The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH - Page 993

amogles · #**19841** 10.04.2019, 16:16

	Quote:
	To Revoke Art. 50

But this has been known for a long time. So it's hardly a new concession but just a re-affirmation of an existing one.

#**19842** 10.04.2019, 16:19

I now only seen governmental leaflets asking to vote against a leave, so what governmental lies led people to vote In favour of Brexit?

Just me trying to understand what false info caused this outcome and should be a reason to vote again?

22 yards · #**19843** 10.04.2019, 16:22

	Quote:	BasP72
	I'm sitting here wondering of all this talk of a 9 or 12 month extension has the hidden agenda behind it of 'guiding' the MP's into voting for a no-deal immediate exit. They (EU and May) all know no-one really wants a long extension, and that forcing one upon the UK might make the UK to choose the no-deal exit on Friday.

Nobody is forcing a long extension on the UK. The proposal is to grant a long extension during which the UK (read, Parliament) is expected to get its sh1t together and decide conclusively what it wants to do. If they make that decision quickly, the UK has the right to proceed immediately with that decision, whether that be tomorrow, next week, next month, or in nine or ten months' time.

Urs Max · #**19844** 10.04.2019, 16:32

	Quote:	baboon
	Playing the man (woman) not the ball eh? Idiot or not (would dispute that at least partially as well), how does that invalidate the Bundesgericht decision and the implication over the Brexit result?

Please note that the ruling isn't on (mis)information provided by some party or other group, nor by some individual(s), it's on information provided by the government(*).

Which information by the UK's government was clearly false?

You, baboon, may already know that but some probably don't so here goes:
(*) About a month before a federal vote, the Swiss voters receive the voting slips along with a booklet. For each question the booklet contains a few pages of information and an explanation (argument pro or contra) by the government, and in case of a Volksinitiative one page authored by the sponsors. The ruling by the federal court says that the information was clearly false thus may have misled many voters. Given the tight decision (50.8% against) the result has been ruled not valid and may have to be repeated.

#**19845** 10.04.2019, 16:33

	Quote:
	I now only seen governmental leaflets asking to vote against a leave, so what governmental lies led people to vote In favour of Brexit? Just me trying to understand what false info caused this outcome and should be a reason to vote again?

Here's an excellent thread exploring those lies.. *free and open trade with the EU* was a biggy, and what a biggy that was.

Enjoy! It's a great thread.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/sta...47733300842497

#**19846** 10.04.2019, 16:34

	Quote:
	I now only seen governmental leaflets asking to vote against a leave, so what governmental lies led people to vote In favour of Brexit? Just me trying to understand what false info caused this outcome and should be a reason to vote again?

Seriously, if you have to ask for a recap on the lies told by both official campaigns this late in the thread and three years after the referendum then I have to ask where you have been all this time...

Just trawl back through the thread or google "Brexit myths".

#**19847** 10.04.2019, 16:37

	Quote:
	Seriously, if you have to ask for a recap on the lies told by both official campaigns this late in the thread and three years after the referendum then I have to ask where you have been all this time... Just trawl back through the thread or google "Brexit myths".

Perhaps I've been in Switzerland, amusing myself about the British mess and their incapability to solve it.

And all the lies in the yrs after the referendum off course did not effect the outcome of the referendum so those are completely irrelevant for this.

And if there would be so many governmental lies that could have changed the outcome when not told than how easy would it be to come up with examples here for you people.

#**19848** 10.04.2019, 16:43

	Quote:
	Perhaps I've been in Switzerland, amusing myself about the British mess and their incapability to solve it.

Perhaps you have. Man needs a hobby...

	Quote:
	And all the lies in the years after the referendum of course did not affect the outcome of the referendum so those are completely irrelevant for this.

Why are you bringing up what happened AFTER the referendum?

Urs Max · #**19849** 10.04.2019, 16:46

	Quote:
	Seriously, if you have to ask for a recap on the lies told by both official campaigns

But that's not information by the government. Or is it (partially)?

#**19850** 10.04.2019, 16:50

	Quote:	Urs Max
	But that's not information by the government. Or is it (partially)?

Depends. Each campaign had members of the government as part of it, didn't it? They were known as the "official" Leave or Remain campaign.

Going back to the earlier post about the Swiss vote, I think the idea was that there were "parallels" to be found not an exact carbon copy, to be fair. The implication being that votes gained by telling porkies should void the result, regardless of the result is in your favour or not.

curley · #**19851** 10.04.2019, 16:52

	Quote:
	Doesn't have to be a publication. Misleading and untrue information from the official campaigns put it on a par with the Swiss example given above. The UK government sent out official leaflets in advance of the referendum.

Yes but what exactly in that leaflet was a lie?

In the Swiss one the numbers given by the Bundesrat were wrong. We still don't call it a lie here though, the judge says they were wrong, therefore the voting (which is not advisory but decisive) needs to be repeated.

	Quote:
	Seriously, if you have to ask for a recap on the lies told by both official campaigns this late in the thread and three years after the referendum then I have to ask where you have been all this time... Just trawl back through the thread or google "Brexit myths".

Of course both official campaigns were - let's phrase it the Swiss way - imprecise. Campaigning is about getting votes no matter how.

Did you ever listen to SVP when they are campaigning?

Still, SVP lost often lately, wonder why that was.

#**19852** 10.04.2019, 16:58

	Quote:	curley
	Yes but what exactly in that leaflet was a lie?

I didn't say any of it was.

The "official" campaigning for the EU referendum didn't depend 100% on the leaflet.

aSwissInTheUS · #**19853** 10.04.2019, 17:43

	Quote:	Swisstree
	Of course, a less painful option, and a great time saver, would be to simply revoke Art.50.

	Quote:
	To Revoke Art. 50

Why? So no member is able to leave the EU in the future?

Because the UK is politically unable to withdraw its leave notice and thus needs outside help? But even if the EU revoked Art. 50 UK's leave notice would still be valid.

#**19854** 10.04.2019, 18:01

	Quote:	aSwissInTheUS
	Why? So no member is able to leave the EU in the future? Because the UK is politically unable to withdraw its leave notice and thus needs outside help? But even if the EU revoked Art. 50 UK's leave notice would still be valid.

Why would the UK taking a decision to revoke Art 50 affect any other member state's future decision or process to leave?

The UK is considering it because of its mismanagement and ineptitude.

curley · #**19855** 10.04.2019, 18:21

	Quote:	aSwissInTheUS
	Why? So no member is able to leave the EU in the future? Because the UK is politically unable to withdraw its leave notice and thus needs outside help? But even if the EU revoked Art. 50 UK's leave notice would still be valid.

I think you misunderstood.
When they talk about revoking Art. 50 here, they mean GB pulling back on the Brexit-decision.
The article 50 would still exist in the EU rules.

PS: I don't blame you though, your take of it does sound like a British idea, LOL.

#**19856** 10.04.2019, 18:35

	Quote:	curley
	PS: I don't blame you though, your take of it does sound like a British idea, LOL.

How so?

amogles · #**19857** 10.04.2019, 18:38

	Quote:	curley
	I think you misunderstood. When they talk about revoking Art. 50 here, they mean GB pulling back on the Brexit-decision. The article 50 would still exist in the EU rules. PS: I don't blame you though, your take of it does sound like a British idea, LOL.

Maybe there is an idea here.

If the Uk gets the right to revoke article 50 at will, every other country should be given one article of the treaty that it is their right to revoke at will.

We could have an auction to give every article to the highest bidder.

curley · #**19858** 10.04.2019, 18:48

	Quote:	amogles
	Maybe there is an idea here. If the Uk gets the right to revoke article 50 at will, every other country should be given one article of the treaty that it is their right to revoke at will. We could have an auction to give every article to the highest bidder.

Yes, if enough of their articles would be revoked, maybe even Switzerland would agree to join.

As to "how so", if the EU gave up art. 50 and tell GB Brexit is not possible at all anymore, the Brits could then whine for an other two years (or 60 if they give it the same value as football), claiming they really, really wanted to leave but EU is keeping them hostage. It's gotta be somebody elses fault and if there is nobody to call nasty names, life is not worth living.

YuropFlyer · #**19859** 10.04.2019, 19:29

The Swiss Bundesgericht just today decided, by the way, that IF a vote was held based on massively misleading informations (Heiratsstrafe-Initiative) it can and has to be re-done.

I think Brexit would be perfectly fitting that description.. and I think the UK got to learn from the Swiss how to properly run a democracy at this point in time for sure

So..

curley · #**19860** 10.04.2019, 19:33

	Quote:	YuropFlyer
	The Swiss Bundesgericht just today decided, by the way, that IF a vote was held based on massively misleading informations (Heiratsstrafe-Initiative) it can and has to be re-done. I think Brexit would be perfectly fitting that description.. and I think the UK got to learn from the Swiss how to properly run a democracy at this point in time for sure So..

I disagree. It was the information by the Bundesrat that was plain wrong (the numbers of people/couples who would be affected by the outcome of the Heiratsstrafe-Initiative).
What the parties babble during campaigning for or against something has to be double checked by the voter.

As far as I know (and of course I could be totally wrong here) the leaflet by the governement of GB had no such mistakes in it.