House of commons eu referendum betting

The British people have spoken and the answer is: we're out! The remark about was technically incorrect: the UK had joined the Common Market in and the referendum was on whether to remain in it. On 9 May , Leave. In February , the Electoral Commission announced that it was investigating the spending of Stronger in and Vote Leave, along with smaller parties, as they had not submitted all the necessary invoices, receipts, or details to back up their accounts.

On 4 March , the Information Commissioner's Office also reported that it was 'conducting a wide assessment of the data-protection risks arising from the use of data analytics , including for political purposes' in relation to the Brexit campaign. It was specified that among the organisations to be investigated was Cambridge Analytica and its relationship with the Leave.

EU campaign. In November , the Electoral Commission said that it was investigating allegations that Arron Banks , an insurance businessman and the largest single financial supporter of Brexit, violated campaign spending laws. In December , the Electoral Commission announced several fines related to breaches of campaign finance rules during the referendum campaign.

In May , the Electoral Commission fined Leave. The Electoral Commission's director of political finance and regulation and legal counsel said that the "level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the commission's fines". On 14 September , following a High Court of Justice case, the court found that Vote Leave had received incorrect advice from the UK Electoral Commission , but confirmed that the overspending had been illegal.

Vote Leave subsequently said they would not have paid it without the advice. In February , the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's month investigation into disinformation and fake news published its final report, [] calling for and inquiry to establish, in relation to the referendum, "what actually happened with regard to foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation, and the sharing of data, so that appropriate changes to the law can be made and lessons can be learnt for future elections and referenda".

In the run-up to the Brexit referendum, Russian President Vladimir Putin refrained from taking a public position on Brexit, [] but Prime Minister David Cameron suggested that Russia "might be happy" with a positive Brexit vote, while the Remain campaign accused the Kremlin of secretly backing a "Leave" vote in the referendum.

Not only in the UK but all over the world. But Russia has nothing to do with Brexit at all. We're not involved in this process. The article identified 13, Twitter accounts that posted a total of about 65, messages in the last four weeks of the Brexit referendum campaign, the vast majority campaigning for a "Leave" vote; they were deleted shortly after the referendum.

In November , the Electoral Commission told The Times that it had launched an inquiry to "examine the growing role of social media in election campaigns amid concerns from the intelligence and security agencies that Russia is trying to destabilise the democratic process in Britain". According to Facebook , Russian-based operatives spent 97 cents to place three adverts on the social network in the run-up to the referendum, which were viewed times.

EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from to and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines". From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. National vote to advise Parliament on whether the UK should remain a member of, or leave, the European Union. Remain campaigns. Notice of withdrawal. Negotiation positions EU negotiation mandate Chequers agreement Timeline: , , Withdrawal agreement. Parliamentary votes.

EU—UK relations. Opposition in the UK. Referendum Act results. Treaty amendments. MEPs for UK constituencies. Members — elected by parliament Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Members — election Women.

Officials and bodies. Issues and events. List per year. European Union. Member States Candidate countries. Former Member States 1. Treaties of Accession. Treaties of Succession. Abandoned treaties and agreements. European Council. European Commission. Legislative procedure Council of the EU Presidency. European Parliament Members. National parliaments.

Court of Justice of the EU. European Court of Auditors. Euratom Members. Associated States. Eurozone Members. European Central Bank. Schengen Area. Non-Schengen Area states. European Economic Area. EEA Members. Other Bodies. Policies and Issues. Other currencies in use. Foreign Relations. High Representative. Foreign relations of EU Member States.

Other countries. See also: European Union Referendum Act See also: Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. For the positions of backbench MPs and other politicians, see Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Further information: Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. Further information: International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.

Further information: Conservative Party leadership election. Further information: Labour Party leadership election UK. Main article: Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Main article: Economic effects of Brexit.

Main article: Unlawful campaigning in the EU referendum. Main article: Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Later, a private prosecution was launched against Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office ; the case was thrown out. Retrieved 24 December World Bank. Retrieved 23 December BBC News. Archived from the original on 31 January Retrieved 1 February Archived from the original on 27 July The Guardian.

Archived from the original on 23 February Archived from the original on 18 June Daily Telegraph. The Observer. Retrieved 2 June The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 23 January Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 February Retrieved 14 July Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 8 August Financial Times. Retrieved 5 July Press Association. The Telegraph. Retrieved 17 May Archived from the original on 23 October Retrieved 22 June Retrieved 28 May Green Party of England and Wales.

Retrieved 26 April Respect Party. Conservative Party. Retrieved 16 May Retrieved 8 June Retrieved 12 June Politico EU. Retrieved 24 July Retrieved 29 June The Independent. Retrieved 4 June Retrieved 9 November Archived from the original on 31 May Retrieved 24 September Retrieved 9 January Government of the United Kingdom.

Retrieved 14 May Retrieved 2 February This content is released under the Open Parliament Licence v3. United Kingdom Electoral Commission. Retrieved 5 September Retrieved 13 September Retrieved 28 June Retrieved 30 January Retrieved 21 June Retrieved 23 June Guido Fawkes.

