UKC

/ What? No Brexit electoral fraud thread?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 04 Jul 2018

Looks like we're expecting to be told by the electoral commission that Vote Leave conspired to commit electoral fraud.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

Of course, it wouldn't have had an effect on the outcome; that's the reason why parties and groups choose to spunk millions of pounds of donation money on advertising.

1
john arran - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Expect to hear "They were corrupt on both sides" and "people still cast their votes for what they wanted".

It will be as if the electoral commission is purely there to count ballots.

1
jkarran - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

And it'll be met with an enormous 'but of course they did' shrug from nearly everyone because after two years of politicians of every colour bending over backwards to respect 'the will of the people' what the hell else can be done... They've already gotten away with it whatever the findings, nobody will face gaol, nobody in power will dare question what this means for the validity of the result, for our decision to leave or not or for our flawed and now undermined democracy. Brexit keeps shambling onward to nowhere like some sort of hellish zombie.

jk

2
wercat on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

cue - We're on the Road to Nowhere ....

tom_in_edinburgh - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Call me cynical but I figure that getting yourself a Belize diplomatic passport is something you do when you think you might need a get out of jail free card.   Not a great recommendation for the leader of a political campaign.  Neither is getting offered deals on gold mines by the Russian Ambassador.

Hopefully the Mueller investigation will get into these guys and their links to Russia and Trump and with a bit of luck the Americans will get them because the UK isn't even trying.  Just like with the senior bankers after the financial crash.

MG - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Brexiteers are very quiet. We can add blatant criminality to the vices they support. In any reasonable system, there would have to be a rerun

3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MG:

Wasn't there also a separate case of money donated from "sources unknown" that the DUP of *Northern Ireland* used to pay for a wraparound advert on the outside of the *London* Metro paper?

Hardonicus - on 04 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Good thing it was a clear a decisive result in the end that could not have been effected by minor shifts due to foul play eh!

3
Bob Kemp - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Hopefully the Mueller investigation will get into these guys and their links to Russia and Trump and with a bit of luck the Americans will get them because the UK isn't even trying.  Just like with the senior bankers after the financial crash.

I know what you mean, but it was rather less clear that bankers had actually broken the law. This is much more definite, and I shall be very interested to see what excuses for not prosecuting are made.

 

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I think there's a time limit on prosecutions.

Something like one year after the alleged offence.

Extendable by 12 months.

But I'm not a lawyer and could be wrong.

 

2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Oh, I fully expect everyone involved to get away with it, legally-speaking. I'm much more concerned if we lie down and take this from a democratic perspective. We all know how much the Brexiteers-in-chief have set their stall out as being pro-democracy above all else, after all.

1
baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I suppose one's reaction to the story might depend on how much influence one thinks the leave campaign had on the actual result.

I think that those people hoping for a new referendum will be disappointed.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I know what you mean, but it was rather less clear that bankers had actually broken the law. 

Well, when a company goes bust for more than £20 billion and the taxpayer is on the line I figure it is worth looking into.   They should have dealt with the banks the way the Americans dealt with Enron: bankruptcy, arrests, investigators trawling through records and putting pressure on junior people to give evidence against their bosses.  When the politicians decided to invest money as a shareholder and pretend the banks were solvent they were basically forced to become part of the cover up or lose their investment.

 

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> I suppose one's reaction to the story might depend on how much influence one thinks the leave campaign had on the actual result.

Like I said in the OP, these campaigns have zero effect, that's why people break the law to spend even more than the millions and millions of pounds which they're allowed to.

> I think that those people hoping for a new referendum will be disappointed.

I think you're probably right, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Post edited at 11:14
deepsoup - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>  We all know how much the Brexiteers-in-chief have set their stall out as being pro-democracy above all else, after all.

Ah, but this is just a technical issue.  It's in the realm of, well, experts.

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Given that our democracy is very precious, despite all its faults, I think that those knowingly involved in electoral fraud should always be punished.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Nobody (I hope) will disagree with you there. However, seeing as the logical conclusion of that process would result in a challenge to the result of the referendum (assuming 'Remain' aren't found guilty of similar), I can only see this being played down, buried with other news, or whatever other trick that modern political expedience would dictate to make it go away.

The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

I suppose one way of looking at the influence would be looking at support for leave before the campaign started and comparing that with the result.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> I think that those people hoping for a new referendum will be disappointed.

My guess is they are already disappointed by the whole shoddy mess.

The only variable is how far we go along this insane path and how much pain we absorb before we change course and either stay in the EU or sign up for something like the EEA.   The Brexiters are kidding themselves in exactly the same way as the Greeks were kidding themselves.  After 40 years we are too closely intertwined with the EU economically to leave the customs union and single market without intolerable levels of economic pain.   

 

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I believe that the remain campaign have already been investigated and fined or was it the lib dems, or both?

Hard to trust anybody these days

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

I guess that if there was an increase in support for leaving throughout the campaign then the campaign organisations would claim the credit.

Which, while not surprising, would be a bit cheeky given how poorly the leave campaign was run.

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Given the state of chaos that the government appears to be in it would be a very wise or foolish person who would predict where the UK will end up.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> Which would be cheeky and yet entirely unsurprising given how dishonestly the leave campaign was run.

Suggested edit for clarity?

doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I wonder how many brexiters will continue to shout democracy now that the independent organisation tasked with upholding fairness in the democratic process say that the campaign cheated?  

 

summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   After 40 years we are too closely intertwined with the EU 

Surely if the eu wasn't controlling 27/28 nations every breath then the UK isn't that intertwined? The very argument remainers use is how free and democratic each country is to modify or steer eu policy. 

It can't be both? 

4
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

> I wonder how many brexiters will continue to shout democracy now that the independent organisation tasked with upholding fairness in the democratic process say that the campaign cheated?  

UK democracy only looks credible when compared to the USA. Perhaps with a move towards PR or a more Swiss style system it would improve.

Brexit party budgets.. seems pretty trivial in the big scheme of things. When you consider the remainers had the media clout of the serving PM and chancellor and still failed to also mount a credible campaign. 

5
doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

Do you respect democracy? Do you respect the electoral commission? 

1
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

> Do you respect democracy? Do you respect the electoral commission? 

Did I say I didn't?

But what are election budgets for? 99% marketing... remain campaign didn't exactly even need a budget. The PM just sticks his rostrum in the road outside no.10 and gets instant free press coverage... he has special slots at PMQs where if Corbyn was really remain they could have staged questions related to it etc.. 

When elections are between 2,3,4.... political parties in a general election then yes you need parity for obvious reasons. But a referendum where one side is effectively in power with a majority, it's comparing apples and oranges. 

The problem is the UK doesn't do referendums and doesn't have a separate set of rules to use, that will have been developed through decades of use. It was in effect a one off. Look at the farce of the Scottish indef1 question setting etc.. 

Post edited at 12:32
5
David Riley - on 05 Jul 2018

Since the referendum all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain. Understandable of course, since it's over as far as Leavers are concerned and they have no reason to say anything.

