All this past week, Jon Danzig has been posting videos reminding us of the fatal flaws in the Brexit referendum and demonstrating that it was a sham. Nobody wants to rub the noses of deceived voters in this mess. The blame rests firmly with the politicians, the media and those shadowy proponents of this monumental act of self harm which has hit the country and ordinary people so hard. Some people will make money from deregulation and relaxed scrutiny of tax affairs, or from the abandoning of rights and protections which keep ordinary people safe, protect the environment and hold us to our climate crisis commitments. For the vast majority, Brexit is nothing but an unmitigated disaster, robbing businesses and individuals alike of access to opportunity and leaving the UK divided and beyond the pale.
Many of you reading this will have voted Remain. Perhaps you can share this in a spirit of reconciliation with those who were promised the undeliverable. It is only when we fully acknowledge the scope of the scam that we can begin to take action to heal the rifts created by those who take pleasure, make money and seize power from exploiting the divide. Editor
๐ช๐๐ฆ ๐ง๐๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ก๐๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ก๐๐ฌ?
Still not sure if the EU referendum was an advisory poll rather than a binding vote?
So, watch this video argy-bargy from June 2018 between Michael Portillo and Professor A C Grayling and judge for yourself.
Ok, spoiler coming up:
๐ฌ๐๐ฆ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐จ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ข๐ก๐๐ฌ.
It meant that the referendum was not a binding vote, merely an opinion poll that was not binding on the government or Parliament.
The House of Commons Library explained this in their briefing paper about the referendum:
โIt does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.
โInstead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.โ
In addition:
โThe UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.โ
[Link: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research…/cbp-7212/]
The EU referendum, being advisory only, did not have to be implemented. There are many reasons why it shouldnโt have been:
Only 37% of the electorate voted for Leave โ representing a minority opinion of the country.
The difference between Remain and Leave in the referendum was wafer thin โ less than 4%.
Half the countries of the UK โ Scotland and Northern Ireland โ as well as Gibraltar (that also participated in the referendum), strongly voted against Brexit.
Many voters directly affected by the referendum result โ hundreds of thousands of British citizens living across the EU, and millions of citizens from the rest of the EU living in the UK โ were denied a vote.
There was no definition of โLeaveโ. Nobody who voted for โLeaveโ was able to express any opinion on the ballot paper of what version of Leave they wanted (and there were many possible versions).
The Leave campaign had to rely entirely on lies to โwinโ โ yes, every single reason to Leave was untrue or based on a mistruth.
The Referendum was riddled with serious irregularities, illegalities, and alleged fraud, resulting in the Leave campaigns being fined for significant overspending and misuse of data.
There is credible evidence, known at the time of the referendum, that Putinโs Russia had extensively interfered in the referendum to secure a โwinโ for Brexit. (This is currently being assessed by the European Court of Human Rights.)
The government and Parliament should never have accepted such a flawed referendum opinion.
Polls since the referendum show that a significant majority of voters in Britain think that Brexit is a mistake and they would now vote to rejoin.
๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐น๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด, Rishi Sunak ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ Keir Starmer?
Why the EU referendum was invalid – by the former Brexit Secretary
The EU referendum was fundamentally flawed according to criteria for good referendums set by ardent Brexiter and former Brexit Secretary, David Davis, MP.
In November 2002, Mr Davis, previously Chairman of the Conservative Party, told Parliament how a referendum should be run properly to be valid.
๐๐๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐’๐ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ด๐ผ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐บ๐, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐จ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐ฑ.
That didn’t stop Mr Davis lauding the 2016 EU referendum as fair, legal and democratic – even though it wasn’t, according to the rules HE had set.
Mr Davis was appointed Chief Brexit Negotiator in Theresa May‘s new government in July 2016.
๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ-๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐๐น๐น ๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฎ๐:
๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง ๐ช๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ก ๐ช๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ฅ ๐ง๐ข ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐จ
So, hereโs THE key question: ๐ช๐ต๐ผ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐จ?
๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ปโ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐บ. The referendum, as agreed by Parliament, was advisory only and not legally capable of making any decision.
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court, who also ruled that the decision to leave the EU had to be taken by Parliament.
๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ปโ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ.
After the referendum, there was no debate or vote by MPs on the specific question of WHETHER Brexit should go ahead.
The then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, erroneously told Parliament in January 2017 that a Parliamentary decision wasnโt necessary, as โthe decisionโ to leave had already been taken by the referendum.
A โdecisionโ that the Supreme Court ruled was not capable of being made by an advisory referendum.
Bottom line: This was a stitch up. People need to know.
๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ก ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐จ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง
On the day after the referendum, 24 June 2016, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, stood outside 10 Downing Street.
He could have said that, โThe people of the United Kingdom have all had their say.โ
But he didnโt. He didnโt mention โUnited Kingdomโ at all.
What he said was, โOver 33 million people, from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar have all had their say.โ
And this is a key point. Of the five territories asked to take part in the referendum, three strongly voted AGAINST Brexit.
Despite this, Brexit went ahead.
Brexiters are quick to point out that the referendum was a UK-wide vote. But it surely should not have been.
When David Cameron said that England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar all had their say, he didnโt mention that the say of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar was to remain in the European Union.
Their say was ignored.
When a vote is taken in the EU on whether to go ahead with a big change, the say of each country is equal, whatever the size of their population.
With three out of five territories in the referendum voting against Brexit; with only a wafer-thin difference between Leave and Remain; with only 37% of the electorate supporting Leave, was it right to storm ahead with Brexit?
โช Especially as, by Act of Parliament, the referendum was not a binding vote, but simply an advisory poll to enable voters โto voice an opinionโ which might influence government policy, but without any constitutional requirement to accept the referendum โresult.โ
โช Especially as Leave was entirely undefined in the referendum – the complicated and costly terms for leaving the EU were not agreed until over three years later, and without a mandate from the electorate for that version of Brexit. (And today, seven years after the referendum, the terms of Brexit are still being argued about.)
It was a lopsided referendum, pitching a known outcome [Remain] with a completely unknown outcome [Leave]. Of course, a referendum on this basis should never have gone ahead.
So, today, I have rewritten history to show what David Cameron should have done after the referendum instead of resigning and running away.
After the referendum, he should have announced that he would set up a Parliamentary commission to investigate what could be the right version of Brexit for Britain.
Then, when a version was agreed with the EU and endorsed by our Parliament, the country could have a new referendum, this time offering a choice of Remain on our current terms or Leave on specific terms.
That would have been the sensible way forward.
Tragically, a lack of sensible politics in recent times has led to Britainโs rapid diminution, hurting us all.
๐๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ฆ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ง๐๐๐ง ๐ช๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ
Every British Prime Minister from 1957 to 2016 wanted Britain IN the European Community.
They were:
โ Harold Macmillan [Tory]
โก Sir Alec Douglas-Home [Tory]
โข Edward Heath [Tory]
โฃ Harold Wilson [Labour]
โค James Callaghan [Labour]
โฅ Margaret Thatcher [Tory]
โฆ John Major [Tory]
โง Tony Blair [Labour]
โจ Gordon Brown [Labour]
โฉ David Cameron [Tory]
Yes, all these ten prime ministers had good points and bad points. They had different policies and certainly didnโt agree on everything.
But without exception they all agreed on one thing: that membership of the European Community was in Britainโs best interests.
Jon Danzig is a campaigning journalist and film maker who specialises in writing about health, human rights, and Europe. He is also founder of the pro-EU information campaign, Reasons2Rejoin. You can follow Jon Danzig on his Facebook journalism page at www.Facebook.com/JonDanzigWrites
