Brexit legal challenge.

Bogwhoppit

Russell Brand will come to the rescue.

skankdelvar

Chalky said:

Alas my experience of lawyers is they take a lot of money, move slower than expected, and are good at making money. And I'd be gobsmacked if folks in MdR are not rubbing their hands in glee at the forthcoming huge fees and widespread free publicity for their firm. Ker-ching! )

While the other sponsors of the challenge appear keen to protect their anonymity (well, they would, wouldn't they) at least one name has emerged.

Introducing Mr Alex Chesterman, 'digital entrepreneur' and grand fromage at property website Zoopla. Chesterman it was who organised the email round robin to the Great and The Good that started the ball rolling.

Detailed information about Mr Chesterman is hard to come by though his remuneration package is in the public domain. He draws an annual salary of about £450,000 and his 4 year bonus package will deliver a modest - er - £19m.

Of course, that doesn't include the additional £70m Mr Chesterman made from share sales in 2014.  Assuming he meets his targets the poor lamb will spend the period 2014-2018 struggling by on a mere £91m. Good to know Chesterman can spare his valuable time to take care of our interests for us.

Chesterman: I know what's best for you, OK, yah.

Snap

@^ what has his income got to do with anything?

Heartfeltdawn

paulmapp8306 said:

It was probably the least ambiguous question it was possible to ask.  Do you want to leave the EU or not.  

I admit the ANSWER to that question is not easy to get to - and why so many struggled to make a choice.  There was never a way to say what "out" would look like, as it needs negotiation to get there - and that wasn't possible before A50 is triggered (which ever way).

Im also fed up of the "but they lied to you" stance.  That rather depends on how you made your choice.  did you believe the 350 mill figure?  did you assume 2fund the NHS instead" meant with the whole figure?  What do you understand by "immigration"  v "controlled immigration" or £boarder control".  The answer to any of these could be found by not listening to MPs - who will give you one side of an argument and generally exaggerate that, and of some of your own research.

For some of us - quite a lot that I know (though that might be my circle and not indicative) it had nothing to do with the arguments put forward by the remain or leave camps - it was based on how the EU dealt with Cameron asking for reform.  That process showed that the EU wasn't going to reform any time soon - so staying in and reforming from "inside" was not an option.  It was stay in as it is - and with possible/probably further eroding of national powers - or get out and go it alone, in a way that can best be negotiated for the country.

It's an ambiguous question when so many factors are mis- or underrepresented by both sides. Neither side campaigned well. If there was no way to say what "Out" would be like as you state, then that strikes me as Leave voters voting for a wide variety of potential outcomes versus Remain voters going for one outcome (status quo). 

If there is also no way to say how "Out" would progress, then that strengthens the argument that Parliament should be involved rather than allowing prerogative the ultimate say. 

Sporky

Snap said:

@^ what has his income got to do with anything?

It's a handy way to suggest that his opinion and position aren't relevant, or are corrupt, or whatever else you want.

Rich and/or commercially successful people are, as we all know, awful. Standing on the mangled corpses of the honest working classes and all that.

MrBump

paulmapp8306 said:

Im also fed up of the "but they lied to you" stance.  That rather depends on how you made your choice.  did you believe the 350 mill figure?  did you assume 2fund the NHS instead" meant with the whole figure?  What do you understand by "immigration"  v "controlled immigration" or £boarder control".  The answer to any of these could be found by not listening to MPs - who will give you one side of an argument and generally exaggerate that, and of some of your own research.

But this is why the process leaves such a bad taste in the mouth.

Some people will take it upon themselves to do rational research.  But most won't.  Sorry, but that's just what we are - people (the masses) have their opinions formed by media, friends, charismatic public figures.  There are those on this thread/forum who come from an entrenched ideological viewpoint wrt the EU, and that's fine as long as you're not so entrenches as to be unable to see both sides of the divide.  And there are 2 sides, both have arguments with merit.  It's foolish to think otherwise.

Personally, I found the leave campaigners too quick to reduce to the lowest common denominator argument - even if that argument was illogical.  An anti immigration storm was whipped up, bizarre calculations were made about how much money we can pump back into the NHS, we were told we could "take back control", although it wasn't clear who we'd be taking back control from, and to whom we'd be handing that control...

Honestly, Remain was called project Fear, but leave played a shockingly divisive  game...

I've got nothing to back this up with but my experience with people I know.  And people I know who voted leave were - by and large - the people who didn't want to share space with Polish people.  Simple as.  I'm not saying that's everyone that voted leave - and again, I do believe that there are valid leave arguments - but that's my experience.  And I don't think my experience can be that unique, unless Essex really is a cesspit of racism and xenophobia....

And the irony is - those pervasive arguments put forward by leave (take back control, more money for NHS, reduce immigration) - they're all smoke and mirrors.  We'll have to concede some kind of freedom of movement to retain access to business and financial markets.  The NHS money is bunk.  And we never had any control to take back. 

chillidoggy

The referendum question was pretty clear to me, but then I'd already decided about 20 years ago.

Snap

Sporky said:

Snap said:

@^ what has his income got to do with anything?

It's a handy way to suggest that his opinion and position aren't relevant, or are corrupt, or whatever else you want.

Rich and/or commercially successful people are, as we all know, awful. Standing on the mangled corpses of the honest working classes and all that.

yep, that's about the long and short of it.

It seems if anyone wealthy says something political (or of similar vein), the fact that they are wealthy is usually mentioned when referencing. But not if they are not wealthy.

digitalscream

Snap said:

Sporky said:

Snap said:

@^ what has his income got to do with anything?

