Brexit discussion thread II

Thomas__ · 01-09-2017 11:14AM

Meanwhile the prospect for an Independent Scotland re-joining the EU is still an Option:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-scotland-could-rejoin-eu-if-independent-say-germans-1-4548273

This all in the light of the Performance of the present UK govt in her Brexit negotiations.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/uk-approach-to-brexit-is-impossible-eu-negotiator-warns-1-4547493

The discontent within the Tory Party itself is growing, nothing new, but some already are to speak out frankly that they doubt the continuance of Mrs May as PM through the whole Brexit negotiation period up to March 2019.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, viewed as a potential candidate in any future Tory leadership contest, said the Prime Minister had his “undivided” support but former cabinet minister Nicky Morgan said it would be “difficult” for Mrs May to lead the party into the next election, due in 2022.And former party chairman Grant Shapps said it was “too early” for Mrs May to talk about going “on and on” like Margaret Thatcher, insisting it was for the party to decide how long she remained leader. He said it was “probably the case” that nobody wanted Mrs May to face Jeremy Corbyn at the ballot box again and added: “I think colleagues may well be surprised by this interview last night.” Ms Morgan told BBC’s Hardtalk that no leader wants to put a date on their departure in advance because it is a sign of “your own political mortality”.But she added: “I think it’s going to be difficult for Theresa May to lead us into the next general election.”

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/tory-mps-tell-theresa-may-she-can-t-go-on-and-on-1-4547913

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/tory-mps-tell-theresa-may-she-can-t-go-on-and-on-1-4547913

One might say that "Mrs May´s difficulty is Scotlands opportunity". This present cabinet won´t last that Long and the more time passes and the uncertainties remain for international employers and investors in the UK, the more the pressure will rise on this UK govt to get things done. But as I see it, they´re all not fit for solving anything and just keep reiterating the same things on and on and on, despite the facts told to them by the EU.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 11:20AM

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

No. It seems like I'm interested in the UK making the best decision here.

It's fundamentally unwise to subject yourself to a body where you do not have an equal say. This is why other third countries don't agree to it.

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

So every other trade deal that the EU has with any other country isn't "good"? Really, come on now. What basis do you have for this?

Enzokk wrote: »

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?

Again, South Korea, Canada and other countries have negotiated good free trade deals with the European Union. There's no reason why the UK cannot and should not do the same to come into effect after the transition period.

There isn't a contradiction because many other countries have good trade terms with the European Union.

Enzokk wrote: »

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

The EU have every right to reject Britain's terms on customs and on standards recognition. I agreed with every poster on here that the initial papers that they have published are highly aspirational.

There will of course be back and forth over the details.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thomas__ · 01-09-2017 11:20AM

Enzokk wrote: »

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

Brexiteers just like to take what they believe and dismiss all the Facts that stand in the way of their wishful thinking. All what you´ve mentioned in your post has been told to them for many times on and on, but still, they refuse to realise what Brexit really means in the consequences they´ll have to face. But alas, some people will just realise what they have done once they´ve jumped off the cliff and hit the ground, very hard I suppose.

This Brexit is the biggest farce ever in Brit politics and I can´t recall anything similar to that and Britain went through various crises since the end of WWII.

blanch152 · 01-09-2017 11:50AM

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/31/ryanair-may-brexit-deal-michael-oleary-uk-europe

I know it is Michael O'Leary but if I was a shareholder in a British airline, I would be worried by "O’Leary produced a document which had been circulated in Brussels showing that carriers including Air France-KLM and Lufthansa were demanding full regulatory convergence in any deal, and stopping all cabotage rights – meaning UK carriers such as easyJet would not be able to fly domestic routes within Europe."

If I was a Brexiteer, this bit would be concerning:

"Accused of being hysterical, he conceded he did “not really believe there will be disruption of flights in April 2019 – but only because Britain will roll over. It’s the whole myth of Brexit.”"

At the end of the day, a lot of us believe that Britain will roll over, and Brexit will mean EFTA.

Zubeneschamali · 01-09-2017 11:54AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is no point leaving the EU if Britain will have none of the benefits of doing so. That's key.

