Originally Posted by GreatGodPan:
“I hate to say this Blair, but I fully agree with you here.”
“I hate to say this Blair, but I fully agree with you here.”
Splutter.... I spilt my coffee.
Gina Miller hates democracy
10 of 22
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“An official government leaflet says what the governments intent is. The whole point is that most voters were led to believe that the government could do what it said it would. That belief was not countered by any MP. In that respect they were seriously misled both by government, MPs and many more. Most voters were not informed that it was Parliament that would have to give permission and no one even knew that specifically until the court case. If they did then they misled voters. The PM acting for the British people is a common occurrence in the EU Council of Ministers and parliamentary approval is rarely needed.”
“An official government leaflet says what the governments intent is. The whole point is that most voters were led to believe that the government could do what it said it would. That belief was not countered by any MP. In that respect they were seriously misled both by government, MPs and many more. Most voters were not informed that it was Parliament that would have to give permission and no one even knew that specifically until the court case. If they did then they misled voters. The PM acting for the British people is a common occurrence in the EU Council of Ministers and parliamentary approval is rarely needed.”
You are still missing the point the leaflets from both sides have no legal standing. The same government that designed the ref act bill which was so open to legal flaws because to have tried to get it though parliament with it saying that the RP would be used to trigger A50 the bill would never had passed sorry but MPs dont vote themselves out of a job, parliament is not going to vote and say to the government do what you like.
Originally Posted by Nick1966:
“When Brexit is finally complete, I am concerned that there will be betrayal or retribution or both.”
“When Brexit is finally complete, I am concerned that there will be betrayal or retribution or both.”
What? What sort of betrayal or retribution? It's not like the aftermath of the Civil War!
Originally Posted by Mesostim:
“£350 milion to the NHS... All of Turkey all about to relocate here? Bet you can justify those lies.”
“£350 milion to the NHS... All of Turkey all about to relocate here? Bet you can justify those lies.”
Blaidennon has answered this, but the poster I quoted seemed to mean lying on a personal level, not the exaggeration of politicians - perhaps I'm mistaken, I still don't really get what he meant.
Originally Posted by tim59:
“You are still missing the point the leaflets from both sides have no legal standing. The same government that designed the ref act bill which was so open to legal flaws because to have tried to get it though parliament with it saying that the RP would be used to trigger A50 the bill would never had passed sorry but MPs dont vote themselves out of a job, parliament is not going to vote and say to the government do what you like.”
“You are still missing the point the leaflets from both sides have no legal standing. The same government that designed the ref act bill which was so open to legal flaws because to have tried to get it though parliament with it saying that the RP would be used to trigger A50 the bill would never had passed sorry but MPs dont vote themselves out of a job, parliament is not going to vote and say to the government do what you like.”
So you mean the government leaflet should have said if you vote for exit from the EU we may not act upon it anyway?
Originally Posted by tim59:
“You are still missing the point the leaflets from both sides have no legal standing. The same government that designed the ref act bill which was so open to legal flaws because to have tried to get it though parliament with it saying that the RP would be used to trigger A50 the bill would never had passed sorry but MPs dont vote themselves out of a job, parliament is not going to vote and say to the government do what you like.”
“You are still missing the point the leaflets from both sides have no legal standing. The same government that designed the ref act bill which was so open to legal flaws because to have tried to get it though parliament with it saying that the RP would be used to trigger A50 the bill would never had passed sorry but MPs dont vote themselves out of a job, parliament is not going to vote and say to the government do what you like.”
I have not said they had legal standing what I have said is that the official government leaflet provided government guidance to the electorate as regards the referendum, its aims and what action will be taken on its result. That is the type of information any government would supply to the electorate at any referendum. No one on the Remain side contradicted the guidance contained in that leaflet as regards its guidance or indeed as regards the governments ability to implement whatever the electorate decided.
If the referendum bill had not passed we would probably be in a general election situation. So it is not just the government it is all MPs who preferred to leave many alternative doors. That is fair enough however that does not remove the fact that the government, the Remain campaign and many MPs were either ignorant that the electorate were misinformed or happy that they were misinformed. It is what the electorate were led to believe that is the issue.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“I have not said they had legal standing what I have said is that the official government leaflet provided government guidance to the electorate as regards the referendum, its aims and what action will be taken on its result. That is the type of information any government would supply to the electorate at any referendum. No one on the Remain side contradicted the guidance contained in that leaflet as regards its guidance or indeed as regards the governments ability to implement whatever the electorate decided.
If the referendum bill had not passed we would probably be in a general election situation. So it is not just the government it is all MPs who preferred to leave many alternative doors. That is fair enough however that does not remove the fact that the government, the Remain campaign and many MPs were either ignorant that the electorate were misinformed or happy that they were misinformed. It is what the electorate were led to believe that is the issue.”
