6 ms·

That's quite a claim. Do you have some strong evidence to back it up? The electoral commission went to great lengths and expense to find any wrong doing and ca

That's quite a claim. Do you have some strong evidence to back it up? The electoral commission went to great lengths and expense to find any wrong doing and came up with nothing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/04/electoral-commissions-436000-bill-fighting-brexit-campaigner/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20... Edit: Rant alert: It really irks me that the people who call the Brexit election unfair, don't seem to acknowledge that Britain was never given any kind of referendum when joining the EU "Although the United Kingdom ratified the treaty in Parliament, this was not without some opposition. Broadly the governing Labour party supported the treaty, while the opposition Conservatives did not. The Liberal Democrats supported the treaty, while calling for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU as a whole.[119] Several 'Eurosceptic' MPs called for a referendum on the ratification of the treaty. Daniel Hannan pointed out that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair had twice promised a referendum on the matter, to which Blair replied that he had promised a referendum on the European Constitution rather than the Lisbon Treaty, which unlike the former was not a constitutional treaty.[120] In early October 2007, the Commons' European Scrutiny Committee had found that the treaty was "substantially equivalent" to the rejected constitution.[121]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...

toomuchtodo 5y ago
https://brexitlies.com/ https://brexitlies.com/ There's a handy dropdown that lets you pick the lie you want to explore. EDIT: I replied to the wrong comment accidentally due to the delayed rendering from an HN helper extension I use, my apologies. I can't delete the comment once someone has replied to it.
- timellis-smith 5y ago
  That's all good and well, but I don't think it answered my question about a source for accusations of Russian involvement, nor did it address my question about the lack of democratic process when joining the EU, so I'm not entirely sure why you posted this.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Wikipedia says the investigation is ongoing an there seems to be some evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... Given what we know about Russian interference in other elections, it would be strange if Putin said "Nah, let's sit this one out..."
d1sxeyes 5y ago
Your source is behind a paywall, and I'm not interested in paying the Telegraph, but it seems there's a factual inaccuracy in your statement - the electoral commission did not 'come up with nothing'. They imposed a fine, referred Vote Leave to the police, and Vote Leave dropped their appeal. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-police-breaking-electoral-law https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-lea... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-drops-appeal-against-fine-for-electoral-offences https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-...
- timellis-smith 5y ago
  Later article from a non-paywalled source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-...
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    That's an individual (Darren Grimes), who pursued and won an appeal. The organisation (Vote Leave) withdrew their appeal, and paid the fine.
ectopod 5y ago
The UK joined in '73. After the terms were finalised there was a referendum in '75 where the public agreed to stay in. "Never given any kind of referendum" is far fetched.
- timellis-smith 5y ago
  "After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 the pillar structure ceased to exist. The European Community, together with its legal personality, was absorbed into the newly consolidated European Union which merged in the other two pillars (however Euratom remained distinct). This was originally proposed under the European Constitution but that treaty failed ratification in 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009. Also note: The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE; commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty) was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states. The Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states of the European Union. It was later ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However, the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end. Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but, instead of repealing and replacing the existing treaties, simply amended them and abandoned the idea of a single codified constitution. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. So it was initially reject, some cosmtetic changes were made and it was shoe-horned through. Hardly what I would call democratic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    >So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009. The "European Union" as an entity came into existence at the time of the Maastricht Treaty (aka Treaty on European Union), and the UK was a signatory to that treaty. That was in 1992. Could you explain why you think 2009 is the relevant date?
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
It's worth saying that the UK has essentially no long-standing history of direct plebiscite / national referendum as a democratic process. Ironically, the first I'm aware of was the 1975 vote on EC membership. You're right that there was no referendum for the Treaty of Maastricht which formally created "the European Union", but I think that places undue significance on that single event in terms of the trajectory of the European communities. Personally, I don't think the Brexit referendum was unfair (what does that even mean?). I do think that "the Brexit that was voted for" (i.e. the Leave platform) was quite different from "the Brexit that we got", and I therefore have some sympathy with those who ask for another vote. Whether the difference between the two versions of Brexit is down to deliberate lies, misunderstanding of the scope and complexity, wrong expectations about the ease of concluding agreements with trade partners, I cannot even begin to guess.
ben_w 5y ago
Leave.EU Group Limited: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-leaveeu-group-limited https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: Leave.EU was ultimately fined £66,000 in total after their appeal. Vote Leave Ltd: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-vote-leave-ltd-mr-darren-grimes-beleave-and-veterans-britain https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: commission found evidence, issued fines, most significant fines appealed, commission lost appeal and paid costs. Investigation into payments made to Better for the Country and Leave.EU: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-payments-made-better-country-and-leaveeu https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: The Commission had reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency, who investigated and found not much.
- timellis-smith 5y ago
  I'm genuinely confused by this: In 2018, Grimes was fined £20,000 by the Electoral Commission after it determined that there was evidence that BeLeave had spent more than £675,000 with the Canadian political consultancy firm AggregateIQ in coordination with the official Brexit campaign organisation Vote Leave in distribution targeted social media advertisements.[24] The Commission argued that these actions violated electoral spending rules, and that Grimes and Vote Leave official David Alan Halsall had made false declarations relating to the spending. Grimes appealed, claiming that his misstatements were unintentional, and his fine was overturned;[25] Vote Leave, however, withdrew its appeal and paid fines totalling £61,000.[26] Subsequently, in May 2020, the Metropolitan Police ended its investigation into Grimes and Halsall.[27] In June 2021, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission apologised to Grimes in a Sunday Telegraph interview.[28] They lost their appeal but the Chairman of the Electoral Commission aplogised, and the Met found nothing
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    So the difference is that there were two fines issued for the same offence - one for 61K and one for 20K. The specific offence was that there was collusion between BeLeave and Vote Leave which ultimately meant that money spent by BeLeave was actually supporting Vote Leave's campaign, which was not lawful. Both 'parties' were fined - Vote Leave and BeLeave/Darren Grimes. The judge who overturned Grimes's fine did not pass judgement on whether the spending was lawful or not. The appeal was upheld based on the ruling that the Electoral Commission had not properly done their homework to prove BeLeave's legal status, or justify the maximum fine permissible for Grimes - essentially a procedural error, rather than a factual error.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

