The way forward for Boris and the country....

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

Dunstablian

New member
Jul 23, 2018
4
8
3
71
Bedfordshire
If the rebels win the day today and Boris is forced back to Brussels to beg for an extension, he should call an election for the 14th October 2019. On the 13th October 2019 Boris should resign as PM. Any instructions issued to him and his Government will then be null and void. It will take weeks for Boris's successor to be elected by which time we will have left on the 31/10 as is the current law. Its a big ask of Boris but he will be revered as the politician who sacrificed being PM, his life's dream, for the good of his country. The rebels will be defeated in their aim to stop Brexit and democracy will have prevailed.

John Tandy
 
  • Like
Reactions: waterford103

Dunstablian

New member
Jul 23, 2018
4
8
3
71
Bedfordshire
If the rebels win and Boris is forced back to Brussels to beg for an extension, he MUST resign and ensure that his successor is not in place until after the 31/10. Whatever happens, we cannot allow a few Tory rebels who hate the UK love the EU, to frustrate the democratically expressed will of the majority who voted on the 23rd June 2016. Boris will be hailed a hero for all time, much longer than he would be, were he to be a moderately successful PM and he should bear in mind that all political careers end in failure at the end. Check out Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher, Tony B Liar. Do it Boris and get us out on the 31/10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waterford103

Iolo

New member
Sep 11, 2019
11
1
3
A completely woolly question backed by VAST lies has left us all in a ludicrous situation. The tories, having got their deal accepted by the EU, turned it into a fight to build up their own individual ambitions at the cost to the whole Country, which is beginning to look totally ridiculous. If you are going in for referendums, it would be as well to consult countries like Switzerland who have some concept of how to use them. The whole of the UK is divided, and there is NO majority for anything specific (as opposed to silly sloganizing), and a lot of 'the Peepul' whose will this nonsense allegedly was have died off while the tories have been wasting our time. I suggest we return to Parliamentary democracy, a system of which we have some understanding.
 

psc

New member
Dec 5, 2019
3
0
1
We must leave as the people voted for it.
Far from it. For a start, despite what Cameron said in the run up to the referendum it was not binding, but constitutionally and legally advisory. Unlike the Swiss Cantons the UK has no provision in the constitution for referendums and they can only be allowed if Parliament allows them by the creation of an Act of Parliament and as Parliament is sovereign that act must specify if the referendum is binding. Check the Act. There is no reference to making the referendum binding. You can read the act here; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

MPs are not obliged to do what their constituents tell them but are required to act in the best interests of their constituents, as Churchill once put it

The first duty of an MP is to do what he [or she] thinks … is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate.”
Thus the referendum which was legally and constitutionally advisory does not bind the decision of MPs. The only vote that matters is the one in Parliament to invoke Article 50 in the first place and there is no reason why any subsequent government (or even the same one) cannot reverse that vote.

However let us assume for the moment that the referendum was binding and that MPs were required to abide by the result of the referendum. In the early 1990's after the fall of the Berlin Wall the liberal western democracies got together to advise the newly independent nations on running a democratic election. That conference was in Venice and one of the things covered in that was what to do if one of the parties exceeded the spending limits. On the matter of breaching spending limits it had this to say in clause 3.3.

“In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled.
see https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)008rev-cor-e

The leave campaign did indeed breach spending limits and were found criminally responsible for it by the Electoral Commission

See https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Report-on-Investigation-Leave.EU.pdf #

There is precedent in this country for elections to be voided. As ruled in Gunn v Sharpe [1974] where a mistake in the conduct of the poll that affected the result then the vote should be annulled. There are any number of times when elections have been voided due to spending irregularities and a list can be found here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_Parliamentary_election_petitions

However did the over spend affect the result, and the evidence presented to court at the start of this year would indicate that the answer to this question is 'Yes'

Professor Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, at the university, said:

“My professional opinion is that it is very likely that the excessive spending by Vote Leave altered the result of the referendum.

A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend.
As Jessica Simpson QC explained.

“if the referendum had been legally binding, then the findings of the Electoral Commission would have rendered it invalid. Because if it’s been corruptly delivered, how on earth can we be held to it?

“But because it wasn’t binding, we can be held to something that is corruptly delivered. Woah!

“The will of the people is meaningless if the people were victims of corrupt practices or lied to.
See https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/watch-lawyer-explain-brexit-vote-would-be-void-for-corruption-if-only-it-was-binding/26/02/

So basically the referendum was advisory and therefore the result does not have to be followed, or it was binding but would have been declared null and void. Either way we would not be required to abide by the result.