UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

bouncingboredom wrote:
Ketara wrote:
[Mate, Brexit was voted for by just over a third of the country. Don't try and dress up people getting their democratic representatives to delay an action they despise as some sort of evil plot to thwart what the majority of the country wants. A third of the country couldn't give a toss, and it is likely that if the vote was held again tomorrow it would be a 1% the other way,

Not to mention that 'The Will of the People' sounds like some sort of Neo-Communist punk rock band.

If you don't vote in the referendum then presumably you're accpeting that whatever else people vote for, you'll be happy with. Otherwise you would have voted. If you don't like that, then vote. Of course I'm sure if Remain had won you wouldn't be talking about any of the people that didn't bother to vote who hoped we'd leave. You'd be telling them "welp, should have voted".

Honestly, some of the arguments on the Remain side just.... no words.

As has been pointed out, Ketara's backing leave. You're making yourself seem extraordinarily silly.

**Ketara**

bouncingboredom wrote:

If you don't vote in the referendum then presumably you're accpeting that whatever else people vote for, you'll be happy with. Otherwise you would have voted.

There's a mile of difference between 'Just over a third of the country voted to leave, just under a third to stay, and a third doesn't give a toss', and your somewhat bizare 'THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN'.

If we had an eighty percent turnout and a seventy percent vote to leave, you might have more grounds for what you're saying; but at the moment?Making such grandiose statements about what the British people do and don't want seems somewhat silly, when basic statistics would appear to indicate otherwise. If people want to back their MP's going out of their way to change the decision, let them. That's kind of the point of democracy, y'know? The 'will of the people' not only can change its mind, it does so quite frequently and perversely.

You've made a few good points earlier on in this thread, and it's nice to see another reasonably well read player in the debating game. Don't spoil it all by going off some kind of half-cocked general rant about what 'those damn Remainers are like'. It just sets everyone's teeth on edge and starts things devolving.

**bouncingboredom**

Ketara wrote:
If we had an eighty percent turnout and a seventy percent vote to leave, you might have more grounds for what you're saying; but at the moment?Making such grandiose statements about what the British people do and don't want seems somewhat silly, when basic statistics would appear to indicate otherwise. If people want to back their MP's going out of their way to change the decision, let them. That's kind of the point of democracy, y'know? The 'will of the people' not only can change its mind, it does so quite frequently and perversely.

You've made a few good points earlier on in this thread, and it's nice to see another reasonably well read player in the debating game. Don't spoil it all by going off some kind of half-cocked general rant about what 'those damn Remainers are like'. It just sets everyone's teeth on edge and starts things devolving.

The context for this "will of the people" is simple. The debate over the EU has raged for several decades now. Some people are treating it as if this issue has only just popped up out of the blue and the public has had little time to digest any of the details. In reality this has been a battleground that has been as bitterly fought over as any from a GW setting. It ripped the tory apart for years, much to everyones amusement (except the tories). It spawned an entire party whose sole purpose was to extract Britain from the EU. They won seats in the European parliament and spent years arguing their case (with varying degrees of success and rationality....), constantly keeping the issue in the public eye. Finally Cameron cracked and decided to settle the issue once and for all.

And so we had an extended debate, on top of the millions of words that had already been written and spoken up until that point on the issue, we now added million mores. We had TV debates, Internet debates, Facebook pages, family and friends discussing their views, it was referendum fever for a long while till the point where people were sick of talking about it and sick of hearing about it. And then, finally we went to the polls. Some voted Leave. Others voted Remain. Others decided to give it a miss. Leave won.

I therefore find any kind of suggestion that this vote didn't reflect the opinion and will of the British public to be very odd, considering that it was one of the key issues for generations, was voted on a mass scale (over 72% turnout) and both sides amassed over 16 million votes a piece. It is about as decisive a result as you're ever going to get in modern British poltics at this scale. I also find it odd the suggestion that people didn't know what they were voting for. They knew exactly what was at stake, they'd been debating the issue for several decades. As for the rebel MPs*, they were elected on a party ticket of pushing ahead with Brexit. On such a key issue it would not be out of place for them to stand down having now voted against this interest.

*Just on a side note, I've just seen that Anna Soubry has been receiving messages from some people saying she should be hanged as a traitor. Needless to say I think that's disgusting and it does make me wonder sometimes what goes through some peoples heads. Air presumably, because it certainly isn't anything smart.