https://brexitlies.com/ https://brexitlies.com/ There's a handy dropdown that lets you pick the lie you want to explore. EDIT: I replied to the wrong comment accidentally due to the delayed rendering from an HN helper extension I use, my apologies. I can't delete the comment once someone has replied to it.

timellis-smith 5y ago
That's all good and well, but I don't think it answered my question about a source for accusations of Russian involvement, nor did it address my question about the lack of democratic process when joining the EU, so I'm not entirely sure why you posted this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Wikipedia says the investigation is ongoing an there seems to be some evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... Given what we know about Russian interference in other elections, it would be strange if Putin said "Nah, let's sit this one out..."

d1sxeyes 5y ago

Your source is behind a paywall, and I'm not interested in paying the Telegraph, but it seems there's a factual inaccuracy in your statement - the electoral commission did not 'come up with nothing'. They imposed a fine, referred Vote Leave to the police, and Vote Leave dropped their appeal. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-police-breaking-electoral-law https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-lea... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-drops-appeal-against-fine-for-electoral-offences https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-...

timellis-smith 5y ago
Later article from a non-paywalled source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-...
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  That's an individual (Darren Grimes), who pursued and won an appeal. The organisation (Vote Leave) withdrew their appeal, and paid the fine.

ectopod 5y ago

The UK joined in '73. After the terms were finalised there was a referendum in '75 where the public agreed to stay in. "Never given any kind of referendum" is far fetched.

timellis-smith 5y ago
"After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 the pillar structure ceased to exist. The European Community, together with its legal personality, was absorbed into the newly consolidated European Union which merged in the other two pillars (however Euratom remained distinct). This was originally proposed under the European Constitution but that treaty failed ratification in 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009. Also note: The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE; commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty) was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states. The Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states of the European Union. It was later ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However, the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end. Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but, instead of repealing and replacing the existing treaties, simply amended them and abandoned the idea of a single codified constitution. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. So it was initially reject, some cosmtetic changes were made and it was shoe-horned through. Hardly what I would call democratic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009. The "European Union" as an entity came into existence at the time of the Maastricht Treaty (aka Treaty on European Union), and the UK was a signatory to that treaty. That was in 1992. Could you explain why you think 2009 is the relevant date?

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

It's worth saying that the UK has essentially no long-standing history of direct plebiscite / national referendum as a democratic process. Ironically, the first I'm aware of was the 1975 vote on EC membership. You're right that there was no referendum for the Treaty of Maastricht which formally created "the European Union", but I think that places undue significance on that single event in terms of the trajectory of the European communities. Personally, I don't think the Brexit referendum was unfair (what does that even mean?). I do think that "the Brexit that was voted for" (i.e. the Leave platform) was quite different from "the Brexit that we got", and I therefore have some sympathy with those who ask for another vote. Whether the difference between the two versions of Brexit is down to deliberate lies, misunderstanding of the scope and complexity, wrong expectations about the ease of concluding agreements with trade partners, I cannot even begin to guess.

ben_w 5y ago

Leave.EU Group Limited: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-leaveeu-group-limited https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: Leave.EU was ultimately fined £66,000 in total after their appeal. Vote Leave Ltd: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-vote-leave-ltd-mr-darren-grimes-beleave-and-veterans-britain https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: commission found evidence, issued fines, most significant fines appealed, commission lost appeal and paid costs. Investigation into payments made to Better for the Country and Leave.EU: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-payments-made-better-country-and-leaveeu https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... Conclusion: The Commission had reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency, who investigated and found not much.

timellis-smith 5y ago
I'm genuinely confused by this: In 2018, Grimes was fined £20,000 by the Electoral Commission after it determined that there was evidence that BeLeave had spent more than £675,000 with the Canadian political consultancy firm AggregateIQ in coordination with the official Brexit campaign organisation Vote Leave in distribution targeted social media advertisements.[24] The Commission argued that these actions violated electoral spending rules, and that Grimes and Vote Leave official David Alan Halsall had made false declarations relating to the spending. Grimes appealed, claiming that his misstatements were unintentional, and his fine was overturned;[25] Vote Leave, however, withdrew its appeal and paid fines totalling £61,000.[26] Subsequently, in May 2020, the Metropolitan Police ended its investigation into Grimes and Halsall.[27] In June 2021, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission apologised to Grimes in a Sunday Telegraph interview.[28] They lost their appeal but the Chairman of the Electoral Commission aplogised, and the Met found nothing
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  So the difference is that there were two fines issued for the same offence - one for 61K and one for 20K. The specific offence was that there was collusion between BeLeave and Vote Leave which ultimately meant that money spent by BeLeave was actually supporting Vote Leave's campaign, which was not lawful. Both 'parties' were fined - Vote Leave and BeLeave/Darren Grimes. The judge who overturned Grimes's fine did not pass judgement on whether the spending was lawful or not. The appeal was upheld based on the ruling that the Electoral Commission had not properly done their homework to prove BeLeave's legal status, or justify the maximum fine permissible for Grimes - essentially a procedural error, rather than a factual error.