The idea of ever controlling the media or expenditure to make things more fair means well, but is possibly counter productive.

People are complaining about payment for particular adverts that ran at the time. (Yes, rules should be followed.)
However it is interesting to see how little switching from the claimed over advertising then, to the absolute deluge of one sided propaganda ever since has hardly changed opinions at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44532288

10
doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

I'll ask you again. Do you respect democracy? do you respect the electoral commission? 

3
doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

The anti EU agenda has rarely been out of the media for the last 30 years. People have been bombarded by Anti EU propaganda relentlessly for decades

David Riley - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

So ?

7
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Since the referendum all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain. Understandable of course, since it's over as far as Leavers are concerned and they have no reason to say anything.

welcome back to Earth from wherever you've been for the last 2 years, you may have missed some things, here are some links help you get up to speed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/967496/Brexit-news-latest-UK-MEP-slams-remainers-stalling-Brexit-eu-Guy-Verhofstadt

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6505185/the-sun-says-great-britain-brexit-vote-betrayal-leave-remain/

 

etc, etc, ad nauseam

 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Surely if the eu wasn't controlling 27/28 nations every breath then the UK isn't that intertwined? The very argument remainers use is how free and democratic each country is to modify or steer eu policy. 

It is the difference between being married for 40 years and trying to separate the property and pay for two houses instead of one and not marrying someone at all.    Every business and public sector organisation in the UK has been evolving for 40 years based on the conditions set by being in the EU.  As a result of decades of work they are now optimised to work efficiently inside the EU.   If you disrupt that they are going to be highly inefficient for quite some period before they can adapt to the new circumstances.

At which point the Brexiters come up with bullsh*t about how business needs to be able to adapt.  That's true, but they have plenty of actual market requirements to adapt to.  Car manufacturers need to adapt to electric and self driving vehicles.  They don't need to be distracted from that by politicians f*cking up their existing supply chains.

 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I put it to you that you've made all of that up. "...all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain". That is demonstrably bollocks.

1
The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Since the referendum all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain.

Yes remain has the full support of the Mail, the Express, the Telegragh, the Sun, the Star. Nigel Farage is never on Question Time and we have heard nothing from Johnson, Fox, Davies, Gove and Rees-Mogg for years.

Oceanrower - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

Nigel Farage was never OFF Question Time. At least, whilst he led UKIP!

 

The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Nigel Farage was never OFF Question Time. At least, whilst he led UKIP!

Really? Well I never!!

David Riley - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

How's about on here then ? How many posts by remainers vs posts by leavers ? 20 : 1 ?

11
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

We're not "the media".

doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Your claim that most media is pro remain is nonsense. it's the other way round. 

But back to the point, are you trying to justify the leave campaign cheating to win democratic process?

1
Andy Hardy on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> However, seeing as the logical conclusion of that process would result in a challenge to the result of the referendum (assuming 'Remain' aren't found guilty of similar), I can only see this being played down, buried with other news, or whatever other trick that modern political expedience would dictate to make it go away.

TBH I'd be happy if the leadership of the leave campaign did time and were banned from public office for life. Actually the same goes for the remain campaign (assuming they also overspent)

2
Andy Hardy on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> So ?

You're talking shite.

4
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> How's about on here then ? How many posts by remainers vs posts by leavers ? 20 : 1 ?

i like to think we are a powerhouse of influence on the national debate, but secretly i have to grudgingly admit that we just don't quite have the reach of the Mail, Sun, or even the Express. 

1
wercat on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

 

> When you consider the remainers had the media clout of the serving PM and chancellor and still failed to also mount a credible campaign. 

 

Not to mention the underwhelming support of the arch 5th columnist Corbyn - his stance while nominally supporting Remain stood as a persistent, clear and present undermining of it

 

1
David Riley - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I commented about the difference made by controlling the media. It was not for or against the EU.

As usual, insults and partisan attacks are the result. Thank goodness it will soon be March and the hysteria can die down. Perhaps I'll just keep quiet too.

6
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

If you are going to post stuff so demonstrably at variance with reality, then complain when people point this out to you, then maybe that would be for the best.

1
Andy Hardy on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

"Since the referendum all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain."

^^^this^^^ is total bollocks.

1
The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I commented about the difference made by controlling the media. It was not for or against the EU.

Broadcast media has a legal obligation to try and be impartial, print and web media doesn’t and as demonstrated was and remains overwhelmingly pro-Brexit.

> As usual, insults and partisan attacks are the result. Thank goodness it will soon be March and the hysteria can die down. Perhaps I'll just keep quiet too.

In reality you are just complaining about people disagreeing with you. No one has insulted you, no one has attacked you.

 

1
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

> I'll ask you again. Do you respect democracy? do you respect the electoral commission? 

And I will say again applying rules used in party political GEs isn't going to be the best solution for non political referendums. 

1
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is the difference between being married for 40 years ....

> At which point the Brexiters come up with bullsh*t about how business needs to be able to adapt. 

The eu hasn't stagnated in the past 40 years, and it won't in the next 40. In or out things change anyway, so business is constantly adapting regardless. 

The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> And I will say again applying rules used in party political GEs isn't going to be the best solution for non political referendums. 

Are you suggesting that this isn’t political?

1
doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> And I will say again applying rules used in party political GEs isn't going to be the best solution for non political referendums. 

Non Political? that's just crazy.

So you think it's OK to cheat in order to sway the results in a referendum? The electoral commission is entirely relevant in this case. This was a democratic process and subject to all the usual rules. All you are doing is trying to justify the result by any means as it fits your view. That is how democracy ends.  

2
Carless - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Since the referendum all media has been completely dominated by those that voted Remain.

This is utter rubbish and I suspect you know it, (if you really don't, maybe take your head out of where it's placed and look at reality)

> How's about on here then ? How many posts by remainers vs posts by leavers ? 20 : 1 ?

Could this be that the majority of leavers are currently incapable of defending their decision, and the majority of climbers are capable of looking at the wider consequences?

 

1
neilh - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

?????

Try reading the Telegraph or the Mail.Even the Times.

You want to open your eyes a bit.

1
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> Are you suggesting that this isn’t political?

No, but the referendum was not one party against another. So applying funding rules of a GE to a Ref. Don't quite work so well. Especially when the remain campaign leader is still an active PM and has easy free access national media etc.. 

2
GrahamD - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

As if Farage didn't.  In fact given that a large part of leave was about stickin it to the man, Cameron was probably a much bigger liability than blessing for remain.

1
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

No, the result is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that you can not treat referendums like GEs. Referendums are cross party, parliament isn't suspended, campaign parties were rushed together but only one could be the main Brexit or remain party, even though Mps were still active politically on both sides. They are vastly differently structured votes.  

It is not like only Brexit parties have been the only ones in the past decade to have funding irregularities. 

2
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to GrahamD:

> As if Farage didn't.  In fact given that a large part of leave was about stickin it to the man, Cameron was probably a much bigger liability than blessing for remain.

No but you have admit when you can door step the press at no.10 or 11, you don't exactly need much of budget. He was only a liability because there wasn't much positive he could say about the EU. You can't polish a turd.  

3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

Your assumption there is that the majority voting actually keep abreast of the TV news and those that do watch don't already have a certain filter applied by whatever campaign ads, social media memes or whatever else they've encountered along the way.

2
doz generale - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> No, the result is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that you can not treat referendums like GEs. Referendums are cross party, parliament isn't suspended, campaign parties were rushed together but only one could be the main Brexit or remain party, even though Mps were still active politically on both sides. They are vastly differently structured votes.  

> It is not like only Brexit parties have been the only ones in the past decade to have funding irregularities. 

The fact that it's not a party political campaign means nothing, it has no bearing on the fact that there are strict rules which are plain and simple to follow and were well known before the referendum. The rules are clear and the electoral commission is there to make sure the rules are adhered to, the same as in any other referendum or democratic vote.    

summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

>  the same as in any other referendum or democratic vote.    

"Same as any other!!!" When was the last UK wide referendum that these same rules applied? I'd suggest the rules have evolved over 40 years to suit established parties fighting it out in GEs, unestablished pop up parties for referendums won't have even been imagined. 

2
Bob Kemp - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Surely if the eu wasn't controlling 27/28 nations every breath then the UK isn't that intertwined? The very argument remainers use is how free and democratic each country is to modify or steer eu policy. 

> It can't be both? 

That's simplistic. You're ignoring all the complexities of licences, standards, mutual recognition agreements, trade agreements, customs union, and so on. I seem to recall there were something like 750 or so various agreements of these kinds to be unravelled. Nothing to do with modifying or steering policy. 

Bob Kemp - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

I'm not sure what you mean here? What kind of prosecutions only have a one-year limit? Doesn't this just apply to cases where initial proceedings have started? 

Bob Kemp - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm inclined to agree with you about the bankers but my point was that in the case of the Leave campaign's activities there appears to be a much clearer case for prosecution. But we will have to wait for the official Electoral Commission report to get a better picture - it seems that Vote Leave have leaked the key findings of the report early for some reason. 

Bob Kemp - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> No but you have admit when you can door step the press at no.10 or 11, you don't exactly need much of budget. He was only a liability because there wasn't much positive he could say about the EU. You can't polish a turd.  

Are you serious? Haven't you read anything or heard anything about the benefits of the EU? 

 

1
baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Proceedings have to begin within one year of the offence being comitted with the possibility of a 12 month extension, so 2 years from the date of the offence.

Unless I've read this document wrong - which is always a possibility - 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/election-offences

 

summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> That's simplistic. You're ignoring all the complexities of licences, standards, mutual recognition agreements, trade agreements, customs union, and so on. I seem to recall there were something like 750 or so various agreements of these kinds to be unravelled. Nothing to do with modifying or steering policy. 

My point is things will change even if the UK stayed in the eu. Remain isn't or wasnt a vote for stagnation. 

3
summo on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Are you serious? Haven't you read anything or heard anything about the benefits of the EU? 

I was being sarcastic. For me the cons outweigh the pros. But it's a debate that has been worn out on here already. 

5
The New NickB - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> I was being sarcastic. For me the cons outweigh the pros. But it's a debate that has been worn out on here already. 

He says living in an EU member state.

Pursued by a bear - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Frankly my response to anything to do with 'king Brexit is to wish all this nonsense would stop, now, for good.

Some 'king chance.  On the positive side, it means I use more 'king apostrophes.

T.

john arran - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Bingo!

My prediction: 

Expect to hear "They were corrupt on both sides" and "people still cast their votes for what they wanted".

Your 2 consecutive posts:

> I believe that the remain campaign have already been investigated and fined or was it the lib dems, or both?

> Hard to trust anybody these days

and

> I guess that if there was an increase in support for leaving throughout the campaign then the campaign organisations would claim the credit.

> Which, while not surprising, would be a bit cheeky given how poorly the leave campaign was run.

What do I win? ;-)
 

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to john arran:

You are implying that I support the alleged electoral fraud that took place.

I don't.

I was replying directly to questions or statements from other posters.

Did you miss the bit where I stated that those guilty of electoral fraud should be prosecuted?

You managed to predict two already well known facts so, like when you voted in the referendum, you don't win anything.

 

 

2
pasbury on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

I think you forgot to say “nah nah nah”.

1
jkarran - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> You are implying that I support the alleged electoral fraud that took place.

Do you renounce the result and are you penning a letter as a leave voter to your MP expressing as much? If you don't then you tacitly support this fraud because it served your purposes. Don't feel bad, that's what we do as animals, I'd probably do the same.

jk

 

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to pasbury:

I save the "nah nah nah" for those worthy of it.

baron - on 05 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

If you can prove that the alleged electoral fraud altered the referendum result then I'll support another referendum.

However, I'm not persuaded that spending more than was allowed and colluding with another organisation with the same aim was enough to overcome the might of the remain campaign and the government itself.

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> If you can prove that the alleged electoral fraud altered the referendum result then I'll support another referendum.

> However, I'm not persuaded that spending more than was allowed and colluding with another organisation with the same aim was enough to overcome the might of the remain campaign and the government itself.

It didn't have to overcome the might of the campaign. It just had to swing a relatively small number (1.8% if I remember) of people over to support Leave. Remember that tiny majority?

On the subject of the whataboutery of 'well Leave did it too', that merely adds to the ways in which the vote was corrupted. It doesn't matter in which direction it was corrupted. If both sides manipulated the vote unfairly it's even more clear that the referendum should be void. 

1
baron - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

The whole referendum from the actual question asked, the setting up and funding of 'official' campaign parties and leaders and the campaign itself doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. Anybody found guilty of electoral fraud should be punished.

However, asking for the referendum to be rerun because at least one party overspent and shared ideas with another party does have a whiff of desperation about it.

Unless one believes that the people were swayed by such irregularities.

1
Bob Kemp - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Aren't you missing the point?  I'm not asking for a rerun because it's a way out of Brexit. A corrupt vote should not be allowed to stand. That applies whoever corrupted it. That's actually more important in some ways than the whole Brexit fiasco. We have to protect our democratic systems. 

deepsoup - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> If you can prove that the alleged electoral fraud altered the referendum result then I'll support another referendum.

And Lance Armstrong should have been allowed to keep his TdF titles, unless someone can prove they would have beaten him without the drugs.

summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> He says living in an EU member state.

Myth busting;

People worked and holidayed in Europe before the eu.

It is possible to like Europe and Europeans, whilst disliking the eu and it's goal of total unification. 

But, you knew this already. 

2
john arran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> You are implying that I support the alleged electoral fraud that took place.

I implied nothing of the sort. Simply pointed out that you raised both of the meritless lines of defence I predicted someone would try to raise.

baron - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to john arran:

Except I wasn't defending the alleged electoral fraud.

You chose two of my posts while missing out others in order to try and prove your point.

 

 

The New NickB - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Myth busting;

> People worked and holidayed in Europe before the eu.

Of course it's dishonest to suggest I am pretending otherwise. However, the latter was slightly more awkward, the former was considerably more difficult. You knew that of course, after all you are benefitting from the EU free movement that seems to be a red line for many leave voters.

Post edited at 08:00
baron - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

Not the best comparison is it?

2
summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> You knew that of course, after all you are benefitting from the EU free movement that seems to be a red line for many leave voters.

And you won't find a single post where I disagree with free movement for 'employment', but why should a country also have to endure CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg etc etc  to enjoy the good bits. It's like the eu forces people to have all the bits they dislike so they get a few perks, as it continues it's push towards federal Europe. 

I think if the eu was purely a customs union and free movement for employment, with no other agenda it would enjoy universal popularity. 

5
john arran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

You're completely missing the point again. Nobody was suggesting that anyone was defending any fraud. Just that you were suggesting a defence of the validity of the outcome based on the reasoning that there was probably fraud on both sides (even though only one side has been found culpable) and that somehow makes the fraud irrelevant to the validity of the outcome.

1
john arran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's like as members of the eu we agree to have all the bits we dislike so we get to enjoy the many benefits. 

FTFY

Edit: Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything; that's just emotional and slanted rhetoric.

Post edited at 08:39
1
baron - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to john arran:

Remain campaigners fined £19,000?

Do you really believe that the referendum was won/lost because of the irregularities in both campaigns?

But yes why not hold another referendum if the old one is deemed to be tainted.

Yanis Nayu - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> And you won't find a single post where I disagree with free movement for 'employment', but why should a country also have to endure CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg etc etc  to enjoy the good bits. It's like the eu forces people to have all the bits they dislike so they get a few perks, as it continues it's push towards federal Europe. 

> I think if the eu was purely a customs union and free movement for employment, with no other agenda it would enjoy universal popularity. 

That’s hilarious. The free movement of people was one of the main reasons people voted for Brexit. 

Dave Garnett - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> I think if the eu was purely a customs union and free movement for employment, with no other agenda it would enjoy universal popularity. 

According to the Brexiteers huddled in the Foreign Office, no single market, no customs union and no jurisdiction for the ECJ were what the people voted for.

I think I must have got a different voting slip somehow.

 

jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> If you can prove that the alleged electoral fraud altered the referendum result then I'll support another referendum.

Nobody can prove that. But that's not how it works, we have rules, when we don't uphold them because 'hey, it might not have mattered that much' that's how our democracy crumbles. The law was apparently broken and momentous decisions effecting generations of Brits and Europeans are being driven on by the result of a deeply flawed process. You're willing to turn a blind eye and make excuses. Ok, I'm not surprised.

> However, I'm not persuaded that spending more than was allowed and colluding with another organisation with the same aim was enough to overcome the might of the remain campaign and the government itself.

Cameron's government was not an asset for remain. They were viscerally hated by many, a party of detached privileged toffs, living by different rules, talking to each other and playing at government like kids play soldiers. Plenty of people I spoke to said they were voting out to 'stick it to that c*** Cameron' to quote one angry man I remember clearly. Funding does make a difference, it isn't always the decisive difference, sometimes a clever campaign or a good idea wins out but here we're talking big overspends and a narrow majority. If you're a democrat that should concern you.

jk

Post edited at 09:20
elsewhere on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> It is possible to like Europe and Europeans, whilst disliking the eu and it's goal of total unification. 

Name a single eu pm, president, chancellor (May,  Macron, Merkel etc) willing give up their power for 'total unification'.

 

1
summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> Name a single eu pm, president, chancellor (May,  Macron, Merkel etc) willing give up their power for 'total unification'.

Juncker. Previous long serving head of a tax haven, whose eu loyalty was rewarded with a plumb job. 

There will be more to come if the eu survives. Plus they don't lose power themselves, it is slower longer term, they sign treaties giving it away piece by piece for future generations. 

6
summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> The free movement of people was one of the main reasons people voted for Brexit. 

But not everyones and just how accurate are the stats on It? 

Post edited at 09:21
5
jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> There will be more to come if the eu survives. Plus they don't lose power themselves, it is slower longer term, they sign treaties giving it away piece by piece for future generations. 

It's not 'given away', it's pooled where it makes sense to do so potentially making that power greater.

jk

jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> But not everyones and just how accurate are the stats on It? 

I'm sure there are some more rigorous studies but anecdotally of the many hundreds I spoke to out on the street I reckon at least half (of the presumably leave voters) who could/would engage with me properly rather than just barking insults cited immigrants/foreigners as their main concern although of those a fair proportion seemed mainly concerned by 'the Pakis', a term I hadn't heard since the 80s. A fun few weeks that was

jk

thomasadixon - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

We're also talking about a referendum in which the government spent huge sums of our money on one side of the campaign.  That's just okay though, the government supporting one side of the vote is no problem at all to the electoral commission.  No problem to you either because you believe that the money spent didn't affect the vote as people don't like Cameron.  Never mind that most Tories (who voted for Cameron to be in charge, so presumably don't hate him) voted to leave.  Let's ignore too the huge numbers of people who voted remain because Boris and Farage.

Wonder what you'd say if I argued that no one likes Farage and Vote Leave and that they harmed the Leave campaign, so it's not an issue that affected the vote?

1
doz generale - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> "Same as any other!!!" When was the last UK wide referendum that these same rules applied? I'd suggest the rules have evolved over 40 years to suit established parties fighting it out in GEs, unestablished pop up parties for referendums won't have even been imagined. 

There have been plenty of referendums which are not party specific.

Here'a a list. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/

They have all been subject to the same rules. Why should the EU ref be different? 

neilh - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

Coupled with the legal jurisdication/framework to cover both( in other words loss of sovereignty on these points).

And then where do you stand on such issues which do not recognise borders- like environmental?( or even fishing, as fish do not recognise borders)

And then crime etc.

The list is almost endless. Hiring a car at an airport even gets sucked in.The way driving licences are checked now, taken years to set up.

When you think about it there is alot of activities where there is commonality within Europe where in all honesty there is little variance between countries.

Its hardwork to set up. Boring,frustrating and frustrating to get there, but generally works.

 

jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> We're also talking about a referendum in which the government spent huge sums of our money on one side of the campaign.  That's just okay though, the government supporting one side of the vote is no problem at all to the electoral commission.

The point is about respecting and upholding the law. I don't see any good coming from re-running a leave remain referendum (quite the opposite, it will drive a wedge deeper into society) except that there should be the most serious consequences for serious breaches of the laws which protect our democracy. Try to punish individuals and you'll just make martyrs and scapegoats, the only worthwhile deterant is making sure the crime doesn't pay which of course we wont be doing because our politicians have tied their hands, we're setting a deadly dangerous precedent.

> Wonder what you'd say if I argued that no one likes Farage and Vote Leave and that they harmed the Leave campaign, so it's not an issue that affected the vote?

I'd be surprised if you know any/many, outside of small ish core of lefty liberal types they both seem to be seen as jovial men-of-the-people/clowns who are liked even if their politics aren't so much.

jk

summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to neilh:

Can't police agencies communicate with each with having to have eu? 

Driving licences... There are still differences, hence the uks farcical system  requiring cards, paper and codes. 

I won't deny there are benefits but all could be done without Brussels or total unification which is their well published goal. Many of the better bits were taken from countries implementing them longer before the eu created a dept, such as the environmental stuff. 

baron - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

You'll have missed my posts where I stated that those guilty of electoral reform should be punished and if the eu referendum is tainted by such fraud we should have another one?

summo on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> It's not 'given away', it's pooled where it makes sense to do so potentially making that power greater.

Not really. 

Fisheries. UK territorial waters with total control. Join the eu, one voice among many. 

 

1
jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Fisheries. UK territorial waters with total control. Join the eu, one voice among many. 

We're not going to get total control of our territorial waters in any meaningful way. Sure we might get notional control on the clear understanding we will then trade access to our seas for our access to something else we absolutely need, not meaningful control. Fishing is small fry economically and our government has already chosen to shaft the small inshore fishing ports/communities which hope to gain in favour factory ships owned by donors. Why on earth do you think brexit will change the political realities underpinning what is already a domestic policy decision?

jk

jkarran - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> You'll have missed my posts where I stated that those guilty of electoral reform should be punished and if the eu referendum is tainted by such fraud we should have another one?

There's almost no point punishing individuals in cases like this, you end up gaoling the odd careless accountant and making martyrs of any individuals higher up the food chain who have failed to adequately scapegoat their subordinates.

jk

thomasadixon - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> The point is about respecting and upholding the law. I don't see any good coming from re-running a leave remain referendum (quite the opposite, it will drive a wedge deeper into society) except that there should be the most serious consequences for serious breaches of the laws which protect our democracy. Try to punish individuals and you'll just make martyrs and scapegoats, the only worthwhile deterant is making sure the crime doesn't pay which of course we wont be doing because our politicians have tied their hands, we're setting a deadly dangerous precedent.

The law is being followed and they'll be fined, apparently.  Making out (as many on here are doing) that Leave broke the rules so the referendum should be null and void when Cameron did what he did is utterly one sided.

> I'd be surprised if you know any/many, outside of small ish core of lefty liberal types they both seem to be seen as jovial men-of-the-people/clowns who are liked even if their politics aren't so much.

Loads.  Maybe it's an age bracket thing, but I have good mates of mine who were fans of Tony Benn, very much eurosceptic and voted remain *just* because Boris and Tories.  They said so ("we should leave but not under this government").

1
doz generale - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Not really. 

> Fisheries. UK territorial waters with total control. Join the eu, one voice among many. 

"One voice among many" Isn't that the definition of pooled? 

Anyway why are you so bothered about fishing? It only employs a few thousand people in the UK and doesn't contribute a great deal to the economy. Would it not be a massive own goal to throw away huge chunks of manufacturing for the sake it?

1
elsewhere on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> Juncker. Previous long serving head of a tax haven, whose eu loyalty was rewarded with a plumb job. 

Who gave up his power as PM of Luxembourg to....

...the new PM of Luxembourg.

This 'total unification' isn't doing so well if it didn't manage to usurp the role of Luxembourg PM.   

 

elsewhere on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

75% of the catch is exported so without access to the single market fishing is screwed. 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-fishing/uk-fishermen-see-brexit-bonanza-but-theres-a-catch-idUKKCN1BU0J6

neilh - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

Upto a point yes they can, but we reached that sort of arrangement back 40/50 years ago. and then moved on. But when it comes down to sharing data- arrest warrants and so on., things get shall we say a bit more fraught.

Driving licences etc...things progress - and it takes time to unify things.All the EU does is provide a framework to do this and then painstakingly over years it slowly becomes unified.Making it easier for us all.Without that framework all you have is a series of ad hoc arrangements which really are the same thing and replace one bureaucracy with another.( which is in effect what the UK is trying to negotiate now). It is ludicrous.

 

 

The New NickB - on 06 Jul 2018
In reply to summo:

> I think if the eu was purely a customs union and free movement for employment, with no other agenda it would enjoy universal popularity. 

I would suggest that you have not been paying attention to the debate.

 

1
jkarran - on 08 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0b7mmt4/spotlight-brexit-dark-money-the-dup

An interesting piece of investigative journalism looking at leave campaign funding, the DUP and the very dubious origins of some of that money. Shame it's squirrelled away obscurely on the iPlayer having only aired in NI, it deserves wider attention.

jk

Jim C - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Dangerous ground, most of the parties have been involved in similar practices in the past during elections. I agree, lock them up, but look back at previous cases

and lock them all up. 

Jim C - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> 75% of the catch is exported so without access to the single market fishing is screwed. 

If we have nothing else to eat out of the SM , then let us eat  fish.

( which I quite like, but not for every meal;) 

 

2
Jim C - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

Well Westminster could give Scotland their fishing quotas , to keep them quiet about Independence, and they will just

give them all back to the EU(  as a gesture of goodwill) so both will be happy. 

Post edited at 04:33
baron - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

Agreed!

john arran - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

> Dangerous ground, most of the parties have been involved in similar practices in the past during elections. I agree, lock them up, but look back at previous cases

> and lock them all up. 

While you're almost certainly right to some extent, that doesn't mean this situation is the same as those that went before. The two biggest differences are that:

1) Allegations have been proven this time, and

2) The result of the ballot has yet to be fully enacted. You can't suddenly reverse government policies from previous elections, but you certainly can have a People's Vote.

Jim C - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to john arran:

> While you're almost certainly right to some extent, that doesn't mean this situation is the same as those that went before. The two biggest differences are that:

> 1) Allegations have been proven this time, and

having previously found to have no merit.

> 2) The result of the ballot has yet to be fully enacted. You can't suddenly reverse government policies from previous elections, but you certainly can have a People's Vote.

Best of 3 , 4 , 5 perhaps ? 

 

3
jkarran - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

> having previously found to have no merit.

Faced with new evidence we should review our previous conclusions.

> Best of 3 , 4 , 5 perhaps ? 

See above. Best of one will do, lets decide on the facts, if you're right and we're better off out I'm sure even without the dirty money and overspend the facts will win out and you'll win again. If you're not and it's all turned to ratshit then we should have the opportunity to decide not to step out into the abyss. Hell, we could decide eyes open to do it anyway, quite mad but far far better than doing it believing we're striding out toward a bright new future that doesn't exist.

jk

john arran - on 09 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

Is it really hard to understand the idea that the referendum result came from a misled electorate? That's precisely what has been shown.

If you really think people are calling for a new vote simply because they didn't like the result of the referendum, and are just acting like spoilt children, then I would recommend a period of introspection to ask yourself quite what is to lose from determining conclusively whether the electorate who voted narrowly for Brexit are still happy with their choice, now that harsh realities are far better understood. Real democracy pretty much demands it.

Jim C - on 11 Jul 2018
In reply to john arran:

But John, following the ' tarnished' referendum campaign voters then had another chance to vote for a non Brexit party in the general election that followed, but instead those same voters mostly all voted for parties that were proposing in their manifesto  Brexit ( of one hew or another) 

By end of that election then,  all  the 'lies' ,on either side of the referendum , had been exposed to remainer's scrutiny during that election , and even with that second chance to win the argument and avoid Brexit , still not enough voters voted for the party with the anti- Brexit manifesto , and so again too many voted for Brexit in the general election.  

4
Jim C - on 11 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

So we have another referendum and remain won that would be it over. But if Brexit won again you would change your mind and would want us to keep voting until we got the 'right' result. 

3
john arran - on 11 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

Nice try, but a Brexit referendum it certainly wasn't. Certainly not for the reported 70% of Labour voters who oppose BrexitThey apparently retained some hope that something good would come out of a Labour win despite Brexit, not because of it.

jkarran - on 11 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

> So we have another referendum and remain won that would be it over. But if Brexit won again you would change your mind and would want us to keep voting until we got the 'right' result. 

No, assuming it's fairly executed I'd accept it and start looking more seriously for a new start somewhere else. I want things done right, I think that matters, I know full well that will probably still produce an outcome I can't live with long run.

Jk

Post edited at 22:34
john arran - on 11 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

> So we have another referendum and remain won that would be it over. But if Brexit won again you would change your mind and would want us to keep voting until we got the 'right' result. 

Until we have a vote with known outcome choices, that's accepted as being fair and legal, we may as well not have had any vote at all. Anything less is like letting the burglar keep the loot.

jkarran - on 12 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

> By end of that election then,  all  the 'lies' ,on either side of the referendum , had been exposed to remainer's scrutiny during that election , and even with that second chance to win the argument and avoid Brexit , still not enough voters voted for the party with the anti- Brexit manifesto , and so again too many voted for Brexit in the general election.  

The claim that Labour's relatively strong showing at the last GE is indicative of widespread support for brexit is risible. It is indicative of a deeply flawed electoral system which drives people to vote tactically. We as brexit opponents desperately needed a weakened government and strong opposition, even if that opposition's position needed much work. By supporting candidate's with the right ideas who for reasons of political inertia (I vote the way me father voted...) would not be elected we'd get a strong Conservative euroskeptic government which would have been a disaster. Without meaningful opposition there is no way to shape the government's policy.

For example in my constituency I was faced with a simple three way race:

*A Labour europhile with a track record of putting constituents ahead of party and career.

*An ambitious young Tory with views on education and social issues I couldn't support and a painful unwillingness to commit to any position on the EU so as to avoid splitting his support and to be able to toe the line whatever it may be when elected.

*A capable LibDem who'd run very close in 2010 and was dragged out of retirement because the new candidate wasn't ready, who barely campaigned and was just quietly hoping for his deposit back knowing the brand was still toxic and that tactical voting would hit him hard (he didn't make 5%).

Faced with that choice the idea voting Labour was a complete no-brainer as an opponent of brexit. The idea that the GE result implies 82% support for brexit is convenient bullshit I don't believe you believe.

jk

Jim C - on 13 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

You had an anti Brexit candidate, you should have voted for him. 

 

3
jkarran - on 13 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

You're not stupid, don't pretend to be. We live in a far from perfect world, we have to work with it to achieve what we want.

I'm no fan of tactical voting, frankly I hate having to do it but I do sometimes have to do it. FPTP destroys people's belief in the value of democracy but we're stuck with it while ever those brought to power by it are also those with the power to reform it.

Incidentally I did vote for an anti-brexit candidate, one of two running who stood a chance of election, she happened to be standing for Labour.

jk

MonkeyPuzzle - on 13 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Incidentally I did vote for an anti-brexit candidate, one of two running who stood a chance of election, she happened to be standing for Labour.

Ding ding! Same.

 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

And the results are in!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 

I await the sum total of bugger all happening as a result.

It's possibly a good thing knowing that my anger is totally impotent here, because it could otherwise easily get out of control.

pasbury on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well there quite a lot of outrage in the House too - though the cabinet minister is stonewalling it - predictably.

The whole thing is a dishonourable farce from the use of AggregateIQ, chanelling funds to BeLeave and then the outing of the whistleblower Shahmir Sanni.

krikoman - on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> Well there quite a lot of outrage in the House too - though the cabinet minister is stonewalling it - predictably.

> The whole thing is a dishonourable farce from the use of AggregateIQ, chanelling funds to BeLeave and then the outing of the whistleblower Shahmir Sanni.


It's about time we saw some jail time for these bastards.

 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> It's about time we saw some jail time for these bastards.

I'd settle for some very public questions to those who fronted the campaign and some kind of acknowledgement by those at the top that we have to accept that this may have effected the result.

Day after day, claims are being shown as lies and campaigns are shown as not only unethical but as actually having broken election law and all I hear is "Brexit means Brexit", "Leave won fair and square, so just deal with it" and whatever other madness and untruths. We're shouting and pointing and trying to get people's attention, but we're looked at with utter disdain. I imagine this is a little bit what it feels like to go insane.

Stuart en Écosse - on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>  I imagine this is a little bit what it feels like to go insane.

It's had a significantly negative effect on my mental health and I'll bet I'm not alone.

balmybaldwin - on 17 Jul 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

You aren't.

Which is hardly surprising... this doesn't feel remotely like the country I lived in 4 years ago, and I am now considering my options to go elsewhere.  Unfortunately the easiest move for me would have been the states, but that's all gone to shit too.

I cannot live somewhere where lies and deliberately misleading the people are normal and where logic and fact no longer hold sway. 

Jim C - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to MG:

> Brexiteers are very quiet. We can add blatant criminality to the vices they support. In any reasonable system, there would have to be a rerun

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144

Jim C - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

> I believe that the remain campaign have already been investigated and fined or was it the lib dems, or both?

> Hard to trust anybody these days

Indeed they were. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144

and of course there was the million pounds that were slipped into the remain camps funds just before the 'official'  start of the campaign , and the nine million spent by the government leafleting every household with their remain message. 

 On overall spending 'legal' or otherwise Remain had the advantage. 

 

 

Post edited at 17:31
Graeme Alderson on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

So both sides spent illegally. Two reasons to annul the outcome as 2 wrongs do not make a right (as my dad says).

1
Jim C - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> So both sides spent illegally. Two reasons to annul the outcome as 2 wrongs do not make a right (as my dad says).

Snag was that when remain were found out first, there was no call to re run the referendum on the basis of their illegallity , it's only when Leave were fined that the calls to re run it came. 

What happens if it's re run and leave win again ( narrowly  or otherwise ) would that mean that the Remainers would accept the result this time ?

edit( Remainers are remarkably quiet about Remains fines, there are double standards, and selective outrage is apparent here. The even handed BBC seem not to want to bring this up either, casting doubt on their impartiality) 

Post edited at 19:20
6
MG - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

It's doesn't look good. There is a big difference however between improperly recording funds (by the losing campaign) that had they been recorded correctly would have been entirely legal, and deliberately colluding with other campaigns to bypass spending limits. One can not have affected the result, the other could have.

Regarding a rerun. I'd imagine the integrity of the vote and what is done with the results would have a big effect on whether it would be accepted. For me the bigger issue is how close we are to an effective coup by the swivel eyed loons. The idea there is a majority for the no deal scenario they are salivating over is nonsense 

1
elsewhere on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

Lib Dems - £80,000 without proper receipts.

Leave - undeclared  £675,000 donation.

Are you OK that the leave money had so many links to Russia?

 

 

 

1
Jim C - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> Leave - undeclared  £675,000 donation.

it was always ' legally ' rigged against Leave 

https://fullfact.org/europe/whos-getting-taxpayers-money-eu-referendum/

john yates55 - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

As is the canard that all the media were pro Leave. The Remain camp was largely the Establishment. It even had Tory government backing with public spending on a less-than-impartial  leaflet distributed to every home at taxpayer expense. One thing is for certain, the two sides will never agree on the outcome of the vote. Nor would they had the numbers been reversed! 

5
elsewhere on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Jim C:

Was it 11 or 12 meetings with the Russian ambassador for the biggest leave donor?

1
Bob Kemp - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

> As is the canard that all the media were pro Leave. The Remain camp was largely the Establishment. It even had Tory government backing with public spending on a less-than-impartial  leaflet distributed to every home at taxpayer expense. One thing is for certain, the two sides will never agree on the outcome of the vote. Nor would they had the numbers been reversed! 

How does the notion that the Remain camp was the establishment contradict the idea that most of the media were pro-Leave? The establishment is not the media.

Trevers - on 22 Jul 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

Not sure about my mental health per se, but the addicting horror of watching the slow car crash that is my country today has been deadly for my productivity.

1
john yates55 - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Come now Bob. The establishment is the larger of the two descriptors. Media owners, people who shape and influence the way we see the world, are an integral part of the establishment. The central bank, financial sector, corporate business, much of the media connected to the intelligentsia, dare I say it the BBC, trade union barons, universities, the government and major opposition parties, and more were all pro Remain. The odds were always stacked against the Leavers. You and your remainer chums are either naive or delusional to think that the establishment played fair. Politics is,  and always has been, a rough trade. But this time the sans coulottes won. Against all the odds. You really think the FCO and other machinery of the state want leave? Not a chance. The victory will be hollow because the state and the establishment that support it and all the useful idiots on sites like this who think they are open and liberal will not allow a meaningful exit. 

11
MG - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

Translation:

Xenophobic loon who got himself banned makes false claim media weren't favouring  brexit. Called on this he changes tune to talk about "establishment", which he defines as any educated or informed group. Signs off by calling all who disagree idiots and will now whinge about "abuse" he is receiving. 

1
Rob Exile Ward on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

Farage? JRM? Johnson? Banks? Sans culottes? You're 'aving a larf.

1
jkarran - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

> Come now Bob. The establishment is the larger of the two descriptors. Media owners, people who shape and influence the way we see the world, are an integral part of the establishment. The central bank, financial sector, corporate business, much of the media connected to the intelligentsia, dare I say it the BBC, trade union barons, universities, the government and major opposition parties, and more were all pro Remain.

And almost all of those have very limited direct access to the public, their messages can only be filtered out through the press which I'm sure even you would agree was Leave biased.

> You really think the FCO and other machinery of the state want leave? Not a chance. The victory will be hollow because the state and the establishment that support it and all the useful idiots on sites like this who think they are open and liberal will not allow a meaningful exit. 

Because what you consider a 'meaningful exit', currently looks a lot like a full frontal attack on our economy, rights and probably ultimately our democracy.

Propose a plan which actually works for the people who you'll need to support it then win your case for it. If it's a good plan you'll win fair and square, no need for dirty foreign money and electoral fraud, nothing to fear.

jk

1
Andy Hardy on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

> [...] The victory will be hollow because the state and the establishment that support it and all the useful idiots on sites like this who think they are open and liberal will not allow a meaningful exit. 

Are you the same John Yates who was posting on the many other brexit threads?

What do you mean by "meaningful exit"? The disruption caused by a no deal brexit could result in very serious consequences - the UK boss of Amazon is reported to have said civil unrest is a possibility. Leavers could take the long view: move to the EEA / Norway model and spend a while preparing the UK to move again to WTO rules then move to WTO rules, no drama. But for some unfathomable reason (roubles?) the likes of Banks, Farage and you actively want the maximum possible turmoil. Why?

edit spelling

Post edited at 09:29
1
Bob Kemp - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

I don't really need to say much more than MG, JKA, Rob and Andy have already said. I would add that the reason so many people in 'the establishment' were pro-Remain is that the alternative was seen as costly, time-consuming, economically disadvantageous, politically dangerous and more. All for limited reward. I haven't seen anything since to alter those views. Your complaint is like flat-earthers complaining that the establishment supports the view that the world is round. 

As for 'Politics is,  and always has been, a rough trade." - don't patronise me. I'm neither naive or delusional. I've been around long enough to have seen all kinds of perfidy from politicians of all stripes.  That doesn't mean I can't point it out when it happens, and what the Leave campaign did was patently illegal, and could be even worse than we think if the Russian connections turn out to have a solid foundation. 

In reply to David Riley:

> How's about on here then ? How many posts by remainers vs posts by leavers ? 20 : 1 ?

Is this maybe due to the fact Leavers are a minority in most communities, especially so in sporting,  environmental and business environments? Probably by a ratio of 20:1.

Trevers - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I don't really need to say much more than MG, JKA, Rob and Andy have already said. I would add that the reason so many people in 'the establishment' were pro-Remain is that the alternative was seen as costly, time-consuming, economically disadvantageous, politically dangerous and more. All for limited reward. I haven't seen anything since to alter those views. Your complaint is like flat-earthers complaining that the establishment supports the view that the world is round. 

A good point - it's worth pointing out that many prominent leavers also happen to be climate deniers.

baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Gravitationally challenged:

Did you just make this up?

baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Trevers:

You have a list of these many brexiteer climate deniers?

doz generale - on 23 Jul 2018
baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

So that’s 5 one of whom is that lovely character Chope or whatever he’s called.

 

doz generale - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

Here's another list, not exclusively brexiteers.

https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-denier-database-uk

 

baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

Thanks for the link.

Interesting to see some of the names on it.

David Riley - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to doz generale:

A dishonest list..

Andrea Leadsom is on the list. But they admit "She said that she was now “completely persuaded” on climate change."

Libel ?

David Riley - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Gravitationally challenged:

> Is this maybe due to the fact Leavers are a minority in most communities, especially so in sporting,  environmental and business environments? Probably by a ratio of 20:1.

No. It's due to the fact leavers are not wringing their hands and taking every opportunity to rave against Brexit. Most EU news stories across the media are being initiated by remainers.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I'd be more than happy to see some good news stories emanating from brexiteers.

The fact if the matter is there aren't any because there aren't any.

You've been sold a pup.

baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'd be more than happy to see some good news stories emanating from brexiteers.

> The fact if the matter is there aren't any because there aren't any.

> You've been sold a pup.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44910560

Andy Hardy on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Apart from today's gem from Jeremy Hunt - it will all be the EU's fault if crash out without a deal. Surprised? Me neither. I expect the difference is you believe him.

Rob Exile Ward on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to baron:

And what, pray, has that  to do with Brexit?

'UK bank moves back office functions to lower cost area.'

baron - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It’s a good news story if you live in Glasgow and counters the *‘banks all fleeing to Frankfurt’* stories.

*I might have exaggerated this a bit to try and prove my point.

2
jkarran - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The lower cost area of the UK most likely to remain in the EU, free of civil war and well connected to the rUK, Eire and mainland Europe. Tenuous brexit link and I suspect probably not the one baron was hinting at.

Jk

Post edited at 17:49
Rob Exile Ward on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Yes, I did wonder whether those sort of factors played a part.

A few million quid from the Assembly probably didn't hurt, either.

David Riley - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> The fact if the matter is there aren't any because there aren't any.

No. It's due to the fact leavers are not wringing their hands and taking every opportunity to rave against Brexit. Most EU news stories across the media are being initiated by remainers.

 

Harry Jarvis - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> No. It's due to the fact leavers are not wringing their hands and taking every opportunity to rave against Brexit. 

It seems to me that many leavers, in Westminster at least, are too busy stabbing the Prime Minister in the front and back to spend time disseminating good news. That, and parrotting the tiresomely stupid line about no deal being better than a bad deal, without anyone appearing to have the faintest idea as to what constitutes a good or a bad deal. 

 

jkarran - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Most EU news stories across the media are being initiated by remainers.

What does that even mean? Most brexit stories are about our leave-focussed failing government the big bad bully in Brussels or the consequences of tory Fu*kwittery for business. I'm not sure those are 'remain initiated' unless we have fundamentally different understandings of our common language.

Jk

Trevers - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> What does that even mean? Most brexit stories are about our leave-focussed failing government the big bad bully in Brussels or the consequences of tory Fu*kwittery for business. I'm not sure those are 'remain initiated' unless we have fundamentally different understandings of our common language.

I think what he means is that most Brexit-related non-political news (i.e. about the consequences to date and analysis of the likely outcomes of Brexit) is coming from the remain side. Which seems to back up the original point that if there were Brexit related good news, the leave supporting side of the mainstream media is doing a bloody awful job of reporting that.

Or perhaps there is simply no Brexit related good news... Although I find that difficult to believe, after all it's the people's will!

David Riley - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> What does that even mean?

My MP,  Anna Soubry is like Kermit the frog on every tv show that will have her. She is initiating all the media stories she can.  Leavers are not.

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Leavers are not.

You know that in these days of the internet, blatantly made up things are easily shown to be that?

1
elsewhere on 23 Jul 2018
In reply to David Riley:

You're saying leavers rather than telling us their great leave ideas and concrete plans have nothing to say about leave. 

That might explain why Brexit doesn't feature in recent* rEU news coverage as we've yet to say anything that interests them.

*Germany last week - no mention of UK beyond Trump visit.

krikoman - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I'd settle for some very public questions to those who fronted the campaign and some kind of acknowledgement by those at the top that we have to accept that this may have effected the result.

Mogg's recently admitted it might be 50 years for us to see the benefits FFS!!

 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Are you the same Andy Hardy? Lots of forecasts and predictions of turmoil. Most of it likely to occur in EU as failure of Euro and unlimited migration split the project. 

Sir Chasm - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

Are you broken?

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to MG:

Happy for you to abuse me all you like dude. Forgive me if I don’t join you in your personal sewer though. 

Jx

1
john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to MG:

Didn’t realise I was banned. What a hoot.

 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Voters not leaders. Farage and Banks not Establishment. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Trevers:

Paul Sykes? No way. More grotesque labelling of people whose ideas in EU you find anathema. 

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to MG:

Alan, was I banned? Not that it bothers me. But just to check MG is correct in his claim? Thanks. You hear much from Jack these days?

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

My phone is!! 

Andy Hardy on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

I just thought it was odd that you should create a new account and carry on posting the same stuff. I do notice that you continue to avoid answering the question though.

john yates55 - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Bob

the Remain camp has patronised the majority of voters at every turn. Don’t be surprised when you get blowback. I’m out of here now as it’s just the same old voices saying the same old scaremongering to frighten one another. U.K. has not and will not fall off a cliff edge. There will not be empty supermarket shelves, there is and will not be a surge in racism ( so I don’t fear for my BBC and our mixed race children and grandchildren). What is pathetic is how many people have bought the establishment lie that there is no alternative to EU membership. The EU will fall apart long before the UK. And the UK will remain a safe haven and place of opportunity for migrants.  Scotland has a long way to go before it becomes multicultural, and nowhere in Europe is there a global city like London. You would need to look to America for that. Just read the list of names of all those who perished in the twin tower atrocity. Over and out to you all. X

6
Trevers - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

> the Remain camp has patronised the majority of voters at every turn.

Yes, but so did Leave. They were just smarter about it.

> Don’t be surprised when you get blowback.

I'm more concerned about the blowback from a possible food shortage than the blowback because a few people's egos were dented.

> I’m out of here now as it’s just the same old voices saying the same old scaremongering to frighten one another.

It's not scaremongering if it's true.

>U.K. has not and will not fall off a cliff edge.

No, just a long steady decline. Although the prospect of everything grinding to a halt in a no-deal scenario is looking quite bleak.

> There will not be empty supermarket shelves.

There were empty supermarket shelves after two days of (relatively speaking) heavy snow. I don't share your unfounded optimism. What is the plan in a no-deal scenario?

> There is and will not be a surge in racism ( so I don’t fear for my BBC and our mixed race children and grandchildren).

People I know say from their experience that there has been a marked increase in casual everyday racism.

> What is pathetic is how many people have bought the establishment lie that there is no alternative to EU membership.

Nobody who campaigned for that "alternative" has bothered to spell it out for us. It makes you wonder whether it really exists.

> The EU will fall apart long before the UK.

I certainly hope the EU doesn't fall apart. I hope you don't relish that prospect either.

> And the UK will remain a safe haven and place of opportunity for migrants.

I certainly hope so.

Tony Jones on 24 Jul 2018

 

> Nobody who campaigned for that "alternative" has bothered to spell it out for us. It makes you wonder whether it really exists.

I think you'll find it was succinctly explained on the side of a bus. 

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 24 Jul 2018
In reply to john yates55:

Happy to see you are so certain in your beliefs. Personally I am very aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect and try not to over-claim too much. I cannot say for certain that Brexit will be catastrophic so I don’t. What I do do is rather akin to the way I’ve looked at climbing and other things in life that involve risks: I weigh up perceived risks and rewards. As I can see almost no rewards from Brexit, and there are many sources of risk, I don’t think it’s worth those risks. 

 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.