"You cannot betray the six million people"

It was all done in such a strange way. Cameron posturing, no information, confusing terminology. It's utter madness and I really fear for the future.

Don't you think that if there was a viable shred of evidence the 600 and something remain MPs would have used any of these accusations at the outset to claim foul play and have the referendum legally declared null and void...simples, so why didnt they do it?

MPs have backed the government's plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March by 461 votes to 89
In the main, they were falling over themselves to vote to trigger Article 50 and set the process of leaving the EU in motion.

More Labour MPs defied the whip and Jeremy Corbyn:
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill.
The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled.

Nonnie
Yes I have heard of Aaron Banks and all of the other claims that could have called a halt if there had been enough viable evidence. You cant suggest that the remain MPs didnt choose to pursue when all they have wanted is to overturn the result what an ideal gift that would have been.
The only thing I wonder is: if all these claims are actually true, then maybe there may be a bigger can of worms under the remainers chair that they fear will be opened if they tried to use their allegations to overthrow the result.

May I just clarify that when I wrote "I've heard plenty about not allowing brown people in, straight bananas, EU non-elected, EU leader drinks too much etc but none of those persuades me that we would be better off out." For the avoidance of any misunderstanding I was not referring to anyone who had written on this thread. I don't generally attack people unless severely provoked!

In the main, they were falling over themselves to vote to trigger Article 50 and set the process of leaving the EU in motion.

They didn't exactly fall over themselves. The government had to be taken to court to allow Parliament to permit May to invoke A50 i order to assert Parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, they did vote to let her invoke it but at the time the revelations about the illegal overspending weren't known.

The Electoral Commission say that they used criminal law standards of proof before imposing the largest fine possible on the Vote Leave campaign, and, they referred it to the police for investigation (result, as yet, unknown). We also know that May actually blocked investigation into the source of Bank's £8 million donation (the biggest political donation ever, apparently) but he is now also being investigated by the police.

Leavers tried to 'get' the Remain campaigns but the Electoral Comission found no evidence of wrongdoing, apart from one campaign being fined for a minor overspend.
There is also the question of the use of Cambridge Analytica to target people on social media by means of improperly obtained personal data.

May herself knows that the referendum was corrupted. Her Counsel said so in court.

I realise that large numbers of Leavers voted in good faith but with huge question marks over the subversion of the democratic process it makes the result very unsafe.

Do you know I watched question time last night and I had to turn it off because a woman on there was repeating exactly the same mantra as all remainers on here:
It was a fraudulent referendum
We were lied to
It is only advisory etc.etc.

Problem is, Joelsnan, all those statements are true.

Perhaps not falling over themselves

But they could have had the courage of their convictions and voted against it, as did the 89.

Clear and helpful Maizie

MaizieD
My point is:
Why hasn't the 400 odd remainer MPs got the referendum legally declared null and void because of fraud or whatever, it would have been an easier way to overthrow the result. As I said to Nonnie, maybe there are bigger worms lurking in the remain camp that would be revealed if they tried fraud as a reason to halt the referendum. If it was a viable proposition they could have started proceedings as soon as the result was declared saving all this grief...fishy!

The reason that referendum has not been declared null and void is because it was only advisory. If it had been mandatory it would have been nullified.

MaizieD
If they were true why is nothing being done?
Its like listening to the the Midwich cuckoos..repeat after me
It was a fraudulent referendum
We didnt know what we were voting for
We were lied to
It is only advisory

Isnt it time to accept that you were lied to none of this has enough proof to overturn the result, you must be so tired of the repetition.

varian
The reason that referendum has not been declared null and void is because it was only advisory. If it had been mandatory it would have been nullified

Awww give over...The term 'advisory' is now being bandied about to suit the purpose like shifting sands.
You know if it had been illegal as you keep claiming, whatever it was it could have been declared null and void.

I have just googled the Gov. sponsored pamphlet we all received before the referendum took place, and I can't see anywhere where it states that it was only going to be advisory varian

That’s because it never was advisory, Smileless. I voted to remain in the knowledge that if the majority also voted to remain we would remain! Which is why I expect the result to stand, even though it wasn’t my choice.

Fullfact Conclusion

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

such fun we are out it is the majority

all these long deluded left wing anti brexit rants are so dull. out we go

Well it doesn't say in the pamphlet that I referred too in my previous post that the referendum wasn't legally binding either varian. So which is it? Advisory only; not legally binding.

Maggiemaybe.

From the House of Commons briefing paper no.07212 on the Referendum Bill

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

This is the information on which MPs voted for the Bill. Note very well the bits in bold.

I can't give you a link to it as it comes as a downloaded pdf. but it's easy enough to search for on line.

I know exactly what was in Cameron's leaflet (heaven knows, I've had it quoted at me often enough) but he had no right whatsoever to make that statement. It was for Parliament to make, not the government.

In case you don't understand how our constitution works, there are three elements to it, the Crown, or Executive which is represented by the Government in Parliament, the Legislature, which is the House of Commons (and the Lords to a lesser extent) and the Judiciary. Leaving aside the Judiciary as irrelevant ATM, it is the legislature (Parliament) which has the sovereign power and it is able to legitimately oppose and curb the power of the Executive/Crown. Parliament is in control. The Executive (Crown) can make very, very few decisions without the approval of parliament/the legislature. Parliament cannot be overidden by the Executive. That's what we fought a bloody civil war and chopped off a king's head in the 17thC to establish, the supremacy of Parliament.

That's why Cameron had no constitutional right to promise that the referendum would be implemented; it was exceeding his powers as a minister of the Crown.

Now, many of you may be completely unaware that the referendum was advisory because it was not clearly put to the public as such, but it is an indisputable FACT

Apologies. The briefing paper number is 7212 (no '0' )

MaizieD
Don't you get fed up of flogging a dead horse?
No matter how you say it was advisory, parliament ratified the result, the electorate voted on it through election, parliament invoked A50.
Isnt it time to put stuff like this to bed.

A heartening and conciliatory response Maggiemaybe from a Remainer. thank you. It is appreciated.

Joelsnan, Smileness and Day6 take a recommend ladies.
??????

I voted to remain and accepted the result .

No, I don't get fed up of flogging a dead horse, Joelsnan.

Why should lies be allowed to triumph?

I've never had a proper reply when I ask people why they voted to leave. A friend of mine told me it was because Turkey was going to join the EU and we would soon be forced to use the Euro. Neither of those things are true. Maybe someone here has a good, genuine reason? I'm open to hearing one.

We are supposed to have a Democracy in this country.
Sadly some people seem to want a Demockracy.
We voted to leave by a majority. How can anyone argue against this?