Can a referendum be valid if won on lies?

dj, It looks as though May will be the runaway winner amongst fellow MPs, but Leadsom is likely to be second and (from what I understand) those two will go forward to a ballot of the membership. Read my comment on another thread about this. The rumour on social media (no idea if it can be trusted) is that UKIP supporters are busy paying their £25s, so they can vote for Leadsom. It doesn't bode well that Arron Banks is supporting her with marketing and possibly finance.

The media has begun to dig into her past. She hesitated far too long on Andrew Marr about agreeing to publish her tax affairs. She doesn't appear to have done anything illegal, but she's not somebody who will be committed to taking action against tax havens and tax loopholes. Some of the things she's said in the past would indicate that she's a nasty piece of works. She's turbo-charged Thatcher.

I have such a bad feeling about where this country is heading and the referendum has been the catalyst. As ever, it will be the 'little people' who lose out, while that sham 'champion' of little people could find himself catapulted into the Lords.

In one of her speeches Leadsome said she spoke " as a mother" so many times. It makes you think noone else has been a mother. I wonder how many nannies she employs. No, May has got to be the least worse candidate.

That really annoyed me during the last debate; why didn't she keep saying she'd been involved with banking 'as a banker' might not have gone down well. She's the only candidate that says she will instigate (activate?) Article 50 immediately if she becomes PM...I guess that's why Arron Banks is supporting her.

Nasty bit of work?! What is it with you people that you always use this sort of language? A nasty bit of work is a Kray twin, a mass murderer, a paedophile; those sort of people, not a person whose political views you disagree with. Jeremy Corbyn and his left wing friends are not my COT, but I would never describe him or them as 'nasty bits of work'. To me that's the language of the gutter! Aaron Banks? Is he a Jew, is that the problem here, hence mentioning him?!

A 'nasty piece of work' is relative. I'm not aware that there's a standard definition. I set the bar lower than you presumably do.

I haven't a clue whether Arron Banks is a Jew. Why do you ask? No, niggly, he's quite upfront that he's plotting a new political party, has poured millions into UKIP and Leave, is now supporting Leadsom and sees the North East as a 'marketing opportunity'.

We live, I think, in a democracy, so people can support who they like, how they like including financially, just like the trade unions supporting with lots of finance, the labour party. That doesn't make either of these financial backers a 'nasty bit of work'! Is democracy only ok if it works for you? sadly for some, this would seem to be the attitude!!

That depends on your moral values. I stick by my opinion that he's a thoroughly nasty piece of work. You are entitled to your opinion.

It's people like him who undermine democracy.

People undermine democracy when they do not accept a democratic vote result because it doesn't go the way they wanted.

Please can you tell me what your definition of democracy is,*daphne*. I am genuinely interested.

No people can't support who they like. There are certain banned extremist organisations which you can't openly support in this country.

I've been away and have missed most of all this. But it seems to me there are an awful lot of bad losers around.

Someone on here posted this link a few days ago:
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
It now looks as if the law is going to be applied, and there could be full parliamentary debate, and vote. Before Article 50 is triggered.

I think you'll find that parliament won't go against the will of the people,otherwise why have a referendum in the first place if you're only going to vote down the will of the people because you don't agree with it? Parliament is the servant of the people and is aware of this. To do otherwise is a dictatorship under the guise of democracy as it can easily be used any way that parliament sees fit, good or bad. Scotland of course will vote for the will of its people. Not sure how this works constitutionally as the vote was a collective vote, bit of a conundrum, but we,shall see.

Well said, henetha. Bunch of whiners.

Some of the things she's said in the past would indicate that she's a nasty piece of works
That depends on your moral values. I stick by my opinion that he's a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

now as to who is supposed to be a nasty piece of work according to some posters - Andrea Leadsom as the first statement indicated, or Aaron Banks?

I set the bar lower than you presumably do.

that could include innumerable people in public life then - perhaps you are right.

Given that Leave didn't really have a clue what to do next if they won maybe they didn't actually look into the legal technicalities of implementing Brexit either. If it's unlawful for Article 50 to be invoked without a vote in parliament is that democratic or, is the law of the land to be ignored in this brave new world that we now find ourselves in?

Daphnedill I would love to know how you can justify calling Andrea Leadsom a nasty piece of work? Can you back it up with examples of her "nastiness"?

Can someone give me concrete evidence that Arron Banks is a good guy?

Good guy or bad, he's still entitled to financially support whoever he pleases as is anyone else left, right, center, good bad or indifferent. Of course parliament has to debate this issue, but it has to uphold the will of the people as members have already said. I remember in the run up to the referendum of 1975, that a number of opinion polls were held all over the country to gauge how people, all types of people, felt about being in the common market, what they felt were the advantages and disadvantages as they saw it. Their opinions were listened to and not dismissed as dimwitted, uneducated, with a Nanny knows best high handed attitude. Unsurprisingly over two thirds of the nation were in favour, then we had the referendum! Perhaps we were kinder then and not quite so ready to dismiss people as morons.

Perhaps we were kinder then and not quite so ready to dismiss people as morons
and there was no internet, no social (or anti-social) networking so people could not be unkind or dismissive of other people's views, unknown behind a pseudonym.

As this is unprecedented, no one would, or would be expected to know what 'to do next'. Things have to be explored and worked through.

This 'uncertainty' was flagged up throughout the campaign by Cameron and Osbourne and the public knew this and still voted to leave the EU. Things will settle down, deals will be made, trade will continue, the pound will find its natural level (again) and life will go on.

It's not the end of the world.

The government should have had contingency plans for all possible outcomes. They had nothing. It was their responsibility, no-one else's.

What contingency plan could that have been though?

That is what they were elected to do, no point asking us what those plans should have been. It appears that no-one had any plans at all, whether they were advocating leaving or remaining.

That is the national tragedy, not whether we stay in the EU or leave to plough our own furrow. It is that no-one can steer the plough or encourage the oxen!