"You cannot betray the six million people"

Yes

Venetia

Leave voters do not have to explain anything to anyone.
This is the problem with some remainers, they’re so arrogant.
Why do you think people who voted differently have to explain themselves to you?
Who do you think you are?
Honestly, get over yourself.

Joelsnan and others You said "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?" However I don't think you can argue with: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47755611

Can you finally accept that there was criminal activity by the Leave campaign? It was all over the news last night.

Presumably we would have heard if the Remain campaign had been proved to have acted illegally.

How can anyone argue against this?

Easily, Esspee. The majority is tainted by the fraudulent methods used by the Leave campaigns, particularly Vote Leave. The result cannot be relied on to be 'safe' under those circumstances.

Do you really want to live in a 'democracy' where results are obtained by cheating? Tear up the rule book and let anything go?

I’d be happy to have a second referendum if it was Remain or Leave on WTO (no wishy washy half in half out ‘deals’).

I think Leave would romp it!

Good to hear Urmston. Not sure about WTO but whatever is on offer v remain. Maybe even TM's deal, no deal or Remain? As I've said on another thread, when a jury cannot agree they have a retrial, the only way forward now.

A good reason to vote leave was the total lack of democracy exercised in the EU. Juncker was the only name on the ballot paper when he was elected. I expect this will be disputed, but sadly it’s true. Do yourself a little research if you don’t believe me.
The European Parliament, to which we elect MEPs, does NOT make or propose laws, it scrutinises them and then rubber stamps them. MEPs are allowed between one minute and one a half minutes to speak when the Parliament is in session, and they are not guaranteed to allowed to speak, only a small number can speak in any debate, time is cited as the reason. Laws are proposed by The European Commission, and rubber stamped by The European Parliament. The European Council is made up of the 28 (currently) Heads of State and meets (fully) four times a year. Other work is carried out when the Council of Europe is not sitting, mainly by bureaucrats.
I have every expectation that this information will be disputed but nonetheless a little research will prove it to be true.
For the record, I voted remain, primarily on economic grounds. I despised the lack of democracy in the EU then, and I still do now. In any future referendum I will vote leave.
Bear in mind, EVER CLOSER UNION is the stated aim of the EU. This has been the case since the inception of the EU (then EEC) since the 1st January 1958.

maddy I don't think that is so very different from Westminster is it? Presumably the laws written by the bureaucrats have been suggested by politicians. They do get democratically voted upon so not undemocratic surely?Not everyone in our parliament gets to speak in the debates, the Speaker chooses who does.

Why was Junker the only name on the ballot paper? Presumably others had the opportunity to put their names forward.

I agree the EU is far from perfect but then so is our government. I would rather be part of it with a voice to try to change or veto than an outsider who has to obey the rules without any voice. Many of our employment laws come from the EU so maybe we wouldn't have so much protection if we were not a member.

I agree that on balance our economy is better in than out simply because of so much greater buying power. Looking at the bigger picture I think the status quo is the better option.

I have every expectation that this information will be disputed but nonetheless a little research will prove it to be true.

As far as the proposal of laws is concerned this isn't true. I'd post a link to the process of law making in the EU but I'm not on the right computer and I don't have time to search for the document I have in mind. I can come back to this later...

Nonnie
I would rather be part of it with a voice to try to change or veto than an outsider who has to obey the rules without any voice

The problem is Nonnie, despite being the third largest contributor to the union our voice is being progressively suppressed as shown by Camerons last pre referendum visit to Brussels and MTs forays since. The EU is only interested in our money and our expertise. If you check out funding for regeneration sites (prettifying areas stripped of industry) the amounts allocated to UK sites is diminishing year on year.

joelsnan please would you respond to my post of 1030?

I don't know enough to agree or dispute what you said at 1225 but I do believe we are better as part of it than out of it. As already said, it is not perfect but then what system is?

Nonnie
Re your 10.30 post:
If you read my thread again you will note I said 'viable' evidence.
I accept there was backroom fiddling by the leave campaign. My puzzlement is why, if this is the case did the remain parliamentarians not use this to declare the referendum null and void two years ago. Either the wrongdoing is not severe enough to sway the vote or the remain camp have something to hide which may be uncovered if this had been pursued, they have of course been pulled up about some of their spending and offshore donors.
If it was so bad this was the ideal tool to use to force another referendum...something odd.

Joelsnan: ...why, if this is the case did the remain parliamentarians not use this to declare the referendum null and void two years ago.

I guess the leave campaign did not exactly shout it from the roof top: "FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY IN PROGRESS" was not displayed on any bus.

But Joelsnan clearly the evidence is 'viable'. It has been clearly stated several times that the reason for not doing anything about it in parliament is that the vote was legally only 'advisory'. I am not a lawyer but imagine that means there was nothing that could be done about it. It would have been impossible for anything to be done while there was still an appeal in progress so I don't understand why you think something could have been done 2 years ago.

I would not describe fraud as 'backroom fiddling' it is far worse than that because even if only 1 million people were fooled by it all then the referendum should be declared null and void by any moral standard.

What do you think the Remain campaign did that was illegal? I dislike this casting of aspersions without anything to back it up. If there is something to say please say it. There is evidence that Leave and its main backer committed serious offences so please supply the evidence that Remain did.

Greta
The same could be said for both sides, but because the Leave campaign had no reason to overturn the decision i suppose there was no need to grub around. At least they didnt use taxpayers money to further their cause.
Again, if the wrongdoing was bad enough why isnt the result being declared null and void as a result of fraudulent practice. Why are we enduring this circus if it could be solved legally?

The bougeoise are doing an interesting job by turning the proletariat on itself. We will probably all get put back in our box never to be heard again a sad time for democracy.

joelsnan I think my crossed post will answer your question to Greta.

Nonnie

amp.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/order-order.com/2018/03/26/remain-
campaign-used-exactly-spending-tactics-vote-leave-far-worse/amp/

www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/95175/fresh-fines-remain-campaigners-after-referendum-expenses

Neither are snowy white

joelsnan can't read the FT one because I am not a subscriber. I've never heard of the second one but it is only an article with no evidence. I had to Google Best for our Future because I had never heard of them but all I could find was a pdf from the Electoral Commission which listed donations. I have to admit I was surprised at how many different organisations there were for the referendum - 7 for Remain and 10 for leave. I can't see any suggestion that BFF did anything wrong though.

Of course I don't know it any of them are 'snowy white' but I do think you should refrain from trying to tar Remain with the same brush as Leave. It appears you are not prepared to admit the wrong doing when it is right in front of you and thereby lessens the value of your opinions for me.

This is a collection of Electoral Commissions monthly reports on its casework and investigations up to this year. It shows that it's pretty easy to be fined by the EC, it happens to lots of parties, people and organisations. So, in itself, being fined is no big Shock Horror occurrence.

What is outstanding about the Vote Leave and Beleave (Darren Grimes) cases is that they attracted the maximum fines possible and were referred to the police. Which is not usual and indicates rather more criminality than the EC usually finds.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/151659/Cases-publication.pdf

(downloaded from the EC's own website)

When mentioning the 17.4 million you really should mention the 16.1 million (or whatever) who voted to remain. The majority was around 1.4 million and this is really too small a number to be responsible for potentially destroying the lives and livlihoods of many.

The official EU campaign and the LibDems were fined were fined thousands by election watchdogs, from PoliticsHome.

Dinahmo: The majority was around 1.4 million and this is really too small a number to be responsible for potentially destroying the lives and livlihoods of many.

Many of us say Amen to that.

Dinamo So refreshing to read your post.

Nonnie
ve. It appears you are not prepared to admit the wrong doing when it is right in front of you and thereby lessens the value of your opinions for me

If you had read my posts correctly you will find I have never dismissed the issues with Leave funding. My question has always been why wasn't the referendum declared null and void. I have reiterated this so many times throughout this thread that I am getting bored repeating it.
By giving links to show remain funding problems I show there are issues throughout, maybe some more than other, maybe some yet to be revealed.
Again, my question is when all remainers go on and on about fraud. Why wasnt the referendum declared null and void so we didnt have to go through this torture?

The referendum was corrupted by foreign interference and illegal overspending and manipulation of social media.

The only reason it has not been nullified is because it was only advisory.p