Retrieved 15 February Retrieved 22 December Retrieved 17 June Retrieved 11 April About My Vote. Electoral Commission. Vote Leave. Britain Stronger in Europe. Retrieved 27 May Retrieved 18 June Plaid Cymru. Archived from the original on 17 June Scottish Green Party. Retrieved 8 December Retrieved 21 February Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Archived from the original on 17 November Green Party in Northern Ireland.

Archived from the original PDF on 18 November The Belfast Telegraph. Social Democratic and Labour Party. Archived from the original on 21 July Ulster Unionist Party. Retrieved 5 March Archived from the original on 20 December The News Letter. Archived from the original on 21 May Gibraltar Chronicle. Archived from the original on 24 February Retrieved 20 February Archived from the original on 30 June Retrieved 25 June The Irish Times.

Archived from the original on 3 March Archived from the original on 4 March Retrieved 27 April Archived from the original PDF on 3 January An independence from Europe YouTube Video. Mike Nattrass via YouTube. Workers Party of Ireland. Retrieved 22 October Scottish Socialist Party. Archived from the original on 20 March The National Archives. Retrieved 22 March Scottish National Party. Archived from the original on 19 June Retrieved 7 January Reuters UK. Sky News.

Retrieved 15 June United Kingdom office of International Chamber of Commerce. Archived from the original PDF on 23 December City AM. Retrieved 3 January Retrieved 6 January Retrieved 26 February Retrieved 11 June Retrieved 24 June AP The Big Story. Associated Press.

Retrieved 26 June Retrieved 27 June Retrieved 1 July Retrieved 30 June Retrieved 29 November France The Daily Telegraph London. Al Jazeera. Fox News Channel. The Times. Retrieved 17 July Daily Express. Retrieved 18 March NBC News.

Retrieved 27 February BBC Indonesia in Indonesian. Daily Mirror. Retrieved 20 June Retrieved 13 May Nickell and J. Saleheen, Staff Working Paper No. Project Syndicate. Retrieved 14 June The Law Society of England and Wales.

October Dow Jones Financial News. Retrieved 7 March Rochester, NY. Retrieved 20 December Global Legal Post. Event occurs at Retrieved 31 May I really do have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding that Leave conducted one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country has ever seen. Public Finance. The Lancet. The Press and Journal. Retrieved 20 May Retrieved 21 April Conservative Home.

Retrieved 4 January Archived from the original on 7 April June Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved 24 November Retrieved 28 February Retrieved 8 February Bibcode : Natur. Legal Week. Ipsos MORI. Retrieved 29 May Eastern Daily Press.

Retrieved 3 August Retrieved 12 September Retrieved 3 March Analysis, BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 4 March University of Warwick. Retrieved 31 October Toronto Star. Toronto, Canada. Media Nusantara Citra. As Brussels held its ground, Cameron dropped his manifesto commitment for new EU workers to wait four years before accessing benefits, as long as something was done to cut immigration. In February Britain and the EU struck a deal.

Britain would get an "emergency brake," allowing the UK to withhold access to benefits for new migrants for a one-off period of seven years. The Herald. Retrieved 21 March Cameron pushes it at his peril N. Retrieved 24 May The Spectator. Retrieved 9 June Channel 4. Retrieved 26 May Channel 4 News. Retrieved 19 June Independent Print Limited. An unusual conspiracy theory grips Brexit vote.

The Washington Post. Retrieved 11 March The New York Times. Retrieved 8 November Retrieved 26 July A comprehensive district-level analysis". Economic Policy , Volume 32, Issue 92, 1 October , pp. Quotes: "We find that fundamental characteristics of the voting population were key drivers of the Vote Leave share, in particular their education profiles, their historical dependence on manufacturing employment as well as low income and high unemployment.

At the much finer level of wards within cities, we find that areas with deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave. House of Commons briefing paper. House of Commons Library , 14 September Full Fact. Lord Ashcroft Polls.

London School of Economics. Retrieved 19 October ABC News. London Evening Standard. London, UK. Retrieved 10 October Coffee House. Retrieved 27 September Retrieved 2 July In an ironic twist, it emerged Sunday that the petition's creator was in fact in favor of so-called Brexit. In a message posted to Facebook, William Oliver Healey sought to distance himself from the petition, saying it had been hijacked by those in favor of remaining in the EU.

Retrieved 9 September Retrieved 9 July Archived from the original on 13 August Archived from the original on 1 July Retrieved 4 July Retrieved 18 October BBC Scotland. Retrieved 26 March Business Insider UK. Retrieved 9 October Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Through Brexit Uncertainty". Retrieved 26 December Retrieved 18 January Guardian newspapers.

Retrieved 1 September EU , Electoral Commission 21 April Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 11 May EU fined for multiple breaches of electoral law following investigation". The Electoral Commission. Retrieved 1 October Retrieved 18 February The Daily Beast.

George, Stephen January Journal of European Integration. Usherwood, Simon March Emerson, Michael April Vote Leave official campaign Leave. Articles relating to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Elections and referendums in the United Kingdom. Full list of parties standing candidates. England list Northern Ireland list Scotland list Wales list. Full list of parties standing candidates Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire Scottish Parliament by-election held on same day.

