Five legal points about the Leave victory

24th June 2016

1. The EU referendum result, by itself, has no legal impact.  It was an advisory not a mandatory referendum. (See my FT post here.)

2. All UK law – including that drawn from the EU  – remains in place today just as it was yesterday. Nothing in yesterday’s result affects the applicability or enforceability of any UK or EU law.

3. The legally significant thing is not the referendum result but any Article 50 notification.  There is no indication any UK politician is in any rush to press that “red button”.  Once pressed, that will give a two year period before the UK leaves the EU (unless EU Member States unanimously agree otherwise).  Any fundamental legal change as a result of the Leave vote will not (and cannot) be until 2018 at the earliest.

4. It is perfectly possible the Article 50 red button is never pressed – for example if there is a “new deal” and a second referendum.  There is, after all, a tradition of EU-related referendums being repeated in Member States until there is the “correct” answer.

5. On available information, there is no plausible legal challenge to the referendum result.

*

For email alerts for my posts at Jack of Kent, the FT and elsewhere, please submit your email address in the “Subscribe” box on this page.

header banner image

Regular blogging at Jack of Kent is made possible by the kind sponsorship of Hammicks Legal Information Services.  

Please click on this link to Hammicks and have a browse.

 

96 thoughts on “Five legal points about the Leave victory”

  1. One interesting legal point is who actually has the power to press the Article 50 red button? Is it solely in the power of the PM, or would it (legally speaking) require an act of Parliament? Personally I would think it extremely unlikely any PM would invoke the article without some form of formal approval from Parliament, but that’s a matter of politics, not law. Where are we in the latter matter?

    1. Do any of you pro #LEGAL types have written permission, granted and signed by God Almighty that says you’re who you claim you are?
      In the same way the police and others will ask you to provide the legal name I.D. which proves you are one of Satan’s DEED babies (UNTIL you decide you are not one of those and have no desire to be one of those ever again).

      It’s illegal to contract with minors, yes?
      It’s illegal to 3rd party interlope into contracts you had no part in making, yes?
      A Birth Certificate bond/contract/legal document, therefore, is nothing to do with the ‘child’ and the ‘child’/’adult’ may never, legally, use that document in any way for any purpose. Yet, we were ALL of us indoctrinated, advised, informed, directed and coerced into doing just that.
      Control of the masses via Legality. It is clear that Legality is a religious ideology, upheld and enforced (worldwide) by people with guns and other ways of making it very difficult for those reluctant/unwilling men and women to abstain from legality completely. Legality functions exactly like any religion with its own books, priests, organisation and state-of-mind/belief/program/doctrine. Unfortunately, it’s a state-sanctioned-enforced-upheld world religion which sits umbrella-style above ALL the legal sub-religions on this ‘planet’. It’s hard to avoid.

      What is it called when one is forced, coerced, against one’s will, to continue to accept/to become part of another’s religion?

      What is it called when one wishes to dis-associate from/stop being a ‘member’ of any religion but is forced (by myriad ways and means) to continue – or are assumed/presumed to be a ‘member’ regardless?

      What honour can there be within any religious organisation that is found to be fraudulent at its root, and generally harmful with a death cult as its modus operandi (legal wars aka mass murder by myriad uniformed groups worldwide and any/all other licensed killing, including animal slaughter businesses) where this alone, the killing, makes this religion an abomination against Truth/God/Creation itself where we are clearly instructed to ‘not kill’, etc.?

      Some are NOT ‘ok’ with ‘root and branch’ fraud.
      Not ‘ok’ with murder (legal or otherwise).
      Not ‘ok’ with any/all harms against others and want no further part in/with any religion/individuals/groups who do enjoy that sort of thing. Yet, when attempting to quit the association find extreme opposition to the concept of ‘freedom’ of choice regarding ‘religion’ or ‘no religion’ at all – where even ‘atheists’ follow the legal religion.

