Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ainsworth74, 23 Jun 2016.
Six of the best, trousers down.
Brexit campaign mostly funded by five of UK's richest businessmen, study finds
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.
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....
Especially since some remain campaigners appear to have very deep pockets.
Which is supposed to mean what?
...except when it comes to paying corporation tax and paying above minimum wage.
Meaning they're all rich but not everyone was hoodwinked in to thinking otherwise at any point.
Sorry, perhaps I've had a bad day or something but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make
What, may I ask, is wrong with that in a democracy?
Will you stop tarring all the "Remain" supporters with the same brush.
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.
How the first stage of Brexit negotiations went
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?
Remind you of anything?
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.
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 ?
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.
From The Independent.
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.
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.
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?
That's not what it was about. If you can't get that right, why should I think you have anything else right?
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.
Millers arrogance knows no bounds.
If a man had said that, no-one would bat an eyelid.
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!
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".
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.