**AlmightyWalrus**

bouncingboredom wrote:
I also find it odd the suggestion that people didn't know what they were voting for.

In which case I'm sure you can define what "leaving the European Union" entails for all of us in an unambiguous manner that isn't open to multiple mutually exclusive interpretations, no?

**Ketara**

bouncingboredom wrote:

I therefore find any kind of suggestion that this vote didn't reflect the opinion and will of the British public to be very odd,

It's simple. The opinion and will of the 'British people' isn't some kind of homogenous singular hive mind. There are thoughts and opinions of every different shade. To make a generalised statement about the 'opinion and will of the British people', it has to be generally applicable; that is to say, an opinion held by the considerable majority of the British people. Which it very clearly isn't, given that just over a third of the population voted for it. You can say, 'Aha, but the non-voters don't count', but even then, the result only shows that barely over half hold that 'will and opinion'.

That's falling quite short of any reasonable conception of a substantial majority of the British people. It's certainly nowhere near enough to make vast generalised statements about the 'British people' as a collective whole. With a margin so narrow, I don't believe there's any reason an MP shouldn't to set out to represent the almost equivalent percentage of people who voted the opposite way, or people be forbidden from actively urging them to do so. It would be precisely the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

The only thing that has truly emerged from this vote is that 'the will and opinion of the British people' is thoroughly diffuse and divided on this issue. Which is highly problematic in and of itself, and trying to portray Remainers as somehow going against the grain and obstructing the will of the substantial majority of the population is the sort of thing which only makes it worse.

**Herzlos**

It was a stretch to claim a 51.9% majority on a vague question provided the will of the people on referendum day, beyond that it needs sorted out.

It's a total fabrication 18 months later. Not only I'd the outcome less clear, but on such a statically irrelevant majority there's every chance the will is now to stay.

I get the impression those shouting about the will of the people are those that want to leave with the least scrutiny, who'd be demanding another referendum if they lost, just like they are outraged with parliamentary sovereignty when it disagrees with them.

Citing "will of the people" just stinks of having no better reason to leave. But it's been done to death on here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.

May not being able to do what she wants unchecked (a la dictator) is not keeping us in the eu by the back door, despite what Farage says. It's ensuring the parliamentary sovereignty brexiteers love so much.

If anyone's keeping us I'm the eu by the back door it's May will her EU in all but name brexit. You should be cheering for the parliament being able to overturn the incompetent spineless arch remainers.

**Steve steveson**

“Will of the people” just seems to have become the default position of many (but not all) Brexit supporters when they have run out of arguments, which seems pretty quick nowadays. Just shout “it was the will of he people” in their face and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a traitor.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
It was a stretch to claim a 51.9% majority on a vague question provided the will of the people on referendum day, beyond that it needs sorted out.

It's a total fabrication 18 months later. Not only I'd the outcome less clear, but on such a statically irrelevant majority there's every chance the will is now to stay.

I get the impression those shouting about the will of the people are those that want to leave with the least scrutiny, who'd be demanding another referendum if they lost, just like they are outraged with parliamentary sovereignty when it disagrees with them.

Citing "will of the people" just stinks of having no better reason to leave. But it's been done to death on here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.

May not being able to do what she wants unchecked (a la dictator) is not keeping us in the eu by the back door, despite what Farage says. It's ensuring the parliamentary sovereignty brexiteers love so much.

If anyone's keeping us I'm the eu by the back door it's May will her EU in all but name brexit. You should be cheering for the parliament being able to overturn the incompetent spineless arch remainers.

I agree with you that the debate has been done to death, but I'll say this point anyway

This 52/48 number that keeps getting bandied around is pure horsegak - the most blatant attempt to dissemble you're ever likely to see.

Everybody knew the rules on June 23rd: 50% + 1 vote = victory. There were no clauses built into this referendum e.g 66% for victory or anything like that.

It was a straight shoot-out and Leave won.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
“Will of the people” just seems to have become the default position of many (but not all) Brexit supporters when they have run out of arguments, which seems pretty quick nowadays. Just shout “it was the will of he people” in their face and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a traitor.

The same could be said about soft Brexit and hard Brexit.

