Could the referendum result be legally challenged?

[Holly Goodhead]

How can voters make informed decisions based on misleading information?  It seems to me there was a lot of misleading info from both camps (and the reason I didn't bother voting).  Perhaps the most highlighted example was the claim that if the UK exited the EU £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS.

Following the result/Brexit it seems the UK wants to negotiate access to the 'single market' but with restrictions placed on the 'free movement of people'.  It seems as far as the EU is concerned one is contingent on the other.  As I understand it many people voted leave as they are unhappy about the levels of immigration into the UK.

I'm struggling to think of any other area of life where it would be possible for groups of individuals to provide misleading information in order to persuade others to take a course of action without any consequences.

The following is interesting and explains why political advertising falls outside the Advertising Standards Authority:

https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Political-advertising.aspx#.V3pz4TWGzIU

It appears freedom of speech takes precedence when it comes to political advertising and yet everyone else has to play by the rules or risk consequences:

https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx

83
   

[G-Unit]

I was just reading the Government leaflet about the Referendum. It says;

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

That sounds clear enough.

[Mr Gray]

I was just reading the Government leaflet about the Referendum. It says;

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

That sounds clear enough.

#do you have a link to that...it seems odd to make such a promise

[ShiningInLuz]

How can voters make informed decisions based on misleading information?  It seems to me there was a lot of misleading info from both camps (and the reason I didn't bother voting).  Perhaps the most highlighted example was the claim that if the UK exited the EU £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS.

...
 

Is this bit any different to any election campaign?  Perhaps I'm just cynical?

[Mr Gray]

Is this bit any different to any election campaign?  Perhaps I'm just cynical?

it is exactly the same as any election campaign...as it isn't legally binding i can't see how it could be challenged legally

[Mr Gray]

I was just reading the Government leaflet about the Referendum. It says;

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

That sounds clear enough.

it sounds very clear apart from the fact that I presume this was referring to Camerons govt and that govt has gone....very misleading

[Holly Goodhead]

Is this bit any different to any election campaign?  Perhaps I'm just cynical?

No you're not being cynical.  It happens all the time during general election campaigns.  The only difference I see is that in general elections if the parties deviate too far off their manifestos we can vote them out in 5 years time.  The EU referendum is forever!

[G-Unit]

it sounds very clear apart from the fact that I presume this was referring to Camerons govt and that govt has gone....very misleading

It depends how you see it. If Cameron was HM Government then he broke that promise by resigning. He should at least begin the process before he goes. If the Cabinet is HM Government they have the responsibility to do as the leaflet said.

The Government leaflet was also misleading because of what it didn't say. It said 44% of our exports go to the EU. It didn't say that we buy more than we sell, though.

[mercury]

It depends how you see it. If Cameron was HM Government then he broke that promise by resigning. He should at least begin the process before he goes. If the Cabinet is HM Government they have the responsibility to do as the leaflet said.

The Government leaflet was also misleading because of what it didn't say. It said 44% of our exports go to the EU. It didn't say that we buy more than we sell, though.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk


Penultimate bolded top paragraph

Crystal clear that THIS govt will go ahead with what electorate decide, not govt with Cameron as leader or other leader, but THIS govt, ie the incumbent Tory govt

Indeed a broken promise to cover Camerons arse and a fair few others and pass the buck to anyone AT ALL

Leadstom smiles alot and seems positive and genuine, May doesnt have that, interesting times ahead
May a remainer seems to want to gamble with eu nationals in Britains futures, Leadsgom an exiter wants to guarantee them security

Xmas pantomine come early

[Carana]

I was just reading the Government leaflet about the Referendum. It says;

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

That sounds clear enough.

There's not much point in having a referendum if the government doesn't then implement whatever the subject was.

On the other hand, is it "advisory" only or legally binding?

[John]

There's not much point in having a referendum if the government doesn't then implement whatever the subject was.

On the other hand, is it "advisory" only or legally binding?

I agree Carana, refusing to implement Brexit after the majority voted for it would cause a huge loss in credibility for any government and spell disaster for any such referendums in the future.

Cameron caused this mess by reneging on his promise to remain as leader regardless of the outcome.  What a chump he is!

[mercury]

I agree Carana, refusing to implement Brexit after the majority voted for it would cause a huge loss in credibility for any government and spell disaster for any such referendums in the future.

Cameron caused this mess by reneging on his promise to remain as leader regardless of the outcome.  What a chump he is!

Crediblity of a tosser or referendum can never ever be as important as stability of a country and all  its peoples, what cameron did was destablise his country , then b....r off,in ways no one can predict how will turn out,  shame on him

[Carana]

Crediblity of a tosser or referendum can never ever be as important as stability of a country and all  its peoples, what cameron did was destablise his country , then b....r off,in ways no one can predict how will turn out,  shame on him

Most people involved in this chaos have b....red off.

[Carana]

With the proviso that it's virtually impossible to work out who the hell knows what they're talking about:


Dominic Grieve, a Conservative MP who was the Government’s chief legal advisor until 2014, said the result of the first referendum had to be “treated with respect” but that it was not necessarily set in stone.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-grieve-brexit-second-eu-referendum-legal-former-attorney-general-says-7119491.html

[blonk]

I was just reading the Government leaflet about the Referendum. It says;

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

That sounds clear enough.

The best contribution on the thread to date.

Also, look up any online dictionary definition of the word 'referendum'.

They all basically say that it means: "A matter referred to the people for decision".