      What crime(s) does legality say are being committed by any individual or group which forces, by any/all means at their disposal, their own religious ideology upon another against the express will, wish and intent of said other? Coercion? Terrorism? Emotional, Mental, Physical Abuse? Slavery?

      #LEGALISM #CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY #TRUTH

  2. Why is it not illegal to tell blatant lies when electioneering thus negating any actual democracy? I don’t mean spin, sadly we have to accept that, but repeated lies e.g. when it has been clearly said it was a lie re £350m per week, or the leaflet with company logos implying they supported out when they did not – how can this be legal? If it is then democracy does not exist.

    1. I think the general principle is voter beware. It’s really up to opponents and journalists to expose misinformation, misrepresentations or downright lies. Dragging courts in to determine what is a lie and what is a spin and whether it had any impact is going to be enormously cumbersome.

      However, there is at least one sort of campaigning lie that is illegal and that is to make false statements about a candidate. There has even been at least one legal case on the matter.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woolas-judgement-lying-about-other-candidates-banned-in-uk-elections

      1. There seems to be very very weak legislation and guidance around the referendum process that acts to protect the population. If I lose my job because of Brexit , or a whole town loses its main employer, is there a possibility of legally challenging the result as people were deliberately misled.? And some of the people who voted leave do seem to have been misled . In a general election, what you identify i.e. ‘voter beware’ spin and lies may be understood. After all , you can then chuck out the people who don t come up with the goods. This is not the case in a referendum ., There are very few checks and balances to protect the electorate . TV journalists are not allowed to really grill or challenge because of the requirement for balance. This meant that things which were patently ‘unbalanced’ e.g. the weight of argument about the financial risks compared with the lack of clarity of a future Brexit model. That would normally have been savaged but wasn’t. I think that the Vote Leave bus 350 million claim, the Vote Leave election broadcast ,the leaflet mentioned above etc were deliberate attempts to mislead. I have also heard of people told outright lies on the doorstop .If this material was advertising it could be reported to the advertising authority. in summary =The Remain campaign was poor, the Leave campaign brilliant. Is it Does that mean I just have to say'”That’s life’ people were brilliantly misled . Nothing I can do about it if I am financially disadvantaged .The vote was very close- in fact UkIP mentioned that a result as close at that would require a second referendum. Is there not a legal challenge to those individuals whose lack of due diligence in planning and ensuring safeguards for the populace in such a critical vote could significantly impact on so many lives? Or those people who may have been cavalier about the honesty of their pitch and who could have tipped the balance for just over a million people who tipped the balance in favour of BREXIT ?
        But that means that people have been put in huge jeopardy by the lack

    2. Yes, my husband and I were just talking about this: The British people were told untruths and were deliberately mislead. If I knew how to I’d set up a fund to launch a legal case.

      1. I completely agree with you. The people need to stand up and fight against this . Why oh why do we have to accept this lying down

        1. I completely agree that a legal challenge should be made on the grounds that the electrot was misled by the leave campaign. Why oh why do we have to accept this

          1. First you’ll need to find some form of legal basis for that in electoral law. I think you’ll find it difficult.

    3. Very good question. If someone sold you something it’d be misrep under contract law. Under criminal law a dishonest act where a statement of fact is false or misleading isn’t enough. It has to cause a direct financial loss to you (or gain to them). There’s conduct rules for politicians that may apply but they are usually toothless and by strange coincidence Boris isn’t in office and Farage isn’t a UK MP!

      The only route that I can think of is judicial review. JR is notoriously difficult to pass the application criteria and requires a challenge on a decision and so far no decision has been made. The referendum is merely an opinion poll. Only when Art. 50 is invoked (or a bill to enact it) has a decision been made.

      Personally, I think it no coincidence that Cameron’s ‘friend’ Boris headed up the Leave campaign as an unelected official. When Cameron rejected to idea of s second referendum Boris stated that he wanted one. When the exit deal is known there will be public support for a second referendum I’m sure.

