BeLeave revelations taint Brexit result. There must be another vote

[Ghost Dog]

... The revelations over the weekend from the brave and principled former BeLeave treasurer Shahmir Sanni are devastating. His claim that £625,000 was donated by Vote Leave to his supposedly independent pro-Brexit referendum campaign organisation – and channelled to a digital services firm with links to the controversial Cambridge Analytica – if proven, flagrantly violated election rules as it was not a genuine donation.

Sanni stated, too, that BeLeave shared offices with Vote Leave – fronted by Tory MPs Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – which allegedly in practice offered advice and assistance to the group and helped it to decide where its cash would be spent. British electoral law forbids different campaign organisations acting in concert unless they have a shared cap on spending.

In what one can only assume was a state of panic, Theresa May’s press office swiftly put out a statement that among other things outed Sanni as a homosexual – a tactic that places his family at considerable personal risk due to his Pakistani heritage...

... As transparency campaigner for more than 10 years, I have long had a sense that something was not quite right about the EU referendum. I warned back in November 2017 that the leave campaign seemed to be awash with dark money that may have circumvented rules designed to uphold the integrity of our democratic process. There have already been claims that the mysterious Constitutional Research Council routed £425,000 into pro-Brexit advertisements in London via the Democratic Unionist party. In 2016 the same organisation gave the Tory MP Steve Baker £6,500. At the time Baker was chairman of a Tory hard-Brexit caucus, the European Research Group, which was behind the letter that Johnson and Gove recently sent to the prime minister ordering her not to dare to stray from the Brexit path...

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/gina-miller

... Vote Leave members 'may have committed criminal offences'. MPs to debate claims that official Brexit campaign colluded to breach spending limits

Members of the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum may have committed criminal offences relating to overspending and collusion, according to lawyers advising whistleblowers who worked inside the organisation.

Clare Montgomery and Helen Mountfield, barristers from Matrix chambers, concluded in a formal opinion that there was a “prima facie case” that Vote Leave submitted an inaccurate spending return and colluded with BeLeave, which was aimed at students. They were reviewing a dossier of evidence supplied by solicitors Bindmans, which contained examples of alleged collusion showing that Vote Leave and BeLeave were not separate and therefore that the leave campaign spent over the £7m legal limit set by the Electoral Commission.

MPs will debate the allegations in the Commons on Tuesday, after the Lib Dems secured an emergency debate. The dossier has also been passed to the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for election law.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/26/vote-leave-members-may-have-committed-criminal-offences

Bunch of crooked conspirators.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Wylie says Vote Leave cheating may well have swayed EU referendum result

He says this vote made a fundamental change to the constitution of the country.

Second, Dominic Cummings himself said the internet campaign was what made all the difference, he says.

He says the “conversion rates” for the campaign’s online advertising were “incredibly effective”.

He says it is perfectly credible to say that, without cheating, there would have been a different result.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/27/tony-blair-tells-tories-to-block-brexit-if-they-want-to-avoid-corbyn-government-politics-live?page=with:block-5aba211ee4b0a30fbbaa0f52#block-5aba211ee4b0a30fbbaa0f52

Link to tweet

[Jim Lane]

2. What would have to happen for another vote to occur?

We in the U.S. have no experience with a nationwide popular referendum. Could Parliament by simple majority order a revote that would supersede the earlier result?

If Parliament has that power, that leaves two more questions. Politically, is there any prospect that it could happen (maybe with most of the Labour MPs plus some Tory defectors)? If a revote happened and rejected Brexit, what would be the UK's status with the EU? I vaguely recall that the EU's position by now is that the UK has withdrawn, and any change from here on wouldn't be canceling the withdrawal but would instead involve an application for admission, subject to the same procedures as would affect any country that had never been a member. If that's the case, maybe the EU would demand some concessions that the UK would not have had to give, if there had never been a notice of withdrawal, and which the UK would now find unacceptable.

Thanks for any light you (or anyone else) can shed.

[Thyla]

3. I imagine they could but...

It would be politically a disaster for literally everyone on both parties, nobody would survive the cull. It would also be extremely questionable democratically speaking. That said the Brits know for a fact that the Leave vote won on nothing else than lies, the public there are too apathetic to care, or at least the ones that do are not in enough numbers or have enough influence to make a difference. I doubt these new allegation will be welcomed any differently if I'm honest and I also doubt the claim in the post above that without cheating the result would of been different, they had a thirst for it and the result would of been the same. With hindsight however I do believe the result would be different.

