The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[Carlinate]

What puzzles me with regard to the Brexit situation is this.

 

Before every election each party issues a manifesto.

 

Manifesto definition; A public declaration of policy and aims.

 

The parties ask us to vote for them on the assurance that they will implement these promises.

 

After they have obtained our vote and taken office they then treat these policies as a sort of 'pick and mix' see how it goes " you didn't really believe that BS did you? "

 

However, following an 'Advisory' referendum which left enormously complex questions unanswered as to the consequences and the manner in which Brexit could be achieved, the result suddenly becomes the Tablets of Stone brought down from the mountain and has to be adhered to no matter what.

 

To put it into perspective take a look as to how manifestos are treat by the two main parties.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQwoOX-r3TAhUhDcAKHRqzBCoQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Flabour-reveals-21-broken-promises-6537411&usg=AFQjCNFLT8Yc8WXrRb5hgqRR0JHVrohZtw

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQwoOX-r3TAhUhDcAKHRqzBCoQFgg5MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Felection-2010%2F7628796%2FGeneral-Election-2010-Labours-broken-manifesto-pledges.html&usg=AFQjCNHOCTmlhayi2KcKOPf8CysKVYW33A

 

This comes across as incredibly hypocritical to me. When it suits treat promises given to attract votes as inconsequential, on a separate occasion treat votes on an advisory referendum as written in the blood of the Messiah.

[I1L2T3]

Then its not necessary to keep telling people it was advisory as it serves no purpose.

 

The basis for that was set out in that governments leaflet and to do otherwise would have been inconsistent.

 

It is a helpful reminder that the referendum was advisory.

 

That simple fact is going to be very important in the future although of course it changes nothing right now.

 

Latest polling suggests that opposition to Brexit now at 44% while support for it is also at 44%

 

The people now have a democratic opportunity to express their will at the GE, and the idea of seismic change being implemented off the back of an advisory referendum could become a critical issue

[apelike]

What planet are you on?!

 

This one and you?

 

Perhaps what I should have said is MAY be prosecuted as the law already is in place under the 1983 Representation of the People Act under electoral offences.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 22:27 ----------

 

It is a helpful reminder that the referendum was advisory.

 

I dont agree as if you read what Hairyloon stated then many people already knew it was advisory and that advice was up to parliament to decide. Keep stating it was advisory as if it makes a difference now adds nothing to the debate.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 22:29 ----------

 

The people now have a democratic opportunity to express their will at the GE, and the idea of seismic change being implemented off the back of an advisory referendum could become a critical issue

 

And if the Conservatives win it will still have been advisory and up to them and parliament to implement. As said, people already knew it was advisory so nothing changes.

[Obelix]

This one and you?

 

Perhaps what I should have said is MAY be prosecuted as the law already is in place under the 1983 Representation of the People Act under electoral offences.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 22:27 ----------

 

 

I dont agree as if you read what Hairyloon stated then many people already knew it was advisory and that advice was up to parliament to decide. Keep stating it was advisory as if it makes a difference now adds nothing to the debate.

 

Really? What offence would that be?

 

As a former member of the Electoral Services observers I can tell you that you'd be surprised what outright lies are acceptable on electioneering. Unless you publish false personal statements about a candidate or his conduct, falsly publishly they are withdrawing from the election, or blackmail them then you can lie to your hearts content.

[apelike]

Really? What offence would that be?

 

It comes under the category of “undue influence” as it is considered corrupt practice and the offence includes the use of a “fraudulent device or contrivance.” Its then up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider.

[Obelix]

You mean a S115 offence? Thats the one of "undue influence"

[apelike]

You mean a S115 offence? Thats the one of "undue influence"

 

To be honest I really could not tell you, only quoting from this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-campaigns-crown-prosecutors-cps-complaint-a7403161.html

[I1L2T3]

This one and you?

 

Perhaps what I should have said is MAY be prosecuted as the law already is in place under the 1983 Representation of the People Act under electoral offences.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 22:27 ----------

 

 

I dont agree as if you read what Hairyloon stated then many people already knew it was advisory and that advice was up to parliament to decide. Keep stating it was advisory as if it makes a difference now adds nothing to the debate.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 22:29 ----------

 

 

And if the Conservatives win it will still have been advisory and up to them and parliament to implement. As said, people already knew it was advisory so nothing changes.

 

Thats the thing. It could change because it was advisory and not legally binding. This will become very important. Guaranteed.

 

If it transpires that Brexit would be catastrophic there has to be a way to at least mitigate against some of the impact.

 

The bit you are not getting is that May's Brexit government could be forced to fall back on the fact it was advisory.

[apelike]

The bit you are not getting is that May's Brexit government could be forced to fall back on the fact it was advisory.

 

Not so sure as parliament have already kicked the ball and converted that advisory bit into actual fact.

[Obelix]

To be honest I really could not tell you, only quoting from this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-campaigns-crown-prosecutors-cps-complaint-a7403161.html

 

S115 2(b) then.

 

It doesnt apply if the fraudulent device affects how you were to vote, only if it stops you from doing so or induces you to vote when you wouldnt and proving even that is almost impossible. As I said before you can lie through your teeth as certain politicans have and will continue to do so and theres nothing ilelgal about it - even if it stinks morally