      1. JUDICIAL REVIEW yes that might be the answer but bear in mind the courts aren’t usually keen to overturn government policy.
        this petition going round, I cant find any legal basis for it, though it sounds plausible. any info?

      2. Judicial review of what? That has to review the conduct of a public body of some sort. Unless there’s some issue with the way that the referendum was conducted by the public bodies responsible, it’s going to be difficult. What public body did you have in mind?

        Judicial review does not deal with the conduct of private citizens outside of public bodies.

        1. Forget judicial review, think about it this way, Ppi was misold and financial institutions had to pay back monies that had been paid. I know it’s a completely different thing but the leave side misled the people. With blatant lies

          1. It wasn’t me that raised the potential of judicial review. However, if you are looking for an alternative basis for a case, you’ll have to come up with some specific legislation. Referendum campaigns don’t come under contract law, so there’s no point in looking in that area. There is electoral law but misrepresentation only seems to apply to very narrow areas regarding references to other candidates.

            So, quite simply, I don’t know of any basis in law to make such a challenge. If there was I suspect some clever lawyer would have found it.

            This is now firmly in the political, not legal area. That’s where pressure has to be applied.

          2. I think the question we should ask is this, had remain won and leave felt as you have written, would you accept a second referendum? I think the answer is no, I strongly suggest that you look at the fabled Europe and in particular those countries that accepted the Euro to see where if we had decided the same our country would now be, Europe has a fast and failing economy with increasing youth unemployment, Itay is on the verge of meltdown, France is forcing legislation in workers rights that actually strips the rights of the ordinary worker even though the people riot against it. Democracy? The people of England fought for centries to obtain the right to vote and by so ensuring their voices and their rights mattered aswell as those of their children. Ask yourself would you go into business with an organisation that has not submitted it’s accounts for 7 years and has no accountability on spend. Youth argue that leave campaign has ruined their future yet leave has ensured their voices will count one day. The EU seeks to silence all our voices is that Democracy. Turkey is set to enter the EU, our soldiers , our sons and daughters will fight for the EU not for England, stay voters say we will be safer yet remaining with the EU means all our money reserves will go to the European bank, intelligence agencies controlled by EU as well as our army , will their intrested be in protecting England and it’s citizens or focused elsewhere.To leave you I say this in every lie there is a truth. Look at both sides then ask yourself will you still want to remain?

    1. Parliament cannot overturn the result of a referendum. However, they are free (in a legal sense) to ignore the result and suffer whatever political consequences (if any) arise from that. This is not a legally binding referendum.

      So I’ve no idea what the purpose of this petition is unless it is to impose some sort of conditions on future referendums. For instance (from memory) the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum held under (but not instigated by) Margaret Thatcher’s government had conditions beyond a simple majority of those who voted (it required 40% of those registered to vote).

      1. Is it possible to make a case for 16+ year olds to have a vote – which could then be added to the total?
        Scotland set a precedent for this in it’s independence ref.

    2. THANK YOU. Seriously. If it’s the one on parliament.uk, I’ve signed it, my husband has signed it, and I’m going to try to get everyone I know to sign it.

      Also your ‘five legal points’ have cheered me up. Thank you again.

    3. This rely needs to happen we can not and must not leave the European Union . I don’t believe we the British public are allowing ourself to sleepwalk into oblivion .

    4. If it’s the same outcome, will you start yet another one till you get the decision you want. We live in a supposed democracy!!!

    5. Well I’ve started a petition against your petition for Parliament to overturn the result of your petition should it be successful. Idiot.

      1. Just read the petition already signed by 1.2 million people. If the proposed rule were implemented as written, we would keep having referendums until we got a 60% majority either way. There is as much chance of it ever happening as there is of escaping a fart in a lift.

    6. I am not sure that the advice given here is correct, in that there is no possibility of a legal challenge to the OUT vote.

