Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely an Article 50 extension should be used to allow a prope

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited March 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely an Article 50 extension should be used to allow a proper investigation into the legitimacy of Leave’s victory

From the Washington Post – The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks https://t.co/rmejtfcSzK

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • First.
  • No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688

    No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
  • Straw Remainer Grabbing
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,601
    Perhaps we should have an investigation into this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.
  • No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
    Yes - well there's officially neutral and practically neutral. I don't remember receiving a letter from HMG extolling the benefits of leaving the EU. Come to think of it I think the original flyer back in 1975 made some pretty creative use of the English Language. - so the original referendum should be abolished and the UK reimbursed all the money paid to 'the Common Market' under false pretences.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,162
    Oh come on Mike, this one again? Whatever issues with the referendum itself, and the stories were out from the start, A50 was a decision by MPs fully aware of what they were doing, and if they had concerns about funding and any other aspects, they could have used that as a reason for why they couldn't at that time at least trigger A50. They didn't. Continually pushing it was illegitimate is just plain silly, particularly as the argument events have proven even if it was a good decision then it is not now, are far more effective.

    So I fear emphasising this part is actually ineffective.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,594

    No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
    Lol - poty - in so many ways.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 849
    “People who never wanted us to leave, still don’t want us to leave. And if only everyone else now knew the facts they would change their minds just like we haven’t”
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,115
    It's a very significant problem that, even supposing there was genuine dodginess and this is discovered by said theoretical inquiry, it'll automatically be dismissed by a great many people due to the current political atmosphere coupled with the fact that both sides have, to be blunt, talked a lot of shit about a great many things, to the extent that the view one has of things is often now determined not by what is said by the prism through which the hearer listens.

    A sentence almost worthy of Thucydides, though I suspect he could've got a few more clauses in.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 289
    edited March 9

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688

    No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
    Yes - well there's officially neutral and practically neutral. I don't remember receiving a letter from HMG extolling the benefits of leaving the EU. Come to think of it I think the original flyer back in 1975 made some pretty creative use of the English Language. - so the original referendum should be abolished and the UK reimbursed all the money paid to 'the Common Market' under false pretences.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,953
    The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks

    Yes, especially the massive overspend of Remain compared to Leave.

    :smiley:
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,211
    Yes, I'm afraid Brexit and its 'legacy' will tainted for eternity. These allegations make me sad. It feels as if the Leavers have betrayed Britain and turned us into a colony of Putin's Russia.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    "The result is now that the UK is edging towards leaving the EU with so many outstanding issues still unanswered."

    No it isn't, an extension (Which I'm reluctantly in favour of) is heavily odds on right now.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 817

    Yes, I'm afraid Brexit and its 'legacy' will tainted for eternity. These allegations make me sad. It feels as if the Leavers have betrayed Britain and turned us into a colony of Putin's Russia.

    Might I suggest counselling?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 9,239
    Hate
    football.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,094
    edited March 9

    Hate
    football.

    Well the rugger is on and Cokanasiga is looking like a total beast. Going to be a long 80 mins for the Italians if he gets a lot of the ball.
  • radsatserradsatser Posts: 88

    Like a predictable LibDem, never let democracy and the wrong answer get in the way of your sychophantic idealogy to the EU project.

    To be honest Mike, you make yourself look a fool legitimising this one sided argument with column inches. REMAIN outspent the LEAVE campaign even if you add in all the so called 'dodgy spending', and of course REMAIN didn't embrace and encourage foreign interference in the referendum practically on a daily basis, did they?

    Give it a rest, you lost and we are leaving.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 1,250
    The problem is you can’t quantify the effects re how much influence any over spend had on people’s voting intentions .

    Throughout the campaign voters were inundated with a barrage of online messaging . There’s no control group so you can’t make clear correlations .

    The Electoral Commission really doesn’t have enough powers and the financial penalties are far too small . These aspects certainly need looking at but I can’t see a legal basis to overturn the referendum result .

    And I’m saying this as a staunch Remainer so I’m in no way trying to defend the Leave campaign .

    The issues surrounding Aaron Banks continue though. And the NCA investigation needs to come to a conclusion fast otherwise people are going to suspect there’s some political interference at play . And of course if that charges him and the money was Russian based there’s bound to be an outcry and of course in the eyes of many Remainers call into doubt the legitimacy of the result but again I’ll stress this still isn’t enough legally to overturn the result .
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,094
    Chinese are going to backing Warren....

    US Democrat Elizabeth Warren has proposed breaking up tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google if elected to the US presidency in 2020.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47509945
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,005
    Surely it is legitimate to want to know if there were illegal activities by any of the campaigns.
    That doesn't imply that you want the result revisited.

    Some people seem a little too keen to sweep Aaron Banks activities and Russian involvement under the carpet. The fact that Remain spent more than Leave is not relevant unless it is being alleged that it was illegal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,094

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    Well they were also pushing on an open door with many. Stoke man didn't want to here how great the EU / globalism is, because their experience isn't as positive as some others.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 23,688
    This is just nonsense and does not do anything to calm matters, especially from the US media
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,138
    radsatser said:


    Like a predictable LibDem, never let democracy and the wrong answer get in the way of your sychophantic idealogy to the EU project.

    To be honest Mike, you make yourself look a fool legitimising this one sided argument with column inches. REMAIN outspent the LEAVE campaign even if you add in all the so called 'dodgy spending', and of course REMAIN didn't embrace and encourage foreign interference in the referendum practically on a daily basis, did they?

    Give it a rest, you lost and we are leaving.

    Yep agree with this. Remain massively outspent Leave and had all the resources of the establishment behind them and they still couldn't persuade the public of their case. Remainers simply cannot accept they were on the wrong side of the argument and so thrash around looking for excuses both to explain their own failure and to overturn a legitimate popular vote.

    It is unedifying and sad and says all you need to know about Remainers and their attitude to democracy.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    Well they were also pushing on an open door with many. Stoke man didn't want to here how great the EU / globalism is, because their experience isn't as positive as some others.
    They were pushing at an open door, but unfortunately selling snake oil.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,495

    radsatser said:


    Like a predictable LibDem, never let democracy and the wrong answer get in the way of your sychophantic idealogy to the EU project.

    To be honest Mike, you make yourself look a fool legitimising this one sided argument with column inches. REMAIN outspent the LEAVE campaign even if you add in all the so called 'dodgy spending', and of course REMAIN didn't embrace and encourage foreign interference in the referendum practically on a daily basis, did they?

    Give it a rest, you lost and we are leaving.

    Yep agree with this. Remain massively outspent Leave and had all the resources of the establishment behind them and they still couldn't persuade the public of their case. Remainers simply cannot accept they were on the wrong side of the argument and so thrash around looking for excuses both to explain their own failure and to overturn a legitimate popular vote.

    It is unedifying and sad and says all you need to know about Remainers and their attitude to democracy.
    Well said
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    The Sunday times have been consistent ahead of the game on Brexit, whilst other Sunday’s discussing what happens in coming meaningful vote the ST broken the news it’s delayed. Will be interesting to find out what they have to report tonight.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,495
    RobD said:

    The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks

    Yes, especially the massive overspend of Remain compared to Leave.

    :smiley:

    Which the establishment seems strangely untroubled by.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,495

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

    Because there was no positive case to be made for staying - none at all.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 1,250
    And here’s an interesting issue .

    Let’s say Banks gets charged and the UK hasn’t left the EU yet .

    In the jury you’ll have a mix of Remainers and Leavers . How on earth do you cope with any bias . A guilty verdict would of course strengthen calls for another vote , non guilty helps to stop some of that momentum .

    Because Brexit has become such a fundamental issue for many on both sides how can jury members really separate that and just look objectively at the evidence . I know many cases can be subject to some jury bias but this one would be difficult to overcome .
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    Floater said:

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

    Because there was no positive case to be made for staying - none at all.
    That's just silly. Of course there was a positive case, namely that the EU brings economic benefits, extra rights for UK citizens, and magnifies UK power on many fronts. As we will find out if and when we leave, those benefits are very considerable, compared with the alternative.
  • Blame the wanky MPs who voted to trigger A50. And the wanky MPs who couldn't put a coherent case for staying in the EU. Blame the wanky MPs who have done such a shite job of running the country that people felt they wanted their voice heard. No, let's blame Putin instead.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,368
    OllyT said:

    Surely it is legitimate to want to know if there were illegal activities by any of the campaigns.
    That doesn't imply that you want the result revisited.

    Some people seem a little too keen to sweep Aaron Banks activities and Russian involvement under the carpet. The fact that Remain spent more than Leave is not relevant unless it is being alleged that it was illegal.

    Once one has made the heroic effort to convince oneself that the racists and xenophobes have nothing to do with Brexit, ignoring Banks and his ilk is a piece of piss.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,609
    edited March 9
    nico67 said:

    And here’s an interesting issue .

    Let’s say Banks gets charged and the UK hasn’t left the EU yet .

    In the jury you’ll have a mix of Remainers and Leavers . How on earth do you cope with any bias . A guilty verdict would of course strengthen calls for another vote , non guilty helps to stop some of that momentum .

    Because Brexit has become such a fundamental issue for many on both sides how can jury members really separate that and just look objectively at the evidence . I know many cases can be subject to some jury bias but this one would be difficult to overcome .

    Another person driven mad by Brexit.

    If Banks has committed a criminal act, and the case is proven to beyond a reasonable doubt, then (as a Leaver) I have no problem in convicting him.

    Banks does not represent me.

    Interesting that it is a Remainer who seems to think that people won't look objectively at the evidence !
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,094
    I know it is Italy, but Cokanasiga just looks like he is running at small children. It is Lomu-esque.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,609

    I know it is Italy, but Cokanasiga just looks like he is running at small children. It is Lomu-esque.

    Well, the BBC is delirious.

    I think England should only play Italy.

    It makes the BBC commentators so happy.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,211

    Floater said:

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

    Because there was no positive case to be made for staying - none at all.
    That's just silly. Of course there was a positive case, namely that the EU brings economic benefits, extra rights for UK citizens, and magnifies UK power on many fronts. As we will find out if and when we leave, those benefits are very considerable, compared with the alternative.
    Actually the positive case for leaving seems to have been abandoned long ago. These days it's just about being bound by the 'will of the people' and the need to avoid riots/terrorism from hardliners feeling aggrieved.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,162

    It makes the BBC commentators so happy.

    On ITV...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 23,688

    Blame the wanky MPs who voted to trigger A50. And the wanky MPs who couldn't put a coherent case for staying in the EU. Blame the wanky MPs who have done such a shite job of running the country that people felt they wanted their voice heard. No, let's blame Putin instead.

    +1
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,609
    Scott_P said:

    It makes the BBC commentators so happy.

    On ITV...
    There is this top secret thing called the BBC web page.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 23,688
    No Spurs - you cannot have Ole !!!!!!!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,376
    edited March 9
    BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said it might have been possible for the government to get the baby out of Syria, although that could have been "politically difficult".
    "The government's position that it's impossible to go and get people out of these camps because it's too dangerous is repeatedly shown to be not entirely accurate, because journalists are able to get to these camps relatively safely.
    "Working with the Red Crescent there for example, it should be possible to go and get people from the camps - if there was a political will."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    If you run a million simulations of this 6 nations, I think England would win the most.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299

    No Spurs - you cannot have Ole !!!!!!!

    Mourinho off to Madrid apparently
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 23,688
    Pulpstar said:

    No Spurs - you cannot have Ole !!!!!!!

    Mourinho off to Madrid apparently
    They are welcome to him
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,047
    nico67 said:

    And here’s an interesting issue .

    Let’s say Banks gets charged and the UK hasn’t left the EU yet .

    In the jury you’ll have a mix of Remainers and Leavers . How on earth do you cope with any bias . A guilty verdict would of course strengthen calls for another vote , non guilty helps to stop some of that momentum .

    Because Brexit has become such a fundamental issue for many on both sides how can jury members really separate that and just look objectively at the evidence . I know many cases can be subject to some jury bias but this one would be difficult to overcome .

    A Diplock Court would be ironically appropriate
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,882
    edited March 9

    Floater said:

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

    Because there was no positive case to be made for staying - none at all.
    That's just silly. Of course there was a positive case, namely that the EU brings economic benefits, extra rights for UK citizens, and magnifies UK power on many fronts. As we will find out if and when we leave, those benefits are very considerable, compared with the alternative.
    Actually the positive case for leaving seems to have been abandoned long ago. These days it's just about being bound by the 'will of the people' and the need to avoid riots/terrorism from hardliners feeling aggrieved.
    Indeed. According to this article, 90% of Leavers polled close to the referendum thought that Brexit would improve the economy, but that’s now ancient history. Almost nobody now thinks that, not even Minford.

    https://www.ft.com/content/ebaeebcc-3f9b-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44

    The unstable nature of Brexit, the fact that it bears little resemblance to promises made, *and* the “Putin problem” - all make good reasons for a confirmatory public vote on May’s Deal.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297

    Floater said:

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.

    Officially neutral. Shame the leader of that party wasn't.

    It's simply sour grapes by Remain. They outspent, where allowed to outspend and had virtually every mainstream politician behind them, and they still lost.

    Because there was no positive case to be made for staying - none at all.
    That's just silly. Of course there was a positive case, namely that the EU brings economic benefits, extra rights for UK citizens, and magnifies UK power on many fronts. As we will find out if and when we leave, those benefits are very considerable, compared with the alternative.
    Actually the positive case for leaving seems to have been abandoned long ago. These days it's just about being bound by the 'will of the people' and the need to avoid riots/terrorism from hardliners feeling aggrieved.
    Well, that's fair enough really. The decision has been made. We had a referendum and all that, so we shouldn't be raking over the old coals. Or at least, that would be the case if the ERG and friends hadn't decided that they don't like an orderly Brexit after all, having promised one; they've effectively re-opened the question, idiots that they are.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,301
    The question is what is the most legitimate way to get out of this whole mess.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,006
    An extraordinary article

    What a guy!
  • No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
    Yes - well there's officially neutral and practically neutral. I don't remember receiving a letter from HMG extolling the benefits of leaving the EU. Come to think of it I think the original flyer back in 1975 made some pretty creative use of the English Language. - so the original referendum should be abolished and the UK reimbursed all the money paid to 'the Common Market' under false pretences.
    I can't see the words "Ever closer Union" in that tweet.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,367
    Am at a loss as to what Italy bring to this Championship. They look OK with the ball in hand, but without it they are dreadful, particularly in the three quarters. They are getting less rather than more competitive.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688

    No, the header is, I would suggest, sour grapes.

    The whole establishment was behind Remain and millions in taxpayers' money was spent on persuading the us including the HM Government leaflets.

    No it wasn’t. The governing party of the country was officially neutral and most of their activists were campaigning for it.
    Yes - well there's officially neutral and practically neutral. I don't remember receiving a letter from HMG extolling the benefits of leaving the EU. Come to think of it I think the original flyer back in 1975 made some pretty creative use of the English Language. - so the original referendum should be abolished and the UK reimbursed all the money paid to 'the Common Market' under false pretences.
    I can't see the words "Ever closer Union" in that tweet.
    The words "grow ever closer" and "United States of Europe" weren't enough for you?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 23,688
    IanB2 said:

    The question is what is the most legitimate way to get out of this whole mess.

    That is a fair question. Remain may be optimal but I fear without leaving it would be just wrong

    BINO after an extension with the possibility of re - joining at sometime in the future if conditions and attitudes change may well be the best outcome
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299

    I know it is Italy, but Cokanasiga just looks like he is running at small children. It is Lomu-esque.

    How big are his hands :o
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,819
    edited March 9

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,138
    IanB2 said:

    The question is what is the most legitimate way to get out of this whole mess.

    Any way that means we actually leave would be legitimate. Any of the forms of leave on offer are legitimate even if some are rather daft.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,306
    Process story. Doesn’t resonate.

    Which is lucky for the LDs, given they’re regularly fined, including for the referendum:
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/liberal-democrats-fined-18-000-over-eu-referendum-campaign-breaches-11177197
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688
    edited March 9

    IanB2 said:

    The question is what is the most legitimate way to get out of this whole mess.

    Any way that means we actually leave would be legitimate. Any of the forms of leave on offer are legitimate even if some are rather daft.
    The referendum mandate would be delivered if the UK ceased to be a member of the EU. A united Ireland would do the trick, and then Great Britain can decide what to do next.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,394
    During the next referendum it should be made clear to the public that Putin really, really wants us out of the EU.

    Voters should ask themselves why...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Russian bot" is analogous to "outlier".
    Poster whose opinion I don't like / Opinion poll I don't like
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,394
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    I think Banks would make a great Toad in a Wind in the Willows adaptation.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,367
    The article is clear. Nobody knows.
    It is, however, wryly amusing, in a grim way, that it is the writer of 2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
    Bet he's getting paid more than that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    Why are they bothering with Tulip Siddiq ?
    She'll follow Corbyn whatever he says I think, or possibly break the whip on the remain side.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,910
    brendan16 said:

    I sometimes wonder how different the last two and a half years might have been if Andrea Leadsom had not dropped out of the leadership race. On polls amongst activists she is now seen as the most popular Cabinet minister. Could she really have done a worse job than May I now wonder - at least she would have believed in what she was doing. She might easily have had a better team at the top too e.g. Gove as Chancellor.

    A question of what ifs i suppose.

    Still if she thinks we are going to get a deal signed off by 29 March she is going to be rather busy as Leader of the House - even if the Commons and Lords sat for 24 hours a day for the next 3 weeks I doubt they could achieve that - let alone with the EU parliament and the 27 member states having a say.
    Some of us said as much at the time. Of course we were very much shouted down by people who thought May was brilliant, largely because they fondly hoped she would stop us leaving.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,570
    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Name names.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 247
    I seem to recall Remain getting the then President of the United States to make a statement in their favour, if that isn't foreign interference I don't know what is and what about the government leaflet that wasn't part of remains' expenditure?

    I helped run the Leave campaign in my town and the marginal constituency voted narrowly for Leave, we did it by holding public meetings to explain our position, door to door leafleting and holding street stalls where we explained our case to people and gave out literature.

    There were two black men and one Indian woman involved and everyone else, about 30 of us was white British, there were no Russians, not one and we got paid nothing.

    In contrast the Remain campaign here was led by a man who lives here but who is I believe, an Italian national.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 374

    It's a very significant problem that, even supposing there was genuine dodginess and this is discovered by said theoretical inquiry, it'll automatically be dismissed by a great many people due to the current political atmosphere coupled with the fact that both sides have, to be blunt, talked a lot of shit about a great many things, to the extent that the view one has of things is often now determined not by what is said by the prism through which the hearer listens.

    A sentence almost worthy of Thucydides, though I suspect he could've got a few more clauses in.

    And a subject worthy of Thucydides is how the issue of Brexit became uniquely difficult because on a binary issue millions and millions of political moderates voted for each side on an issue where there had to be a winner and a loser, and thus large numbers of moderates started treating other moderates as if they were extremists.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,162
    DeClare said:

    we did it by holding public meetings to explain our position, door to door leafleting and holding street stalls where we explained our case to people and gave out literature.

    How much of it explained stockpiling food and medicine, 24 mile queues at Calais, Honda closing and Irish reunification?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 595
    The thing is, to be frank we're entering an era where this kind of murky bullshit is just going to be a fact of all future campaigns, elections, politicking in general. Shady people pumping shady money into shady campaigns to further their own shady agendas. Social media is a complete boon for this, it's practically tailor made.

    I'm not saying we don't try to stop it or at least quantify its impact, but if we say the EU referendum was illegitimate for this it's going to be hard to say any future elections in the near term have any legitimacy, and I say that as a Remainer.

    Besides, how many votes were actually changed compared to how many people's existing worldviews and voting intentions were merely reinforced by whatever dodgy stuff they happened to encounter.

    The real problem with the EU referendum was the level of the campaigning on both sides was abysmal and the level of the media scrutiny of both campaigns was no better.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    I know it's 0-0 but the gulf between Man City and Watford looks to be about 2 divisions, not 1st and 7th in the Prem
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,214

    Perhaps we should have an investigation into this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.

    Well look at the bright side. You have twenty days to find out if that's true. Unless the Government has done such an enormous fuckup that we have to delay our exit for an indeterminate period. I mean, how stupid would that be....

    [cries silently]
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 374
    Both sides ran such a dreadful campaign in 2016 that any thoughtful voter had to work out their position for themselves from first principles. Perhaps the result reflected exactly that.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,786

    brendan16 said:

    I sometimes wonder how different the last two and a half years might have been if Andrea Leadsom had not dropped out of the leadership race. On polls amongst activists she is now seen as the most popular Cabinet minister. Could she really have done a worse job than May I now wonder - at least she would have believed in what she was doing. She might easily have had a better team at the top too e.g. Gove as Chancellor.

    A question of what ifs i suppose.

    Still if she thinks we are going to get a deal signed off by 29 March she is going to be rather busy as Leader of the House - even if the Commons and Lords sat for 24 hours a day for the next 3 weeks I doubt they could achieve that - let alone with the EU parliament and the 27 member states having a say.
    Some of us said as much at the time. Of course we were very much shouted down by people who thought May was brilliant, largely because they fondly hoped she would stop us leaving.
    Leadsom’s another leaver who Duncan-Smithed a CV, isn’t she?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,340
    As against Anne Applebaum's WaPo conjectures in the header there is this:
    https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/judge-crushes-remainers-claims-referendum-result-invalid/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,910
    Personally I think the Leave campaign was a shambles, and during the referendum we were treated daily to Remainers telling us what a shambles it was. Now they're grasping at this particular straw, apparently the Leave campaign was a work of inhuman occult genius.

    If the Leave campaign was that good, why didn't it manage to win in the Scottish Highlands (where it nearly won) thus utterly taking the wind out of the 'Scotland voted Remain' argument. Surely a bit of Putin's money and some of these magical Facebook ads could have done that?
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 247
    Scott_P said:

    DeClare said:

    we did it by holding public meetings to explain our position, door to door leafleting and holding street stalls where we explained our case to people and gave out literature.

    How much of it explained stockpiling food and medicine, 24 mile queues at Calais, Honda closing and Irish reunification?
    None of course, project fear was Remains' losing gambit. Incidentally over 9000 betting shop jobs are predicted to be lost later this year and this is nothing to do with Brexit but because of the nanny state, some people might try to blame Brexit however like they did in the case of jobs at Honda.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,910
    matt said:

    brendan16 said:

    I sometimes wonder how different the last two and a half years might have been if Andrea Leadsom had not dropped out of the leadership race. On polls amongst activists she is now seen as the most popular Cabinet minister. Could she really have done a worse job than May I now wonder - at least she would have believed in what she was doing. She might easily have had a better team at the top too e.g. Gove as Chancellor.

    A question of what ifs i suppose.

    Still if she thinks we are going to get a deal signed off by 29 March she is going to be rather busy as Leader of the House - even if the Commons and Lords sat for 24 hours a day for the next 3 weeks I doubt they could achieve that - let alone with the EU parliament and the 27 member states having a say.
    Some of us said as much at the time. Of course we were very much shouted down by people who thought May was brilliant, largely because they fondly hoped she would stop us leaving.
    Leadsom’s another leaver who Duncan-Smithed a CV, isn’t she?
    I remember there being a lot of chortling on here that she'd overegged one of her corporate roles. It didn't cut much ice with me. She comes over well, is competent and on top of her brief, and seems to believe in what she's doing. These attributes were clear at the time as they are now.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,786

    matt said:

    brendan16 said:

    I sometimes wonder how different the last two and a half years might have been if Andrea Leadsom had not dropped out of the leadership race. On polls amongst activists she is now seen as the most popular Cabinet minister. Could she really have done a worse job than May I now wonder - at least she would have believed in what she was doing. She might easily have had a better team at the top too e.g. Gove as Chancellor.

    A question of what ifs i suppose.

    Still if she thinks we are going to get a deal signed off by 29 March she is going to be rather busy as Leader of the House - even if the Commons and Lords sat for 24 hours a day for the next 3 weeks I doubt they could achieve that - let alone with the EU parliament and the 27 member states having a say.
    Some of us said as much at the time. Of course we were very much shouted down by people who thought May was brilliant, largely because they fondly hoped she would stop us leaving.
    Leadsom’s another leaver who Duncan-Smithed a CV, isn’t she?
    I remember there being a lot of chortling on here that she'd overegged one of her corporate roles. It didn't cut much ice with me. She comes over well, is competent and on top of her brief, and seems to believe in what she's doing. These attributes were clear at the time as they are now.
    That’s a yes, then.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,768
    viewcode said:

    Perhaps we should have an investigation into this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.

    Well look at the bright side. You have twenty days to find out if that's true. Unless the Government has done such an enormous fuckup that we have to delay our exit for an indeterminate period. I mean, how stupid would that be....

    [cries silently]
    The forecast was for after a Leave *vote*, so it's case closed and the forecast was wrong.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,910
    matt said:

    matt said:

    brendan16 said:

    I sometimes wonder how different the last two and a half years might have been if Andrea Leadsom had not dropped out of the leadership race. On polls amongst activists she is now seen as the most popular Cabinet minister. Could she really have done a worse job than May I now wonder - at least she would have believed in what she was doing. She might easily have had a better team at the top too e.g. Gove as Chancellor.

    A question of what ifs i suppose.

    Still if she thinks we are going to get a deal signed off by 29 March she is going to be rather busy as Leader of the House - even if the Commons and Lords sat for 24 hours a day for the next 3 weeks I doubt they could achieve that - let alone with the EU parliament and the 27 member states having a say.
    Some of us said as much at the time. Of course we were very much shouted down by people who thought May was brilliant, largely because they fondly hoped she would stop us leaving.
    Leadsom’s another leaver who Duncan-Smithed a CV, isn’t she?
    I remember there being a lot of chortling on here that she'd overegged one of her corporate roles. It didn't cut much ice with me. She comes over well, is competent and on top of her brief, and seems to believe in what she's doing. These attributes were clear at the time as they are now.
    That’s a yes, then.
    No, that's the answer you got. I neither know, nor care, whether Leadsom exaggerated her CV. If your measuring stick for future PMs is that they've never done or said anything snigger worthy, you have a shortlist of zero. You've simply proven the point that Remainers here never gave a fig about the political qualities of May vs. Leadsom, it was all through a lense of Brexit. Which is an utterly cretinous way to select a PM.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,814
    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Hello, PClipp! I am posting this message from a nice big dacha overlooking my troll farm just outside the Russian spa town of Novosunilsk!
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 161
    Desperate stuff Mike. You lost despite 40 years of membership, the Government, all the major political parties and the great and good all lined up on your side. It was an open goal (which is why Cam called it) and your still managed to blow it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,601
    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Please provide the names.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,609
    edited March 9

    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Hello, PClipp! I am posting this message from a nice big dacha overlooking my troll farm just outside the Russian spa town of Novosunilsk!
    I am another Russian troll. I don't want roubles.

    Vladimir has just promised me use of the same bed in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton used by President Trump, as well as services of the same urinating prostitutes,

    You're too smart for us, PClipp !!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,601
    viewcode said:

    Perhaps we should have an investigation into this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.

    Well look at the bright side. You have twenty days to find out if that's true. Unless the Government has done such an enormous fuckup that we have to delay our exit for an indeterminate period. I mean, how stupid would that be....

    [cries silently]
    We already know its not true as there wasn't a year long recession immediately after the Leave vote.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136

    PClipp said:

    Telling voters that they were conned by Russian money or Aaron Banks is a mug's game, especially since they almost certainly weren't. The reasons people voted Leave are well known, and the campaign by Dominic Cummings was, I'm sorry to say, brutally effective, making full use of the levers available to him. It was dishonest, of course, but no more so than (say) Labour's 2017 GE campaign. That's politics.

    If you sink to the level of Labour`s 2017 campaign to set your standards, Mr Navabi, you are sinking low indeed.

    In passing, how many Russian bots have we posting on this thread today? I think there are at least four.
    Hello, PClipp! I am posting this message from a nice big dacha overlooking my troll farm just outside the Russian spa town of Novosunilsk!
    I am another Russain troll. I don't want roubles.

    Vladimir has just promised me use of the same bed in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton used by President Trump, as well as services of the same urinating prostitutes,

    You're too smart for us, PClipp !!
    I'm Spartacus.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,047
    dixiedean said:

    The article is clear. Nobody knows.
    It is, however, wryly amusing, in a grim way, that it is the writer of 2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
    Bet he's getting paid more than that.
    Although they spent a lot of words connecting him to the BNP despite both parties to the story completely and utterly denying it
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,432
    Interesting piece by Mike. Certainly, it’s worthy of investigation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,419
    DeClare said:

    I seem to recall Remain getting the then President of the United States to make a statement in their favour, if that isn't foreign interference I don't know what is and what about the government leaflet that wasn't part of remains' expenditure?

    I helped run the Leave campaign in my town and the marginal constituency voted narrowly for Leave, we did it by holding public meetings to explain our position, door to door leafleting and holding street stalls where we explained our case to people and gave out literature.

    There were two black men and one Indian woman involved and everyone else, about 30 of us was white British, there were no Russians, not one and we got paid nothing.

    In contrast the Remain campaign here was led by a man who lives here but who is I believe, an Italian national.

    Other countries are fully entitled to have a view on another country's internal matters, and may choose to state that view if they think it is in their interests. That's legal, and it's being open.

    These accusations involve acts that were hidden, closed, and quite possible illegal.

    There's a world of difference, and it's quite crass to suggest they're the same.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,367
    Charles said:

    dixiedean said:

    The article is clear. Nobody knows.
    It is, however, wryly amusing, in a grim way, that it is the writer of 2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
    Bet he's getting paid more than that.
    Although they spent a lot of words connecting him to the BNP despite both parties to the story completely and utterly denying it
    I am prepared to believe it is a coincidence.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 315
    These process focused arguments are not getting anywhere. If you are going to argue against the result of the referendum from a liberal democratic perspective you have to focus on the “liberal” bit as the “democratic” bit was lost. Most liberal democracies have rules protecting the majority from depriving the rights of the minority. There may be (at some point) 52% of the US population that wants to establish Christianity as the state religion, or remove the right to bear arms, but they are not going to be able to do that without overcoming some serious hurdles that a simple plebiscite could not.

    Unfortunately our constitution has been seemingly amended on the hoof - we have Parliamentary Sovereignty apparently EXCEPT for this referendum, which we are told must be abided by at all costs, even in the face of Parliamentary opposition and the potential damage to the populace that didn’t vote for it. The view of the minority, and the harm it may cause them, is irrelevant.

    In truth, we are in a position where no one knows where, domestically, where sovereignty lies. Legally, Parliament is sovereign. Politically, it is taken as axiomatic that on this occasion it was delegated from Parliament to the people. But surely you can’t delegate sovereignty temporarily on one issue? If this delegation is permanent shouldn’t it be formally expressed somehow? Cameron has thus created a massive constitutional mess.

    Traditionally Parliament has inbuilt checks, the Lords on the Commons, both on the Crown, the Crown in both Houses etc. Now the Commons has primacy and it has thrown away its right to govern to a result that is, as this board shows, open to massive interpretation as to its ending. As a lawyer, I take not being a signatories to the Treaties of Union as abiding by the result of the referendum but I am told that is not necessarily, if it is in the guise of some form of Norway option, respecting the will of the people. If the legal definition is not correct then what IS the will of the people? If you want the will of the people to be sovereign!, and you can’t agree what their will is, then ask them again a more detailed question about outcome. But a Second Referendum is seemingly out of the question - so the arguments continue.

    All this shows to me that we need some form of constitutional convention to sort this mess out. A proper constitutional settlement might be able to reintroduce some checks on the ability of the majority to make damaging changes without jumping some hurdles (eg a super majority, a comfirmatory vote, or preferably a ban on referendums) that would enshrine the sort of liberal democracy that Mike (and I) seem to want.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,432
    Dixie

    The Six Nations should have incorporated relegation and promotions several seasons ago. Georgia are far superior to Italy and have won the European Rugby Championship in seven out of the last eight seasons. They have nowhere to go. How are they supposed to develop?

    The blazers insist on keeping the 6N a closed shop presumably because the fans enjoy an annual trip to Rome.

    The set up is anti competitive - the antithesis of sport - it is embarrassing.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,609
    I think If I was Remainer, and I wanted the result overturned, I would return to Cameron's deal and try and get the EU to improve it somewhat.

    The result was close, and I think if there is a new deal that improves the terms of Cameron's, it is reasonable to put it before the people and it might well pass.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,601
    _Anazina_ said:

    Dixie

    The Six Nations should have incorporated relegation and promotions several seasons ago. Georgia are far superior to Italy and have won the European Rugby Championship in seven out of the last eight seasons. They have nowhere to go. How are they supposed to develop?

    The blazers insist on keeping the 6N a closed shop presumably because the fans enjoy an annual trip to Rome.

    The set up is anti competitive - the antithesis of sport - it is embarrassing.

    There's a lot of truth there but it wasn't too long ago that Scotland finished last and France have done so once as well.

    Having Italy relegated might be acceptable the blazers but they wouldn't want to risk that happening to any of the other nations.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,214

    viewcode said:

    Perhaps we should have an investigation into this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

    The Treasury forecast which said there would be a certain year long recession immediately after a Leave vote.

    Well look at the bright side. You have twenty days to find out if that's true. Unless the Government has done such an enormous fuckup that we have to delay our exit for an indeterminate period. I mean, how stupid would that be....

    [cries silently]
    We already know its not true as there wasn't a year long recession immediately after the Leave vote.
    I think it was said that the forecast assumed that the vote and departure would be contemporaneous.
This discussion has been closed.