Since there aren't any benefits to leaving, logically you should stay.

Larbre34 · 01-09-2017 11:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, South Korea, Canada and other countries have negotiated good free trade deals with the European Union. There's no reason why the UK cannot and should not do the same to come into effect after the transition period.

There isn't a contradiction because many other countries have good trade terms with the European Union.

Its in the eye of the beholder what would be considered 'good'.

A die-hard political brexiteer like a John Redwood or Aaron Banks would consider a CETA style relationship to be perfectly sufficient, making provision for full border and immigration control and no joint legal sovereignty, save for agreed positions on commerce. Whereas for ordinary citizens, students, footloose UK/EU investors and FDI businesses needing seamless access back to the continent, that would be a complete disaster. It would in my opinion send the UK back to something of an economic dark-age, because like it or not the system is so intertwined and interdependent with the EU, that sort of a shock, uncertainty and a barren transition period could easily lead to the closure and migration of industries and commercials who need the wider market far more than just the UK domestic one and could operate just as well in Frankfurt or Prague or Limerick.

It is now very clear than the EU means to spite the UK, and not for spites sake, just to kill off any notions of others of the 27 following suit. And they have no reason not to do this, they hold all of the cards. No nation in the EEA, CETA-style or even WTO rules will have had to deal with being a single market member and then all of a sudden, not being and the EU has no reason to make that any easier on the UK.

All that is taking place now merely reassures me of the view I took the day after the referendum, that the UK will never in fact leave the EU and that all that takes place in the interim will merely damage the UK unnecessarily.

blanch152 · 01-09-2017 11:59AM

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.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The best outcome for the UK is to stay within the EU.

It is quite scary to realise how the UK establishment believes it can negotiate all the benefits of being in the EU without any of the costs or disadvantages. It is also perplexing that they don't realise the political importance for any voluntary club of ensuring that anyone who leaves is worse of as a result. It won't be about France and Germany punishing the UK, it will be about ensuring Poland and others don't follow.

There is a cost to UK business, UK society and the UK economy in leaving the EU. The sooner the UK government faces up to that and acknowledges it rather than pretending to have cake and eat it, the better for the process.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 12:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Since there aren't any benefits to leaving, logically you should stay.

Good afternoon!

You're clever.

My point is that Brexit needs to be a balancing act between gaining the benefits of leaving, while ensuring the best trade terms possible with the EU.

Staying in all of the EU's respective bodies and being subject to it's judgement isn't Brexit. This is where all this talk of "soft Brexit" is just a nonsense. It isn't Brexit at all. It's climb in the back door.

There is a deeper political philosophy behind this though. If the EU is interested in using bully boy tactics to try and coerce the UK into being subject to it then that simply tells us all we need to know about the EU. If you have to bully people to stay a part of your bloc, it isn't worth being a part of.

Cooperation should be based on mutual consent. Not on a coercive relationship.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 01-09-2017 12:22PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU is interested in using bully boy tactics to try and coerce the UK into being subject to it then that simply tells us all we need to know about the EU. If you have to bully people to stay a part of your bloc, it isn't worth being a part of.

Bye, WTO is over there.

demfad · 01-09-2017 12:28PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

Voters are manipulated by media and information about an election and it's candidates. It a foreign hostile power is replacing media with fake news and disinformation which is also being used and amplified by politicians this is of very great concern to a democracy.

If the voter cannot get access to reasonably truthful information or teh truthful information is buried and unidentifiable in an avalanche of plausable fake news and lies, then an informed decision is difficult to make.
THis means the candidate, party or cause of those spreading the disinformation can prevail.

Tied to these Russian trolls was the use of big data to incisively move the most relavent fake news for a voter into that voters social media profiles.

This is how kleptocraies, dictatorships and facist regimes gain support. It is not how democracy is supposed to operate. If you don't care, perhaps you should.

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 12:34PM

If a voter is getting their news from randomers on Twitter and news sites they've never heard of before, they've only themselves to blame.

ambro25 · 01-09-2017 12:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that Brexit needs to be a balancing act between gaining the benefits of leaving, while ensuring the best trade terms possible with the EU.

That's what it needs to be for the UK, granted. But then, the UK is not the only party to the issue, nor the only one with vested interests in the outcome of the issue.

You talk of 'numerical' bias in the ECJ (which is patent nonsense, and goes a very long way to show your lack of knowledge and understanding of Community law and practice), but the bias which you continually show towards the UK's unreasonable expectations is the proverbial plank in your eye, tbh.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a deeper political philosophy behind this though. If the EU is interested in using bully boy tactics to try and coerce the UK into being subject to it then that simply tells us all we need to know about the EU. If you have to bully people to stay a part of your bloc, it isn't worth being a part of.

I started responding to this bit with a considered and moderating answer, but you know what...in very simple terms, it's about time the EU started fighting back the UK bully.

The EU has done the classic schoolboy error of giving some pocket money here and some marbles there by way of ransom for too long: the EU EEC should have put the brakes on the UK's exceptionalism from day one, steadfastly so, rather than give the UK a rebate here, an opt-out there, and exceptions everywhere, time and again every time the UK asked.

Unsurprisingly, the UK has grown a "political philosophy" of entitlement after a while. After the UK asked for one exception too far with Brexit (particularly, all that the UK "wants" on the back thereof), these negotiations are its long-overdue "political philosophy" re-adjustment: the bullied is the bigger kid by far, and not afraid to land a punch or ten anymore.

Long may it continue.

Thomas__ · 01-09-2017 12:41PM

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that Brexit needs to be a balancing act between gaining the benefits of leaving, while ensuring the best trade terms possible with the EU.

That's what it needs to be for the UK, granted. But then, the UK is not the only party to the issue, nor the only one with vested interests in the outcome of the issue.

You talk of 'numerical' bias in the ECJ (which is patent nonsense, and goes a very long way to show your lack of knowledge and understanding of Community law and practice), but the bias which you continually show towards the UK's unreasonable expectations is the proverbial plank in your eye, tbh.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a deeper political philosophy behind this though. If the EU is interested in using bully boy tactics to try and coerce the UK into being subject to it then that simply tells us all we need to know about the EU. If you have to bully people to stay a part of your bloc, it isn't worth being a part of.

I started responding to this bit with a considered and moderating answer, but you know what...in very simple terms, it's about time the EU started fighting back the UK bully.

The EU has done the classic schoolboy error of giving some pocket money here and some marbles there by way of ransom for too long: the EU EEC should have put the brakes on the UK's exceptionalism from day one, steadfastly so, rather than give the UK a rebate here, an opt-out there, and exceptions everywhere, time and again every time the UK asked.

Unsurprisingly, the UK has grown a "political philosophy" of entitlement after a while. After the UK asked for one exception too far with Brexit (particularly, all that the UK "wants" on the back thereof), these negotiations are its long-overdue "political philosophy" re-adjustment: the bullied is the bigger kid by far, and not afraid to land a punch or ten anymore.

Long may it continue.

Spot on, very well said!

demfad · 01-09-2017 12:47PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If a voter is getting their news from randomers on Twitter and news sites they've never heard of before, they've only themselves to blame.

I dont think you understand how it works. This was no randomer. He had 100,000 followers and many of his tweets were rewteeted by politcians and other prominent people who are not randomers either.

Also this user and some of the several thousand other trolls and bots are able to make stories trend, influence twitter and this public debate. THis is reinforced when the likes of Cambridge analytica move targetted propaganda into people's personal profiles.

People believe what they constantly see. In this age much of the news people see and saw during Brexit may have been from less well known sites. We are all wiser after the fact.

Authoritarian regimes and results don't occur solely because people suddenly become stupid. It occurs because all the information they are receiving is confirming a certain worldview.

That is why there are laws ensuring freedom and truthfulness of the press. These laws have been subverted and failed utterly during Brexit and the US elections.

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 12:52PM

Having 100,000 followers on Twitter doesn't make you a credible source of information.

Lemming · 01-09-2017 01:02PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

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.

And you've missed the ball Jim. Not the US or the UK. Or the EU.

Russia.

