Could a guilty Boris Johnson be used to cancel Brexit?“False advertising” in political campaigns?Could...
How to decline physical affection from a child whose parents are pressuring them?
Are there regional foods in Westeros?
Why would Lupin kill Pettigrew?
How to detach yourself from a character you're going to kill?
What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?
Did airlines fly their aircraft slower in response to oil prices in the 1970s?
Asking for something with different prices
Self-Preservation: How to DM NPCs that Love Living?
Why does the UK have more political parties than the US?
Coding Challenge Solution - Good Range
Can an old DSLR be upgraded to match modern smartphone image quality
Applicants clearly not having the skills they advertise
What does the behaviour of water on the skin of an aircraft in flight tell us?
Select row of data if next row contains zero
Pros and cons of writing a book review?
How do I set the Verbatim font (or the mono font) to bold by default?
Is the world in Game of Thrones spherical or flat?
How do I truncate a csv file?
Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will
Are academic associations obliged to comply with the US government?
Why don't I have ground wiring on any of my outlets?
Accidentally cashed a check twice
Is the capacitor drawn or wired wrongly?
How was Apollo supposed to rendezvous in the case of a lunar abort?
Could a guilty Boris Johnson be used to cancel Brexit?
“False advertising” in political campaigns?Could the Queen have stopped Brexit?Could the devolved UK administrations legislate directly for Brexit?Why do the Tories keep Boris Johnson around?What are the main differences between UK and US (NEP) exit polls, methodologically?Why do UK citizens feel “that only the British (and perhaps the Swiss) are properly democratic”?Could the UK unilaterally “restart the clock” on Brexit?Why did the UK not have any post-EU exit deals agreed prior to June 2016?Could Sinn Fein swing any Brexit vote in Parliament?Can the Queen still cancel Brexit?
This question is based on the assumption that Boris Johnson gets prosecuted and found guilty of misleading public during the EU referendum.
Could this be used in court to argue that the results of the referendum is wrong and based on misleading campaigning, and therefore get a court decision to force the government to revoke Article 50.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
add a comment |
This question is based on the assumption that Boris Johnson gets prosecuted and found guilty of misleading public during the EU referendum.
Could this be used in court to argue that the results of the referendum is wrong and based on misleading campaigning, and therefore get a court decision to force the government to revoke Article 50.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
2
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
3
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is based on the assumption that Boris Johnson gets prosecuted and found guilty of misleading public during the EU referendum.
Could this be used in court to argue that the results of the referendum is wrong and based on misleading campaigning, and therefore get a court decision to force the government to revoke Article 50.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
This question is based on the assumption that Boris Johnson gets prosecuted and found guilty of misleading public during the EU referendum.
Could this be used in court to argue that the results of the referendum is wrong and based on misleading campaigning, and therefore get a court decision to force the government to revoke Article 50.
united-kingdom brexit
united-kingdom brexit
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
asked 9 hours ago
MocasMocas
786718
786718
2
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
3
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
3
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago
2
2
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
3
3
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No. The referendum was legally not binding, it just caused a political situation which made the article 50 notification seem a political necessity. The UK could have stayed or left regardless of the referendum result, so a court could not conclude from campaign "violations" that the notification was invalid.
Also, many election campaigns contain predictions or promises that may or may not become fact, and courts involved into that is a very bad thing for democracy. It is for the electorate to judge the credibility of campaign speeches, as long as they don't sink to libel and similar offenses.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41837%2fcould-a-guilty-boris-johnson-be-used-to-cancel-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. The referendum was legally not binding, it just caused a political situation which made the article 50 notification seem a political necessity. The UK could have stayed or left regardless of the referendum result, so a court could not conclude from campaign "violations" that the notification was invalid.
Also, many election campaigns contain predictions or promises that may or may not become fact, and courts involved into that is a very bad thing for democracy. It is for the electorate to judge the credibility of campaign speeches, as long as they don't sink to libel and similar offenses.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The referendum was legally not binding, it just caused a political situation which made the article 50 notification seem a political necessity. The UK could have stayed or left regardless of the referendum result, so a court could not conclude from campaign "violations" that the notification was invalid.
Also, many election campaigns contain predictions or promises that may or may not become fact, and courts involved into that is a very bad thing for democracy. It is for the electorate to judge the credibility of campaign speeches, as long as they don't sink to libel and similar offenses.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The referendum was legally not binding, it just caused a political situation which made the article 50 notification seem a political necessity. The UK could have stayed or left regardless of the referendum result, so a court could not conclude from campaign "violations" that the notification was invalid.
Also, many election campaigns contain predictions or promises that may or may not become fact, and courts involved into that is a very bad thing for democracy. It is for the electorate to judge the credibility of campaign speeches, as long as they don't sink to libel and similar offenses.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
No. The referendum was legally not binding, it just caused a political situation which made the article 50 notification seem a political necessity. The UK could have stayed or left regardless of the referendum result, so a court could not conclude from campaign "violations" that the notification was invalid.
Also, many election campaigns contain predictions or promises that may or may not become fact, and courts involved into that is a very bad thing for democracy. It is for the electorate to judge the credibility of campaign speeches, as long as they don't sink to libel and similar offenses.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
14.4k22959
14.4k22959
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
2
2
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
The court case in question isn't about a prediction or promise.The application says "the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week" judiciary.uk/judgments/…
– Lag
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41837%2fcould-a-guilty-boris-johnson-be-used-to-cancel-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
This question actually illustrates the can of worms this sort of thing opens up. If the idiots succeed we can ultimately look forward to courts appointing MPs.
– Orangesandlemons
6 hours ago
3
@Orangesandlemons great point. If we're going to start criminally convicting politicians of lying, then pretty soon we're not going to have any politicians left! ;-)
– Time4Tea
4 hours ago