Before the referendum, people were already disillusioned with Westminster. Voter turnouts and participation, has been declining since the 1990s. It's a historical trend.

Brexit was one of the biggest democratic events in our history. And if Brexit is stitched up by the political elite, and they show every sign of doing this,

then people's faith in the democratic process in Britain will be shattered forevermore. They will wonder why they bother voting for anybody or anything.

I persoanally, who has never missed any election in decades, will never vote again if Brexit is sold down the river. And I'll say it to anybody who listens not to waste their time voting.

People keep banging on about the economy, but I am dismayed and surprised that people cannot see the danger to this nation's democracy and civic society.

I'm not talking about violence here, I'm talking about huge swathes of the populace note bothering to vote anymore.

This is a deadly danger for our country

And of course, it leaves the door open for demagogues and rabble rousers that will make Farage seem like a moderate EU supporter...

**Herzlos**

Winning an advisory referendum doesn't automatically equate to the "will of the people" and it's dishonest to claim so.

**A Town Called Malus**

Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.

**Ketara**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.

Within reason. If a clear majority of their constituents voted a certain way (say, 60% plus), then they should really be fighting for that in Parliament. Otherwise they're not representing the bulk of their constituency. They can refuse to do in line with their personal morals of course, but in such a situation they should really resign or be voted out next election because they're effectively showing that they think their personal beliefs trump those of the majority of the people they're meant to represent.

**Howard A Treesong**

Problem is that the country is very divided whichever way you call it, a significant number of people will be very unhappy about any result of brexit. Remainers lost the vote by very little and are desperate to overturn it feeling they’re being run over roughshod, while Leavers have the (slim) majority giving the impression of more moral authority, and will be furious if they feel cheated by any government not delivering on the referendum. There is already a lot of well grounded suspicion that those in government and the EU do things to suit themselves and businesses, not people and communities, and confidence in referenda is seriously undermined if they suddenly say after the fact that ‘it wasn’t binding actually so we’ll ignore it’. And it is after the fact, Cameron and others in debates on both sides said over and over that the referendum was serious and that it would be followed through. It might not have said that it was binding on the voting paper but that’s what people were sold over and over in an effort presumably to motivate the public into getting out and voting remain.

It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.

**Herzlos**

No disagreement there, but with something so inconclusive they really need to consider everyone and be free to vote in commons the way they feel is best for their constituency.

I'd the constituents don't like the decision they can change representative. Being outed in the press and receiving death threats is not acceptable for anything ever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
In pure numbers, any form of Brexit will upset more of the voters than no Brexit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
People who choose not to vote because they didn't get their own way should be deeply ashamed of themselves and give up any rights to complain.

**Howard A Treesong**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.

I thought that a good majority of constituencies voted leave, the absolute numbers of votes being 50:50 are because remain areas like London have a very high population heavily weighted in favour of remain. This is why many Labour MPs find themselves in a bind, they we’re supposed to be backing remain but for most their constituents voted leave.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Yet the referendum was solely advisory.

That the Government haven’t even bothered with impact studies should demonstrate this is no longer being driven by what may or may not be for the best, but a pretty extreme political ideology.

**Mr Morden**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Problem is that the country is very divided whichever way you call it, a significant number of people will be very unhappy about any result of brexit. Remainers lost the vote by very little and are desperate to overturn it feeling they’re being run over roughshod, while Leavers have the (slim) majority giving the impression of more moral authority, and will be furious if they feel cheated by any government not delivering on the referendum. There is already a lot of well grounded suspicion that those in government and the EU do things to suit themselves and businesses, not people and communities, and confidence in referenda is seriously undermined if they suddenly say after the fact that ‘it wasn’t binding actually so we’ll ignore it’. And it is after the fact, Cameron and others in debates on both sides said over and over that the referendum was serious and that it would be followed through. It might not have said that it was binding on the voting paper but that’s what people were sold over and over in an effort presumably to motivate the public into getting out and voting remain.

It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.

Well Cameron is a liar and a coward - he specifically stated he would see the country through either way and fled as soon as the result was announced to get his snout into the trough of corporate speakers etc - of course after making sure his cronies were paid off by the tax payer.

I think he was hoping for a cushy well paid EU job (plenty of them) when he delivered a "remain" vote.

People who choose not to vote because they didn't get their own way should be deeply ashamed of themselves and give up any rights to complain.

Same as those who could not be bothered to vote in the first refendum and then whined about the result - its their fault their side lost given the narrow margin and they should be told so at every opportunity.

**Whirlwind**

bouncingboredom wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:But we are way behind in growth compared to the EU. That is a recession of sorts because the relative economic growth means that we are getting worse off.

So now that the predicted recession has failed to materialise, remain supporters are now trying to redefine what recession means, despite this being a widely accepted economic term? You couldn't make it up. It's almost like you're wishing the economy would fail so you can go "look, see!" regardless of what impact that might have on families etc.

I honestly think I've gone about as far as I can on this specific issue. I don't see anyone on the remain side in this thread listening. You're ignoring things right in front of you and now trying to redefine economic terms to make a tenuous case. I think more heat than light is being generated at this point so I probably will only reply to specifc points, probably unrelated to Brexit from this point. A nice debate, albeit a fruitless one I think.

The problem is you are commenting on other peoples comments and then blanket washing those same comments on to everyone (which is just the same as saying that all Brexiters are bigots and racists, which they are not).

If you read any of my previous comments (which I doubt) you will see that myself and a lot of others have pointed out that relative growth is far more important than whether we are in a defined recession or not. If the global economy is growing then it is highly unlikely that we will go into recession simply because we'll get dragged along with it. Whilst we have a growing world and local population it is less likely to have a recession because there are more people that need goods. Conversely after 2050 when population is expected to start decreasing then recession becomes more likely. However recession and and growth are too arbitrary to really identify how well an economy is doing. Relative growth is much more important.

Take for example there were only two countries each that on day one of this hypothetical scenario had a £100 (basically a 50:50 split in global economic strength). Country 1 (e.g. the UK) has a growth on average of 1% over 25 years. Country 2 (e.g the EU has a growth of 2% over 25 years). After those 25 years Country 1 has a economic value of £128 and country 2 £164. Now lets suppose on day one that £100 bought 1000 bushels of wheat. If we assume inflation of 1.25% that means in year 25, £136 buys the same number of bushels of wheat. So for country 1 no can only buy 941 bushels of wheat whereas country 2 can buy 1205 bushels of wheat. Country 1's economy has contracted, country 2's economy has expanded. Country 2's economy is now 28% bigger than Country 1's economy. Country 1's economy has contracted, but it has *never* gone into recession yet it can afford less and is weaker.

This is why recession/growth are simply too basic to make a judgement but you can still have a relatively contracting economy even without a recession. This is exactly what we are seeing at the moment. Other developed nations are all growing faster than us apart from 1/2, the EU is double our growth rate; we can afford less because of inflation. Our economy is shrinking *relatively*.

Governments like to use recession/growth because it makes them look good because recession is much less likely than growth. But it is an arbitrary rather pointless method of analysing overall growth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.

The only real solution, as I've said before is to have a referendum on the issue every five years so each successive government knows whether we should be in or not and work on that basis. That way you really do get the 'will of the people' and it will continue until one side or another has such a large majority that it is pointless to continue. Only those that want 'their own way' prefer to use one referendum as the basis of a long term decision and never providing that choice to the public again because that becomes the "will of me" which is the route to a dictatorship (and eventually fascism if they try and implement something regardless of cost).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

People keep banging on about the economy, but I am dismayed and surprised that people cannot see the danger to this nation's democracy and civic society.

It's a danger to democracy when you provide a one-off vote that can't be over turned ever by another democratic vote.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

It’s also a danger to democracy when one side sells a pack of lies they had neither the means nor intention of delivering, then do their best to head to the hills as soon as the result was known....

It’s a danger to democracy when the gutter media that supported those lies try to brand anyone not doing exactly as they demand ‘traitors’ and ‘saboteurs’.

It’s a danger to democracy when the Government is beholden to a small group of fringe lunatics, and are trying to pull us out of the Single Market when both sides said that wouldn’t happen.

It’s a danger to democracy when the main issue people have, that of immigration, was always in our power to control, and due to skills shortages also a national necessity. But has become a kick ball for the hard right to weave an ‘us and them’ narrative that simply isn’t based in truth.

It’s a danger to democracy when ‘the will of the people’ is touted as if it’s some kind of magic phrase to silence any and all dissent, regardless of where it’s coming from.

It’s a danger to democracy to pretend that the electorate never, ever changes its mind and so shouldn’t be consulted ever again, and especially not from a more informed stand point.

**Mr Morden**

It's a danger to democracy when you provide a one-off vote that can't be over turned ever by another democratic vote.

Isn't that the basis of every EU "Yes" referendum that has been undertaken? The only way to change that decision is to leave the EU?

Of course no votes are treated differently.

The no vote by the French and Dutch on the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" which they then went ahead anyway and ignored by creating the Treaty of Lisbon which had pretty much the same things in it but without a refendrum that people might vote in as they might loose. Obviously they felt it was much better to have it decided by a select group rather than the great unwashed.

What I am interested in was why were all these issues about the referendum not brought up prior to the event itself rather than post. It may be Cameron being a weasel I suppose and not wanting to have clarity about what it was and was not.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Apologies for banging this drum again.

One off vote?

How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...

and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?

WTF?

Parliamentary sovereignty?

There were no gunmen in the Commons when MPs voted overwhelmingly for a referendum.

Our 'fascist' government meekly accepted the independent judiciary's supreme court ruling, and introduced a new bill for activating A50.

Again, there were no gunmen in the Commons when MPs voted overwhelmingly to activate A50.

The government has won 35/36 Brexit Bill amendments. I follow these closely. Again, there were no gunmen in the Commons influencing the vote.

So could somebody please please please, pretty please,

tell me where this Fascist hijacking of our government and our MPs came from?

I keep hearing tales of defenceless MPs being intimidated in the Commons, and Blackshirts roaming the streets, and Polish plumbers getting burnt at the stake...

I suppose, being up here in the Scottish Highlands, I'm a long way away from London...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.

Edmund Burke would strongly disagree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
People like me have been consistent with their anti-EU opposition for years. MPs like Kate Hoey and Jacob Rees-Mogg have also been consistent with their views for years. People know exactly what they get when they vote for them. Whether or not you agree with their views is another matter, but you know what it says on the tin.

And then we come to Remain MPs. Who make up the vast majority of the Commons.

If these people had the courage of their convictions, and loved the EU as much as they claimed, they could have stopped Brexit, kept us in the EU, and suffered the consequences at the next GE.

They didn't They put their jobs before their principals.

Remain supporters should be thanking people like me: we have shown you the true colours of those you look to for leadership.

If Brexit has done nothing else, it has exposed these weasels for the charlatans they are.

I you're looking for somebody to blame, blame them for their betrayal, not people like me who have always been upfront and honest about what they believe in.

**Kilkrazy**

bouncingboredom wrote:
Herzlos wrote:You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?

Sorry, but you must be the only adult in the country who doesn't see this at this point. I'm fairly certain that I could sit here, throw links at you from all directions, and you'll just sit there and say "proves nothing". I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there are many ways the amendment could have been worded to achieve that result without trying to put the permanent brakes on Brexit. At this point you're just willfully ignoring that and other points, so I'm not really sure what's the point in me going to any great lengths to try and provide you with citations etc. You have google, off you trot.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.

Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.

Brexit isn't the will of the people. That's just the slightly fascist sounding phrase that the Daily [Hate] Mail and other hardcode Hard Brexiteers use when they feel there is a danger to their icy skeletal grip control slipping a bit.

The UK is supposed to be a representative parlaimentary democracy.

**Mr. Burning**

More worries with our criminal justice system, Politicised policing and the defunding of legal aid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42366629

A man whose rape trial collapsed after detectives failed to disclose vital evidence to the defence said he felt "betrayed" by police and the CPS.

Liam Allan was charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault but his trial collapsed after police were ordered to hand over phone records.

The 22-year-old student said his life had been "flipped upside down" and he wanted lessons to be learned.

The Met Police said it was "urgently reviewing this investigation".

The case against Mr Allan at Croydon Crown Court was dropped after three days when the evidence on a computer disk containing 40,000 messages revealed the alleged victim pestered him for "casual sex".

Met review after rape trial collapse
Police evidence failings 'harm cases'
He told the BBC his life had been "torn away" by the process, which included being on bail for two years.

"You just think the worst case scenario... People have to start planning for life without you," he said.

Mr Allan faced a possible jail term of 12 years and being put on the sex offenders register for life had he been found guilty.

He said he felt "pure fear" when he learned he had been accused of rape but would never be able to understand why the accusations were made.

Liam Allan with supporters outside courtImage copyrightNEWS UK
Image caption
Liam Allan, seen here with his supporters outside court on Thursday
"There was no possible real gain from it other than destroying somebody else's life... It's something I will never be able to forgive or forget."

But he said he wanted to use his experience "to change the system".

"This wasn't a case of people trying to prove my innocence, it was a case of people trying to prove I was guilty," Mr Allan said.

Media captionCase barrister: It's just sheer incompetence
It is understood police had looked at thousands of phone messages when reviewing evidence in the case, but had failed to disclose to the prosecution and defence teams messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the allegations against Mr Allan.

Prosecution barrister Jerry Hayes accused police of "sheer incompetence" over the case.

Before the trial the defence team had repeatedly asked for the phone messages to be disclosed but was told there was nothing to disclose.

Mr Hayes, who demanded the messages to be passed to the defence, said he believed the trial had come about because "everyone is under pressure".

"This is a criminal justice system which is not just creaking, it's about to croak," he said.

Media captionThe BBC's Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman gives his analysis of the case
Mr Allan's lawyer Simone Meerabux said it had been "a very traumatic experience" for her client.

She said it was "amazing" the case had got to the stage it did "but it's not uncommon" because of problems with disclosure.

A Met spokesman said the force was "urgently reviewing this investigation and will be working with the Crown Prosecution Service to understand exactly what has happened in this case.

"The Met understands the concerns that have been raised as a result of this case being dismissed from court and the ongoing review will seek to address those," he said.

A spokesman for the CPS said: "In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

"We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan Police to examine the way in which this case was handled."

Legally, any defence team has to be shown prosecution evidence.

Since Legal aid representation are paid per page funding reductions mean that defence teams are less likely to be able to view and understand what is being presented to them and THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ASK FOR INFORMATION WHICH MAY EXONERATE A CLIENT. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PRESENT A CASE BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE.

Also. lets not be in any doubt, the evidence which helped the defendant in case would have been available as soon as the phone of the supposed victim was investigated. The UK police have experts and software which reads this information, it is used on a daily basis. This is a case of the Police deliberately withholding information in order to get a conviction and log a solved crime.

"This wasn't a case of people trying to prove my innocence, it was a case of people trying to prove I was guilty," Mr Allan said.

An important quote. The Police and CPS are only ever interested in building a case.

And

A spokesman for the CPS said: "In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

This, this is really important and something most people in the UK have no clue about. The police are not concerned about innocence. Never assume that if you are ever interviewed under caution that you can help your cause. They are not there to help you.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
bouncingboredom wrote:
Herzlos wrote:You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?

Sorry, but you must be the only adult in the country who doesn't see this at this point. I'm fairly certain that I could sit here, throw links at you from all directions, and you'll just sit there and say "proves nothing". I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there are many ways the amendment could have been worded to achieve that result without trying to put the permanent brakes on Brexit. At this point you're just willfully ignoring that and other points, so I'm not really sure what's the point in me going to any great lengths to try and provide you with citations etc. You have google, off you trot.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.

Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.

Brexit isn't the will of the people. That's just the slightly fascist sounding phrase that the Daily [Hate] Mail and other hardcode Hard Brexiteers use when they feel there is a danger to their icy skeletal grip control slipping a bit.

The UK is supposed to be a representative parlaimentary democracy.

It is a representative parlaimentary democracy, and your side had a golden opportunity to reverse Brexit last June. But you lost...

Twice the British people have been asked about Britain's EU membership, and twice they have said we're leaving.

First in the referendum, and secondly, when they voted overwhelmingly for parties that had Brexit in their respective manifestos.

A neutral observor would look at that and conclude that the threat to British democracy is from the Remain side, who seem unwilling or unable to respect two major votes on Britain's EU membership.

And yet, we on the Leave side are the people who are called Fascists.

Go figure.

**nfe**

Mr Morden wrote:
What I am interested in was why were all these issues about the referendum not brought up prior to the event itself rather than post. It may be Cameron being a weasel I suppose and not wanting to have clarity about what it was and was not.

They were, including by hardline leavers like Jacob Reese-Mogg, who always there should be two votes.

**reds8n**

when they voted overwhelmingly for parties that had Brexit in their respective manifestos.

hence the UKIP dominated HoC we have today then...

. oh.

https://twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/941754685425364997

India in 1947 had rather less difficulty gaining its independence than we are having in 2017 leaving the Brussels empire. Time for Boris to go the full Gandhi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The partition displaced over 14 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.[3][b] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues their relationship to the present.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for banging this drum again.

One off vote?

How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...

and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?

I call troll again; there's no way you're stupid enough to believe this is a valid argument. I at least, am sick of correcting this and I know you know better.

The election wasn't just about brexit and the lib dens would never win with any manifesto.
Using your argument: the Tories lost their majority on the back of a hard brexit. So the will of the people ain't hard brexit.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for banging this drum again.

One off vote?

How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...

and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?

I call troll again; there's no way you're stupid enough to believe this is a valid argument. I at least, am sick of correcting this and I know you know better.

The election wasn't just about brexit and the lib dens would never win with any manifesto.
Using your argument: the Tories lost their majority on the back of a hard brexit. So the will of the people ain't hard brexit.

It is a valid argument, and history backs me up on this. The UK general election of 1918 became a single issue election when Ireland overwhelmingly voted for Sinn Féin MPs.

Labour won a stonking landslide in 1945 on the creation of a welfare state.

As I say, if Brexit and the EU really was the defining issue of modern British politics, and I define modern from Thatcher's fall to 2017, then Remain support would have skyrocketed, and the Lib Dems would be kingmakers in The Commons.

The Remain coalition was splintered by party politics, and they only have themselves to blame for that.

reds8n wondered why UKIP MPs weren't in The Commons, but the answer to that is simple. Your average UKIP supporter naively believed that the referendum result would be respected, hence there was no need for UKIP.

75% of MPs back the EU. 52% of voters want out. Never has there been such a disconnect between the people and those who govern.

It's been clear to me for a long time that MPs don't like us, nor do they trust us. They surrendered this country's sovereignty to Brussels for decades, the people won it back last year, but what thanks did we get?

Zero...

**A Town Called Malus**

Except for the fact that people still remember the university fees pledge, among others, broken by the Lib-Dems.

It isn't just about making the promises, it is also about people believing you'll keep them.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Twice the British people have been asked about Britain's EU membership, and twice they have said we're leaving.

First in the referendum, and secondly, when they voted overwhelmingly for parties that had Brexit in their respective manifestos.

A neutral observor would look at that and conclude that the threat to British democracy is from the Remain side, who seem unwilling or unable to respect two major votes on Britain's EU membership.

And yet, we on the Leave side are the people who are called Fascists.

Go figure.

At this point I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring any argument otherwise. You simply don't seem to want to accept that a GE is not a referendum on the EU.

Labours position on Wrexit is ambiguous at best. I voted for them to stop May. I have family members that voted for the Tories despite being opposed to Brexit. I have family members that voted Green despite being Wrexit supporter (basically because they want to stop immigration and people form elsewhere coming to this country, so yes bigotry).

Are you so blinded that you think that a GE is equivalent to a yes/no referendum despite there being a multitude of issues to consider at a GE. As I've pointed out before if you took the population vote then you would have either a very soft Wrexit or one where another referendum is called. The party in power is actually the minority but because of the way GE's are set up they simply don't provide a fair reflection of the voting populace as a whole. In comparison the referendum has two choices, not five or six on the ballot paper offering different solutions. If you wanted to compare directly the GE and a Wrexit vote then it should be a multi-option (type of Wrexit) with a first past the post system. Otherwise they are entirely not comparable.

No one is calling people on the leave side fascists. What is being said is that a one off referendum that is used to get a decision and then completely ignore that the populace have a democratic right to change their mind over and over is the route that dictators and fascists use to get what they want and then force it through regardless of the consequences or any democratic consideration that the populace should continue to have its say on an issue. If a government decides that an issue should be decided by a referendum then it should continue to do so. A GE is not an equivalent as it is not on one isolated issue.

**Mr. Burning**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except for the fact that people still remember the university fees pledge, among others, broken by the Lib-Dems.

It isn't just about making the promises, it is also about people believing you'll keep them.

To be fair we also had Corbyn and his 'something something uni fees something' in order to try and sway the electorate.