Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007 · 31-08-2017 05:59PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's up to the UK to enforce it's own borders on it's own terms.

Not when they are asking us to rely on them no. In terms of both immigration and customs they have a long way to go before they can be trusted.

demfad · 31-08-2017 06:13PM

demfad wrote: »

In Trumps election we had hacking, fake news and the coordination and propagation of fake news by professional trolls and by delivering the correct fake news to the correct Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica is part of the Trump-Russia investigation for coordinating with Kremlin propaganda to put the disinformation/fake news into personalised ads on peoples facebook profiles. Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge as well as CEO of Breitbart.

At last, British media is starting to realise that the Russians may not have taken the Brexit campaign off.
.....
Two days ago the below article appeared in the Times. Just one Russian troll caused this much influence. Imagine what his 5000 friends got up to.

Hopefully the questions will now be asked around if and how Russia campaigned for Brexit and whom did they coordinate with?
Brexit and hard Brexit is Russian foreign policy after all.

Just to understand the significance of this troll and others: Here is a pretty definitive twitter thread highlighting its pervasive use and others like it (during Moscow work hours.) Again the troll responsible for teh large node of activity below (and others) was retweeted extensively by Farage and other pro Brexit actors.

https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/900159380984934401

ThisRegard · 31-08-2017 06:20PM

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

listermint · 31-08-2017 06:50PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

Said it all along this was a Russian conspiracy in the years in its making. To break up the EU.

These folks even create accounts across platforms that lie dormant for years only to use them in times of need to make it appear as a long term user.

Military grade planning.

Pay off. Brexit.

demfad · 31-08-2017 06:53PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

It was in the London Times. It should lead journalists to look at the stories that this account was peddling and seeing how these stories were later deciminated on twitter and Facebook. A little more research will lead to the massive propaganda network outlined below and how it amplifies fake and hyper biased news.

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b

As social media was reported to be forming an increasingly important part of the Trump-Russia FBI probe I am sure the FBI are all over it.

There is no British Intel investigation despite the fact that Mercer/Cambridge Analytica/Bannon/Breitbart/The propaganda network/Russian troll factory were all over Brexit as with the US election. There has been minimal media investigation although this may be changing.

Big US revelations spreading to Brexit might be a potential stimulus to a British investiagtion which would be a definitive nail in Brexits coffin.

All the elements are present, ALL leave campaigns effectively paid mercer money, official leave paid him HALF THEIR TOTAL.
The coordination just needs to be identified. It's digital, its there.

Capt'n Midnight · 31-08-2017 07:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is only so much value in restating my position again and again after each straw man.

1) I support an FTA with the EU and continuation agreements for existing external FTA's to preserve as much trade as possible.

2) I support new trade deals with other countries.

A FTA is not the FTA the UK already has.

Outside of a customs union FTA's are usually limited and both sides have exceptions. There may also be quotas. So at best the UK is looking at free trade on some things but not all.

I keep saying that apart from Food and Jet Turbines and Computers the UK's imports are very similar to the exports.

An optimist might say Quid Pro Quo , sharing of equals , free trade \o/

But a pessimist or an EU politician might think that "if we tighten the screws just a little we won't be risking competing jobs back home"

In the future I'd expect more EU rules on workers rights for imported goods, like they have had for years on abattoirs for imported meat. This may affect any competitive advantage the UK may gain from rolling back EU working time or health and safety rules.

kevthegaff · 31-08-2017 10:11PM

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

Sam Russell · 31-08-2017 10:24PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

The Russians are suspected of favouring Le Pen in the French Presidential Election (and interfering to boost her chances). That would have been a serious blow to the EU should she have been elected.

I think they operate on many levels - see what they are doing in the Baltic countries.

murphaph · 31-08-2017 10:25PM

Personally I think there's enough there to warrant a public inquiry. I mean the DUP thing alone is extremely suspicious.

Nody · 31-08-2017 10:29PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

Remember at the time there were talks of Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, Denmark etc. were going to follow as well. As it turned out it instead cemented the support for EU and will strengthen the support for years to come but at the time there were concerns.

Lemming · 31-08-2017 10:32PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

steddyeddy · 31-08-2017 10:37PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

Sam Russell · 31-08-2017 10:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

Water John · 31-08-2017 11:45PM

Journalists from Times and Politics.uk absolutely savaging the Brexit and Japan negotiations, on Sky News. As did reporter on ITV News earlier.
Now they were obvious remainers, but they really are having a go at Davis.

steddyeddy · 31-08-2017 11:54PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me. This is a game to them. They can afford to have a Brexit mindset as it won't be them that suffers as a result of this nationalistic folly.

Water John · 31-08-2017 11:59PM

Boris isn't haunted by the buffoonery but by Andrew Marr's 'you're a nasty, piece of work, aren't you'?

Junkyard Tom · 01-09-2017 12:06AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me.

They're kinda sold as loveable buffoons and eccentrics. Unfortunately for the British this isn't a dull sitcom featuring the 'hilarious' travails of the upper-middle class.

Jim2007 · 01-09-2017 07:16AM

Lemming wrote: »

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

On the other hand you have the EU in the process of build up an army capable of fighting two battle groups sized wars simultaneously. A military force that will not be obliged to come to the aid of the US or the UK should they go off war mongering in the middle east or where ever.

Peregrinus · 01-09-2017 07:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think it is a discussion for another day. Arbitration discussions are happening now as part of the initial discussions. The ECJ having direct oversight on anything to do with this agreement is manifestly unacceptable. You don't let one side have unilateral judgement in a deal. It is unprecedented for any deal with a third country.

Well, fine. If what the UK wants is a trade deal with the EU that looks like, say, the EU's deals with Canada or South Korea, that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction.

The thing is, though, I don't think that's the kind of trade deal the UK wants or needs. That would be signficantly more disadvantageous to the UK than the trade deal they now have, and it's not remotely realistic to think that the UK could make up for the disadvantages of this trade deal by doing whizz-bang-super trade deals with third countries. The UK negotiators know this. In teh UK's interests they really have no choice but to target a very good trade deal with the EU; not so much like the SK or Canada deals but, in selected areas and sectors at least, more like the kind of deal they now have.

And the kind of deal they now have, of course, involves ECJ jurisdiction.

I get why, for political and face-saving reasons, the May government has to be seen to have a problem with ECJ jurisdiction. But they also need to understand that the the EU has a problem with no ECJ jurisdiction. If the UK seeks a trade deal with involves the kind of access that to the single market that comes with ECJ jurisdiction, well, that comes with ECJ jurisdiction. There is absolutely no reason why the EU would be inclined to move on this; neither abstract principle nor naked self-interest suggest that they should.

The most the British can hope for here is a face-saving compromise; jurisdiction of the EFTA court, or jurisdiction of a parallel court set up exclusively to deal with the UK I(though, again, there is nothing in this for the EU and they will not agree to it easily, or without some significant concession in some other area to induce them). And that may be where we end up.

Thomas__ · 01-09-2017 07:35AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me. This is a game to them. They can afford to have a Brexit mindset as it won't be them that suffers as a result of this nationalistic folly.

Well straight to the point and one might forget to wonder about the motives of those who vote for the likes of Johnson & Co. After three rounds of negotiations, the Brits are still clinging on to their wishful thinking and still try to get started with trade deals before the essential matters are even negotiated. No progress so far and I expect that this will continue that way, up to the point when time is running out for them. Well, gives more waters on the mills of the SNP to champion for IndyRef2 in Scotland. The UK crashing out of the EU with no deal or even a bad deal won´t be acceptable for the many in Scotland and this will be good enough to strenghten the position of the SNP and thus gain a majority for an Independent Scotland. Best choice left for them to take, cos the alternative given the way the Brexiteers are "negotiating" will be a complete disaster.

Jim2007 · 01-09-2017 08:08AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The most the British can hope for here is a face-saving compromise; jurisdiction of the EFTA court, or jurisdiction of a parallel court set up exclusively to deal with the UK I(though, again, there is nothing in this for the EU and they will not agree to it easily, or without some significant concession in some other area to induce them). And that may be where we end up.

The problem is that the UK thinks the world revolves around them. They forget that the EU has other deals which are subject to the ECJ, such as the Swiss bilateral agreements. So you can bet that if the UK gets an exception, the Swiss will be seeking the same exception in their negotiations with the EU starting next year and so on.

steddyeddy · 01-09-2017 08:17AM

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I think there's enough there to warrant a public inquiry. I mean the DUP thing alone is extremely suspicious.

Frankie Boyle made an excellent point. In a developing country the DUP-Tory cash for votes would be called a bribe.

Panrich · 01-09-2017 08:30AM

I reckon if the Japanese were doing their job yesterday they would have told May and Fox that the only reason that several of their companies are based in the U.K. is as a gateway to the EU and that future deals will have to be based on that remaining the case.

Peregrinus · 01-09-2017 08:48AM

Panrich wrote: »

I reckon if the Japanese were doing their job yesterday they would have told May and Fox that the only reason that several of their companies are based in the U.K. is as a gateway to the EU and that future deals will have to be based on that remaining the case.

Future deals - which is to say, future trade deals between Japan and the UK - don't have to be based on that being the case.

But - and it's a big but - the utility of such deals to the UK will be affected by the UK's deal with the EU. Suppose that Japan and the UK negotiate a trade deal which offers very easy terms for Japanese investment in the UK. That in itself doesn't cause any investment to happen; investments will only happen if they are attractive to Japanese investors. And a Japanese investor will find it far more attractive to build a plant in the UK if the produce of that plant can be sold freely throughout the EU than it will if the plant is producing for the UK market only. Hence the UK needs both a deal with Japan that facilitates investment and a deal with the EU that makes investment in the UK attractive.

Reportedly, what they are targetting with Japan is a deal which parallels the just-negotiated Japan-EU deal - a deal which would, of course, already be in the bag for the UK, were it not for this tiresome Brexit decision. And, even if they get that deal, in order to benefit fully from it they need to negotiate with the EU a trade relationship to replace the trade relationship that they would automatically have, were it not for this tiresome Brexit vote.

In essence, Brexit gives the UK the freedom to try and negotiate trade deals which will repair some of the damage which Brexit threatens to the UK.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 09:48AM

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course I do. However, change in EU attitudes is going to take a lot more than a terribly weak party leader looking for concessions merely to placate the fanatics in his own party.

Why was going to Brussels weak? This is what leaders like Hollande and Merkel were doing all the time. I think the only difference between Britain's position and that of France and Germany is that Britain wanted less integration and France and Germany wanted more.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU has trade deals with over 50 countries. I highly doubt that this will be quicker.

Not all of these trade deals are free trade agreements. Many of them leave tariffs unchanged. You can see the details on the European Commission's website.

When it comes to free trade deals the EU have a knack of either scuppering them (as with TTIP) or dragging them out for a very long time (like CETA).

When you don't have to ratify every trade deal in 27 countries. No doubt this will get quicker.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You were just talking about representation. This would solve that. Not sure what your point with the 44% is. I've never disputed that.

You didn't answer my question about how being subject to the ECJ is in the British national interest. It obviously isn't. A bilateral deal should have equal representation of both parties and a third party.

The UK won't be permitted to sit on the ECJ after Brexit if it isn't a member of the EU.

On the 44% I ninja edited your post to deal with another poster.

demfad wrote: »

In Trumps election we had hacking, fake news and the coordination and propagation of fake news by professional trolls and by delivering the correct fake news to the correct Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica is part of the Trump-Russia investigation for coordinating with Kremlin propaganda to put the disinformation/fake news into personalised ads on peoples facebook profiles. Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge as well as CEO of Breitbart.

At last, British media is starting to realise that the Russians may not have taken the Brexit campaign off.
All 5 Leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ which is the backend and sister company to Cambridge Analytica. Official Leave paid thsi obscure Canadian tech company £3.5 million HALF their total expenditure. 2 former Cambridge bosses were on the official leave's campaign lead.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Farage's Leave.eu got 7 figure benefit in kind from Robert Mercer's Cambridge

Two days ago the below article appeared in the Times. Just one Russian troll caused this much influence. Imagine what his 5000 friends got up to.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thousands-of-twitter-users-deceived-by-russian-agent-david-jones-bv0c2ssj5

Hopefully the questions will now be asked around if and how Russia campaigned for Brexit and whom did they coordinate with?
Brexit and hard Brexit is Russian foreign policy after all.

In a two worded question - who cares? I definitely don't.

This comes from the same line of thinking that says that voters are too feeble to decide anything for themselves.

If that's true, we might as well just scrap elections and move back to single party rule.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A FTA is not the FTA the UK already has.

Outside of a customs union FTA's are usually limited and both sides have exceptions. There may also be quotas. So at best the UK is looking at free trade on some things but not all.

I keep saying that apart from Food and Jet Turbines and Computers the UK's imports are very similar to the exports.

An optimist might say Quid Pro Quo , sharing of equals , free trade \o/

But a pessimist or an EU politician might think that "if we tighten the screws just a little we won't be risking competing jobs back home"

In the future I'd expect more EU rules on workers rights for imported goods, like they have had for years on abattoirs for imported meat. This may affect any competitive advantage the UK may gain from rolling back EU working time or health and safety rules.

Obviously it isn't the same as single market membership. I accept that much. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat something everyone already understands.

The objective with EU trade seems to be to preserve as much of it as possible whilst looking to the wider world for increased trade. I think this is the biggest advantage of Brexit. Control over trade policy.

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

Yet, you've provided not a single good reason as to why or how seeking free trade deals with other countries is "fairy tale economics".

You need to start backing up your ad hominems with substance.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

The Conservatives have seats in Wales and Scotland. Hardly regional. You could also say this about Labour, who also have a majority of their seats in England.

Again, this seems to be just an argumentum ad hominem. Encouraging a good business environment is good for everyone, dealing with the deficit is good for everyone. The working class voted for the Conservatives in increasing numbers in the last election. Labour's vote actually increased amongst the middle classes.

Don't let the facts get in the way of the ad hominems though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fine. If what the UK wants is a trade deal with the EU that looks like, say, the EU's deals with Canada or South Korea, that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction.

The thing is, though, I don't think that's the kind of trade deal the UK wants or needs. That would be signficantly more disadvantageous to the UK than the trade deal they now have, and it's not remotely realistic to think that the UK could make up for the disadvantages of this trade deal by doing whizz-bang-super trade deals with third countries. The UK negotiators know this. In teh UK's interests they really have no choice but to target a very good trade deal with the EU; not so much like the SK or Canada deals but, in selected areas and sectors at least, more like the kind of deal they now have.

And the kind of deal they now have, of course, involves ECJ jurisdiction.

I get why, for political and face-saving reasons, the May government has to be seen to have a problem with ECJ jurisdiction. But they also need to understand that the the EU has a problem with no ECJ jurisdiction. If the UK seeks a trade deal with involves the kind of access that to the single market that comes with ECJ jurisdiction, well, that comes with ECJ jurisdiction. There is absolutely no reason why the EU would be inclined to move on this; neither abstract principle nor naked self-interest suggest that they should.

The most the British can hope for here is a face-saving compromise; jurisdiction of the EFTA court, or jurisdiction of a parallel court set up exclusively to deal with the UK I(though, again, there is nothing in this for the EU and they will not agree to it easily, or without some significant concession in some other area to induce them). And that may be where we end up.

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately. This is a different deal to what they have now.

The UK need to say no to the ECJ. It isn't reasonable to have a biased court sitting over UK affairs.

There is no point leaving the EU if Britain will have none of the benefits of doing so. That's key. The UK isn't going to simply roll over to the EU. It has to argue for the best outcome for the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 01-09-2017 10:01AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately. This is a different deal to what they have now.

Yes. In terms of free trade, it's a much worse deal than the deal they have now.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK need to say no to the ECJ. It isn't reasonable to have a biased court sitting over UK affairs.

Of course, if the UK completely leaves the Union, the single market and the customs union, there's no reason to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

But to the extent that the UK seeks to retain even partial participation in any of these arrangements, then obviously the question of jurisdiction of the ECJ does arise.

And if the reason for ruling out even partial participation in any of these institutions is to avoid the jurisdiction of "a biased court", well, it would be ludcrous, irrational and self-harming to proceed on that basis without some evidence of bias.

You've been asked before to produce evidence to back up this assertion of bias. I think you had any evidence, you'd have produced it by now.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is no point leaving the EU if Britain will have none of the benefits of doing so. That's key. The UK isn't going to simply roll over to the EU. It has to argue for the best outcome for the UK.

And here's the unresolved contradiction. You can rule out a priori any participation in the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Or you can seek the best outcome for the UK. But you can't do both. At some point, you're going to have to subordinate one of these objectives to the other.

LeinsterDub · 01-09-2017 10:01AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately.

This ultimately is a subtle put important change to your position.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 10:08AM

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the reason for ruling out even partial participation in any of these institutions is to avoid the jurisdiction of "a biased court", well, it would be ludcrous, irrational and self-harming to proceed on that basis without some evidence of bias.

You've been asked before to produce evidence to back up this assertion of bias. I think you had any evidence, you'd have produced it by now.

I've already explained that it is numerical bias. 27 against 0 isn't an arbitration court. 27 in favour of one side of the bilateral discussions.

This is a very good reason to reject any direct jurisdiction of the ECJ and to set up an arbitration panel instead.

I really don't believe that you'll get any movement on this from the UK. The domestic reaction would be something to behold.

There is a reason why third countries don't agree to this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And here's the unresolved contradiction. You can rule out a priori any participation in the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Or you can seek the best outcome for the UK. But you can't do both. At some point, you're going to have to subordinate one of these objectives to the other.

The best ultimate outcome is to leave the European Union, customs union and the single market from my standpoint with a transitional period.

You've misunderstood my entire position if you think I think that staying in the EU and all its associated groups is the best outcome for the UK.

The best outcome is a good free trade arrangement that covers most of the UK's current trade with the EU, and the ability to sign new trade deals and to gain control over Britain's laws and borders. Being chained to EU trade policy isn't a good outcome. Being under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ isn't a good outcome. Accepting free movement into perpetuity isn't a good outcome. And paying anywhere near €100bn isn't a good outcome.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This ultimately is a subtle put important change to your position.

No it isn't. I've always said that staying in the customs union or the single market for a transitional period is an outcome that I would accept provided that the UK leaves entirely after this period.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 01-09-2017 10:28AM

Lemming wrote: »

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

Russia's new strategy has been to destabilise democracies from the inside.
To do they manipulate existing situations and drive wedges into existing cracks strategically and in such a way as to achieve a desired result. On the US side, they were able to influence RW religeous groups in the US. They were able to accelerate the corruption of capitalism in the US and UK via money laundering through real estate, stock fraud etc. They were able to set up parrallel Russian groups such as the 'right to bear arms' to gain influence in the NRA. They were able to train (in Russia) and direct the US alt-right, secession movements in propaganda and the use of SM.
Crucially they were able to use ideological far right US billionaires and push them in the desired direction. Key among these were Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The father was a computer scientist, a genius who wrote a lot of the google analytics software and now runs the biggest hedge fund in the world (50 billion) that runs off his algorithms. If you wondered why typing 'Nazis are' into google got the top reply of 'good' until recently and now gets the reply 'left wing' look no further than Robert Mercer. He controls a vast network of servers designed to amplify and propagate far right messages, ultra biased and fake news. Once a user clicks on any links to these servers they can be followed around the internet and targetted with dark social media posts based on their personality to influence or suppress their vote. The fact that this network coordinated with Russian active measures is not in doubt in my mind. The Russians didnt have the US infrastructure to get the disinformation to targetted social media voters. The Mercers did via their big data firm Cambridge Analytica.

In Europe the Kremlin also trained and funded the far right and have interfered in several elections already. Many of the far-right groups (including UKIP) travelled to Crimea after its annexation to observe the plebiscite and declared it fair. Farage has done many appearances on Russia Today and has also over a decade been politically involved with the Mercers and their workers: Steve Bannon, Kelly Anne Conway, Dave Bossie (Citizens United). He has also been seen visiting Assange and Roger Stone around the times of the Clinton email dumps and he and main UKIP funder Aaron Banks are people of interest for the FBI in Trump-Russia.

Just to remind: ALL 5 leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ a small obscure Canadian tech company which holds the backend of Cambridge Analytica. Offical leave paid them £3.5 million which was HALF their total campaign allowance. Robert Mercer even owns the IPs for AgIQ (to make it more obvious.)

To put it bluntly Cambridge Analytica was all over this campaign and was paid illegally via AggregateIQ.
Brexit needs to be suspended pending a full investigation.
IMO the huge RW push for the hardest of hard Brexit is understanable knowing the above. RW policy is after all Kremlin policy.

Full details here and worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

Enzokk · 01-09-2017 11:12AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already explained that it is numerical bias. 27 against 0 isn't an arbitration court. 27 in favour of one side of the bilateral discussions.

This is a very good reason to reject any direct jurisdiction of the ECJ and to set up an arbitration panel instead.

I really don't believe that you'll get any movement on this from the UK. The domestic reaction would be something to behold.

There is a reason why third countries don't agree to this.

So your idea of bias is because of the numbers? It is nothing to do with the rulings that have been made, but because you think they will be biased. I think most people would consider the rulings before shouting bias. Seems like you judge way too quickly on appearance...sort of like not liking the judges because of their nationality, and not their work. I am sure there is a word for that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The best ultimate outcome is to leave the European Union, customs union and the single market from my standpoint with a transitional period.

You've misunderstood my entire position if you think I think that staying in the EU and all its associated groups is the best outcome for the UK.

The best outcome is a good free trade arrangement that covers most of the UK's current trade with the EU, and the ability to sign new trade deals and to gain control over Britain's laws and borders. Being chained to EU trade policy isn't a good outcome. Being under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ isn't a good outcome. Accepting free movement into perpetuity isn't a good outcome. And paying anywhere near €100bn isn't a good outcome.

Do you understand that leaving all the things you mention means you will not have a good free trade arrangement. This doesn't mean that a good deal cannot be struck, but the deal will not be as good as membership, which will leave the UK worse off.

Your point of view is very much, have my cake and eat it. I want the UK to leave the EU, single market, customs union, no ECJ involvement, but I want to have a FTA that covers most of the current trade. Do you not see the contradiction here? Or is everyone of note telling people it will not happen just messing the UK around for a bit of fun?

Michel Barnier wrote:

“When I read some of the papers David [Davis] has sent me on behalf of the British Government, in some proposals I see a sort of nostalgia in the form of specific requests that would amount to continuing to enjoy the benefits of the EU and the single market without being a part of it.

“As I said earlier, Brexit means Brexit. Leaving the single market means leaving the single market. If that is what has been decided, there will be consequences.”

UK wants 'impossible' Brexit deal and doesn't understand single market, says EU negotiator

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments