PPI analogy?

[L.A.]

Payment protection insurance  (PPI) was a con, it was widely mis-sold by people who basically lied about the benefits of these schemes in order to make a lot of money - and eventually, this was recognised and the guilty companies were fined and the victims compensated.

I see a parallel in this referendum. The Leave campaign consistently lied and 'mis-sold' their case for their own ends. They mis-represented the facts to an extent that, if they had been selling a product they would certainly have been prosecuted - yet the consequences of the referendum are far greater.

So isn't there a very good case for challenging the legality of this process?

[Nearly Sane]

No

[L.A.]

No

I suspect you are right, but could there be a civil case? Plenty of no-win-no-fee lawyers looking for work?

[Harrowby Hall]

Wouldn't the process have to be something similar to judicial review? If someone believes that a government body or individual (eg a minister) has caused something to be done which does not have legal support, then the courts can be asked to adjudicate.

I understand that there is a view that Article 50 cannot be invoked without statutory authority - a specific Act of Parliament. I'm surprised that no action has yet taken place challenging the government's response to the referendum - a referendum provides advice not a mandate.

[Hope]

I understand that there is a view that Article 50 cannot be invoked without statutory authority - a specific Act of Parliament. I'm surprised that no action has yet taken place challenging the government's response to the referendum - a referendum provides advice not a mandate.

Whilst what you say is correct, I seem to remember that Cameron said that he would take the result as binding, whichever way it went.  Mind you, I still don't understand why the Government didn't require a specific majority - such as the normal 66% - to be reached before any change could occur.

[Harrowby Hall]

But Cameron is now all but gone. I do not see how a statement he made which had no constitutional underpinning can possibly be perceived as binding his successor(s),

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect you are right, but could there be a civil case? Plenty of no-win-no-fee lawyers looking for work?

No, the law on this precludes it.

[Nearly Sane]

Whilst what you say is correct, I seem to remember that Cameron said that he would take the result as binding, whichever way it went.  Mind you, I still don't understand why the Government didn't require a specific majority - such as the normal 66% - to be reached before any change could occur.

Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.

That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.

That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.

Is there not a case to have certain people sectioned under the mental health act?

[jeremyp]

Because it isn't normal in context. This isn't a golf club. Further because it is advisory, would not in most clubs need a threshold other than a 50% vote.

That said, I agree in principle that we should look.to a threshold but I think the 66% one is too high. Politics is not the same as running a club and voting is over a much bigger constituency.

In this specific case you could make an argument that, for change to occur, you need 50% of the electorate not 50% of the votes cast. i.e. this who didn't vote are assumed to be happy with things the way they are.

[Nearly Sane]

In this specific case you could make an argument that, for change to occur, you need 50% of the electorate not 50% of the votes cast. i.e. this who didn't vote are assumed to be happy with things the way they are.

. I'm not keen on that idea as covered earlier as it gives a 'vote' to those on the register who are dead.

[jeremyp]

. I'm not keen on that idea as covered earlier as it gives a 'vote' to those on the register who are dead.

Good point, there would have to be some way of removing those people from the register and discounting them.