Re: Brexit
 

What?

And tie up our judicial system for every politician that lies...

Okay let's get Tony Blair for the Iraq War.

Let's get Nick Clegg for lying about not increasing tuition fees...

Let's go that extra mile and prosecute all these Remainers who said on TV there should not be another referendum and that the first should be honoured but are now saying there should be one...

The whole thing is just Banana republic crazy, this is 2019, not the 1930's FFS. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

I'd gladly see Blair and Clegg in court. Politicians should be brought to account if they deliberately deceive. We just seem to accept they lie these days.

Re: Brexit
 

I think the idea is that if you prosecute one politician, it acts as a deterrent to the rest.

Re: Brexit
 

You don't prosecute at all - it's just utter madness, you punish people who you believe to lie at the ballot box not through the judicial system, this case should be thrown out as it is waste of resources and money.

Re: Brexit
 

The problem with the ballot box is that it can take 5 years before we can bring them to account. Lies are now just accepted way of getting power. They hope the mugs will have forgotten by the time of re-election, or they can always lie again...
e.g Tory leadership campaign and candidates promising massive tax cuts and improvements to public services. We all know its a lie, but just accept it as 'part of the game'. Our democracy is in a bad state.

Re: Brexit
 

One court case against the huge benefits gained is a great use of resources. This is a move to raise the standards of democracy in this country and I welcome it.

Re: Brexit
 

I think the problem is that 'lie' is very hard to concluseily prove and is in many cases subjective.

Did Nick Clegg lie about tuition fees? Well they said they would abolish them and instead raised them. Would seem pretty clear cut but then they were in coalition so does that still count? If a party promises a certain degree of spending then a recession hits was that a lie?

You can't start criminalising people based on subjective opinions of what constitutes a lie and if the person knew they are lying.

Re: Brexit
 

Well I don't and don't talk to me about raising the standards of democracy because that is you being a total hypocrite, when you and or your remainer buddies go on and on about nullifying the referendum result of 2016.

There is no benefits to this court case at all - it just turns this country in to something resembling North Korea, you really want to take this country down this path?

It just utter crazy, prosecuting a politician for lying during a political campaign.

Re: Brexit
 

The point that people appear to be overlooking is that he not going to court for lying as a politician, but for lying as a politician in "High Office", so he is being charged with misconduct in a Public Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

Re: Brexit
 

FFS, I've never gone on about nullifying the referendum result. I've always accepted it. :dunce:

Re: Brexit
 

Clearly - It's only in a bad state if you are constantly on the "losing side".

Re: Brexit
 

Good point.

Re: Brexit
 

So, couple of differences

1) Boris's words MAY have influenced the way in which a subset of voters voted during the referendum

2) I don't see how this compares to some people who may wish to rerun something and it hasn't been rerun.

Holding those in a position of power and/or responsibility accountable for actions should be seen as a good thing. it sets the expectation of the standards that are required.

NOT holding them accountable is more akin to the North Korea which you keep referring too.

Re: Brexit
 

Thank you for highlighting the fact that Article 24 is even admitted by the BBC as being possible, which has been denied up until now by many antiBrexiteers.

The key paragraphs are:

It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union.

The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other.

That's a bit different from 'impossible' and sounds doable to me, particularly as the EU wants a non-tariff arrangement as much as we do.

The big advantage of this is that we will have a ten year protection period so that we can negotiate a trade deal, which gives us plenty of time to resolve the Irish border question. The £39bn would be paid provided that the EU agreed to such an arrangement.

As far as I can see, this is the only means of exiting the EU that is available to us, given that we have a stubborn rump of Conservative MPs who refuse to vote for the 'no deal' solution and the EU will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Re: Brexit
 

And that is not a crime.

If we invent stuff as we are going along here - So we can go after George Osborne, for lying saying there would be thousands of job losses right after a leave result, prosecute David Cameron for lying saying he would be around to enact the referendum result...

As already mentioned, Tony Blair for the Iraq War and WMD lie.... They were all in high office.

This list is endless, this is just a hit job on Boris because he is the scapegoat for the many pathetic Remainers who cannot accept the result that people in the UK do actually want to leave the corrupted EU.

Absolute one sided rubbish and you know it. Why don't we go after people who lied in the Remain camps who probably swayed people to vote Remain, like all the lies of project fear ?

Oh Remain lost, this is why so it doesn't matter to you. Gimme a break FFS. :rolleyes: