@TiceRichard “Net Stupid Zero”?
You sound like a spoilt little brat who can’t get some bitty!!
After “small boats” what else have you lot got? Fuck all.
@GoodwinMJ@migrationCtrl You are deliberately misleading your gullible followers again, Badloss.
The phrase “payments to foreign nationals” needs to be read as “payments to households containing at least one foreign national”, which is materially different.
@CuriousandFemme@ZiaYusufUK Plus the phrase “payments to foreign nationals” needs to be read as “payments to households containing at least one foreign national”, which is materially different.
There is a perfectly legitimate argument to be had about whether retrospective legislation is appropriate.
But this video wrecks that argument by rewriting the chronology.
The government announced the £100,000 cap on donations from overseas electors on 25 March 2026 and explicitly said on that very day that it intended the rules to apply retrospectively from 25 March.
https://t.co/hijO0AydsA
Political parties were then formally reminded in July that donations caught by the rules and received after 25 March could have to be returned once the legislation commenced.
https://t.co/S4TpdEqy8U
Then comes the rather inconvenient bit.
The Representation of the People Bill completed its Commons report stage and third reading on 2 September.
Reform’s two £36m donations were announced on 11 and 12 September.
https://t.co/uMQjn5rb97
https://t.co/RyrjN2VOaH
So no, Labour did not watch Reform receive £72m and then suddenly invent a backdated law to bankrupt them.
The proposed retrospective date had been publicly announced nearly six months before the donations arrived.
And “they’re British citizens” doesn’t settle it either. The proposal specifically concerns British citizens who are overseas electors, plus certain people returning to the UK after living abroad. Whether these particular donations are caught depends on the donors’ actual status under those provisions.
Nor does the government simply “take Reform’s money”. Under the proposed rules, an affected pre-commencement donation exceeding the cap would have to be returned to the donor after commencement.
So by all means debate whether retrospective legislation is justified. That’s a serious constitutional question.
But comparing this to Strafford being attainted and beheaded in 1641, invoking Magna Carta, Hitler, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada, while somehow neglecting to mention that the policy was announced six months before the donations?
That’s not constitutional analysis.
That’s historical cosplay with a calendar problem.
@ZiaYusufUK You know that’s a lie, and that the gullible mugs that follow you will lap it up.
When are you hoping to be allowed to contest a Parliamentary seat?