In driving some wedges between the US, UK, Europe, and the EU, they have weakened not only an overall response to any Russian military adventures in Europe, but the speed of any response and more crucially the resolve to do so alongside Europe/NATO ability to respond in a manner that would make Russia think twice.

In any case, this isn't about whether or not the EU battle groups would come rushing to the aid of the UK or the US; that's not the sort of role they were intended for, nor do they come under "EU" command & control. Further, there is no EU army. Every attempt to create proposals to form such a structure has been opposed by member states. It is EU civil servants in Brussels (and the UK media) that keep trying to bang that particular drum.

ancapailldorcha · 01-09-2017 01:03PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The EU has done the classic schoolboy error of giving some pocket money here and some marbles there by way of ransom for too long: the EU EEC should have put the brakes on the UK's exceptionalism from day one, steadfastly so, rather than give the UK a rebate here, an opt-out there, and exceptions everywhere, time and again every time the UK asked.

Unsurprisingly, the UK has grown a "political philosophy" of entitlement after a while. After the UK asked for one exception too far with Brexit (particularly, all that the UK "wants" on the back thereof), these negotiations are its long-overdue "political philosophy" re-adjustment: the bullied is the bigger kid by far, and not afraid to land a punch or ten anymore.

Long may it continue.

Excellent post. However, the above is ultimately the issue in a nutshell. The EU tried to appease the UK with a rebate and other concessions. David Cameron tried to appease Tory paleosceptics with a referendum to prevent them from defecting to UKIP. Both appeasement policies failed because trying to appease fanatics by granting them concessions only serves to embolden them.

The risk of the EU playing hardball with the UK was the perceived loss of Sovereignty. With Brexit and the failure of the far right to dismantle the EU (ultimately what this was all about) means that the EU now has free reign to act in the interests of 27 with the kid gloves well and truly off. I hope it does so because the border issue in Ireland is of paramount importance and entirely of the British public's making.

demfad wrote: »

I don't think you understand how it works.

With respect, this is more reflective of yourself. If the populace wants to swallow a pile of easy answers offered by fanatics, idiots and lunatics and votes in that manner then it only has itself to blame.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 01:14PM

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Excellent post. However, the above is ultimately the issue in a nutshell. The EU tried to appease the UK with a rebate and other concessions. David Cameron tried to appease Tory paleosceptics with a referendum to prevent them from defecting to UKIP. Both appeasement policies failed because trying to appease fanatics by granting them concessions only serves to embolden them.

I think we need to avoid the use of "fanatics" in our discussions. Advocating for Brexit is a respectable position. Wanting to leave the European Union doesn't make you a fanatic. There are a number of reasons as to why someone might want the UK to leave.

It isn't helpful to use such hyperbolic language in a discussion like this one. Avoiding ad hominems is important to have a good discussion.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The risk of the EU playing hardball with the UK was the perceived loss of Sovereignty. With Brexit and the failure of the far right to dismantle the EU (ultimately what this was all about) means that the EU now has free reign to act in the interests of 27 with the kid gloves well and truly off. I hope it does so because the border issue in Ireland is of paramount importance and entirely of the British public's making.

Again, Steve Baker is one MP. There's no reason why he should be held up as representing every supporter of Brexit on this issue. To claim that Brexit was ultimately about destroying the EU is unfounded.

On the border issue the UK are committed to respecting the Good Friday agreement at the highest level. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting the facts.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

T
With respect, this is more reflective of yourself. If the populace wants to swallow a pile of easy answers offered by fanatics, idiots and lunatics and votes in that manner then it only has itself to blame.

Again, this language is very unhelpful. There were and are several reasons why someone might want to leave the EU.

There's no reason why people who sincerely voted according to their consciences should be referred to in this light.

Again, the expected u-turn to remain in the EU is a pipe dream. The UK is leaving, and in my view, the sooner this process is over, the better.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 01-09-2017 01:16PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

<...>

The risk of the EU playing hardball with the UK was the perceived loss of Sovereignty. With Brexit and the failure of the far right to dismantle the EU (ultimately what this was all about) means that the EU now has free reign to act in the interests of 27 with the kid gloves well and truly off. I hope it does so because the border issue in Ireland is of paramount importance and entirely of the British public's making.

With respect, this is more reflective of yourself. If the populace wants to swallow a pile of easy answers offered by fanatics, idiots and lunatics and votes in that manner then it only has itself to blame.

The practical problem as I see it, lies in the self-conflict between your two paragraphs: you cannot expect much of the British public to realise and accept its role in relation to the border issue in Ireland (and all the other issues derived from 'Brexit', immediate or longer-term), nor to consider blaming itself in any measure for those, when Brexiteers à la May, Davis, Fox, Johnson (and Farage and others before them) continually shovel the "pile of easy answers" in the complicit broadsheets and which, by the evidence of the 2017 GE results, still enough of the British public is swallowing wholesale a year on.

They've been mushroomed about the EU by the political class for too long, simple as. And over a year from the referendum, and the 'fessing up of the more blatant lies (£350m) peddled in the referendum campaign, they still are. And still lapping it up.

I don't see it as a political problem solvable within the tic-toc'ing Article 50 timescale, either. One of the reasons why I expect a harder form of Brexit to happen regardless, and also why I believe Davis, Fox and consorts are getting busy lining up the EU for scapegoating: WTO terms and a benign fiscal environment is what they -their taskmasters, at any rate- are ultimately after. In that context, 'negotiations' are a maskirovka for the gallery, so much the domestic one as the overseas one. Davis just has to make them last long enough to pass PR muster/scrutiny.

Enzokk · 01-09-2017 01:34PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the border issue the UK are committed to respecting the Good Friday agreement at the highest level. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting the facts.

Michel Barnier has already pointed out that the single market aims from the UK is not feasible. I think you will find the border issue may just be as much pie in the sky thinking from the UK. They want to continue the CTA, but want to stop the free movement of people. That isn't happening, as you cannot control or stop the free movement of people and have the CTA.

Can you see the difficulty with the UK stance?

ancapailldorcha · 01-09-2017 02:03PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think we need to avoid the use of "fanatics" in our discussions. Advocating for Brexit is a respectable position. Wanting to leave the European Union doesn't make you a fanatic. There are a number of reasons as to why someone might want the UK to leave.

You're erecting more of your strawmen. I was referring to the likes of Farage and Banks.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, Steve Baker is one MP. There's no reason why he should be held up as representing every supporter of Brexit on this issue. To claim that Brexit was ultimately about destroying the EU is unfounded.

Except that it isn't when you look at the rhetoric used by the Leave side.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, the expected u-turn to remain in the EU is a pipe dream. The UK is leaving, and in my view, the sooner this process is over, the better.

You're being disingenuous again. You know that this wasn't my point.

ambro25 wrote: »

The practical problem as I see it, lies in the self-conflict between your two paragraphs: you cannot expect much of the British public to realise and accept its role in relation to the border issue in Ireland (and all the other issues derived from 'Brexit', immediate or longer-term), nor to consider blaming itself in any measure for those, when Brexiteers à la May, Davis, Fox, Johnson (and Farage and others before them) continually shovel the "pile of easy answers" in the complicit broadsheets and which, by the evidence of the 2017 GE results, still enough of the British public is swallowing wholesale a year on.

They've been mushroomed about the EU by the political class for too long, simple as. And over a year from the referendum, and the 'fessing up of the more blatant lies (£350m) peddled in the referendum campaign, they still are. And still lapping it up.

I don't see it as a political problem solvable within the tic-toc'ing Article 50 timescale, either. One of the reasons why I expect a harder form of Brexit to happen regardless, and also why I believe Davis, Fox and consorts are getting busy lining up the EU for scapegoating: WTO terms and a benign fiscal environment is what they -their taskmasters, at any rate- are ultimately after. In that context, 'negotiations' are a maskirovka for the gallery, so much the domestic one as the overseas one. Davis just has to make them last long enough to pass PR muster/scrutiny.

I remember asking you once who was to blame for the Daily Mail; the consumer or the people who make it. If you say that people were lied to you get told as I was earlier in this thread that you're saying that they're stupid.

Ultimately though, people voted for this. They were lied to but there was plenty of information around about the border at the time. I don't know what to make of it and my opinion on the subject does change periodically.

listermint · 01-09-2017 02:03PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If a voter is getting their news from randomers on Twitter and news sites they've never heard of before, they've only themselves to blame.

Im sorry mate, but thats the most idiotic viewpoint i have ever heard.

Case in point when there is a specific Media blackout during elections yet these trolls and Twitter and news sites are able to operate outside of these blackouts with Gusto.

That is not democracy, and no people dont have themselves to blame. The blame lies solely with the government and the referendum/election oversight of the day.

Its neither fair nor just for this to be allowed and quite frankly the fact that none of this concerns Solo the single man reformed 'stayer' tells me that he never really cared much for remaining anyway.

Its not democracy and needs full investigation just as what is going on in the US right now. There is collusion involved here at many levels and the people that are going to pay for it all are the ordinary worker not those with the money behind it that will be shielded from the consequences.

Nate--IRL-- · 01-09-2017 02:17PM

It's only propaganda - it is that it has the ability to be tailored in detail and targeted to individuals now, making it much much more effective and cheaper to implement.

Previously information channels were controlled by States (broadcast licensing etc) to limit outside influence. These days this no longer applies, and very effective propaganda machines are able to thrive in areas that are no longer able to be regulated.

There is nothing explicitly illegal about it though. I'd posit that this is one of the major factors behind the calls for Internet regulation we see in the UK for instance.

Nate

demfad · 01-09-2017 02:20PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Having 100,000 followers on Twitter doesn't make you a credible source of information.

You are absolutely correct it doesn't. We know that now. But that is not the point.

For your standard punter during Bengazi, Brexit, US election a 'person' with 100,000 followers on twitter indicates that a lot of people consider you a credible source of information. If well known personalities and politicians retweet this user regularly it adds even more credibility to them and their stories are propagated via the followed politician/personality anyway. If these stories start to trend on twitter then further reinforcement to credibility is added. You may say that people shouldn't believe what they see on twitter. But mainstream news outlets report on twitter trends, tweets etc.

Even for people who don't buy into this user or the other 5000 human bots like him, or the millions of auto-bots. Even if they don't believe it the noise from these stories makes the truth harder to find, it makes previously believable sources less believable. It weakens the value of information and therefore weakens democracy.

And when your politicians play along. Lying blatantly and swearing false stories are true, and true stories are false. Further saying that sources with integrity are liars, always lie, purvey fake news and should not even be considered...what then?

People's sources of information needs protection, and their truthfulness needs protection. This has been eroded over decades particularly in the US and UK.

The biggest weakness in western democracy is the needs of the corporations/billionaires is at odds with the needs of society/State and often the rule of law. This has been ultimately what has been manipulated by Russia and others.

Our test in Ireland may come yet.

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 02:21PM

listermint wrote: »

...yet these trolls and Twitter and news sites are able to operate outside of these blackouts with Gusto...

The point is that nobody's being forced to read them. Nobody's being brainwashed. It's not like North Korea, where the only information available is propaganda.

As a voter, it's not that difficult to make an informed decision in this day and age.

If you're the kind of person who heeds the words of a man you've never heard of before just because they have 100,000 followers on Twitter, the problem is you, not the government and perhaps the best solution to that problem is to make people live with the consequences of their own idiocy.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 02:23PM

listermint wrote: »

Im sorry mate, but thats the most idiotic viewpoint i have ever heard.

Case in point when there is a specific Media blackout during elections yet these trolls and Twitter and news sites are able to operate outside of these blackouts with Gusto.

That is not democracy, and no people dont have themselves to blame. The blame lies solely with the government and the referendum/election oversight of the day.

Its neither fair nor just for this to be allowed and quite frankly the fact that none of this concerns Solo the single man reformed 'stayer' tells me that he never really cared much for remaining anyway.

Its not democracy and needs full investigation just as what is going on in the US right now. There is collusion involved here at many levels and the people that are going to pay for it all are the ordinary worker not those with the money behind it that will be shielded from the consequences.

Good afternoon!

How do you regulate this and how do you distinguish between an individual poster on Twitter and someone from any other place with an intention to manipulate the outcome? In a sense anyone who comments on politics on any form of media is looking to manipulate the outcome in their favour.

I think people have brains and are able to make their own conclusions. That is very much democracy.

I never said I didn't care about staying in (at the time). What I did say is that I personally don't care if a few people in Russia happen to comment on Twitter. I don't consider it massively significant.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- · 01-09-2017 02:27PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The point is that nobody's being forced to read them. Nobody's being brainwashed. It's not like North Korea, where the only information available is propaganda.

As a voter, it's not that difficult to make an informed decision in this day and age.

If you're the kind of person who heeds the words of a man you've never heard of before just because they have 100,000 followers on Twitter, the problem is you, not the government and perhaps the best solution to that problem is to make people live with the consequences of their own idiocy.

To be fair propaganda has always worked on the populace. And it isn't just a twitter user with a large following alone that will sway a person. Imagine all the online advertising / news-links they see being tailored to a certain viewpoint.

The people engineering online propaganda are paid to get results, and going by the figures quoted for what they do, it seems they are rather good at it. Then you have the State-sponsored organisations pushing their objective too.

For you to dismiss the effectiveness of this is wrong IMO.

Nate

Billy86 · 01-09-2017 02:33PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The point is that nobody's being forced to read them. Nobody's being brainwashed. It's not like North Korea, where the only information available is propaganda.

As a voter, it's not that difficult to make an informed decision in this day and age.

If you're the kind of person who heeds the words of a man you've never heard of before just because they have 100,000 followers on Twitter, the problem is you, not the government and perhaps the best solution to that problem is to make people live with the consequences of their own idiocy.

What if you heed the words of known politicians or public figures that you are well known to you?

Because plenty of them were parroting these same lines and fake stories/claims of real stories being fake, probably quite often knowing what they were doing to their own benefit.

listermint · 01-09-2017 02:33PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The point is that nobody's being forced to read them. Nobody's being brainwashed. It's not like North Korea, where the only information available is propaganda.

As a voter, it's not that difficult to make an informed decision in this day and age.

If you're the kind of person who heeds the words of a man you've never heard of before just because they have 100,000 followers on Twitter, the problem is you, not the government and perhaps the best solution to that problem is to make people live with the consequences of their own idiocy.

Interesting you keep going back to the 100,000 followers when it has been proven this individual was retweeted and used as a credible source of information by Politicians on the Exit side.

Its not the 100,000 followers of 1 twitter user that is key here, its the use of that persons propaganda (because that is what it is)

Your argument falls flat when put in the context of being credibly used by People in power in government. These people are expected to be knowledgeable in the subject matter so the voters can make an informed view on the topic.

demfad · 01-09-2017 02:35PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It's only propaganda - it is that it has the ability to be tailored in detail and targeted to individuals now, making it much much more effective and cheaper to implement.

Previously information channels were controlled by States (broadcast licensing etc) to limit outside influence. These days this no longer applies, and very effective propaganda machines are able to thrive in areas that are no longer able to be regulated.

There is nothing explicitly illegal about it though. I'd posit that this is one of the major factors behind the calls for Internet regulation we see in the UK for instance.

Nate

It is illegal in the UK for campaigns to co-ordinate with eachother:
-- All 5 campaigns hired an obscure tech firm called AggregateIQ source.
--Official Leave paid £3.5 million half their allowance to this firm.
--AggregateIQ is the backend and sister company to big data firm Cambridge Analytica. When one is hired, the other is hired.
-- Robert Mercer: Owner of Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart news and the money behind Donald Trump actually owns the IP addresses that AggregateIQ use.
--Leave.eu used Cambridge Analytica throughout their campaign with a benefit in kind of a 7 figure sum. It was a reported as a 'favour' from Mercer to Farage but..lies...and benefit-in-kind anyway.
--Officla leave employeed two of Cambridge Analyticas top people to work on the campaign.
--Cambridge analtyica coorordinates with fake news sites and servers to amplify fake news and to find out details on users. CA also subcontracts the use of 100,000 of bots. In short CA colludes with the Kremlin. source

This doesnt even count what the DUP got up to.
But yes, plenty illegal to see here including treason.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments