Brexit Thread IV - They're laughing with us, not at us
- Thread starter Traitorfish
- Start date
- Status
The Daily Mail, normally a strong Brexit supporting newspaper, is now defending a "bad deal".
In June Paul Dacre, the Brexiteer chief editor of the Daily Mail was replaced by the Remainer Geordie Greig.
From the Guardian yesterday:
In June Paul Dacre, the Brexiteer chief editor of the Daily Mail was replaced by the Remainer Geordie Greig.
From the Guardian yesterday:
I can believe that analysis, but Greig is a Remainer.... so it could be more than just rallying the Tory troops behind May to prevent a no-deal Brexit that could blow up the Tories position for elections sooner or later.
If you look at a snapshot the MailOnline today... you could see that as fearmongering to support the Chequers deal of May, to support the Tory party, but you could also see that as preparing for shifting further away from Brexit, to neutral, in case it comes to a new referendum.
Lexicus
Deity
And we all know how disastrous that would have been. The Tories probably would have totally deregulated finance, followed the Americans into a disastrous and criminal war in Iraq, and then responded to the biggest economic crisis in 70 years with budgetary austerity.
Oh wait
The Tories would have been even worse than Labour did.
…
Tomorrow I have to get up early, and what I've just written might just mean I'll be incapable of sleeping at all tonight. Grrr.
Democracy inaction!
Brexit: Elections watchdog 'misinterpreted' spending rules over Vote Leave donations, High Court rules
Campaigners argued the watchdog failed in its duty to regulate the referendum process
The elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners from the Good Law Project (GLP) won a legal challenge against the Electoral Commission over election spending by Vote Leave, arguing that the watchdog failed in its duty to regulate the referendum process.
In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Leggatt said the Commission had misunderstood the definition of referendum expenses in relation to Vote Leave, a campaign group fronted by leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
The row centres on Vote Leave’s donation of £620,000 to Canadian online advertising firm AggregateIQ (AIQ) at the request of another Brexit campaigner, Darren Grimes, founder of the youth group BeLeave.
This donation breached strict electoral spending rules as it took Vote Leave over its £7m spending limit by almost £500,000.
Campaigners launched the case in October last year, after the Electoral Commission said there were “no reasonable grounds to suspect” incorrect reporting of campaign spending or donations by Vote Leave.
The watchdog later launched a probe into both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes, concluding that both had incorrectly reported their spending.
Vote Leave was fined £61,000 and Mr Grimes was handed a £20,000 fine by the commission – and both were reported to the police.
The High Court agreed with the watchdog that Vote Leave had broken the rules, but found that it had also misinterpreted the rules in the advice it gave to the campaign.
Mr Justice Leggatt said the commission had “misinterpreted the definition of ‘referendum expenses’”, adding: “The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses.
“As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation.”
Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said: ”It is now clear that the Electoral Commission gave unlawful advice that encouraged Vote Leave to carry on spending. And it gave it selectively – no such advice was given to Stronger In.
“The regulator, charged with ensuring the referendum was fair, in fact unlawfully tilted the playing field in Leave’s favour.”
Matthew Elliot, the former chief executive of Vote Leave, said the campaign had been left in a “complete Alice in Wonderland situation”.
Writing on the Brexit Central website, he said: “Vote Leave asked for, and received, the Electoral Commission’s advice. We followed that advice.
“During the judicial review, the Electoral Commission tried to avoid admitting that it had given that advice to us, but we were able to establish that they had – and the judges clearly ruled in the preliminary hearing that we had received that advice.
“Yet we are now told that, by having followed that advice, we broke the law.”
An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: ”The Commission welcomes the court’s consideration of this aspect of electoral law.
“The court arrived at the same conclusion as the Commission did in its investigation – that Vote Leave should have accounted for the expenditure on the digital services firm, Aggregate IQ – although it found an additional reason for reaching that conclusion.
“The Commission imposed sanctions on Vote Leave for this offence and others found during the investigation.”
Brexit: Elections watchdog 'misinterpreted' spending rules over Vote Leave donations, High Court rules
Campaigners argued the watchdog failed in its duty to regulate the referendum process
The elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners from the Good Law Project (GLP) won a legal challenge against the Electoral Commission over election spending by Vote Leave, arguing that the watchdog failed in its duty to regulate the referendum process.
In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Leggatt said the Commission had misunderstood the definition of referendum expenses in relation to Vote Leave, a campaign group fronted by leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
The row centres on Vote Leave’s donation of £620,000 to Canadian online advertising firm AggregateIQ (AIQ) at the request of another Brexit campaigner, Darren Grimes, founder of the youth group BeLeave.
This donation breached strict electoral spending rules as it took Vote Leave over its £7m spending limit by almost £500,000.
Campaigners launched the case in October last year, after the Electoral Commission said there were “no reasonable grounds to suspect” incorrect reporting of campaign spending or donations by Vote Leave.
The watchdog later launched a probe into both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes, concluding that both had incorrectly reported their spending.
Vote Leave was fined £61,000 and Mr Grimes was handed a £20,000 fine by the commission – and both were reported to the police.
The High Court agreed with the watchdog that Vote Leave had broken the rules, but found that it had also misinterpreted the rules in the advice it gave to the campaign.
Mr Justice Leggatt said the commission had “misinterpreted the definition of ‘referendum expenses’”, adding: “The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses.
“As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation.”
Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said: ”It is now clear that the Electoral Commission gave unlawful advice that encouraged Vote Leave to carry on spending. And it gave it selectively – no such advice was given to Stronger In.
“The regulator, charged with ensuring the referendum was fair, in fact unlawfully tilted the playing field in Leave’s favour.”
Matthew Elliot, the former chief executive of Vote Leave, said the campaign had been left in a “complete Alice in Wonderland situation”.
Writing on the Brexit Central website, he said: “Vote Leave asked for, and received, the Electoral Commission’s advice. We followed that advice.
“During the judicial review, the Electoral Commission tried to avoid admitting that it had given that advice to us, but we were able to establish that they had – and the judges clearly ruled in the preliminary hearing that we had received that advice.
“Yet we are now told that, by having followed that advice, we broke the law.”
An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: ”The Commission welcomes the court’s consideration of this aspect of electoral law.
“The court arrived at the same conclusion as the Commission did in its investigation – that Vote Leave should have accounted for the expenditure on the digital services firm, Aggregate IQ – although it found an additional reason for reaching that conclusion.
“The Commission imposed sanctions on Vote Leave for this offence and others found during the investigation.”
The Tories displayed their usual hypocrisy over the 2008 financial crisis.
Before it they argued for even less regulation than the inadequate regulation Labour imposed.
After it they said the new regulations introduced as a result of the crisis weren't strict enough.
When they got into power they changed their mind and decided no more regulation was needed.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Last time I heard, the number of people opposing chlorinated chicken because it could kill them was precisely zero.
So, the latest from May is that it's the Chequers deal or no deal. Setting aside the whole thorny issue about the EU needing to agree, that is blatantly not a meaningful say on the Brexit arrangement, as ordered by Parliament. Are the Tories that far gone that they've forgotten that whilst they're nominally running the country, they're not the only people in the country?
And Boris Johnson is attacking the NI backstop again in the Telegraph.
'The Irish backstop is a monstrosity that wipes out our sovereignty'
He seems keen to re write history - the Backstop was always going to a legal framework and permanent and he is ignoring his own position in the cabinet that agreed it.
'The Irish backstop is a monstrosity that wipes out our sovereignty'
He seems keen to re write history - the Backstop was always going to a legal framework and permanent and he is ignoring his own position in the cabinet that agreed it.
If you read the white paper "The Ideal U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement: A Free Trader’s Perspective" from the link blueprint get an idea what that radical free trade looks like.
The net effect is that regulations that reflect the culture of a member country are to be taken away as hindering the ultimate goal of absolute free access for free trade of the business. A further eroding of the power of the people in their democracies.
It is seamless in line with that "I want to believe" report from Economists for Free Trade and going way further than some chlorinated chickens.
I really find it a kind of crazy that a small group of Tory elitists that are only interested in big money were that effective in getting behind them so many low income leave voters for Brexit and able to drag with them the whole Tory party.
From that Brexit survey done for the BBC Radio 5 lately by ComRes:
But that was not all asked:
Another question was on the statement: "In 5 years time I expect my household will be better off, as a result of the UK having left the EU".
Net agree: 32%, net disagree 54%.
If you look at the split up in socio-economic classes, Net agree is 25% for class AB (upper & median middle class), 29% for C1 (lower middles class), 39% for C2 (skilled manual workers) and 39% for DE (D; other manual workers, E: non-working; unemployed, pensioners). Whereby noted that in 2008 D is approx 15% of the population and E approx 8% of the population. As % of population in that actual poll: AB 27%, C1 28%, C2 20%, DE 24%.
I do not think at all that that free trade by raw capitalism, stripping away protections, will be benefitting the low incomes, even if it would increase the total pancake, which I also do not believe will happen.
The amount of reports and statements tumbling on each other with warnings on Brexit from respectable and knowledgable people the last two weeks is impressive
But paradoxally, the lower the income, the more they believe they will benefit economically.
It shows for me that most people that voted for Brexit out of other reasons do not want to believe that Brexit will hurt their wallet.
52% voted Brexit, 41% believe that the "overall" impact is positive, 32% believe their wallet will be better off as well. What an impressive faith of those 32%.
It also puts the finger on the issue Corbyn has to come in the open with marked positions on Brexit. Much of his own voter base belong to that 32%.
Assuming that populism as one of the drivers of the high Brexit vote....populism is not only for right-wing. The following political compass graph of Leave-Remain & Labour-Tory shows that a bit:
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/breaking-the-overton-window/
The Leave voters are mostly in the authoritarian segments.
It is the authoritarian part of the Tory voters that was separated by the UKIP action by offering the rally behind Brexit, the threat to split the party or take over the party. Theresa May having done little else than handling that infight struggle.
And Corbyn is facing that many of his voter base are more caught up by identity politics (on the authoritarian end national selfdetermination, immigrants, etc), than by traditional left-right politics on the economy.
Last edited:
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
When Rupert Murdoch's Massive Media Machine is willing to do Bernard Manning's propagand-... sorry, PR — practically for free, then persuading turkeys to vote for Christmas becomes a hell of a lot easier...
Last edited:
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Meanwhile project fear strikes again. I wonder how many other factories will be moving there shut downs to April next year. How many people will be encouraged to take their holiday then.
From Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...three-day-week-christmas-brexit-a8541356.html
from BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45561908
From Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...three-day-week-christmas-brexit-a8541356.html
from BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45561908
The Institute for Government think tank has come up with a report that says that crucial Whitehall systems are unlikely to be in place by March 2019 if the government fails to negotiate a deal, saying “just a fraction of the processes and systems required for life outside the EU will be in place” – there will be only time for “temporary sticking plasters”. Also the government’s decision not to publish technical notices on how to prepare for a no-deal situation until the end of last month means that companies and organisations have just over six months to get their plans in place. “Waiting until August 2018 means it is likely to be too late for many businesses to meaningfully prepare,” the IfG said. Moreover, some notices were slim volumes that “contained significant gaps”.
Original report, and El Reg write-up.
Original report, and El Reg write-up.
Sounds to me as very practical for the companies with many just-in-time intermediate (car) components. For others as well.
But will there be airplanes to Spain for those holidays ???
- Status
Similar threads
