Christ almighty Wetherspoon's results are even more of a Brexit rant than usual today. He just launches straight into it for eight paragraphs before devoting a single paragraph to, you know, the results.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Brexit Thread
Collapse
X
-
High Court says Electoral Commission fucked up its original Vote Leave/Grimes ruling:
For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of PPERA. 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.
The email communications which we summarised at paras 12 – 20 above show that Vote Leave made each of the AIQ Payments (totalling £620,000) at the request of Mr Grimes for the agreed purpose of paying for advertising which Mr Grimes ordered from AIQ. We see no reason to doubt that the payments were, as they were said to be, donations made by Vote Leave to Mr Grimes to meet referendum expenses which he incurred by purchasing advertising services from AIQ. But it is also clear that, on the proper interpretation of the statutory provisions as we have analysed them, Vote Leave “incurred expenses” by making the payments, that those expenses were incurred “in respect of” advertising (one of the matters listed in Part I of Schedule 13 of PPERA) and that the expenses were incurred “for referendum purposes” within the meaning of section 111(3) of PPERA. They were therefore “referendum expenses” as defined in section 111(2) of PPERA irrespective of whether they were also “common plan expenses” within the meaning of para 22 of Schedule 1 of EURA, as the Electoral Commission has now found.
It was suggested on behalf of the Electoral Commission that this is not a rational conclusion because Vote Leave could equally well have sent the money to Mr Grimes to enable him to pay AIQ instead of paying AIQ itself directly and that, even on the claimant’s case, Vote Leave would then have avoided the regulatory control on referendum expenses because the expenses would not then have been qualifying expenses falling within Part I of Schedule 13 of PPERA. It was suggested that it is not reasonable to adopt an interpretation which leads to such an arbitrary difference in result.
However, if Vote Leave had sent the money to Mr Grimes on the agreed basis that he would use it to pay for services ordered from AIQ, the result would not have been different. In that case too, as we interpret the statutory test, the payments would also have been referendum expenses incurred by Vote Leave.
The position would have been different if the money had been given to Mr Grimes for him to use however he chose in promoting a ‘leave’ outcome of the referendum. Such general donations would not in our view have constituted referendum expenses incurred by Vote Leave. If it be said that distinguishing between such general donations and specific donations is not fully satisfactory, it is, we consider, necessary in order to make the best sense possible of a statutory scheme which, while setting no limit on donations as such, limits spending on campaign activities with the object of preventing any individual or body from using its wealth to gain disproportionate attention for its views.
Comment
-
Hurrah, the Border has been solved! Unfortunately, Raab has failed to convince Barnier with his cunning plan:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ing-in-on-deal
Comment
-
No idea what Thornberry is doing here.
Labour to vote against Brexit deal, Emily Thornberry says
Shadow foreign secretary believes PM could be forced out before Christmas
The UK’s opposition Labour party is set to vote against Theresa May’s Brexit deal, according to one of Jeremy Corbyn’s most senior colleagues, who predicts that the lack of a viable exit from the EU would lead to the prime minister being forced from office before Christmas.
Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, told the Financial Times that a workable deal was “just not going to happen” under Mrs May. She said there would need to be a general election within months given the likelihood that the prime minister would be defeated on the crucial vote on any Brexit deal.
Labour’s opposition to the deal means that it would require as few as 10 Tory MPs — from either the party’s hardline Eurosceptic or pro-EU wings — to defeat the government. Some Labour Brexiters could still swing behind Mrs May but few would want to avoid a chance to bring down the government.
Comment
-
I can't believe anyone wants to be Prime Minister. Whoever wears the crown when Brexit happens will be the one who betrayed the country with a rotten deal, and whoever comes next is the one who failed to lead the country to the promised land.
Comment
-
At this point, maybe the North being on fire is what it will actually take for those chinless glib bastards to wake the fuck up. This is a non negotiable negotiation. Youse cunts. Capitulate or set the border on fire and have yer fucking food riots for Racist Principle against the Single Market.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Eggchaser View PostI can't believe anyone wants to be Prime Minister. Whoever wears the crown when Brexit happens will be the one who betrayed the country with a rotten deal, and whoever comes next is the one who failed to lead the country to the promised land.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lang Spoon View PostAt this point, maybe the North being on fire is what it will actually take for those chinless glib bastards to wake the fuck up. This is a non negotiable negotiation. Youse cunts. Capitulate or set the border on fire and have yer fucking food riots for Racist Principle against the Single Market.
The North of England is most likely to kick off first, as its disaffected Brexit UKIP morons realise they've voted for a pack of lies and false promises.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View PostThe line between statues and effigies can be very, very fine
I was talking to a friend of mine (Niall) and saying that Raab was basically an ultra extremist. He pointed out his beliefs don't matter because he is primarily incredibly stupid. That was a very astute comment, As he has turned out to be as thick as his arse. However having him there, making a spectacular mess of the minor jobs he is asked to carry out, means that he hasn't been replaced by someone who can start the UK on the way to total capitulation to the fucking back stop that they agreed to.
I can't help feeling that the idea that the ERG have some kind of "chuck chequers" campaign, to be confusing in the extreme. Why are we still talking about the chequers agreement? Why is Teresa May expending her shrinking store of political capital on pushing a proposal that the EU comprehensively shot down immediately? Are they going to have an about face after the tory party conference? Time is really running out here, and the UK now has a law on its books to the effect that agreeing the backstop would be illegal. What are we going to do about that? This is going to get really messy. This is going to have serious consequences on the mainland.
Comment
-
I have a disconcerting thought that, to a hardliner, the north being on fire is a small price to pay in exchange for a return to the good old days because the north being on fire is the good old days.
We're in Trump territory - the idea that our politicians will see sense is in itself deluded.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SouthdownRebel View PostI have a disconcerting thought that, to a hardliner, the north being on fire is a small price to pay in exchange for a return to the good old days because the north being on fire is the good old days.
We're in Trump territory - the idea that our politicians will see sense is in itself deluded.
Comment
-
Johnson being Johnson again, about the Border:
http://twitter.com/asabenn/status/1041425945603858433
Last edited by Diable Rouge; 16-09-2018, 21:06.
Comment
-
Tony Connelly bursts the Times' feverish bubble:
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/...1-backstop-eu/
Comment
-
Ambassadors from the 27 EU member states meeting in Brussels last Thursday were told by the Task Force not to expect any move on the backstop by London before the Conservative Party Conference, which starts on 30 September.
Comment
-
There was some headline I saw in the Times (I wasn't going to pay for the full article) that said the EU was suddenly going to agree to a magic Border2.0 where barcodes from "trusted suppliers" will remove the need for an actual border between Ireland and NI.
I assume that this is just wishful thinking bollocks? Because at first glance it seems to be utterly nonsensical unless there's regulatory alignment between the EU and NI.
Comment
Comment