“I have not said they had legal standing what I have said is that the official government leaflet provided government guidance to the electorate as regards the referendum, its aims and what action will be taken on its result. That is the type of information any government would supply to the electorate at any referendum. No one on the Remain side contradicted the guidance contained in that leaflet as regards its guidance or indeed as regards the governments ability to implement whatever the electorate decided.
If the referendum bill had not passed we would probably be in a general election situation. So it is not just the government it is all MPs who preferred to leave many alternative doors. That is fair enough however that does not remove the fact that the government, the Remain campaign and many MPs were either ignorant that the electorate were misinformed or happy that they were misinformed. It is what the electorate were led to believe that is the issue.”
The thing is we are leaving, but on the leaflet it never said when we would leave or how we would leave or under what terms we would leave, fact is not of that is even in the ref act
Originally Posted by tim59:
“The thing is we are leaving, but on the leaflet it never said when we would leave or how we would leave or under what terms we would leave, fact is not of that is even in the ref act”
“The thing is we are leaving, but on the leaflet it never said when we would leave or how we would leave or under what terms we would leave, fact is not of that is even in the ref act”
The leaflet said the government would implement the decision made by the electorate. One can say these words were missing or that that promise was not clear however it directed to a conclusion. Vote Remain we will stay in the EU vote Leave we will leave the EU. The conclusion indicated that this was within the ability of the government to provide and nothing in the Remain camp contradicted that that clearly indicated action was not possible without the agreement of parliament, despite most EU decisions needing only the agreement of one minister.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“The leaflet said the government would implement the decision made by the electorate.”
“The leaflet said the government would implement the decision made by the electorate.”
Yes, but that wasn't a binding legal opinion.
I'm sure that isn't the first thing a Govt's promised to do in a manifesto then been frustrated by the courts (or the Law as the rest of us acknowledge).
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“The leaflet said the government would implement the decision made by the electorate. One can say these words were missing or that that promise was not clear however it directed to a conclusion. Vote Remain we will stay in the EU vote Leave we will leave the EU. The conclusion indicated that this was within the ability of the government to provide and nothing in the Remain camp contradicted that that clearly indicated action was not possible without the agreement of parliament, despite most EU decisions needing only the agreement of one minister.”
“The leaflet said the government would implement the decision made by the electorate. One can say these words were missing or that that promise was not clear however it directed to a conclusion. Vote Remain we will stay in the EU vote Leave we will leave the EU. The conclusion indicated that this was within the ability of the government to provide and nothing in the Remain camp contradicted that that clearly indicated action was not possible without the agreement of parliament, despite most EU decisions needing only the agreement of one minister.”
No-one is disputing that. The vote was to leave and leave we will, no matter how stupid the decision is.
The whole point of the court case is whether the HoC should be the ones to decide, or someone who became PM on the say so of less than 200 MPs.
Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard:
“No-one is being "trampled". Leave won the refendum so Britain is leaving the EU. It's mostly the rich and powerful that were behind the Remain campaign, in case you didn't realise.”
“No-one is being "trampled". Leave won the refendum so Britain is leaving the EU. It's mostly the rich and powerful that were behind the Remain campaign, in case you didn't realise.”
Pretty much the same as who was behind the leave campaign then?
Originally Posted by andykn:
“Yes, but that wasn't a binding legal opinion.
I'm sure that isn't the first thing a Govt's promised to do in a manifesto then been frustrated by the courts (or the Law as the rest of us acknowledge).”
“Yes, but that wasn't a binding legal opinion.
I'm sure that isn't the first thing a Govt's promised to do in a manifesto then been frustrated by the courts (or the Law as the rest of us acknowledge).”
But a party manifesto is not legally binding, plus a party manifesto is what a party would like to do it cannot really promise anything as it needs the backing of parliament and in alot of cases the HOL.
Originally Posted by tim59:
“But a party manifesto is not legally binding, plus a party manifesto is what a party would like to do it cannot really promise anything as it needs the backing of parliament and in alot of cases the HOL.”
“But a party manifesto is not legally binding, plus a party manifesto is what a party would like to do it cannot really promise anything as it needs the backing of parliament and in alot of cases the HOL.”
That would be very similar to the referendum, then.
Originally Posted by andykn:
“Yes, but that wasn't a binding legal opinion.
I'm sure that isn't the first thing a Govt's promised to do in a manifesto then been frustrated by the courts (or the Law as the rest of us acknowledge).”
“Yes, but that wasn't a binding legal opinion.
I'm sure that isn't the first thing a Govt's promised to do in a manifesto then been frustrated by the courts (or the Law as the rest of us acknowledge).”
It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.
Originally Posted by smudges dad:
“No-one is disputing that. The vote was to leave and leave we will, no matter how stupid the decision is.
The whole point of the court case is whether the HoC should be the ones to decide, or someone who became PM on the say so of less than 200 MPs.”
“No-one is disputing that. The vote was to leave and leave we will, no matter how stupid the decision is.
The whole point of the court case is whether the HoC should be the ones to decide, or someone who became PM on the say so of less than 200 MPs.”
When it comes to the EU we are always being subject to many things frequently on the sayso of just one minister in the Council. As regards deciding the government and parliament passed that responsibility onto the electorate who are, or should be, the supreme sovereign body.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
So you're saying Cameron's government was lying, and you're surprised?
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
: I think one of the problems is you believe what politicians say too much. Do you believe David Davis is a trustworthy and honest and will stick by what he believes ?
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“What? What sort of betrayal or retribution? It's not like the aftermath of the Civil War!”
“What? What sort of betrayal or retribution? It's not like the aftermath of the Civil War!”
Poll tax riots.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“You cannot yet claim the £350 million (or whatever the actual figure is) is a lie becasue we are still paying a figure to the EU. As far as I recall it was pointed out that EU were seeking Turkey as a member and Turkey were seeking to be a member. Which was true, if teh EU wanted they could have made Turkey a member anytime they wished as the vetoes are not cast by each country but by a minister from each country. If that veto is not cast then Turkey would have been a member. We know that many large fibs were told as regards Euro membership and we know the EU rules are broken on a regular basis when it suits the EU and the members to do so.”
“You cannot yet claim the £350 million (or whatever the actual figure is) is a lie becasue we are still paying a figure to the EU. As far as I recall it was pointed out that EU were seeking Turkey as a member and Turkey were seeking to be a member. Which was true, if teh EU wanted they could have made Turkey a member anytime they wished as the vetoes are not cast by each country but by a minister from each country. If that veto is not cast then Turkey would have been a member. We know that many large fibs were told as regards Euro membership and we know the EU rules are broken on a regular basis when it suits the EU and the members to do so.”
Farage said that it was a mistake to mention 350 million for the NHS, he said this literally hours after Brexit won, but he never said this figure was incorrect during the campaign, so it was a lie.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
“It was not a manifesto it was a statement from a serving government and the lack of contradiction from an official Remain campaign and from any serving MP. None of whom were seeking election. No quibble with the law only with the fact that misinformation was disseminated to the electorate through our government, not someone seeking to be our government.”
What misinformation? Most things the Govt say they'll do need the approval of Parliament.
I'm not sure what "contradiction" you expected from Remain and I strongly suspect nor are you.
Originally Posted by Blairdennon:
“When it comes to the EU we are always being subject to many things frequently on the sayso of just one minister in the Council.”
“When it comes to the EU we are always being subject to many things frequently on the sayso of just one minister in the Council.”
...and the 1972 Act.
Quote:
“ As regards deciding the government and parliament passed that responsibility onto the electorate who are, or should be, the supreme sovereign body.”
“ As regards deciding the government and parliament passed that responsibility onto the electorate who are, or should be, the supreme sovereign body.”
That would be true were the referendum legally binding.
Originally Posted by Mr Moritz:
“Farage said that it was a mistake to mention 350 million for the NHS, he said this literally hours after Brexit won, but he never said this figure was incorrect during the campaign, so it was a lie.”
“Farage said that it was a mistake to mention 350 million for the NHS, he said this literally hours after Brexit won, but he never said this figure was incorrect during the campaign, so it was a lie.”
Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.
This can't happen until we leave and only then it is up to the government of the time to make the final decision.
It is distorting the facts to moan at the campaign group (who are not the government) that this hasn't happened yet (as we haven't left the EU yet)
That said, I recently read an article from a so called expert on international law, who suggested that article 51 is a mere formality and that the UK can leave whenever it wishes with no specific 'club exit penalties' (as oppose to tariff changes etc)
Originally Posted by Zaphodski:
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.
This can't happen until we leave and only then it is up to the government of the time to make the final decision.
It is distorting the facts to moan at the campaign group (who are not the government) that this hasn't happened yet (as we haven't left the EU yet)
That said, I recently read an article from a so called expert on international law, who suggested that article 51 is a mere formality and that the UK can leave whenever it wishes with no specific 'club exit penalties' (as oppose to tariff changes etc)”
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.
This can't happen until we leave and only then it is up to the government of the time to make the final decision.
It is distorting the facts to moan at the campaign group (who are not the government) that this hasn't happened yet (as we haven't left the EU yet)
That said, I recently read an article from a so called expert on international law, who suggested that article 51 is a mere formality and that the UK can leave whenever it wishes with no specific 'club exit penalties' (as oppose to tariff changes etc)”
£350m was the Gross figure, not the Net, and therefore can't be used for anything else as it doesn't exist. A much smaller figure might be available, but after we've employed thousands of civil servants to reproduce many functions the EU does today I suspect we will have less money for the NHS, not more.
Originally Posted by Zaphodski:
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.”
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.”
So why didn't it quote the net amount rather than the misleading gross figure?
Originally Posted by Zaphodski:
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.”
“Pointing the finger at the claim on the bus really annoys me. The message it was trying to convey was that the net money that we presently pay into the EU could be used to increase funding to the NHS.”
You've missed the point, the figure was a fake. There is no 350m for the NHS or anything.
10 of 22