As for the UK's status they still are a full member(or as full as they have ever been) and will stay like that until March 29 2019, on the 30th they will enter a 21 month transition period till the end of 2020 where they will still be in the EU but lose any decision making capabilities and the like.
Presumably at any time during this period they can reverse the decision whether by parliament, have another referendum if they like or just say "Sorry chaps, this was a shit idea and we have changed our minds".
The decision then would be with the EU as the process has already legally started as to whether they would accept that and what conditions they would place on the rogue nations re-acceptance.

[Ghost Dog]

4. The EU Commission and Council Presidents invite UK to remain in the EU:

Wednesday 17 Jan 2018

... (EU Commission President Jean-Claude) Juncker described Brexit as a ‘catastrophe’ and a ‘lose-lose situation’ for Britain and the EU.

Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, he said: "Mr Tusk said that our hand remains outstretched.

"The British people, the British Government, may wish to find a different way out of the Brexit situation and we are very much willing to deal with them. We are not throwing the British out, we would like the British to stay, and if they so wish, they should be allowed to do so. In London there was a rather irritated response to this proposal (to stay in the EU), but note that even if the British leave according to Article 50, then Article 49 would allow them to accede agian – and I would be happy to facilitate that."

And French president Emmanuel Macron joined in, saying that there was still time for the UK to reconsider Brexit. "If tomorrow, or the day after, the United Kingdom decided to change its mind, it’s clear that we would look at this with kindness," a key aide said on Macron’s behalf...

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/17/genuinely-not-late-cancel-brexit-eu-says-7237664/

Can we just call the whole damn thing off? Could Brexit be stopped so that Britain can get on with the rest of its life? Is there a possibility of doing a Breverse? This question has been nagging away, always in the background and sometimes in the foreground, ever since the narrow victory for Leave. One reason this is so is because it is such a massive issue. Another reason is because such a massive issue was decided by such a tight margin in the summer of 2016...

... For Remainers, another referendum is the only respectable way to cancel the first one. They have a persuasive case that the public ought to be asked whether they approve of the terms of the withdrawal. The country didn’t know what those were going to be in June 2016 and a democracy is no longer a democracy if there isn’t an opportunity for the voters to change their minds.

But if a second referendum happens, it will not be because of the arguments of principle in favour of holding another vote. It will only occur if key players feel it is to their advantage to put the question back to the country or if they are forced by circumstances to do so...

... There are some identifiable trends in public opinion. Since Mrs May triggered article 50, there has been a downward movement in the proportion of voters who think the government is making a good fist of the Brexit negotiations. This is not surprising when so many of the Leavers’ promises, including the fantasy about it being child’s play to negotiate and the fib that there would be a massive windfall for the NHS, have been proved false. Levels of public anxiety about where Britain will be left by withdrawal have been rising. The numbers thinking we will be worse off out of the EU have gone up a bit and the numbers thinking we will be better off are down a bit. There are now fewer voters who think Brexit will increase Britain’s influence in the world and more voters who think it will diminish our global clout. There has also been a gentle rise in the proportion of voters who say they favour another referendum, though they are still outnumbered by those who don’t want one...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/14/how-and-why-britain-might-be-asked-to-vote-again-on-brexit

[Thyla]

5. Yes, shame nobody is going to take them up on that offer..

before the official leave date because if they have to go via article 49 then those negotiations should be far more entertaining.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Yes indeed.

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

There would be in the latter case much popular sentiment against having the UK rejoin with the intention of continuing to abuse and generally demonstrate insolidarity with and an exploitative attitude towards the EU (have cake and eat it).

The opinions of EU politicians in power might be a different matter...

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Parliament could schedule another referendum, but they'd need to be very sure that Remain would win

While the vote was 52%-48%, the estimate here was that 408 constituencies had a Leave majority, and 241 a Remain majority (and one is given as 50-50).

So that means that most MPs have a constituency that would be well pissed off if the decision was reversed, unless there's a massive swing to 'Remain'. They'd get attacked as "reholding the vote until they got the result they wanted". So far, the swing to Remain in opinion polls has been small.