Brexit discussion thread II

listermint · 01-09-2017 02:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

If that is the argument are making then you clearly have not read up on the quantity or quality of what went on.

You diminishing it in such an off hand fashion tells me all i need to know.

I suggest you read up a tad more on it to be better informed than making off the cuff comments about a few people making comments on twitter.....

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 02:39PM

I'm not dismissing the effectiveness of it. It's clear that even without Russian interference, there's quite a large constituency of people who are eager just to hear what they want to be told. What I'm dismissing is the notion that you're somehow helpless in the face of it.

listermint · 01-09-2017 02:50PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm not dismissing the effectiveness of it. It's clear that even without Russian interference, there's quite a large constituency of people who are eager just to hear what they want to be told. What I'm dismissing is the notion that you're somehow helpless in the face of it.

No, i think you are dismissing the ability of a vast network of counter information to sway the tide of an election. I mean its not the first time information has been used to sway results its going on for centuries. But you are completely dismissive of this particularly because its core is Social.

It leads me to believe that you dont understand the power and invasive nature of social media. It quite literally is the only source of News for swathes of the populace, traditional formats are negated.

Its a propaganda delivery tool that is right in your pocket, and its evident that it actually manages to catch so called political leaders too. Easily fooled, and these are people that you would expect to have the gumption not to be taken for a fool with information posted by some innocuous twitter user.

I do indeed find it surprising that you can sweep this aside with easy considering its Military backing. Wars are not fought on the battlefield as they say.

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 02:55PM

listermint wrote: »

...It quite literally is the only source of News for swathes of the populace...

It's not. Other information sources haven't disappeared and indeed there's entire swathes of the population who don't even bother with Twitter or Facebook. If it is anyone's sole source of news, that's by choice, not by necessity.

listermint · 01-09-2017 02:56PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It's not. Other information sources haven't disappeared and indeed there's entire swathes of the population who don't even bother with Twitter or Facebook. If it is anyone's sole source of news, that's by choice, not by necessity.

You dont understand Social Media, That is evident.

Nate--IRL-- · 01-09-2017 02:57PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm not dismissing the effectiveness of it. It's clear that even without Russian interference, there's quite a large constituency of people who are eager just to hear what they want to be told. What I'm dismissing is the notion that you're somehow helpless in the face of it.

You are thinking terms of the Individual, when you should be thinking terms of the herd, so to speak.

Nate

demfad · 01-09-2017 05:19PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It's not. Other information sources haven't disappeared and indeed there's entire swathes of the population who don't even bother with Twitter or Facebook. If it is anyone's sole source of news, that's by choice, not by necessity.

The majority of voters in US/UK have facebook accounts etc/ etc.
It was well publicised in recent campaigns that Facebook was the main influencer in these campaigns.

Your argument seems to be that SM users could have chosen MSM etc.
But what of the people who actually chose MSM? Even staying away from the Express, Sun etc. lies about immigrants and Europe other MSM readers would have read about the NHS pledges without due criticism. They would have seen reports about the UK being able to unshackle itself from EU quotas and tariffs under WTO when this was an outright lie.
In the US they would have read a NYTimes story a week before the US election declaring the FBI had found no direct collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (a lie). They would have heard a story about Hillary Clinton selling US uranium to Russia. This story originated in the book/film 'Clinton Cash' which was produced by Steve Bannon with Rebekah Mercer as usual behind the whole project. Disinformation that probably was supplied with plausable detail from Russia in the paper of record for the US.
In the same publication you will hear climate reports from a climate denier who is there out of 'balance'.
On Irish media you might catch Marian Finnucane complaining about the deplorable treatment meted out to Trump by the media or that the Trump admin lineup was the greatest in world history.
The stories fake and real are constant, the medium changes. The amount of disinformation in the SM dwarfs MSM but then SM dwarfs MSM now.
The demise of investigative journalism has allowed the far right to undermine MSM reporting and call them liars, fake news, lugen presse or whatever.
Long term players like Mercer have been manipulating this landscape since Obama was elected on many fronts. Publications like Clinton Cash and others, the Citizens United ruling, Breitbart news, Cambridge Analytica, the enormous propaganda network, Russian disinformation and trolls.
Any user could not have known the array of propaganda weapons aligned against them.