England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales. Early Parliamentary General Election Act United Kingdom pop. Results by voting area. On the map, the darker shades for a colour indicate a larger majority. Accessibility help Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer. Choose your subscription. Trial Try full digital access and see why over 1 million readers subscribe to the FT.

For 4 weeks receive unlimited Premium digital access to the FT's trusted, award-winning business news. Digital Be informed with the essential news and opinion. Check availability. Delivery to your home or office Monday to Saturday FT Weekend paper — a stimulating blend of news and lifestyle features ePaper access — the digital replica of the printed newspaper.

Team or Enterprise Premium FT. Pay based on use. Does my organisation subscribe? Group Subscription. Premium digital access plus: Convenient access for groups of users Integration with third party platforms and CRM systems Usage based pricing and volume discounts for multiple users Subscription management tools and usage reporting SAML-based single sign on SSO Dedicated account and customer success teams. Full Terms and Conditions apply to all Subscriptions.

FOOTBALL BETTING ODDS ENGLAND

May needs a simple majority - of Conservative lawmakers - to remain leader. A secret ballot will be held between and GMT and an announcement made at Paddy Power said the most likely outcome is that between 70 and of Conservative lawmakers vote against her.

Ladbrokes said the highest probability is that between to of her lawmakers will vote against her. Paddy Power said the odds for a second referendum on Brexit were now 58 percent, with a 42 percent probability of a general election before Britain is due to leave the EU in March.

In a warning to hardline eurosceptic opponents who instigated the leadership challenge, May said if they toppled her then the EU exit would be delayed and perhaps even stopped. If May loses the vote it will trigger a leadership challenge. The two most likely next prime ministers are the former foreign minister Boris Johnson and the former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, who until taking that job in the summer was relatively unknown, according to the betting companies.

Surely Professor Grayling should be more careful about language here? As I understand it, his objection is not that the franchise, the normal one used in elections to Westminster, was restricted, but that it was not extended to include more EU-friendly population groups before the referendum. But I would prefer it if Remainers had shown more enthusiasm for expatriate voting rights before the referendum, or would use their outrage in support of the Votes for Life Bill now. I agree with him this is a quasi-coup.

It was the usual franchise used in all UK elections and, with one exception, all previous UK referenda. To claim that it was restricted in any way is simply dishonest. It was the same of Parliamentary elections but restricted when compared to Council elections where all residents can vote and especially compared to the nearest precedent that was the Scottish Referendum as mentioned in the article.

There are two parallel electoral registers in the UK, one for the administrative elections and one for Parliament, it was a political choice to choose one over the other. My feeling is that David Cameron in his wish to pacify his rightwing side decided against allowing EU citizens residents in the UK to vote for the Referendum. Every year we have elections where they are included in the franchise. Considering that the decision made would impact most on the non-EU nationals and UK EU nationals in other EU countries , then it makes a mockery of the process to exclude them.

The argument about year olds is less powerful. We do, but we can change our mind pretty quickly and even change in less than a year, in worst case. For the most part, the impact is on those who chose to stay. Apart from the fact there was an election just one year later were people could of ovturned the vote but chose not to. As a separate consideration, there is also a school of thought that the franchise for those entitled to vote in a UK general election should be extended to include those aged Imagine should the referendum had been extended to include those aged , who had been excluded from voting in the UK general election.

That could have given rise to the accusation by some, of gerrymandering to support the remain view. I would argue that Cameron thought he had already sufficiently tied the hands of the leave campaign. The UK residents entitled to vote in the referendum came from a pool of 54 nationalities, many maybe having little long term allegiance to the UK in terms of permanent residency.

I am sure that such an esteemed academic as AC Grayling, or indeed keen politics students at the LSE, will be able to find evidence to back up an assertion that this put the leave campaign at a distinct disadvantage. Surely not. You are right. The purported Art 50 2 is invalid. Further, there are serious matters of law arising. She obtained the public office position of Prime Minister through deception.

This is a criminal offence. May is indictable of a further offence of Misconduct in Public Office in concealing from Parliament and the public vital information — the Secret Treasury Impact Assessments of fifty plus Brexit scenarios, all of which were negative. These must be revealed in due course, possibly via police investigation or judicial review forcing disclosure.

Crime reports of criminal offences by Theresa May, David Davis and Lord Bridges of Headley have been filed with the Metropolitan Police are are currently being investigated. To request further information you can email actionforeurope gmail. Before the EU referendum I met a French lady who had lived in London for 50 years and yet was not allowed to vote in the referendum.

Are you also baffled that I, an Irish citizen, was allowed to vote in the EU referendum? I have been voting for the last thirty years for a British European member of parliament who has democratically given me representation and the constitutional human rights of freedom of participation. This referendum is null and void because it has discriminated me and millions of us of our right to politically participated in the democratic process. In one referendum this government has created second hand citizens of us similar to the status of woman in the 19th century and slaves.

As he quite rightly alludes to in this article. If the referendum had been extended to include those aged , who had been excluded from voting in the general election, surely that would have given rise to the accusation by some, of gerrymandering to support the remain camp?

I would actually argue that Cameron thought he had already sufficiently tied the hands of the leave campaign. I am sure that such an esteemed academic as AC Graylig, or indeed keen politics students at the LSE, will be able to find evidence to back up an assertion that this indeed put the leave campaign at a distinct disadvantage.

Well, it is clear that many, especially tory, politicians wanted Brexit at any cost, but also that many in the public believed lies, half-truths and insinuations when they should have known better. The British have made their beds and now have to lie in it. Life is unfair sometimes. Good luck! God save the Queen! Stiff upper lip! The British are used to hardships and challenges.

I am sure you will survive. If not more prosperous, then at least wiser. The Referendum was effectively as vote on the Maastricht Treaty but it was delayed by 24 years, so many of those who would have liked the opportunity to vote on the treaty did not survive long enough to do so. They were denied their chance to democratically express their views. The Maastricht Treaty was a massive constitutional change and its approval was determined by a simple majority in Parliament, but only on a second vote which was framed as a vote of confidence on the Government because approval was not given on the first vote.

Or to put it another way there was massive Gerrymandering on the Referendum which was held on the Maastricht Treaty since no one was allowed to vote but it was assumed that everyone would have voted in agreement had they been allowed to do so. On who got to vote: we used the general election franchise — why should we not?

On 16 year olds: Society and the law do not consider them to be adults — why should they get a special exemption? On EU citizens: This was about political identity and its tie to governing legitimacy — adding the eu vote would be exactly the gerrymander you decry so vehemently!

On the lack of a super majority: We have and believe in adversarial politics and parliamentary sovereignty — why should we feel the need for a comfort blanket in the manner you describe. Why decide by ref: It was a matter of deep constitutional significance that cut across parliamentary politics — have you heard of a chap by the name of Dicey? The reason most sensible countries in the world require a significant majority for a constitutional change is because public opinion changes from day to day, especially it would be so where it becomes evident that an a poorly-informed electorate has been systemically lied to.

The general election model which we are lumbered with works on the basis that you only have to put up with a bad-first-past the post decision for 5 years, not for ever. On the same logic we should have another referendum to review the first one by I doubt it, but with youngsters who were previously excluded having come of voting age, and with large numbers of ancient little Englanders having subsequently kicked the bucket, the vote could now well swing the other way.

Then bad luck for you old chap. This country has ratified the constitution of human rights. Within the constitution it is written that every citizens British and European have the freedom and right of participation. This referendum discriminated millions of people from this right. Therefore this referendum is unconstitutional.

On that bases it should be null and void. I have voted for last thirty years for a British European member of parliament to represent me. Constitutionally I am entitle to decide if I still want representation in the European Parliament. In conclusion, I have lost complete democratic power equal to women in the 19th century or slaves. If it is true the referendum was not binding then it is time for politicsl leaders to be hauled in front of the courts to give a report and if found guilty placed under arrest, it was criminal to run a campaign where the average person was unaware that the electorate was being hood winked.

There is a need for us to take control of our destiny, the elected representatives appear incapable of performing their public duty. Criminal charges have been filed. If you require further information please email actionforeurope gmail. More than ever this underlines the need for a fundamental overhaul of our constitution. What nobody has mentioned in the previous comments is that members of the House of Lords were given the right to vote even though they cannot vote in General Elections.

What also was never considered in voting for Art. This will come home to roost: the Republic of Ireland, being one of the 27 remaining states will have a vote when it comes to deciding on the final deal for Britain, as has the European Parliament. And, of course, all 27 member states will have to be unanimous.

Yes, the referendum was advisory, but Parliament then legitimised it by passing the necessary legislation. We Brexiteers need to thank Gina Miller for that, a woman who is probably the best friend that Brexit could have. The franchise was the same one that is used in parliamentary elections, so the claim that it excluded foreign residents is true but irrelevant. If a General Election vote is legitimate then so was this referendum, since it was the same electorate.

It looks to me as if Old Haircut wanted to increase the electorate thinking that people living abroad are by definition Federasts. Given that the bulk of the British diaspora lives in Australia, Canada and the USA, there is little evidence to suggest that even had the franchise been widened they would have voted for Brussels. Finally, if the people had wanted to reverse the referendum, they had a perfect opportunity in June this year and could have voted Lib-Dem.

Actually Parliament did not pass the necessary legislation. All it passed was an act giving permission to invoke Article 50 but no direction to do so. In fact the European Union Withdrawal Bill appears to be the necessary precursor to constitutionally invoking Article I used the example of the GE to show that whatever gobby people on boards think, there is no desire on the part of the people as a whole to remain in the EU.

If there had been then the Lib-Dems would have scored more seats. The result of the election was a Con-Lab dupoly with both parties in favour of Brexit. The real, current levels of support for EU membership vs. Despite a Manifesto undertaking before the last General Election but one, I have been deprived of my right to influence the future of my country of origin because I have been away from the UK for more than 15 years in a matter that directly effects me in that my right of peaceful abode in my country of residence appears to be being treated as a bargaining counter by an uncaring self-serving minority administration.

The rights of my homologues resident in the United Kingdom are similarly at risk of being subjected to harrasment and worse. O tempora, O mores! I am afraid this is a long post; it is the text of my article published in June This is not about a mere legal technicality, it is about upholding the rule of law and the integrity of democracy in the UK.

The price of freedom, as we know, is eternal vigilance: The same warning applies to the protection of democratic rights from those who hold another agenda. The Cameron government hijacked the EU Referendum and converted it into a political agenda to suit their own internal party politics.

There has never been a constitutional decision that the UK shall leave the EU. The Article 50 Notification served on 29 March is invalid. An exit of the UK from the EU and its subsequent consequences may go down in history as the most momentous change of constitutional status in Britain in living memory. It may surprise you to know that it would be carried out without any democratic mandate or legal basis whatsoever.

Any challenge is undemocratic. The UK has an elected Parliament. This is the foundation of our democracy. We accept that Parliament is the supreme legislative authority. Governments cannot override the supremacy of Parliament. They are not permitted to bend either the laws or the clear intent of Parliament to suit their own agenda. Who would dispute that? Yet this fundamental principle has been overridden; and this abuse has been accepted without question.

Both the public and Parliament itself have been deceived and fooled. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result.

It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set any time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented Instead, 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. Being advisory, there was no need to even discuss this issue.

It was not a vote, it was a consultation. That is a fiction created since by the Cameron government. It was the status quo. Clearly, Parliament made no attempt to clarify the intent or meaning because there was no need to. The referendum was advisory. It was not a vote, it was a consultation of public opinion.

The result was to be considered, but Parliament would still have the right and the duty to consider the national interest and take such decision as it thought fit. Parliament passed the Referendum Act on that clear legal basis. David Cameron created the Great Pretence that the referendum was binding, and deliberately concealed its advisory status in all public information. It is suspected that MPs were instructed to be complicit in this concealment. This created a wholly new context.

Leave the EU — regardless of the consequences? Leave the EU — once you have established acceptable alternatives? Leave the EU and stay in the single market, leave and stay in the customs union, leave and limit free movement or allow free movement, leave and adopt a Norway model, make a total break and go off the cliff into WTO trading….

There are variations. Parliament has never set that threshold. Presumably by making the very same case as outlined here. Even Farage has now admitted that the referendum was advisory. Well, you can hardly get a better endorsement than that. The referendum was advisory, not a binding vote. Parliament itself determined that the referendum was no more than a consultation.

That remains the case to this day. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. So first you make the decision to withdraw, then you must notify your decision. Clear enough. But now ask the question: When, where and by whom was a decision made? Last January the Supreme Court ruled in the Gina Miller case that only Parliament may remove rights which Parliament has granted in the first place.

No Minister can do it. Only Parliament may do it, and then only through an Act of Parliament. This would be illegal.

Помочь разослал boavista vs academica betting expert foot Вами согласен

Its final stages were confirmed by the same margin minutes later, after Boris Johnson blocked MPs from making any amendments. But there are many holes in the deal - and it came just as the EU agreed an investment deal with China. Boris Johnson was due to sign the deal itself in No10 at 3pm after it was signed by EU chiefs this morning, and airlifted to Britain on one of the Queen's planes.

The Queen, who is spending Christmas at Windsor Castle, is due to give Royal Assent at about midnight tonight after the deal passes through the House of Lords. Tory Brexiteers and Labour leader Keir Starmer both voted for the Future Relationship Bill, despite the 1,page document getting less than five hours of scrutiny in the Commons. Those who vote no are voting for no deal. But he still could not stop a Labour revolt, with three frontbenchers resigning their roles to avoid backing the deal.

Ex-PM Theresa May warned there were holes in the deal on financial services and how much of a role will go to Parliament over future disputes. But she said she would back the deal in the "national interest". And she insisted her deal in had been "better".

In a veiled rebuke to Boris Johnson - who voted down her deal only to take her place in No10 - she said: "Today is the time to put aside personal and party political interests - which sadly too many have followed in the past. The 1,page deal — condensed into an page parliamentary Bill — was agreed with the EU after months after frantic negotiations hampered by the coronavirus pandemic. But four-and-a-half years after the referendum, Britons will not wake on Friday with all the UK's ties with Europe severed.

Instead there are still negotiations to be thrashed out on issues like chilled sausages, which are banned from export to the EU. There are still gaps to be filled in on financial services and other issues - with a new Partnership Council handling disputes into And if the UK tries to take too much control over fishing rights, state aid or environmental protections, it could be hit with "retaliation" in the form of tariffs from the EU.

Boris Johnson told MPs that the Bill represents "one of the biggest free trade agreements in the world". He said: "Having taken back control of our money, our borders, our laws and our waters by leaving the European Union on January 31, we now seize this moment to forge a fantastic new relationship with our European neighbours based on free trade and friendly co-operation. The PM made a highly misleading claim on fishing in his bid to get MPs to pass the deal.

And he blocked an SNP bid to give MPs two hours to debate amendments to his Bill - instead granting them precisely zero. But the deal says those negotiations "should normally" lead to each side getting a quota that's "reasonably commensurate" with what they had before. That means exporters will need to fill out customs declarations on hundreds of billions of pounds per year of trade.

The government knows this may cause disruption at the borders and is preparing a series of lorry parks to hold hauliers from Friday. Claims the pact would allow for no checks on goods travelling between the UK and the Continent were wrong, he insisted. He said: "The truth is this — there will be an avalanche of checks, bureaucracy and red tape for British businesses. Fishing: The two sides were split over two issues - quotas and access.

Britain wanted both more quota to catch its own fish, and ultimate control over who accesses the waters. Both sides agreed a five-and-a-half-year transition period before the UK has full sovereignty over its own waters. This was more than the three years originally demanded by the UK. Level playing field: This means how closely we follow EU rules in the future, to stop us undercutting businesses on the continent.

In the end, the EU won its demand for both sides to have a "level playing field" in which neither side will "grant unfair subsidies or distort competition". Dan Bloom Online Political Editor. At a rare weekend sitting of Parliament, lawmakers voted to withhold their approval of the Brexit deal until legislation to implement it has been passed. The vote sought to ensure that the U. Johnson, who struck the agreement with the EU earlier this week, said he was not "daunted or dismayed" by the result and would continue to do all he can to get Brexit done in less than two weeks.

Parliament's first weekend sitting since the Falklands War of had been dubbed "Super Saturday. But the government's hopes were derailed when House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he would allow a vote on an amendment to put the vote on the deal off until another day. The amendment makes support for the deal conditional on passage of the legislation to implement it, something that could take several days or weeks. It also gives lawmakers another chance to scrutinize — and possibly change— the Brexit departure terms while the legislation is in Parliament.

The government still hopes it can pass the needed legislation by the end of the month so the U. The leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said the government would hold a debate Monday on its Brexit-implementing legislation — effectively a second attempt to secure approval for the deal. It's unclear whether that would be allowed under House of Commons rules against holding repeated votes on the same question. Bercow said he would make a ruling Monday.

The vote was welcomed by hundreds of thousands of anti-Brexit demonstrators who marched to Parliament Square, demanding a new referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU or remain. Protesters, many wearing blue berets emblazoned with yellow stars symbolizing the EU flag, poured out of subways and buses for the last-ditch effort. No one knows what will happen, but we have hope. Johnson, who came to power in July vowing to get Brexit finished, called any delay to Britain's departure "pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.

When push comes to shove, the EU seems likely to grant an extension if needed to avoid a disruptive no-deal Brexit. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said his country saw the vote as a delay, rather than a rejection of the Brexit deal. For EU leaders, avoiding a chaotic, no-deal Brexit should be the "top priority," he said in a tweet.

And the European Parliament's chief Brexit official, Guy Verhofstadt, noted that time was now tight to get the deal approved by the EU legislature before Oct. The government plans to introduce the bill next week and could hold late-night sittings of Parliament in hope of getting it passed within days. But Johnson must win over a fractious and divided Parliament, which three times rejected the Brexit plan negotiated by his predecessor Theresa May.

His hopes of getting the deal through Parliament were dealt a blow when his Northern Ireland ally, the Democratic Unionist Party, said it would not back him. The party says Johnson's Brexit package — which carves out special status for Northern Ireland to keep an open border with EU member Ireland — is bad for the region and weakens its bonds with the rest of the U.

To make up for the votes of 10 DUP lawmakers, Johnson has tried to persuade members of the left-of-center Labour Party to support the deal. Late Friday, the government promised to bolster protections for the environment and workers' rights to allay Labour fears that the Conservative government plans to slash those protections after Brexit. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn dismissed the prime minister's promises as inadequate.

Casert reported from Brussels. Skip to content. Election Results. Georgia Runoff Interactive Map. Interactive Radar. Operation Football.

PAUL EAGLAND MINING BITCOINS

Earlier in the day, William Hill said there was a 60 percent chance she will survive, Paddy Power had odds of 71 percent and Ladbrokes 67 percent. May is fighting for her job after facing a rebellion by Eurosceptic lawmakers over her management of Brexit. Many politicians in her party have called for her to be ousted because she is not pursuing a complete break with the EU.

May needs a simple majority - of Conservative lawmakers - to remain leader. A secret ballot will be held between and GMT and an announcement made at Paddy Power said the most likely outcome is that between 70 and of Conservative lawmakers vote against her. Ladbrokes said the highest probability is that between to of her lawmakers will vote against her. Paddy Power said the odds for a second referendum on Brexit were now 58 percent, with a 42 percent probability of a general election before Britain is due to leave the EU in March.

The Maastricht Treaty was a massive constitutional change and its approval was determined by a simple majority in Parliament, but only on a second vote which was framed as a vote of confidence on the Government because approval was not given on the first vote. Or to put it another way there was massive Gerrymandering on the Referendum which was held on the Maastricht Treaty since no one was allowed to vote but it was assumed that everyone would have voted in agreement had they been allowed to do so.

On who got to vote: we used the general election franchise — why should we not? On 16 year olds: Society and the law do not consider them to be adults — why should they get a special exemption? On EU citizens: This was about political identity and its tie to governing legitimacy — adding the eu vote would be exactly the gerrymander you decry so vehemently! On the lack of a super majority: We have and believe in adversarial politics and parliamentary sovereignty — why should we feel the need for a comfort blanket in the manner you describe.

Why decide by ref: It was a matter of deep constitutional significance that cut across parliamentary politics — have you heard of a chap by the name of Dicey? The reason most sensible countries in the world require a significant majority for a constitutional change is because public opinion changes from day to day, especially it would be so where it becomes evident that an a poorly-informed electorate has been systemically lied to.

The general election model which we are lumbered with works on the basis that you only have to put up with a bad-first-past the post decision for 5 years, not for ever. On the same logic we should have another referendum to review the first one by I doubt it, but with youngsters who were previously excluded having come of voting age, and with large numbers of ancient little Englanders having subsequently kicked the bucket, the vote could now well swing the other way.

Then bad luck for you old chap. This country has ratified the constitution of human rights. Within the constitution it is written that every citizens British and European have the freedom and right of participation. This referendum discriminated millions of people from this right. Therefore this referendum is unconstitutional. On that bases it should be null and void.

I have voted for last thirty years for a British European member of parliament to represent me. Constitutionally I am entitle to decide if I still want representation in the European Parliament. In conclusion, I have lost complete democratic power equal to women in the 19th century or slaves. If it is true the referendum was not binding then it is time for politicsl leaders to be hauled in front of the courts to give a report and if found guilty placed under arrest, it was criminal to run a campaign where the average person was unaware that the electorate was being hood winked.

There is a need for us to take control of our destiny, the elected representatives appear incapable of performing their public duty. Criminal charges have been filed. If you require further information please email actionforeurope gmail. More than ever this underlines the need for a fundamental overhaul of our constitution. What nobody has mentioned in the previous comments is that members of the House of Lords were given the right to vote even though they cannot vote in General Elections.

What also was never considered in voting for Art. This will come home to roost: the Republic of Ireland, being one of the 27 remaining states will have a vote when it comes to deciding on the final deal for Britain, as has the European Parliament. And, of course, all 27 member states will have to be unanimous. Yes, the referendum was advisory, but Parliament then legitimised it by passing the necessary legislation.

We Brexiteers need to thank Gina Miller for that, a woman who is probably the best friend that Brexit could have. The franchise was the same one that is used in parliamentary elections, so the claim that it excluded foreign residents is true but irrelevant.

If a General Election vote is legitimate then so was this referendum, since it was the same electorate. It looks to me as if Old Haircut wanted to increase the electorate thinking that people living abroad are by definition Federasts. Given that the bulk of the British diaspora lives in Australia, Canada and the USA, there is little evidence to suggest that even had the franchise been widened they would have voted for Brussels.

Finally, if the people had wanted to reverse the referendum, they had a perfect opportunity in June this year and could have voted Lib-Dem. Actually Parliament did not pass the necessary legislation. All it passed was an act giving permission to invoke Article 50 but no direction to do so.

In fact the European Union Withdrawal Bill appears to be the necessary precursor to constitutionally invoking Article I used the example of the GE to show that whatever gobby people on boards think, there is no desire on the part of the people as a whole to remain in the EU. If there had been then the Lib-Dems would have scored more seats. The result of the election was a Con-Lab dupoly with both parties in favour of Brexit. The real, current levels of support for EU membership vs.

Despite a Manifesto undertaking before the last General Election but one, I have been deprived of my right to influence the future of my country of origin because I have been away from the UK for more than 15 years in a matter that directly effects me in that my right of peaceful abode in my country of residence appears to be being treated as a bargaining counter by an uncaring self-serving minority administration.

The rights of my homologues resident in the United Kingdom are similarly at risk of being subjected to harrasment and worse. O tempora, O mores! I am afraid this is a long post; it is the text of my article published in June This is not about a mere legal technicality, it is about upholding the rule of law and the integrity of democracy in the UK.

The price of freedom, as we know, is eternal vigilance: The same warning applies to the protection of democratic rights from those who hold another agenda. The Cameron government hijacked the EU Referendum and converted it into a political agenda to suit their own internal party politics. There has never been a constitutional decision that the UK shall leave the EU. The Article 50 Notification served on 29 March is invalid. An exit of the UK from the EU and its subsequent consequences may go down in history as the most momentous change of constitutional status in Britain in living memory.

It may surprise you to know that it would be carried out without any democratic mandate or legal basis whatsoever. Any challenge is undemocratic. The UK has an elected Parliament. This is the foundation of our democracy. We accept that Parliament is the supreme legislative authority. Governments cannot override the supremacy of Parliament. They are not permitted to bend either the laws or the clear intent of Parliament to suit their own agenda.

Who would dispute that? Yet this fundamental principle has been overridden; and this abuse has been accepted without question. Both the public and Parliament itself have been deceived and fooled. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result.