It's a handy way to suggest that his opinion and position aren't relevant, or are corrupt, or whatever else you want.

Rich and/or commercially successful people are, as we all know, awful. Standing on the mangled corpses of the honest working classes and all that.

yep, that's about the long and short of it.

It seems if anyone wealthy says something political (or of similar vein), the fact that they are wealthy is usually mentioned when referencing. But not if they are not wealthy.

Indeed...I'm getting pretty tired of the hypocrisy and small-mindedness.

- If somebody has little money or influence, their opinion is instantly valid because they're "the people", and it's wrong to judge someone on their bank balance because that's elitism/condescension/etc. 

- If somebody has money and/or influence, their opinion is invalid because they will always act in their own self-interest regardless of their history or who they are as a person.

EDIT: For reference...in case you didn't already know, I have none of either, so my opinion is absolutely valid

fretmeister

paulmapp8306 said:

Im also fed up of the "but they lied to you" stance.  That rather depends on how you made your choice.  did you believe the 350 mill figure?  did you assume 2fund the NHS instead" meant with the whole figure?  What do you understand by "immigration"  v "controlled immigration" or £boarder control".  The answer to any of these could be found by not listening to MPs - who will give you one side of an argument and generally exaggerate that, and of some of your own research.

I am sorry but I find this statement astonishing considering the other thread where you took offence at a word that was not offensive, and displayed a complete ignorance of a key issue in the process.

Your "research" didn't even go as far as opening a dictionary so I find your attempt to blame those who didn't do their own research to be a bit pot -v- kettle.

If I lied to you and because of that lie you handed over the keys to your car then you would have every right to seek redress when you discovered it. Whether or not you should have known that I was lying is irrelevant as I would have started the deceit itself preying on your lack of knowledge.

I see no reason why the keys to the country should not be treated the same way.

skankdelvar

Snap said:

@^ what has his income got to do with anything?

Well, there's very little other information out there about him. Let's see what we can find:

* He's got a degree in economics from University College London

* Upon graduating he went to the US where he managed the Orlando branch of Hard Rock Cafe before jumping to Planet Hollywood

* Chesterman returned to the UK where he set up Bagelmania - a chain of bagel bars which he then sold off one by one to fund his move into the digital arena

* Chesterman set up ScreenSelect which later became LoveFilm and which he then sold off to Amazon trousering a 'stonking windfall'

* Speaking of his time at ScreenSelect: '“We had a bit of a rat race going on there because as an entrepreneur, I am very competitive. I will keep no stone unturned to be number one, we got into the space to win, not to be the number two player.” 

* Chesterman's most detailed interview here

* The 2014 ST Rich List estimated Chesterman's worth at £100m

Practically the only information about the only so-far identifiable backer of the legal challenge relates to his praiseworthy talent for starting things, making money out of them and moving on. Pronouncements on democracy, governance, fairness? Nil, though I'm sure we'll hear plenty about that in coming days.

I mean, if there was stuff about an interest in model railways I'd be including it just for fun. 

So am I implying that Mr Chesterman is only doing this for the money? Or that his opinion is invalid?  Not at all. I merely note that he's a very rich man who wants to use his money to influence a democratic outcome so that it more closely mirrors his opinion. 

Them's the facts and one may draw one's own conclusions.

fretmeister

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.

ToneControl

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

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 ...

Without wanting to sound too stuck-record, it's more that 5 million people in Scotland could stop 17 million people in England from doing what they want.

I'm not making a comment on whether that's OK or not, just putting the figures right. A lot of the UK doesn't want to leave, regardless of any arguments about exactly how many. It's probably fair to say that it's at least 16 million or so.

It would, in fact be1.66m people in Scotland stopping 17m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102

digitalscream

@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?

paulmapp8306

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....

And would also mean a minority of 3 Million "could" overturn the wishes of the other "61 Million".  

What your asking is undemocratic.  The Q was should the UK - that one single entity - leave the EU.

ToneControl

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....

The Scots are always going to be likely to leave, why compromise on the outcome because you're frightened of the inevitable?

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

Now @ICBM, is this the future you were hoping for?

If that was the democratic will of the people, yes. I dislike UKIP intensely but the fact is that people vote for them - those people are currently denied a voice by our electoral system. If you read a few other threads you'll see that I also support a more democratic system of election.

I also don't think they'd get anywhere near that level of support anyway since most people can see through their complete lack of coherent policies and treat them for what they are - a protest vote. They are not a potential government.

you don't see a strong similarity between UKIP and the SNP then?

A nationalist party, wanting independence, happy to adopt the policies of the most popular current established party in order to gain support?

In what material way does the SNP vary from Labour, other than independence for Scotland?

Chalky

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! )

Heartfeltdawn

skankdelvar said: Practically the only information about the only so-far identifiable backer of the legal challenge relates to his praiseworthy talent for starting things, making money out of them and moving on. Pronouncements on democracy, governance, fairness? Nil, though I'm sure we'll hear plenty about that in coming days.

You might want to look at Zoopla itself then and analyse the political activities and leanings of its majority shareholder. The majority shareholder of the Zoopla Property Group at 52.6% is DMG Media, a subsidiary of DMGT and currently chaired by the Viscount Rothermere (worth £1 billion). ZPG has a number of property interests. No need to explain what the Daily Mail position on Europe is/was. It's reported on Order Order that the political editor of today's Mail claims to not know who any of the mystery backers of this legal bid are. One supposes he bloody well knows now! 

ToneControl

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