• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/b...richest-businessmen-study-finds-a3521571.html

Brexit campaign mostly funded by five of UK's richest businessmen, study finds

The campaign to leave the European Union was funded largely by five of the UK’s richest businessmen, including the co-owner of Crystal Palace, according to a study.

The quintet together gave almost £15m to Brexiteers, with a total of £24.1m in donations and loans given to leave campaign groups in the five months leading to the referendum.

A study of finances by The Sunday Times Rich List found that business leaders accounted for 71 per cent of finances for both sides of the Brexit battle.

Crystal Place co-owner Jeremy Hosking paid £1.69m to leave campaigners.

Last week it emerged the Leave.EU campaign, which he co-founded, faces an investigation by the Electoral Commission over potentially impermissible donations.

The other three donors are investment billionaire Peter Hargreves, motor entrepreneur Lord Edmiston and hedge fund manager Crispin Odey.

Lord Salisbury of Turville was the remain campaign’s biggest donor, giving 4.2m to pro-Eu groups, according to the study.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Thanks for that information, does it actually mean anything to anybody though?
On a practical level, no. But it confirms for me that Brexit was a bad idea - anything that people with that kind of money are in favour of is rarely good for the likes of your or I.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
On a practical level, no. But it confirms for me that Brexit was a bad idea - anything that people with that kind of money are in favour of is rarely good for the likes of your or I.

It does conveniently fail to mention where the Remain funding came from though, unless both sets of donations are compared then one on its own means nothing
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
It does conveniently fail to mention where the Remain funding came from though, unless both sets of donations are compared then one on its own means nothing

This is true.

Remain could have been rich folk instead of salt of the earth hard working self starters like Farage....
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
It does conveniently fail to mention where the Remain funding came from though, unless both sets of donations are compared then one on its own means nothing

Especially since some remain campaigners appear to have very deep pockets.
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
The Remain side, of course, had the full weight and resources of the British government behind it, including the famous £9million leaflet drop courtesy of the taxpayer. I wonder if Remain included that in the list of expenses submitted to the Electoral Commission?

Even now we have the likes of Blair, Branson and Miller contributing vast sums to try to undermine the democratic vote taken last June.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
How the first stage of Brexit negotiations went

C_ZILM5XcAEM8I4.jpg
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
The Remain side, of course, had the full weight and resources of the British government behind it, including the famous £9million leaflet drop courtesy of the taxpayer. I wonder if Remain included that in the list of expenses submitted to the Electoral Commission?

Even now we have the likes of Blair, Branson and Miller contributing vast sums to try to undermine the democratic vote taken last June.

Do you have any proof they had to or didn't? Lets compaire apples with apples.

If Blair, Branson and Miller contribute vast funds do you have any proof that it undermined any vote or was illegal?
 

AY1975

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,748
The Remain side, of course, had the full weight and resources of the British government behind it, including the famous £9million leaflet drop courtesy of the taxpayer. I wonder if Remain included that in the list of expenses submitted to the Electoral Commission?

Even now we have the likes of Blair, Branson and Miller contributing vast sums to try to undermine the democratic vote taken last June.

There was also an Electoral Commission pamphlet sent to everyone, but that only had one page by the "Stronger In" campaign and one page by Vote Leave, which was not really enough for either side to cover all of the issues involved.

IMO instead of the Government's own £9 million pro-Remain booklet, there should have been an information pack sent to everyone containing a detailed booklet from the Remain campaign and one from Vote Leave, with each clearly stating that this is a statement by Stronger In and Vote Leave respectively, not by HM Government. That is what they had for the 1975 EEC referendum, I believe.
 

AY1975

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,748
The Remain side, of course, had the full weight and resources of the British government behind it, including the famous £9million leaflet drop courtesy of the taxpayer. I wonder if Remain included that in the list of expenses submitted to the Electoral Commission?

Even now we have the likes of Blair, Branson and Miller contributing vast sums to try to undermine the democratic vote taken last June.

Democratic vote? Only 37% of eligible voters, and two out of the four nations of the UK, voted Leave.

IMO that is not a big enough mandate for such a major constitutional change with potentially far-reaching consequences.

It was very short-sighted of David Cameron to only require a simple majority: he should have imposed a minimum threshold of 40% or 50% of all registered voters (not just those who actually voted) and all four, or at least three out of the four, nations of the UK voting Leave for Brexit to happen.

In many other countries that use referenda, such as Switzerland, a two-thirds majority is often needed to overturn the status quo, I believe.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Democratic vote? Only 37% of eligible voters, and two out of the four nations of the UK, voted Leave.

IMO that is not a big enough mandate for such a major constitutional change with potentially far-reaching consequences.

It was very short-sighted of David Cameron to only require a simple majority: he should have imposed a minimum threshold of 40% or 50% of all registered voters (not just those who actually voted) and all four, or at least three out of the four, nations of the UK voting Leave for Brexit to happen.

In many other countries that use referenda, such as Switzerland, a two-thirds majority is often needed to overturn the status quo, I believe.
I too think there should have been a threshold for something so important, and a tough one too -- certainly more than 50% of all registered electors.

However, Cameron in his wisdom did not write anything like that in. On the other hand, the referendum Act did not make the result binding on parliament -- it was advisory only. Could it just be that no-one thought that in the event of such a narrow majority for change parliament would automatically go ahead with Brexit -- until Cameron himself appeared in Downing Street to tell us all that the British people had spoken ?
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
I too think there should have been a threshold for something so important, and a tough one too -- certainly more than 50% of all registered electors.

However, Cameron in his wisdom did not write anything like that in. On the other hand, the referendum Act did not make the result binding on parliament -- it was advisory only. Could it just be that no-one thought that in the event of such a narrow majority for change parliament would automatically go ahead with Brexit -- until Cameron himself appeared in Downing Street to tell us all that the British people had spoken ?
What were the options? A referendum had been offered, legitimately by the prime minister. The question was in or out the EU. A majority of voters crossed the out box. Cameron's alternatives were to approach the EU again, ask for concessions which the commission were almost certainly not going to offer having sent him away with a flea in his ear weeks before, or go the British people and say thanks for your opinion but I've decided to do nothing after all. How was that going to work out? It would remove the possibility of a referendum in perpetuity because no one would bother to vote. Parties like UKIP would see their vote increase exponentially as they'd point out, quite reasonably, that the government was undemocratic, and Britain's Brexit negotiating position with the EU would be completely untenable. It would be straight out, no settling the tab or trade swaps and far right reactionaries calling all the shots.
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
Evidence?

From The Independent.

Richard Branson’s Virgin Group is to help bankroll a campaign set up in secret by Blairite former ministers and advisers to derail Brexit, The Independent can reveal.
An email seen by The Independent highlights the scale of backing the group has already secured. It shows the campaign has been months in the planning and claims “substantial progress” has already been made, including the identification of “an excellent potential CEO”. The memo was written by Alan Milburn, who was one of Tony Blair’s closest cabinet allies.
It reveals the group has heavy financial, political and corporate backing and is receiving advice and support from a host of high-level business and communications organisations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nson-virgin-group-eu-referendum-a7430396.html

Having failed with her court action to derail Brexit, Miller is now co-ordinating a nationwide campaign to financially support anti-Brexit MPs to get elected next month.

Gina Miller is Britain’s most loved/hated woman who is currently in the political frontline, and the millionaire business woman has now launched a crowd-funding appeal.
The campaign named ‘Best for Britain’ is making cash available to pro-Remain candidates from the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Labour fighting for a seat on June 8th.
The campaign has already raised £330,000, £55,400 of which could be funnelled to the Scottish nationalists – an enormous sum when you consider that the Tories are only targeting 12 seats north of the border.
As for the money’s origin, the crowdfunding page does not encourage donors to provide their name and donations are capped at £499 ‘for electoral reasons,’ but there is more to this than meets the eye.
The Electoral Commission does not class any contribution under £500 as a donation, and donors therefore have no obligation to reveal their identity.
A large number of Best for Britain’s 11,000 backers have decided to remain anonymous.

http://yourbrexit.co.uk/news/revealed-gina-miller-to-fund-anti-brexit-snp-mps/
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Glad to see Gina Miller's money has come from the public and not big business. How many Brexiters would put their hand in their pocket for their cause, and how much? Notwithstanding it's likely to cost everyone in the long run, so putting up to £499 into a crowd-fund might save down the line if we do end up with a soft Brexit.

Aside from that, I would be amazed if, after Brexit, there wasn't a new political party like UKIP but one to get us back into the EU; especially if we end up with WTO rules. We need an opposition and that new party would be it (in England), they'd have my support, membership and subscriptions!

Q - Would Ms Miller lead it? I think it would be led by one T. Blair if it ever happens. And it would be a SDP-type party for lthe PLP and disaffecterd Tories to escape to.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
One source said the aim of the campaign, which will launch formally in the new year, is to secure a second referendum on Brexit.
There's no mention on what that referendum should be on. Does it mean a second referendum on membership? A referendum on the deal secured by the Government?
Having failed with her court action to derail Brexit, Miller is now co-ordinating a nationwide campaign to financially support anti-Brexit MPs to get elected next month.
That's not what it was about. If you can't get that right, why should I think you have anything else right?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/article-50...cs-saying-uk-not-tin-pot-dictatorship-1590109
Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show on Sunday (6 November), she said: "This is not about the referendum vote. This is about how we leave the EU – and the papers have behaved, in my view, disgracefully.

"I'd like to challenge them as to whether they have actually read the case? Have they actually read the judgement?

"Because the elephant in the room is that [the ruling is] actually about leaving the EU, not about reversing the EU referendum [decision]."

Responding to Marr's questions about Theresa May's piece in the Sunday Telegraph where she states MPs have already been given the vote on holding the EU referendum and that they now need to accept the will of the people, Miller said: "That's misdirection.

"The case is that she cannot use something called the Royal Prerogative to [leave the EU], because we do not live in a tin-pot dictatorship.

"We live in a country that has a sovereign parliament. So, you can't win back sovereignty at the very moment you sidestep it.

"We have the rule of law and it's British judges in a British court who have made a decision about how we leave. And so now, get on and leave. Why is she so afraid of having this debate?"
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
Miller used court action to stop May using Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50, she got what she wanted but then parliament voted overwhelmingly to support A50, which caused her to call MPs spineless after all the trouble she had gone to. Miller wants to achieve so-called soft Brexit, which of course is another name for not leaving the EU at all.

Miller’s arrogance knows no bounds.

Brexit crusader Gina Miller: 'I always saw myself as Super Woman'
The woman who has led the fight against Brexit has told talkRADIO she's always seen herself as super woman, and called on all of us to "keep an eye" on the Government as they take us out of the EU.
Gina Miller won a High Court battle last year, forcing the Government to get Parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50. She's also a very successful businesswoman.
Appearing on our Badass Women's Hour show, Miller said: “I literally can’t ever remember not thinking I was super woman. I’ve always been an activist.
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/brexit-crusader-gina-miller-i-always-saw-myself-super-woman-17032711823
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Gina Miller seems to be a pretty remote and self-serving character without a democratic mandate, so I don't think it's beyond the realms of fantasy to call her arrogant in light of the quote above. The problem is a lot of us want a soft Brexit but I don't think a wealthy investment banker is the right person to be seen spearheading it!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Gina Miller seems to be a pretty remote and self-serving character without a democratic mandate

What is a democratic mandate?

Private Eye have also reported that some of Miller's crowdfunding has come from Branson, so I imagine it is true. But of the money, we're talking less than £20,000.

Miller is a concerned private citizen who has set up a pressure group. She is entitled to do this. burneside could too, if they feel that strongly. Of course her opinion is different to that of the billionaire non-domiciled tax avoider Jonathan Harmsworth, so of course she is "arrogant" and "out of touch" and "speaking out of turn".
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
If we (either an individual or the public at large) feel we are being hard done by the government that sits, are we not democratically empowered to challenge the government....which is exactly what Brexit wants (democracy, bringing control etc etc) or is it only democratic if Brexit likes it?

Now an individual won't have Brussels to appeal to, what exactly do we do? Sit down and hope our issues go away? That's the laughable thing about Brexit, they want democracy but to get it, they have removed, er, democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top