later, must leave the other states utterly bemused. The UK used to see itself as a stabilising force in the affairs of other countries. Now the UK is the country that looks destabilised. It is not pretty. " I actually agree with the EU's argument that to allow member states to trigger and then revoke article 50 unilaterally willy-nilly would be extremely destabilising. However the law is the law and currently it's unclear. If the ECJ rules that the UK can unilaterally withdraw then Article 50 would probably have to be redrawn to change that happening. However that would be a discussion for another day. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol
"Quick" in ECJ terms usually means under 6 months.....
"Quick" in Everysmile terms is usually under 10 seconds
As the BBC said then....."months for the ECJ to reach a verdict".
We're out of the EU in 4 months. "We'll see. If we're out it will be on the current deal. Hard Brexit ain't happening without another vote. Better start campaigning for a Peoples Vote | |||
"The problem withbthis fake news story is that it misses one very important point. It would need to be proved that the referendum campaigns had any influence on the outcome of the vote. I didn't pay any attention to the campaigns. I had made my own mind up about which way to vote. Many others did the same. Getting tired of whinging remainers trying to find different ways to try and frustrate a democratic process. Why is this a fake news story? The case is going to court. Correct about the case. But fake news is being generated on the fallout....." This is not a news site. It's a forum. | |||
" Well that's what the High Court is going decide but clearly as they're looking into the possibility of voiding the result, it's quite clearly possible. The court canot annul the result, surely. It was an "advisory" referendum. It did not have any binding outcome in law. Parliament acted on the outcome and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only if that Act is flawed can the court intervene, surely? The court can say that the referendum was illegally fought and the result invalid. However, you are correct that, as parliament has passed the Withdrawal Act, on its own that would not stop BREXIT. However, as the Article 50 letter sent by May starts off with "On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union" and is the premise in the letter on which the article 50 process was invoked, it's quite possible that, under EU law, Article has not actually been correctly invoked. There is definitely one think that is worse than any BREXIT or Remain and that's a legally uncertain BREXIT were we believe and act like we've left the EU only to find out at some point in the future we hadn't actually legally left and had been acting illegally. Not sure that will happen. It wasn't the official campaign. The letter was correct....on 23rd June people did vote to leave. Why do you speculate with the phrase "it is quite possible"? Other than wishful thinking, why was the article not correctly invoked? Where is your authority on that as the Supreme Court, Parliament and the EU have all accepted the legality of the letter? Any legal uncertainty needs to be cleared up whether we leave or remain. I don't know which way either the High Court or the ECJ will rule on either matter, although I think the ECJ - Unilateral Article 50 withdrawal is the more likely of the two. I also don't know whether, if the High Court rulef the Leave campaign was illegal and the referendum invalid, whether the ECJ would rule that Article 50 had not been legally triggered. What I do know is that there is a legal argument to be made for all three points and that, to have a legally tight BREXIT, they need to be made, challenged and decided. So it's Tuesday and the ECJ has failed to reach a verdict on this article 50 case. Reported on the BBC that the ECJ could take months to reach a verdict by which time we'll already be out the EU anyway (in March). Oh diddums even the ECJ is letting the Kracken down now, a few more tears tonight!Lol
"Quick" in ECJ terms usually means under 6 months.....
"Quick" in Everysmile terms is usually under 10 seconds
As the BBC said then....."months for the ECJ to reach a verdict".
We're out of the EU in 4 months.
We'll see. If we're out it will be on the current deal. Hard Brexit ain't happening without another vote. Better start campaigning for a Peoples Vote "Well, legally, if May's deal is rejected and nothing else happens, we will leave at 23:00 on 29-March-2019 with no deal. However I don't think the government would be able to withstand the clear will of parliament and, if it did, parliament would eventually chuck them out, even if it meant a GE. | |||
" Well, legally, if May's deal is rejected and nothing else happens, we will leave at 23:00 on 29-March-2019 with no deal. " Not quite. The EU Withdrawal Bill states that, in the event of there being no agreement with the EU by January 21, Ministers must come to Parliament to make a statement on the way forward and this must be voted on by the House of Commons. So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January. Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50. One could almost argue that none of this is really about Brexit - it is about political parties using it as a means to an end, manipulating the issue for their own strategic objectives: Conservative - to stay in power which they regard as their birthright (ignoring for a moment the fact it is actually two parties in one) Labour - a general election SNP - an independence referendum And then you have UKIP, the only party that actually believes in Brexit. | |||
" Well, legally, if May's deal is rejected and nothing else happens, we will leave at 23:00 on 29-March-2019 with no deal. Not quite. The EU Withdrawal Bill states that, in the event of there being no agreement with the EU by January 21, Ministers must come to Parliament to make a statement on the way forward and this must be voted on by the House of Commons. So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January. Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50. One could almost argue that none of this is really about Brexit - it is about political parties using it as a means to an end, manipulating the issue for their own strategic objectives: Conservative - to stay in power which they regard as their birthright (ignoring for a moment the fact it is actually two parties in one) Labour - a general election SNP - an independence referendum And then you have UKIP, the only party that actually believes in Brexit. " Totally agree about the individual parties stances for their own petty agendas. Not sure that you are correct with the phrases "So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January." Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. "Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50." Isn't that what the ECJ case is about?....whether there is a mechanism to do so, along with the lack of will from the EU to allow this. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. ." The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. | |||
" Well, legally, if May's deal is rejected and nothing else happens, we will leave at 23:00 on 29-March-2019 with no deal. Not quite. The EU Withdrawal Bill states that, in the event of there being no agreement with the EU by January 21, Ministers must come to Parliament to make a statement on the way forward and this must be voted on by the House of Commons. So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January. Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50. One could almost argue that none of this is really about Brexit - it is about political parties using it as a means to an end, manipulating the issue for their own strategic objectives: Conservative - to stay in power which they regard as their birthright (ignoring for a moment the fact it is actually two parties in one) Labour - a general election SNP - an independence referendum And then you have UKIP, the only party that actually believes in Brexit. Totally agree about the individual parties stances for their own petty agendas. Not sure that you are correct with the phrases "So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January." Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. "Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50." Isn't that what the ECJ case is about?....whether there is a mechanism to do so, along with the lack of will from the EU to allow this." There are two issues. The first is whether Article 50 can be revoked. The second is whether Article 50 can be revoked Unilaterally. The sensible thing would be that Article 50 can be revoked but not Unilaterally. My hope is that it can be revoked and can be done Unilaterally. Whatever it actually is will be decided soon. | |||
" Well, legally, if May's deal is rejected and nothing else happens, we will leave at 23:00 on 29-March-2019 with no deal. Not quite. The EU Withdrawal Bill states that, in the event of there being no agreement with the EU by January 21, Ministers must come to Parliament to make a statement on the way forward and this must be voted on by the House of Commons. So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January. Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50. One could almost argue that none of this is really about Brexit - it is about political parties using it as a means to an end, manipulating the issue for their own strategic objectives: Conservative - to stay in power which they regard as their birthright (ignoring for a moment the fact it is actually two parties in one) Labour - a general election SNP - an independence referendum And then you have UKIP, the only party that actually believes in Brexit. Totally agree about the individual parties stances for their own petty agendas. Not sure that you are correct with the phrases "So, having rejected the May proposal in December, the Commons then rejects the no-deal exit in January." Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. "Which leaves only one option, legally - to seek to rescind Article 50." Isn't that what the ECJ case is about?....whether there is a mechanism to do so, along with the lack of will from the EU to allow this. There are two issues. The first is whether Article 50 can be revoked. The second is whether Article 50 can be revoked Unilaterally. The sensible thing would be that Article 50 can be revoked but not Unilaterally. My hope is that it can be revoked and can be done Unilaterally. Whatever it actually is will be decided soon. " With the weight of submissions made by all sides, I think you may be in for a huge disappointment. We should get a decision before April...... | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. " And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. " The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership." The problem is that the EU never believed that anyone would want to leave and therefore did not put much thought into the process. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership. The problem is that the EU never believed that anyone would want to leave and therefore did not put much thought into the process." Unless your economies a basket case then there's no economic reason anyone would want to leave, idealistically yes, economically no. | |||
" The problem is that the EU never believed that anyone would want to leave and therefore did not put much thought into the process." Not strictly true. Greenland left in the early 1980s. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership." I've already covered that point. As I understand it the EU doesn't want Article 50 to be Unilaterally revokable by the country that triggered it. That's not the same as not wanting it to be revokable at all. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership. I've already covered that point. As I understand it the EU doesn't want Article 50 to be Unilaterally revokable by the country that triggered it. That's not the same as not wanting it to be revokable at all. " We are unlikely to hear a judgement before 11th December....the vote in parliament or 21st January....the date of a government statement if nothing is agreed. | |||
" Not sure it can reject an exit without new legislation. . The exit has been passed into law. However, if there is no agreement with the EU, it also says Ministers must set out the way forward at the end of January. That needs to be approved. Legally, they are not rescinding the exit, only refusing to approve one that is deal-less. The Government inevitably would fall, since the alternative - the only option left - is to rescind or stay Article 50. We'd be heading for the exit at the end of March and pissing around with politicians knocking on our doors for our votes. I suspect those who vote down May's proposal will be doing so in the belief it will precipitate either a) a change of Prime Minister or b) a change of government. That's a gamble. Either way, whoever is in charge after December's vote is required by law to come to the Commons at the end of January with an alternative way forward, assuming the May proposal falls. And if they don't, then what? The EU will only consider extending Article 50 for another referendum or a general election. It's also possible, although I think unlikely, that the ECJ may rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked. That would really put the cat among the pigeons. The EU have stated that they do not want to see the mechanism of article 50 able to be revoked as it would lead to the spectre of countries invoking the article as a threat when looking for better conditions of membership. The problem is that the EU never believed that anyone would want to leave and therefore did not put much thought into the process." Indeed. And that includes us ! | |||
" As the BBC said then....."months for the ECJ to reach a verdict". We're out of the EU in 4 months. " Advocat General will give a preliminary opinion early next week. OK - this is not the final ruling but you can put money on the final ruling not being too far off. | |||
"Despite the government's and BREXITERS attempts to hide the truth and divert attention away from the illegal activities of BOTH Leave campaigns, it's looking more likely by the day that that the referendum itself will be declared null & void by the High Court. It also seems more than likely that this coming Tuesday the ECJ will rule that article 50 can be unilaterally rescinded. If it turns out that the Leave campaign in the referendum vote was illegal and Article 50 can be rescinded it's quite possible this whole fiasco could be over and done with by mid January. Never going to happen " | |||
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1544024530
| |||
"It's really not looking good for the Leave campaign now.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1544024530
"This and the ECJ view on the reversal of article 50 is the best news this week . | |||
| |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? "don't be silly . | |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? don't be silly ."Not yet but soon. | |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? don't be silly .
Not yet but soon." | |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? don't be silly .
Not yet but soon."Still grasping at straws then Cracken. | |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? don't be silly .
Not yet but soon.
Still grasping at straws then Cracken. "What's going to happen then? You have a proven track record of projections according to yourself...make a call! | |||
"Has Brexit been canceled yet? don't be silly .
Not yet but soon.
Still grasping at straws then Cracken. "Keep watching. | |||