I think its fair to say in a 52-48 advisory referendum, with all thses bad actors in play and monies actually paid to Mercer from ALL campaigns...that Brexit should be suspended pending an investigation.
What happened is no less than a subvertion of democracy.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 05:27PM

demfad wrote: »

I think its fair to say in a 52-48 advisory referendum, with all thses bad actors in play and monies actually paid to Mercer from ALL campaigns...that Brexit should be suspended pending an investigation.
What happened is no less than a subvertion of democracy.

Good evening!

There we go. The honest reason as to why you have an objection. You don't like the fact that the people voted for Brexit.

What would be a true subversion of democracy would be if the British Government backed out of following through with Brexit because they claimed it was an "advisory referendum". Ignoring the fact that the House of Commons voted it through on the understanding that it would be implemented.

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all. Tom Watson seems to think that staying in both could be a permanent outcome of the negotiation! They do have a wonderful ability of shooting themselves in the foot.

They come out with a fairly reasonable suggestion of staying in both for the transition and then say that they potentially won't leave at all. I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually deliver what the people voted for.

This is only weeks after the Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said it would be best to leave both the single market and the customs union and Jeremy Corbyn saying on live television that he would leave the single market. And after an election where they said they would be leaving both in their manifesto!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 01-09-2017 05:38PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?
....
Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Strawman argument. There was 2 very big court cases in the high court and the supreme court that concluded categorically that it was the parliament alone that could bring about Brexit and not the executive. You should have noted at the time that there was no mention of a requirement to Brexit based on teh referendum result. Perhaps you believe the courts are the enemies of the people also?

If you understand the above you understand that it is up to parlaiment alone to enact Brexit or not. It must consider the advice from the tight referendum but ultimately it must do what is right for the UK.
However, if evidence exists that all the campaigns colluded illegally to fool the people with lies and disinformation, with some actors colluding with a foreign power with hundreds of nuclear warheads pointed at British cities parliament might want to consider halting the process and investigating.

Just to give an example from TODAY of what Cambridge Analytica are about.
They were heavily involved in the Kenyan presidential election getting their man elected. Today the Kenyan supreme court ruled that the election was illegal and illigitimate and overturned the result and called a re-election.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/01/kenyas-supreme-court-declares-presidential-election-result-null/624115001/

blanch152 · 01-09-2017 05:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

There we go. The honest reason as to why you have an objection. You don't like the fact that the people voted for Brexit.

What would be a true subversion of democracy would be if the British Government backed out of following through with Brexit because they claimed it was an "advisory referendum". Ignoring the fact that the House of Commons voted it through on the understanding that it would be implemented.

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all. Tom Watson seems to think that staying in both could be a permanent outcome of the negotiation! They do have a wonderful ability of shooting themselves in the foot.

They come out with a fairly reasonable suggestion of staying in both for the transition and then say that they potentially won't leave at all. I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually deliver what the people voted for.

This is only weeks after the Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said it would be best to leave both the single market and the customs union and Jeremy Corbyn saying on live television that he would leave the single market. And after an election where they said they would be leaving both in their manifesto!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A few simple rules of politics:

(1) It's the economy, stupid
(2) Which way is the wind blowing?

It seems some Labour politicians are smarter than you give them credit for.

demfad · 01-09-2017 05:42PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all. Tom Watson seems to think that staying in both could be a permanent outcome of the negotiation! They do have a wonderful ability of shooting themselves in the foot.

They come out with a fairly reasonable suggestion of staying in both for the transition and then say that they potentially won't leave at all. I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually deliver what the people voted for.

The people voted for Brexit. If politicians do intend to go ahead with it then they must deliver the best outcome for the UK. This involves staying in the SM and CU if youre labour, or inventing a pretend CU and SM for dmage limitation if Tory.

ancapailldorcha · 01-09-2017 06:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

The only person who has said this is you. Nobody here has said that the British public are feeble. It's just a way for you to avoid engaging with the points that have been made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all.

This seems to be the best available course now that A50 has been triggered. I have yet to see any advantage of leaving the EU.

Jim2007 · 01-09-2017 07:05PM

The aim was to persuade big EU trading nations to put pressure on the EU Commission to start trade talks after the October EU summit but it seems that the end of the year now looks a more likely timescale.