      The IN and OUT sides both received public money, by accepting those funds they are obliged to use them in an open and accountable manner, they are not allowed to use public funds to misinform the public. Clearly the OUT side did intentionally misinform the public and used public funds to aid their deceptions.

  3. Dear friends,

    I just signed the petition “Brexit is not legally binding: Call for a 2nd referendum on Europe” and wanted to ask if you could add your name too.

    This campaign means a lot to me and the more support we can get behind it, the better chance we have of succeeding. You can read more and sign the petition here:

    http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/brexit-is-not-legally-binding-call-for-a-2nd-referendum-on-europe

    Thank you!

    Sarah

    P.S. Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It’s really easy – all you need to do is forward this email or share this link on Facebook or Twitter: http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/brexit-is-not-legally-binding-call-for-a-2nd-referendum-on-europe

    1. Sarah, 52% leave, 48% remain and you want to sign a petition saying it’s not fair!!!

      Just who do you think you are to say “52% are wrong Mr Cameron, please ignore them”

      1. Who are you to say 48% are wrong ignore them? 60 40 or 70 30 fair enough but a half split? Nope. It bears thinking about and proper education instead of mud slinging.

        1. Emma, it’s clearly too late to change the rules for a referendum that has already taken place, so I guess you were talking about the principle.Perhaps we should pass a law now, such that any future referendums on the EU will need a 60 40 majority to change the status quo – would that be fair?

        1. Oh the arrogance of the young lol. Does it not occur to you that over 50’s well have the intelligence to make up their own minds without listening to motormouth politicians.

    2. So what would make another vote legally binding. The people have voted and that’s democracy. Another vote because it doesn’t go your way is not democratic.

      1. Democracy is much more than a majority vote. It’s a large topic but the element of democracy that is relevant here is a constitutional one that stems from several concepts derived from the rule of law. The most important being that of normancy. The campaign for leave was founded on dishonest information. Lots of it. That isn’t normative for such a decision to be made. As described by the governments own advisor ‘dishonesty on an industrial scale’.

        History will always refer to that referendum as being prima facie democratic whilst producing s wholly undemocratic process.

      1. Unbelievable whinging and moaning going on. If you don’t like true democracy in action, go work for the EU in Brussels and help manage the 20%+ youth unemployment in most of the EU. Or maybe find out why EU audited accounts never get signed off. Maybe we should have a referendum each week until you are satisfied with the result. Both sides of the arguement made exaggerated claims but there were enough media rebuttals for people to make their own judgement. The people have decided. That is true democracy in action. Proud to be British.

        1. Well not according to some of the interviews I ‘ve heard on radio / TV – voters believed that they had saved the NHS, that they would stop austerity and get decent jobs – you’re happy for blatant lies to be told and still call it democracy? We’ve had years of Murdoch / Mail / Express anti EU lies in their “news”papers softening up for this egregious campaign. And yes, the Remain camp didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory, but its difficult to say they lied or exaggerated as it will take some time for the economic consequences to become apparent- but the first 24hours haven’t gone so well for the UK.

  4. I do wonder about the mendacity of the campaign – letting it pass doesn’t seem right in itself, and also seems like a very bad precedent for the future. Asked about the endlessly-repeated £350m claim this morning, Farage shrugged it off and said ‘that was a mistake’ – presumably one of those awful mistakes that make one gasp and stretch one’s eyes. The final margin for Leave was a bit over 1.2 million – if a reliable survey showed that 4% of Leave voters had made their decision based on that and other equally unfounded claims…

    1. 1 million less Scots turned up than for their IndyRef, and lots couldn’t vote in the SE due to bad weather. But still, it’d be a draw at best.

  5. Is there no case for Judicial Review on the basis that voters were given information to base their vote on which is lies and post-truths?

    1. Yes, this was exactly my thought. Are there any legal legs in this at all? I would certainly contribute to a fund that started a judicial review. Any sympathetic lawyers out there who could advise?

  6. I am so glad a friend pointed me towards this, because there is something bothering me.
    Now a couple of comments from friends of mine has made me wonder about the structure of who was allowed to vote.
    Cast your minds back a year to the Scottish referendum. I have English friends living in Scotland who were fully entitled to vote. I was born in Scotland and lived there until I was 21, but was not entitled to vote, even though I could quite clearly be affected by the outcome.
    Fast forward to the EU referendum.
    It seems that any British, Irish, or Commonwealth citizen living in UK could vote. Also, so could anyone of British nationality who had been living abroad for less than 15 years. But no EU citizens living and working in this country had a vote, even though they could clearly be affected. Including people I know who have lived here for years and have no plans to live anywhere else, at least till yesterday.
    I’m not sure I understand the inclusivity of non-Scottish people voting in one referendum, because they lived there, but specific kinds of non-British people being excluded from the EU referendum even though on the face of it, it’s a very similar situation.
    Yes, I know there may be a civil-service approved explanation based on something like the register of voters, or maybe there is even an EU law that prevents someone from voting in the country they are living in. But my point is one of principle. Why is the sauce for the goose not also the sauce for the gander?
    I’d really appreciate it if someone could explain.

  7. I have been wondering for a while – even before knowing the result – if this referendum is on shaky legal ground, given that the Tory election expenses investigation is far from complete. If a sufficient number of the 30 MPs currently under investigation are found to have exceeded their expenses ceiling, then they will lose their seats and by-elections will follow, which, if fair and non-fraudulent, may well result in the Conservatives no longer forming a majority government.

    If that is the case, then it means that David Cameron called this referendum without a democratic mandate to do so. Given that, I question whether it can or should be binding. (One might say the same about the year+ worth of policymaking that the Conservatives have fraudulently indulged themselves in, but it is the referendum that concerns me just at the minute.)

    In my view, plans for a referendum should have been placed on hold until the investigations were complete and the Conservative government’s status clarified. Given that that did not happen, doesn’t this result have a very dubious provenance? What would be the mechanism for challenging its legal/democratic status? Judicial review? ECHR?

    Ironic that this referendum was supposedly about restoring democratic accountability, when its very occurrence was evidence of the exact opposite, in my view.

  8. So what happens if we hold another referendum, we vote to stay, then all the other member States hold their referendums they are planning and vote out? Where would that leave us? As all us remainers say the EU isn’t perfect, but we need to be in to reform it, yet Jean-Claude Juncker said there’ll be no more reform. Do you think it’s best to see how things go for a few years?

    1. Surprising we have survived so long as a nation with that many idiots in the population. Maybe a petition to Parliament to get them disenfranchised is called for.

      1. John, I find your comments deeply concerning. As a passionate remain voter I was devastated with the result. However, the facts of the matter are that the leave campaign put out bucket loads of false propoganda which people like you and I may well be able to cut through and ascertain how false certain statements may be. Unfortunately, there are huge numbers of voters who opted for leave not knowing what they were voting for, some didn’t even know what the EU was, almost none will be in forums like this debating the issues and opening their minds. Therefore we find ourselves as a nation senselessly inflicting self harm.
        Leave or remain, we all have a common hope – namely; that Britain will prosper and our futures will be secure. But tell me this John, what was so bad with your life last week? You mentioned in one of your posts above the youth unemployement rate in the EU. You know fine well that in Britain we have the highest level of employment since records began in 1971. So what’s your point?
        The 350m per week that you and I knew to be a lie, has now been confirmed as being so. This figure was more likely to be around 100m per week. With a population of 65m what is the issue with every man and woman in the uk paying less than 2 quid per week? The impact of leaving on uk and global stock markets and sterling in just one day has dwarfed the 2 quid a week you seem so dead set on avoiding. You’ve cut off your nose and both ears to spite your face…
        If immigration is a driving factor for your decision then I’m afraid I don’t believe the leave outcome is going to yield the results you might hope for. If it takes 3 months to enact article 50 and the full 24 months to actually divorce from the eu then you should expect a surge of immigration ahead of the deadline.
        From a risk perspective, time will tell whether the country gains in the long run but just how much would you ever hope to gain and over what period? The downside risk is far greater than any upside opportunity (if there is ever going to be any).
        This isn’t about tit for tat leave v remain, this is our country, our lives and our futures. Are you seriously looking forward to a global situation where boris Johnson and Donald trump could be driving our metaphorical bus? There is certain irony that ‘great’ Britain with its colonising history has taken a shotgun to both of its feet as it seems certain parts of the electorate were concerned that we were being colonised by Europe. For the sake of my children and my future grandchildren and for our wonderful country, I sincerely hope that you and your fellow leavers (the ones who genuinely knew what they were voting for) are 100% correct. I’m afraid my instincts and my intellect tell me otherwise and for that reason I am concerned about all of our futures, including your own.
        Be careful what you wish for as one day you might just get it…

        1. I accept most of the points you make and I agonised over them too. BUT if you are a true democrat, you have to accept the will of the people. You can theorise about the level of understanding of the leave voters but you do not know and cannot know for certain that 16 millon people are dummies. I, along with more than half the voting population voted leave because I believe the EU is essentially flawed, with an unaccountable bureaucracy and also more than slightly open to fiscal mismanagement and corruption. Since its inception it has nver managed to satisfy independent financial auditors. Futhermore, the single currency cannot cope with the needs of disparate countries economies without massive bailouts by the richer Northern members. There is massive youth unemployment and labour inequality across the EU. The UK thankfully will be rid of that mess and will prosper outside the EU in due course. Of course I understand your view that we could have avoided short term pain by keeping the status quo. It is what it is. I just do not think it will be the long term disaster you fear. The EU is going to go through massive turmoil as well. The loss of the UK may well stimulate reform which will benefit the organisation. We were never politically enthusiastic members and not interested as a nation in the prospect of a single currency or a super state or participating in a European Army so let us prove to the World we can make on our own.

  9. A democratic vote has been made by one of the Worlds oldest democracies. We have ruled ouselves for 2000 + years. Of course we will succeed in the world on our own. We will now leave a chaotic club of nations governed by an un-elected bureaucracy which has never even managed to balance its books to satisfy an annual audit. Rabbiting on about the conduct of the campaigns does not alter the situation we face. It is a great opportunity for the country to find a new role in Europe and the World. We are out of the EU. Get over it!

    1. Get over the break-up of the UK and the instant ruination of the most vribrant economy and culture in the world? Oh, all right then. But give me a moment.

      1. Take as long as you like mate. It doesn’t change the situation. Accept it and move on. A Scottish independence vote is by no means certain. Why should the English Govt. allow another Scottish referendum only 2 years after the last one? Cynics might say that devolution has opened the door to eventual breakup of the Union. Only a matter of time maybe.

    2. We have ruled ouselves for 2000 + years.

      Apart from when the Romans ruled us, when the Vikings ruled vast parts of us and when the French ruled us (and arguably still do)?

      Not that a leave supporter would allow facts to influence what they say.

      1. Historically we may be described as a Nation of immigrants and occasionally unwanted invaders but I was trying to make the point that the people of these islands have, since Roman times, been governed by people who live here. Parliamentary Democracy has been won and evolved at great sacrifice and cost. It may not be perfect but it is a damned sight better than most. I am glad that we are going to recover those hard won rights to totally govern ourselves, make our own laws, raise our own taxes and care for our own people.

  10. If our PM makes an article 50 notification without a vote in parliament presumably he would do so under the Royal prerogative, as the power to sign international treaties lies with the head of state not the PM. So we have decided to restore the supremacy of parliament using and extra-parliamentary referendum, and will leave the EU by the PM exercising power on behalf of an unelected monarch without reference to parliament. If we truly want a modern, representative democracy then it seems there is still some work to do viv-a-vis the unelected head of state, the unelected house of lords, the established church, the dysfunctional electoral system etc etc

  11. With regard to point 4 “There is, after all, a tradition of EU-related referendums being repeated in Member States until there is the “correct” answer.” Can you please give examples of this? I would be interested to know. Thank you.

  12. so if the vote goes 52% stay 48% leave that’ll be ok I’m guessing even though it’s still so close? it is what it is just because you don’t like the result doesn’t mean you can then challenge it… that could then go on for years back and forth.. the vote has been done and made stop trying to get your on way like spoilt little brats.. I’m guessing as children you were never told no by your parents!

    1. The mistake has been made and we’re probably stuck with it.

      The arguments seem to follow these ideas:
      “x voted out, y voted in, z didn’t vote” y+z>x.

      Or x<(x+y+z)/2

      What is absolutely clear is that the majority of the country did not vote to leave.

  13. I only believe that a 2nd referendum should be held based on the fact that it was so close and the basis of most of the campaigns ‘reasonings’ have been revealed as been exaggerations to sway those who weren’t quite sure. I think for any election/referendum/vote of any kind the paramiters for what constitutes a majority should be at least 60/40. If this is unattainable a re- ballot should occur until such time a majority decision is reached.

  14. Do any of you pro #LEGAL types have written permission, granted and signed by God Almighty that says you’re who you claim you are?
    In the same way the police and others will ask you to provide the legal name I.D. which proves you are one of Satan’s DEED babies (UNTIL you decide you are not one of those and have no desire to be one of those ever again).

    It’s illegal to contract with minors, yes?
    It’s illegal to 3rd party interlope into contracts you had no part in making, yes?
    A Birth Certificate bond/contract/legal document, therefore, is nothing to do with the ‘child’ and the ‘child’/’adult’ may never, legally, use that document in any way for any purpose. Yet, we were ALL of us indoctrinated, advised, informed, directed and coerced into doing just that.
    Control of the masses via Legality. It is clear that Legality is a religious ideology, upheld and enforced (worldwide) by people with guns and other ways of making it very difficult for those reluctant/unwilling men and women to abstain from legality completely. Legality functions exactly like any religion with its own books, priests, organisation and state-of-mind/belief/program/doctrine. Unfortunately, it’s a state-sanctioned-enforced-upheld world religion which sits umbrella-style above ALL the legal sub-religions on this ‘planet’. It’s hard to avoid.

    What is it called when one is forced, coerced, against one’s will, to continue to accept/to become part of another’s religion?

    What is it called when one wishes to dis-associate from/stop being a ‘member’ of any religion but is forced (by myriad ways and means) to continue – or are assumed/presumed to be a ‘member’ regardless?

    What honour can there be within any religious organisation that is found to be fraudulent at its root, and generally harmful with a death cult as its modus operandi (legal wars aka mass murder by myriad uniformed groups worldwide and any/all other licensed killing, including animal slaughter businesses) where this alone, the killing, makes this religion an abomination against Truth/God/Creation itself where we are clearly instructed to ‘not kill’, etc.?

    Some are NOT ‘ok’ with ‘root and branch’ fraud.
    Not ‘ok’ with murder (legal or otherwise).
    Not ‘ok’ with any/all harms against others and want no further part in/with any religion/individuals/groups who do enjoy that sort of thing. Yet, when attempting to quit the association find extreme opposition to the concept of ‘freedom’ of choice regarding ‘religion’ or ‘no religion’ at all – where even ‘atheists’ follow the legal religion.

    What crime(s) does legality say are being committed by any individual or group which forces, by any/all means at their disposal, their own religious ideology upon another against the express will, wish and intent of said other? Coercion? Terrorism? Emotional, Mental, Physical Abuse? Slavery?

    #LEGALISM #CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY #TRUTH

  15. I wonder if, in fact, there are indeed legal grounds to challenge the results of the referendum? It seems clear that the information given to the electorate by the “Leave” and the ‘Remain’ campaigns was so inaccurate that the basis on which many people based their decision is verging on the fraudulent. As such, I think that the results of the referendum should be declared void, and a second referendum should be held as soon as possible. I suspect that there are many legal precedents for declaring a decision based on false information to be void.

    Basically, the goods were not as advertised and there should be provision for return. (Maybe the ASA should be asked to vet all political ads!?) It really makes no sense to go ahead with a Brexit that many of those who voted for may be now regretting. Surely there is no obligation to follow through on something that a majority may no longer want and on which they were misinformed? At least the voting public should be given another chance. More details of what is involved have emerged in the last three days than were put before the public in the last three months. And much of this is valid information rather than political hype.

    Maybe a different kind of referendum ‘campaign’ should be conducted. Why does it always have to be a competition? The considered approach would be for an unbiased ‘think-tank’ to honestly present the possibilities of both ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’. Instead of that, we have been fed misinformation and probably worse.

  16. Ok, so have your 2nd referendum, is it then back to business as usual if Remain then win it. The whole fact and outcome of the Referendum was that politics in it’s present form stinks with the vast proportion of the Electorate on both sides feeling ignored and unrepresented at the expense of the privileged minority to whom austerity meant little if anything. We now have an opportunity to put in place a reformed Democratic system that the people can identify with and can negotiate with conviction our position in the economic an moral world. Yes there were “lies” and deception but they were from both sides and doesn’t this just show the level of politics that we have today. If anything this Referendum was the People versus Politics.

  17. Considering EU citizens have the right to vote in European elections in the UK, could it be argued that not granting them a vote in the Referendum was a breach of their rights?

    1. Under what point of law could that be raised? It’s an internal constitutional issue, and just about the only thing that might be relevant is the requirement under the ECHR (article 3 of the first protocol) that elections have to be representative (the same clause that caused the votes-for-prisoners row). The ultimate decision on the implementation of what is an advisory referendum is with Parliament, and the qualification to vote for that is exactly the same as for this referendum.

      Of course it’s perfectly possible to make a moral or political case, but that’s not sufficient to constitute a breach of the law.

      From when I did some research on this it appears that it’s virtually universally the case in the EU that qualification for voting in national elections is reserved for citizens of the country with a few exceptions. The UK system probably has more anomalies than most as it allows resident Irish citizens to vote as well as resident citizens of commonwealth countries (which I seem to recall is mutual).

  18. I am truly amazed that the remain voters clearly see leave voters as idiots uncapable of making decisions and unable to see through the falsaties of politics, yet, not one remain voter has probably looked at the EU constitution, can see that the goal of France and Germany is to centralise control and thus declaring sovereignty over all people, ask yourselves this, if we remain and the federal states of Europe arise, how would you or indeed any of us be able to influence matters that directly affect our lives? Fisherman, farmers, steel workers, importers here in the UK are dying under the hand of the EU, job security I hear you say, how about the thousands of job losses in the afore mentioned sectors. I voted remain as I too was fooled by the idea of Europe, since the vote I have read more about the EU, it’s affects on the UK industries and of those to our friends in Europe, 50% youth unemployment across the EU nations, economies on the verge of irrefutable repair which is agreed by well known and established economists are directly linked to the Euro and the legislation imposed by the EU which is stifling industry internationally. The EU system stamps out competition, innovation, small businesses fail repetedly due to overwhelming legislation imposed on them. Do you really want a seat of power that you will never vote for and politicians in Parliment that have no real say, do you want it so your children will never be able to influence policy or law, build their own business and future? If your answer is yes then you voted correctly , my answer is no and I will vote leave if I had another chance.

  19. The EU referendum result should not lead to Article 50 being triggered until it is shown that the Leave vote was not significantly influenced by the disinformation that propped up the campaign-i.e. through some form of public enquiry. I believe this was not misinformation but so-called facts that were knowingly and deliberately intended to deceive the electorate. At present, it seems Government policy going forward will be based on deception of the people, not democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *