But in this case, mere overspending is hardly a sufficient reason to override the biggest vote in British history.

 

That would be punishing the voters, rather than the wrongdoers, and besides, unlike a by-election, the vote cannot be re-run under the original conditions.

Why do you think the Leave campaign overspent? Might it be because some of their backers stand to benefit?

 

If a football team bring on a substitute at the end of a match and that substitute is subsequently found to have been eligible to play, the team forfeits the match. That still applies if they were leading 8-0 at the time and the substitute didn’t even touch the ball.

Why do you think the Leave campaign overspent? Might it be because some of their backers stand to benefit?

 

I thought you claimed *nobody* would gain from Brexit?

 

If a football team bring on a substitute at the end of a match and that substitute is subsequently found to have been eligible to play, the team forfeits the match. That still applies if they were leading 8-0 at the time and the substitute didn’t even touch the ball.

 

I assume you meant *ineligible* there. ;)

 

It's not a very good analogy though, because on overspend doesn't automatically cost you an election.

Edited January 19, 20196 yr by vidcapper

I thought you claimed *nobody* would gain from Brexit?

I assume you meant *ineligible* there. ;)

 

It's not a very good analogy though, because on overspend doesn't automatically cost you an election.

That's the whole point! Why should the rules regarding a football match be stricter than the rules governing a referendum? Surely it should be the other way round.

 

I'll try again. If a serious breach of the laws in a referendum has no real consequences, what is the point of electoral law?

But in this case, mere overspending is hardly a sufficient reason to override the biggest vote in British history.

 

That would be punishing the voters, rather than the wrongdoers, and besides, unlike a by-election, the vote cannot be re-run under the original conditions.

 

Not just over-spending. Collaborating with a hostile government intent on damaging the democratic process to their own ends. The FBI has named Nigel farage as a "person of interest" in their investigations into the US election/Russian interference/ Cambridge Analytica/Wikileaks links/dodgy finance. This is as far from democracy as it is possible to get while holding elections and is nothing to do with a bit of "overspending". This is subverting democracy using every means available including using rich foreign money and the government shows no interest in pursuing the evidence errrr because the people involved are Tories and it would throw the hole referendum result into question.

 

So we have to depend on the FBI doing their job. But by all means just underplay abuses of democracy when it suits you, just don't expect any sympathy when you moan at genuinely minor issues that you don't agree with when you don't care at all about real democracy. You just like quoting it when it suits your argument. Had the result been reversed and Remain collaborated with foreign governments I would be quite happy to re-run the referendum, cos y'know, democratic process and all that.....

That's the whole point! Why should the rules regarding a football match be stricter than the rules governing a referendum? Surely it should be the other way round.

 

But then we'd have a potential scenario in which an over-spend of only £1 could cause an election result to be annulled. :rolleyes:

 

That would obviously be a ridiculous situation - but where then would you draw the line?

But then we'd have a potential scenario in which an over-spend of only £1 could cause an election result to be annulled. :rolleyes:

 

That would obviously be a ridiculous situation - but where then would you draw the line?

Oh, grow up. Leave overspent by a huge amount, not just a few quid. Stop trying to gloss over the real issue.

Oh, grow up. Leave overspent by a huge amount, not just a few quid. Stop trying to gloss over the real issue.

 

It was a genuine question - there's no need to reply like that! :o

Edited January 19, 20196 yr by vidcapper

It was a genuine question - there's no need to reply like that! :o

It would only be a relevant question if the level of overspending could be dismissed as trivial. That isn't the case.

It would only be a relevant question if the level of overspending could be dismissed as trivial. That isn't the case.

 

Has it actually been quantified?

 

Has it actually been quantified?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...r-a8668771.html

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-re...erspend-n891931

 

Double the limit.

 

For future reference there's this fab tool called Google. I know I've mentioned it before and I am probably annoyingly repeating myself, but you seem to get so forgetful these days. Took me under 60 seconds to find the info and 2 minutes to type this response.

Double the limit.

 

For future reference there's this fab tool called Google. I know I've mentioned it before and I am probably annoyingly repeating myself, but you seem to get so forgetful these days.

 

Very droll.

 

Took me under 60 seconds to find the info and 2 minutes to type this response.

 

But the point is, I have no motivation to look up this info myself, since my side *won*...

Very droll.

But the point is, I have no motivation to look up this info myself, since my side *won*...

 

Won by being corrupt, which I believe was the whole point.

 

If you aren't interested in facts, then stop asking questions you don't care about and wasting everybody's time and we can just view everything you say as pointless because you only care about "winning" and not whether it's illegal. Which brings me back to my point about moaning about pamphlets and minor infringements making you look like a huge hypocrite if you don't really care about law and rules.

 

Meanwhile Corbyn shows his statesmanship abilities as May goes off on one blaming Corbyn cos he let her have the moral highland by refusing to talk. We all want No Deal off the table but he's too dumb to realise she's as blatantly obtuse and unreasonable as he is, and it's an own goal as everyone points out his willingness to talk to terrorists but not actual democratically-elected governments when it's his job to try and sort out the mess.

 

because that would of course means he has to be seen to make a decision that part of his voter-base won't like, so still doing his best to sit on the fence even when the fenceposts are right up inside.

Very droll.

But the point is, I have no motivation to look up this info myself, since my side *won*...

 

You make no effort to actually research the topics you're attempting to discuss, ever.

Edited January 21, 20196 yr by blacksquare

You make no effort to actually research the topics you're attempting to discuss, ever.

 

That's far too sweeping a statement. If a new line of argument comes up, i do look into it - but 99% of the time it's just old ones repeated.

Won by being corrupt, which I believe was the whole point.

 

If you aren't interested in facts, then stop asking questions you don't care about and wasting everybody's time and we can just view everything you say as pointless because you only care about "winning" and not whether it's illegal. Which brings me back to my point about moaning about pamphlets and minor infringements making you look like a huge hypocrite if you don't really care about law and rules.

 

Not so - IMO you have to demonstrate that the over-spend swung the result, as *well* as the fact of the overspend.

 

Meanwhile Corbyn shows his statesmanship abilities as May goes off on one blaming Corbyn cos he let her have the moral highland by refusing to talk. We all want No Deal off the table but he's too dumb to realise she's as blatantly obtuse and unreasonable as he is, and it's an own goal as everyone points out his willingness to talk to terrorists but not actual democratically-elected governments when it's his job to try and sort out the mess.

Do you seriously think he could do a better job of putting through Brexit than she could?

 

because that would of course means he has to be seen to make a decision that part of his voter-base won't like, so still doing his best to sit on the fence even when the fenceposts are right up inside.

 

And there you have it...

 

 

Not so - IMO you have to demonstrate that the over-spend swung the result, as *well* as the fact of the overspend.

 

Do you seriously think he could do a better job of putting through Brexit than she could?

And there you have it...

 

You obviously didn't bother to read the articles I posted. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

 

I have made my opinion on Corbyn's leadership abilities very clear many many times. They are both useless. A trained chimp could do a better job than either of them. Not literally, but for comic effect just plinkety-plonking on a keyboard would have been just as useful as the last 2 and a half years of both of them in charge.

You obviously didn't bother to read the articles I posted. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

 

I *did* look them up, at least - but the Independent one clashed with my ad-blocker, The other one said they had been referred to the police, but I've heard no follow-up on that.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...-sentenced.html

 

'Sooner the liar steps down the better': Fiona Onasanya's angry constituents call for her to quit as MP after she is jailed for three months over speeding fine lie - and she could be booted out if just 10% sign petition

 

Peterborough MP lied to police after her Nissan Micra was caught speeding

She has been kicked out of the Labour party but refuses to quit as an MP

The 35-year-old today came under strong pressure to stand down

But she has vowed to appeal, meaning she could stay in her job while in jail

 

***********************************************

 

It's all pretty much moot - she's history at the next election anyway.

Edited January 30, 20196 yr by vidcapper

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...-sentenced.html

 

'Sooner the liar steps down the better': Fiona Onasanya's angry constituents call for her to quit as MP after she is jailed for three months over speeding fine lie - and she could be booted out if just 10% sign petition

 

Peterborough MP lied to police after her Nissan Micra was caught speeding

She has been kicked out of the Labour party but refuses to quit as an MP

The 35-year-old today came under strong pressure to stand down

But she has vowed to appeal, meaning she could stay in her job while in jail

 

***********************************************

 

It's all pretty much moot - she's history at the next election anyway.

 

She’s no longer a member of the Labour Party. Therefore, unless she wins on appeal, she won’t be the Labour candidate at the next election.

 

She’s no longer a member of the Labour Party. Therefore, unless she wins on appeal, she won’t be the Labour candidate at the next election.

 

True enough - but it should be an easy win for the Tories nonetheless, and a dead certain one if she stands in the next GE!