Source

Did the seriously thing that any of the EU's trading partners would put them before the EU....

oscarBravo · 01-09-2017 07:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

The problem is, in this as in so much else that you've posted on this topic, that you're expressing this as an article of faith without offering anything in support of it.

Which is, ironically, exactly the root of the problem: the newfound idea that every opinion has equal validity. If someone sincerely believes something stupid, then that's every bit as valuable a belief as someone who believes something because they've invested time and effort into understanding it.

While I was waiting to have my car tested this morning I was subjected to the unsolicited opinions of some randomer who wanted to share his view that man-made climate change was a myth, because there was much more industry and pollution in the nineteenth century than there is now, and anyway the whole planet was buried under miles-thick ice millions of years ago.

Here's the thing: that guy is wrong. He thinks he's right, but he's not. His views are sincerely held, but they're incorrect. When those entirely misguided opinions of his determine how he'll vote in the future, he'll be voting on the basis of objective falsehoods.

Just today, the frigging Telegraph was still printing arrant nonsense about the EU banning powerful vacuum cleaners. Now, I don't think the people who write for and edit the Telegraph are idiots, which means they must be liars. The problem is that the people who read the Telegraph are taking their cue from people who are either idiots or liars, and that's a recipe for those readers making objectively bad decisions at the ballot box.

And that's the Telegraph, which has to at least pretend to give an occasional nod to journalistic ethics. Once you get to social media, the idiots and liars are poised to inherit the earth.

Chips Lovell · 01-09-2017 07:06PM

demfad wrote: »

The majority of voters in US/UK have facebook accounts etc/ etc.
It was well publicised in recent campaigns that Facebook was the main influencer in these campaigns.

Your argument seems to be that SM users could have chosen MSM etc.
But what of the people who actually chose MSM? Even staying away from the Express, Sun etc. lies about immigrants and Europe other MSM readers would have read about the NHS pledges without due criticism. They would have seen reports about the UK being able to unshackle itself from EU quotas and tariffs under WTO when this was an outright lie.

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

Jim2007 · 01-09-2017 07:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

What would be a true subversion of democracy would be if the British Government backed out of following through with Brexit because they claimed it was an "advisory referendum".

We know that the UK does not have a written constitution, but that does not mean you can make it up as you go alone! The UK has a sovereign parliament and therefore referenda are advisory and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. And that is a fact, no matter how much you'd prefer it not to be.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

No one said that the British voters are feeble but yourself. And as for democracy, you must learn to deal with that fact that the UK has a sovereign parliament that has full right to do as it seem fit on behalf of the Union until the next GE. And that includes joining EFTA and the EEA or attempting to withdraw A50 or what ever else it decides to do.

Sam Russell · 01-09-2017 07:18PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

When we have a referendum, we have a Referendum Commission that gets to inform the voters what the basic issues are. They produce a booklet sent to every home with a synopsis of the facts.

What happens if you vote Yes - Voting yes will mean there is a change in .....

What happens if you vote No - Everything remains as is and there will be no change.

Any arrant nonsense (like £350 million every week will go to the NHS) would be pointed out straight away and arrant nonsense - and this would be carried as a fact in all MSM. There was no attempt to have any arbitration or moderation of the campaign. No wonder lies were the currency of the campaign.

murphaph · 01-09-2017 07:27PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

Sorry but a lot of people are not sophisticated enough to even imagine that they are being targeted and manipulated on social media. This is not advertising like election posters on a lamp post. This is a clear attempt to plant seeds in swing voters minds. It's really quite sinister stuff.

These unsophisticated people have the vote and if you carefully target a relatively small number of them you can influence a poll like Brexit or the US elections. To me this is actually rather scary.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-09-2017 07:31PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just today, the frigging Telegraph was still printing arrant nonsense about the EU banning powerful vacuum cleaners.

Dyson , that well known supporter of Brexit is annoyed with the rule limiting vacuum cleaners to 900Watts. He's selling a 28W one with a peak of 100AW

Because it'll save the EU the equivalent of Belgium's household electricity the UK will almost certainly keep this directive.

If Brexit means more Chinese students to replace EU ones then Dyson will probably have another hissy fit.

Nate--IRL-- · 01-09-2017 07:36PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

You are missing the point - it is known collectively the electorate are susceptible to propaganda. Individuals don't matter. As a collective the electorate are swayed by very basic arguments that an individual may not be. It is herd mentality you aren't considering.

As such the new methods of disseminating propaganda to wider groups, specifically targeting those who look the most promising to be swayed, help feed an underlying narrative that the herd might follow.

This is nothing new - it has just stepped up a gear from what it was. The Individual is irrelevant.

Nate

Jim2007 · 01-09-2017 07:45PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

The thing is that if you are used to Irish or Swiss politics for that matter, you are in a different league to the UK/US voter! You are used to a different type of politics - voters listen to political debates not just party political broadcasts. They have access to independent factual information, they have an understanding of constitutional issues versus general elections and so on. In short they have a different tool set to work with when looking at FB, Twitter or what ever.

I doubt the average UK voter would even have the idea to ask the question was the government's act constitutional or not. And yet it is a question you'll find peppered throughout Irish/Swiss political reporting, along with conformance to EU regulations etc...

Capt'n Midnight · 01-09-2017 07:46PM

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.

If the UK is in the Customs Union then it has to accept the ECJ.

I can't see a parallel court AND a fully comprehensive FTA. Maybe for a much reduced trade agreement covering fewer items.

The EFTA Court pretty much rubberstamps ECJ decisions, it's what is was set up to do.

ambro25 wrote: »

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),

The patent nonsense is that the UK wants to continuing to use European Patents while rejecting the ECJ.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-09-2017 07:57PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

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.

The most favoured nation clause in WTO and most FTA treaties like CETA means that lots of third parties would get UK benefits.

So it could be very expensive for the EU to accede to UK demands without an awful lot in return.

ancapailldorcha · 01-09-2017 08:06PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

When we have a referendum, we have a Referendum Commission that gets to inform the voters what the basic issues are. They produce a booklet sent to every home with a synopsis of the facts.

What happens if you vote Yes - Voting yes will mean there is a change in .....

What happens if you vote No - Everything remains as is and there will be no change.

Any arrant nonsense (like £350 million every week will go to the NHS) would be pointed out straight away and arrant nonsense - and this would be carried as a fact in all MSM. There was no attempt to have any arbitration or moderation of the campaign. No wonder lies were the currency of the campaign.

We had a referendum commission in the UK for the Brexit vote. The government sent a pamphlet around to each household to the tune of £9 million. The commission set rules for the conduct of each campaign, the allocation of official designation and a £7 million spending limit for each.

I do not believe your comparison to Ireland is a fair one. If you take the SSM referendum for example, the exact result either way was known. The relevant text of the constitution was readily available as was the proposed change so people could vote on it.

The problem with the EU referendum was that either side was free to make up all sorts of lies and bogus claims without any objective info. The remain campaign focused on disseminating dour economic forecasts and expert advice while the leave side presented Brexit as a tonic for all the nations ills, both read and otherwise. Since these lies, mainly from the Leave side could not be disproven, they weren't. When doubt was cast upon them, we were told that people were fed up of experts or that they were biased or that they were elites or whatever.

Now the problem is that Brexit has become a quasi-religion with skeptics and remainers being treated almost as heretics with words like "undemocratic" and "elitist" being trotted out to attempt to silence any dissent. We can see the likes of Liam Fox already preparing to blame the EU and whomever for any problems because, ultimately they haven't a clue what they're doing and the only party providing any sort of clarity whatsoever is the purported enemy, Mr. Michel Barnier and his Brussels elite pals.

Sam Russell · 01-09-2017 09:27PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We had a referendum commission in the UK for the Brexit vote. The government sent a pamphlet around to each household to the tune of £9 million. The commission set rules for the conduct of each campaign, the allocation of official designation and a £7 million spending limit for each.

I do not believe your comparison to Ireland is a fair one. If you take the SSM referendum for example, the exact result either way was known. The relevant text of the constitution was readily available as was the proposed change so people could vote on it.

The problem with the EU referendum was that either side was free to make up all sorts of lies and bogus claims without any objective info. The remain campaign focused on disseminating dour economic forecasts and expert advice while the leave side presented Brexit as a tonic for all the nations ills, both read and otherwise. Since these lies, mainly from the Leave side could not be disproven, they weren't. When doubt was cast upon them, we were told that people were fed up of experts or that they were biased or that they were elites or whatever.

Now the problem is that Brexit has become a quasi-religion with skeptics and remainers being treated almost as heretics with words like "undemocratic" and "elitist" being trotted out to attempt to silence any dissent. We can see the likes of Liam Fox already preparing to blame the EU and whomever for any problems because, ultimately they haven't a clue what they're doing and the only party providing any sort of clarity whatsoever is the purported enemy, Mr. Michel Barnier and his Brussels elite pals.

I think the SSM referendum is a bad example.

Perhaps the ones relating to the EU or the one about Dail Committees powers of investigations. These were more complex. Also, the Referendum Commission made interventions, iirc.

solodeogloria · 01-09-2017 11:03PM

Good evening!

Jim2007 wrote: »

We know that the UK does not have a written constitution, but that does not mean you can make it up as you go alone! The UK has a sovereign parliament and therefore referenda are advisory and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. And that is a fact, no matter how much you'd prefer it not to be.

Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.

Jim2007 wrote: »

No one said that the British voters are feeble but yourself. And as for democracy, you must learn to deal with that fact that the UK has a sovereign parliament that has full right to do as it seem fit on behalf of the Union until the next GE. And that includes joining EFTA and the EEA or attempting to withdraw A50 or what ever else it decides to do.

I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 01-09-2017 11:41PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.

I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In short.

I disregard all the facts about collusion to undermine the referendum in the UK something which is heavily documented. A referendum that I supposedly voted remain in but am now the most ardent exit campaigner.

Perplexing to say the least.

If I was a writer this novel would get laughed at.

Gerry T · 02-09-2017 12:08AM

While I think discussing voter manipulation is off topic, the vote is finished, no going back...as a break from the subject matter it is an interesting element of what's happening to look at. My own opinion would be the govt did a very poor job of laying out what the pros and cons of brexit were. The leave side were also guilty of this as there campaign was built on romantic views of past glory..empire...self control. But throw in the mix of foreign (Russian) manipulation does show the power and strength of social media.
I had a chat one night, drink fueled where I took the position that people should not automatically have a vote, that each person should have to answer a number of questions relating to the subject matter of a vote so it can be demonstrated they have a basic grasp of what the vote is about. Essential my position (drunk) was if you don't know what's going on, you don't get to vote.
With what's happened in usa, UK and almost in France I'm starting to think voter "testing" is a good idea.
Now back on topic, irrespective of how we find ourselves in "brexit" theres no going back, I also believe the EU will benefit and prosper from the UK leaving and the UK, in time will also be happier as a stand alone country.
I'm coming to the conclusion that there is a power shift happening, the UK will not get free trade and will have to back down from their current position. The EU won't budge because it doesn't have to, but will give concessions in areas that hold no relevance.
Either way I've enjoyed reading all posts in this thread, thanks to Solo we've had a healthy debate. Time is short ane we will soon watch history unfold.

Rain Ascending · 02-09-2017 12:11AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

This is an interesting hypothesis. Note that it wasn't the question asked in the referendum, but there is anecdotal evidence that this was part of the thinking of many leave voters. But take back control of what? Immigration is definitely one item. For that reason, I suspect that the UK will be unable to stay in the single market. Neither the Conservatives or Labour will want to take the risk of incurring voter wrath that may come with signing up to free movement of people. There is also the side effect of avoiding the appearance of signing up to European regulation en masse.

The customs union is a different beast. How many in the UK really care about trade agreements? At the end of the day, despite the huge focus here in this forum on the topic, it is quite an esoteric topic. I could see the UK signing up to that, particularly with a Labour government.

If I'm wrong, however, and the Brexit purist view wins out and the staying in the customs union is ruled out, then that signals a very low tolerance for any kind of loss of control implied by international agreements. So, for example, the British body politic may then find it tough to ratify any trade agreement with any country because every UK interest group fighting their own corner in trade deals will successfully fly the "loss of control" flag for every concession yielded in negotiations.

Bottom line: any international agreement implies loss of control and the chlorinated chickens will come home to roost.

steddyeddy · 02-09-2017 12:33AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.

I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you voted remain, yet now you think the UK should "take back control". So not only has the vote changed your mind about wanting to stay in the EU, you now believe the UK had no control. No we see you're vigorously campaigning for a hard Brexit. An Irish man who's campaigning for Brexit because you believe the UK is being bullied.

Mate I don't know where to start. I try to debate everyone fairly, but I can only do that if the stance is credible.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments