Brexit legal challenge.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

@skankdelvar - Alternatively, he's an economics expert who's set up a number of companies, turned them into sustainable businesses (they all seem to still be in existence and growing) thus ensuring the continued employment of thousands of people.

It's interesting that you're focusing on two things - his success at what he does (which, in typical British fashion, you see as a bad thing), and him trying to influence a democratic outcome - which betrays your prejudice and lack of understanding of what's happening. 

This legal case cannot possibly influence the outcome; it can only seek to ensure the democratic outcome; it prevents the Prime Minister from breaking the rules of our constitution and triggering Article 50 in an unsafe manner (ie a manner which could later be open to being repealed, thus causing even more instability in the country).

We should all support it, no matter which way we voted.

If you're that interested in his motivations, why don't you just email him and ask? Or...would you rather make assumptions as to his character based on sketchy and irrelevant information?

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

Why, only last month there were a load of billionaires bursting with altruism and telling the public what future they deserve!

Yes there were. On both sides. 

ToneControl

fretmeister said:

Is the referendum still representative now that the winners have completely retracted the impact on immigration and NHS funding?

If, for example, 2 million people confirmed they voted "leave" mainly due to one of those issues then has the result been tainted?

those points aren't really true

immigration changes are all down to the deal struck with the EU

Farage was asked "will you guarantee to spend £350m on the NHS?". He said no, I won't be in power anyway, and that he thought it was a bad slogan anyway. Most "Leavers interviewed said about £100m could go to the NHS

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

fretmeister

Chalky said:

fretmeister;1137989" said:

Does he want to influence a democratic outcome or does he want to make sure the democratic process is followed fully, that including a parliamentary vote?

I'm going to say "I have no idea" and neither do you.

You are probably right. Its very very common for extremely rich people to spend their own money ensuring the public gets the future they deserve. So very common. Why, only last month there were a load of billionaires bursting with altruism and telling the public what future they deserve!

Self-serving egotists? Shurely not! )

Rich people aren't part of the public then?

The same challenge could have been raised by the bloke from the local chip shop, and for something as important as the Constitution there probably would have been Legal Aid funding for it.

I'm rather glad that private money is being spent instead. I'm also glad that there will be clarification as to the process.

The bit that is making me laugh though - this matter is likely to follow the "leap frog" procedure. So it will start in the High Court. Someone will lose and will appeal and the Court of Appeal will be jumped over and the matter will go straight to the Supreme Court as a matter of "general public importance."

Someone will lose there as well.

If the (by then) Leaving Supporting PM is the one who lost and isn't happy about needing a parliamentary vote he will then have to appeal to Europe!!

fretmeister

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

So the property price falls aren't all FUD then? 

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Here you go, I made the relevant bit stand out a bit more. How, exactly, do you know that he doesn't have other interests or motivations? After all, quite a number of people voted and campaigned to Leave when it was blatantly going to be damaging to their own financial well-being (eg all the UKIP MEPs).

fretmeister

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Here you go, I made the relevant bit stand out a bit more. How, exactly, do you know that he doesn't have other interests or motivations? After all, quite a number of people voted and campaigned to Leave when it was blatantly going to be damaging to their own financial well-being (eg all the UKIP MEPs).

Quite.

My bro voted Remain but he bet heavily on Leave (he's a banker).

Evilmags

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

So the property price falls aren't all FUD then? 

History tells us that every time UK first time buyer pries get to over 4.5X average income their is a crash. Eventually. Happened in the 80s, the 90s and 2007. What has changed? UK property is ridiculously over valued. That much I can tell you. When they crash or what will be the catalyst, your guess as good as mine. 

Heartfeltdawn

@Evilmags It's more that I was surprised at Fret mentioning an Osborne claim and not saying it was unmitigated bullshit

Chalky

fretmeister;1138037" said:

Chalky said:

fretmeister;1137989" said:Does he want to influence a democratic outcome or does he want to make sure the democratic process is followed fully, that including a parliamentary vote?



I'm going to say "I have no idea" and neither do you.

You are probably right. Its very very common for extremely rich people to spend their own money ensuring the public gets the future they deserve. So very common. Why, only last month there were a load of billionaires bursting with altruism and telling the public what future they deserve!



Self-serving egotists? Shurely not! )





Rich people aren't part of the public then?

The same challenge could have been raised by the bloke from the local chip shop, and for something as important as the Constitution there probably would have been Legal Aid funding for it.

I'm rather glad that private money is being spent instead. I'm also glad that there will be clarification as to the process.

The bit that is making me laugh though - this matter is likely to follow the "leap frog" procedure. So it will start in the High Court. Someone will lose and will appeal and the Court of Appeal will be jumped over and the matter will go straight to the Supreme Court as a matter of "general public importance."

Someone will lose there as well.

If the (by then) Leaving Supporting PM is the one who lost and isn't happy about needing a parliamentary vote he will then have to appeal to Europe!!

Now that IS funny! )

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Here you go, I made the relevant bit stand out a bit more. How, exactly, do you know that he doesn't have other interests or motivations? After all, quite a number of people voted and campaigned to Leave when it was blatantly going to be damaging to their own financial well-being (eg all the UKIP MEPs).

He's a businessman in the property industry - motivated self-interest. That's what he's paid to do .. I didn't mention his wealth as it's not relevant. He is in charge of a business and is accountable to shareholders for its performance. I wouldn't mind knowing who is picking up the bill - him personally or his business.

As far as I am aware he didn't campaign either way .. he obviously doesn't like the result of the referendum and is trying to influence it through a legal challenge. End of.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Here you go, I made the relevant bit stand out a bit more. How, exactly, do you know that he doesn't have other interests or motivations? After all, quite a number of people voted and campaigned to Leave when it was blatantly going to be damaging to their own financial well-being (eg all the UKIP MEPs).

He's a businessman in the property industry - motivated self-interest. That's what he's paid to do .. I didn't mention his wealth as it's not relevant. He is in charge of a business and is accountable to shareholders for its performance. I wouldn't mind knowing who is picking up the bill - him personally or his business.

As far as I am aware he didn't campaign either way .. he obviously doesn't like the result of the referendum and is trying to influence it through a legal challenge. End of.

ThorpyFX

ToneControl said:

ThorpyFX said:

Fretwired said:

ThorpyFX said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM said:

Someone needs to tell them that a majority of UK citizens did not express a desire to leave the EU.

AFAIK it was the single biggest ever mandate for a decision in UK history at 17.4m votes, but that's not enough?

We should have adopted a similar model to Australian referenda. I.e. all regions (england, wales, scotland and Northern Ireland)  have to agree to the split for it to be enacted. this would have saved the union from a split after the vote....

So 5 million Scots could stop 55 million people in England from doing what they want? You call that democracy. The next thing you'd get is a demand for independence for England. Bonkers ...

Not bonkers at all. It affects the Scots as much as it affects the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish. For such a  monumental decision all regions should agree... otherwise you end up with an an unnecessary division and calls for a splitting of the Union as has been borne out. That being said, i don't agree with referendums anyway.

even if you dislike referenda, you must concede that the handing of sovereignty to a multi-nation state is a bit different to passing normal laws, and does intrinsically affect us all in a profound way. Hence, for me, a referendum for EU membership is appropriate

Also: those regions: that path leads to West mids agreeing, and London, and Cornwall, Manchester, Merseyside.

How far do you go with this idea? It seems unworkable to me - you would never get a unanimous result on anything

it works for Australia. They split it down by the six regions. But as I stated, I don't believe in referendums.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

He's in the property business. Property prices will fall post Brexit and his business will stagnate. Motivated self-interest.

Next.

As I said...you take his job and his bank balance, and instantly know his opinions.

In any other situation, applied to anybody who's not rich, anybody saying that would be decried as a bigot, but somehow you think it's OK here?

No I didn't. I looked at his business - don't twist my comments. I never mentioned his wealth. He is in the property business and if you check construction and property are in a post Brexit decline. Fewer foregign buyers paying top dollar for London apartments.

I bet you may find there are other buisness leaders will a similar view on Brexit - damaging for business.

Here you go, I made the relevant bit stand out a bit more. How, exactly, do you know that he doesn't have other interests or motivations? After all, quite a number of people voted and campaigned to Leave when it was blatantly going to be damaging to their own financial well-being (eg all the UKIP MEPs).

He's a businessman in the property industry - motivated self-interest. That's what he's paid to do .. I didn't mention his wealth as it's not relevant. He is in charge of a business and is accountable to shareholders for its performance. I wouldn't mind knowing who is picking up the bill - him personally or his business.

As far as I am aware he didn't campaign either way .. he obviously doesn't like the result of the referendum and is trying to influence it through a legal challenge. End of.

If his intentions are honourable why remain anonymous - he was outed by Guido Fawkes who was sent his email. Big business has too much influence as it is in UK politics .. if it were Murdoch everyone would be screaming. A bunch of faceless businessmen and a law firm ... we have a right to know their motives.

Had he come out, been honest and said "I'm doing this for the good of the country .." it would be a different matter. He wasn't backward at coming forward when his firm gave millions to the charity Shelter.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

If his intentions are honourable why remain anonymous - he was outed by Guido Fawkes who was sent his email. Big business has too much influence as it is in UK politics .. if it were Murdoch everyone would be screaming. A bunch of faceless businessmen and a law firm ... we have a right to know their motives.

Had he come out, been honest and said "I'm doing this for the good of the country .." it would be a different matter. He wasn't backward at coming forward when his firm gave millions to the charity Shelter.

Perhaps because the atmosphere around the referendum is so toxic right now (no matter what side you're on) that he doesn't want to be running his business, fighting the legal case and firefighting PR (for himself, the case and his business interests) at the same time?

Evilmags

Christ sake, the UK just ditched the biggest set of off balance sheet liabilities ever run up in history and people are upset. Legally trying to challenge the result of a referendum which had the highest rate of participation in decades is pathetic. If you have any belief in democracy what so ever, you have to now support the UK leaving. It really is that simple, and trying to paint half the population as "thick" "racist" and every other insult that has been hurled at the out campaign, after the vote has happened, is the behavior of totalitarians. The consequences of such behavior, and the degree of extremism and other forms of behavior it would unleash would be unprecedented. 

The harm caused to Scotland by the behavior of the losing side of a referendum is only beginning to be seen. When Sturgeon's government runs out of other people's money it will be interesting to see how and who ends up bailing them out...

fretmeister

Evilmags said:

Christ sake, the UK just ditched the biggest set of off balance sheet liabilities ever run up in history and people are upset. Legally trying to challenge the result of a referendum which had the highest rate of participation in decades is pathetic. If you have any belief in democracy what so ever, you have to now support the UK leaving. It really is that simple, and trying to paint half the population as "thick" "racist" and every other insult that has been hurled at the out campaign, after the vote has happened, is the behavior of totalitarians. The consequences of such behavior, and the degree of extremism and other forms of behavior it would unleash would be unprecedented. 

The harm caused to Scotland by the behavior of the losing side of a referendum is only beginning to be seen. When Sturgeon's government runs out of other people's money it will be interesting to see how and who ends up bailing them out...

Where does it say they are challenging the result?

The action seems to be merely wanting the govt to actually follow the constitution and have a parliamentary vote on it so the old act can be repealed.