Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: L.A. on July 01, 2016, 11:01:51 PM
-
Payment protection insurance (PPI) was a con, it was widely mis-sold by people who basically lied about the benefits of these schemes in order to make a lot of money - and eventually, this was recognised and the guilty companies were fined and the victims compensated.
I see a parallel in this referendum. The Leave campaign consistently lied and 'mis-sold' their case for their own ends. They mis-represented the facts to an extent that, if they had been selling a product they would certainly have been prosecuted - yet the consequences of the referendum are far greater.
So isn't there a very good case for challenging the legality of this process?
-
No
-
No
I suspect you are right, but could there be a civil case? Plenty of no-win-no-fee lawyers looking for work?
-
Wouldn't the process have to be something similar to judicial review? If someone believes that a government body or individual (eg a minister) has caused something to be done which does not have legal support, then the courts can be asked to adjudicate.
I understand that there is a view that Article 50 cannot be invoked without statutory authority - a specific Act of Parliament. I'm surprised that no action has yet taken place challenging the government's response to the referendum - a referendum provides advice not a mandate.
-
I understand that there is a view that Article 50 cannot be invoked without statutory authority - a specific Act of Parliament. I'm surprised that no action has yet taken place challenging the government's response to the referendum - a referendum provides advice not a mandate.
Whilst what you say is correct, I seem to remember that Cameron said that he would take the result as binding, whichever way it went. Mind you, I still don't understand why the Government didn't require a specific majority - such as the normal 66% - to be reached before any change could occur.
-
But Cameron is now all but gone. I do not see how a statement he made which had no constitutional underpinning can possibly be perceived as binding his successor(s),
-
I suspect you are right, but could there be a civil case? Plenty of no-win-no-fee lawyers looking for work?
No, the law on this precludes it.
-
Whilst what you say is correct, I seem to remember that Cameron said that he would take the result as binding, whichever way it went. Mind you, I still don't understand why the Government didn't require a specific majority - such as the normal 66% - to be reached before any change could occur.
Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.
That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.
-
Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.
That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.
Is there not a case to have certain people sectioned under the mental health act?
-
Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.
That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.
In this specific case you could make an argument that, for change to occur, you need 50% of the electorate not 50% of the votes cast. i.e. this who didn't vote are assumed to be happy with things the way they are.
-
In this specific case you could make an argument that, for change to occur, you need 50% of the electorate not 50% of the votes cast. i.e. this who didn't vote are assumed to be happy with things the way they are.
. I'm not keen on that idea as covered earlier as it gives a 'vote' to those on the register who are dead.
-
. I'm not keen on that idea as covered earlier as it gives a 'vote' to those on the register who are dead.
Good point, there would have to be some way of removing those people from the register and discounting them.