It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set any time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented Instead, 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. Being advisory, there was no need to even discuss this issue.

It was not a vote, it was a consultation. That is a fiction created since by the Cameron government. It was the status quo. Clearly, Parliament made no attempt to clarify the intent or meaning because there was no need to. The referendum was advisory. It was not a vote, it was a consultation of public opinion. The result was to be considered, but Parliament would still have the right and the duty to consider the national interest and take such decision as it thought fit.

Parliament passed the Referendum Act on that clear legal basis. David Cameron created the Great Pretence that the referendum was binding, and deliberately concealed its advisory status in all public information. It is suspected that MPs were instructed to be complicit in this concealment. This created a wholly new context. Leave the EU — regardless of the consequences? Leave the EU — once you have established acceptable alternatives? Leave the EU and stay in the single market, leave and stay in the customs union, leave and limit free movement or allow free movement, leave and adopt a Norway model, make a total break and go off the cliff into WTO trading….

There are variations. Parliament has never set that threshold. Presumably by making the very same case as outlined here. Even Farage has now admitted that the referendum was advisory. Well, you can hardly get a better endorsement than that.

The referendum was advisory, not a binding vote. Parliament itself determined that the referendum was no more than a consultation. That remains the case to this day. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. So first you make the decision to withdraw, then you must notify your decision. Clear enough. But now ask the question: When, where and by whom was a decision made?

Last January the Supreme Court ruled in the Gina Miller case that only Parliament may remove rights which Parliament has granted in the first place. No Minister can do it. Only Parliament may do it, and then only through an Act of Parliament. This would be illegal. As we know the Pretence backfired. Goodbye Cameron and Hello May, who continued the pretence. It was not binding. There was no set threshold. The Supreme Court has confirmed that only Parliament can make such a decision, and by means of an Act of Parliament.

When did Parliament make such a decision? The answer is — never. Parliament has never been asked to make a decision. It has passed no such Act. The government is either badly advised by its legal experts, or is deliberately misleading the public and the EU. This is the exchange that took place on 14th March Friend not only on her statement and the way in which she dispatched the Leader of the Opposition, but on the passage of the European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill.

Does she accept that now is the time for the UK to do all the things that she has recommended in her statement and, in addition to that, to take urgent legal advice in respect of the legal warnings that have been given by Lord Hope of Craighead to be sure that we do not have any unforeseen further attempts to undo that Bill in the courts?

Friend that, as we move ahead with this, as we have at every stage, we will take appropriate legal advice, but as he will know we do not discuss that on the Floor of the House. So — why the omission to mention 50 1 in the Bill or elsewhere? Pure incompetence? Or some more sinister intention? What could the sinister intent be? Is May that cunning? Hard to believe. So perhaps it is pure incompetence. Are the autocratic Empress Theresa and her band of hapless Brexiteers so out of touch with reality and the results of their bungling that they simply refuse to confront reality?

Or is there still a dark reason, known only to the few? Democracy in Britain is based upon the firm principle that the elected Members of Parliament make the law. Parliament in its wisdom passed the EU Referendum Act with the clear intent that it should be advisory, and that its result should then be considered by Parliament. Whatever was put in the Conservative manifesto of has no bearing upon the legal status of the Act. The Cameron government hijacked the Act and converted it into a political agenda to suit their own internal party politics.

There has never been a constitutional decision stating that the UK shall leave the EU. This scandal has never been challenged by the other parties. Yet the hijacking of the Act is the most undemocratic event in living memory. It is not democracy. Democracy will only be served by allowing Parliament to freely debate, consider and vote upon what action should be taken in the national interest as a result of the advisory referendum of 23 June To date, Parliament has not been permitted to do that.

It must be permitted to do so, and in a free vote. If that is not done, an exit of the UK from the EU and its subsequent consequences may be carried out without any democratic mandate or legal basis whatsoever. Gerrymandering is an intentional rigging of votes. So I do not think he is using the correct terminology. Cameron might have been arrogant and or incompetent but as he had no intention to favour Leave this is not Gerrymandering. Thank you Richard Bird for so eloquently orating the facts.

I have been shouted down over the advisory nature of the referendum for the last year plus. This has been a deeply upsetting issue for me and I will never ever forgive the British state for this. Poor you. Most expats do not even live in the EU. To make matters even more risible, the bulk of the Brits in Europe are to be found in Spain, and most of them are retired. That being so, why do the Federasts think that allowing the Brits abroad to vote would have changed the result in any way? To try and get a sense of my feeling, hypothetically, how would you feel if we removed your constituency from participation in any national referenda in the future?

It would make zero difference in the ensuing result with probability infinitesimally close to 1. So why would you care? Even if the result would make your continued residence in said constituency uncertain and risk breaking your family apart, your vote would still be worth precisely nothing, right?

No, you are not mistaken, and I congratulate you on your reading comprehension. Hey, it puts you head and shoulders above most Federasts that I have crossed swords with since they come over as types who find the act of tying their shoelaces to be an intellectual challenge.