What are the consequences for lying to the electorate?

[Saxie007]

What can we do to ensure that the facts given are true? If MPs, special advisors and those on the campaign trail lie and it can be proven to be untrue in a court of law is there some form of redress that the public could take?

I am primarily thinking of the £350M to the NHS claim which was clearly rubbish.

If it was advertising we could fine the company and ban the ad.

We are dealing with liers here. How can we flush them out of our political system to make sure the facts are clear and true in future debates. Politicians have no moral code. They should be ashamed and the good ones are.

Thanks Sleep One Day. That was a first step.

Most politicians work hard for us. A few bad apples lie & I feel there need to be consequences. I don't want to be fed and have to evaluate the lies 1950s Mum. They shouldn't lie, it mustn't be acceptable. If I deliberately lied at work it would not be good for my job security. That's how it should be in an honest world.

I'm confident that I voted the right way for my family, friends and my country's future. I have no remorse. However, I feel that the campaign on both sides was made so much more divisive by the stories being told by our politicians. This I find totally unacceptable. If we, the public, are given big decisions we should have confidence in our leaders that we are being given the true facts on all sides.

I want our country to be great and united. I want all our people, up and down the country, to have good, stable fulfilling jobs or feel supported to be a carer for children/old/sick people and in any case have a fulfilling role in society. I want people to feel like they can do well and help us make this country and the world a better place. Maybe I'm an optimist but think that this what most people want, but how do we get from this shambles to there? But that's not this AIBU. Just no more lying to the electorate and appropriate consequences if you do.

It seems I'm not the only one. Here's a petition to criminalise misleading the public for electoral gain.

www.change.org/p/rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-make-it-a-criminal-offence-to-knowingly-mislead-the-public-to-achieve-electoral-gain?recruiter=95246710&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink

whogrew:

Perhaps this may help you - indpendent enough ? A document clearly biased to interpret the EU as favourably as possible. I previously linked to this document last week -

The Jaques Delors Institute, Paris - asking has the Commission's monopoly on legislative initiative been eroded : no.

The Power of Initiative of the European Commission: A Progressive Erosion?
www.notre-europe.eu/media/commission_power_of_initiative_ne_feb2012.pdf?pdf=ok

"Even though the power of initiative may provide the Commission with less freedom than between 1966 and the progressive affirmation of codecision as the ordinary legislative procedure, there may still be room for a bolder use of it in the framework of the Community Method as, formally, it has not been eroded to a significant extent.

The Commission has increasingly considered itself politically committed to following up the requests of the European Council. Indeed, the president of the Commission is also a member of the European Council and, as such, he participates in the drafting of its conclusions. At the end of the nineties, an internal study by the European Commission already showed that the “mandates” to the European Commission numbered between five and ten requests at each session of the European Council. Further, the Council may request the Commission “to submit to it any appropriate proposals".

The Commission power to initiate anything which is in the spirit of the treaties led us where we are today.

The inability to listen/react/change/stop extending further powers (ECJ interpret in spirit of treaties) it cannot be considered it is merely a way of saving a bit of time on some technical issues with some tiresome legislation.....students use this theory, but the reality of it not being true stares us all in the face.

When it was just Coal and Steel - back in the day - then yes a case could be made. But it is a seriously spurious to imply the EU works with our permission. That would have been the worrying part of a remain vote, as it would actually have been the first time the Commision had our mandate.

Junker's reaction this weekend typifies everything that is wrong with power being so distant. Junker does not believe he works for people of Europe - how exactly do elected leaders of countries have to tip toe around Junker?

Yes I do know how he's elected - but no, it is not what is considered democractic except amongst those wishing it was. It is almost doublespeak.

This level of power being so distant and unaccountable leads to corruption - EU Commission Fraud (Santer).

I appreciate you may feel this is democratic system - but lots clearly don't agree with you, thankfully.