nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

And I cannot improve on this take on May's statement:

https://twitter.com/HeatherKatzUK/status/978740096378683392

murphaph

It really is a Sir Humphrey statement. Amazing they have got themselves into this mess.

Enzokk

Brexit should really have been easy for the UK. No-one set out what it would look like. The architect and leader of Brexit didn't put his name in the hat to lead the country during the process so Theresa May can still do anything she like. She should have triggered article 50 to leave the EU, joined the EEA (if they were open to that option of course) and taken the hit that would have entailed.

The following years could have been spent finding out what people wanted and if it was possible. They could have tightened immigration controls as per the rules, could have taken control of their blue passports and we would be in a similar situation than now I think.

But somehow here we are. The UK has no idea what it wants, how to get what it wants and lurches forward unsteadily like they have had a massive night out and need to walk home. They could get their safely, they could just stumble a little or there is a real possibility they will walk in the road into traffic.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is whether this is a softening-up for a UK request to extend the transitional period, or a softening-up for a UK request to extend the Art. 50 notice period, or a softening-up for something else.

Customs union?

Professor Moriarty

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section:

Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section: Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section:

Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

We are through the looking glass. I despair. I lost for words. Strange thing is that few of the ordinary folk that this PR puff piece is aimed at read the telegraph.

demfad

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/978571073003409408.html https://twitter.com/DArcyTiP/status/978599720976371712

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/978585897573732352

Here is a threadreader with the main points from Wylie's testimony.

If anyone watches this or the relavent segments they will be left in no doubt that Wylie has given proof to the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave engaged in a criminal conspiracy to launder money to AggregateIQ via other campaigns. The illegal act of campaign coordination is also exposed beyond doubt.
A few teasers:

AggregateIQ (like Cambridge Analytica) is SCL company (SCL Canada)
ASI Data (also used by Vote Leave) also SCL company
Nix, Bannon, Mercer pulling the strings behind all these companies
Vote Leave paid beLeave £625,000 which was paid on to AIQ via Vote Leave lawyers
DUP and Veterans for Britain also paid AIQ a company with no internet presence at the time.
Vote Leave/BeLeave/AIQ had shared drive for coordination
One of Vote Leave directors deleted 140 files off this drive to try and hide coordination after the EC investitaion started.
AggregateIQ had access to stolen Facebook data
Palantir employess worked with AIQ on Facebook data. (Palaantir Thiel is on Facebook board:ergo Facebook knew stolen data was errr still stolen))
Israeli Black ops firm 'Black Cube' used extensively by SCL/CA/AIQ for hacking, kompromat, blackmail
CA/AIQ raison d'etre is the stolen FB dataset
Kogan who wrote the ASI for dataset subsequently did similar work for Russian State
Nix engaged with Russian Oil firm linked to FSB (KGB). Gave them papers on work re influencing US elections and code etc.

Much more. He has evidence backing all his statements which he has handed to authorities.
There may be a shortened version out there. It's pretty incredible stuff. But all backed by evidence now more or less in the public domain.

This is not going to go away. People at the highest level in cabinet must have been aware of this conspiracy.

As Wylie himself said: If an athlete who wins a medal is caught cheating the medal is taken away from them.
What should happen if a campaign cheats to subvert an election?

trellheim

If anyone watches this or the relavent segments they will be left in no doubt that Wylie has given proof to the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave engaged in a criminal conspiracy to launder money to AggregateIQ via other campaigns. The illegal act of campaign coordination is also exposed beyond doubt.

Provide link to the law(s) alleged to be broken please.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

We are through the looking glass. I despair. I lost for words. Strange thing is that few of the ordinary folk that this PR puff piece is aimed at read the telegraph.

Its a sketch piece!

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Provide link to the law(s) alleged to be broken please.

Here is a good starting off point

https://www.politico.eu/article/activist-suggests-vote-leave-broke-spending-rules-in-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-boris-johnson-cambridge-analytica-facebook/

Here is more details of the law itself

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/candidate-spending-and-donations-at-elections

Basically, if true, it appears that the leave campaign broke rules in regard to campaign spending.

trellheim

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

Really Interested

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

Link to the Act which contains the rules on finance and participants. Funny it is easy to find as it’s called “European Union Referendum Act 2015”

seamus

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda;

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

Really Interested

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

The Referendum rule on spending, loans and expenses all set out in the 2015 Act.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

Yep. Difference here is that every MP will look at the Wylie recording.
They won't be able to pretend anymore. 3 QCs have looked at the evidence already and stated there is a Prime Facie case to answer base on it.

If they don't do something this will come out possibly after Brexit: and they can't say 'we didn't know'

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

I did say it was a starting point. Are you making the assertion that no rules were broken? or are you looking for information?

Skedaddle

In Ireland, this would probably lead to a Supreme Court case to overturn the results of a poll. In the UK, the status of this referendum as consultative and the lack of clarity around matters of constitutional law tend to make these kinds of things a whole lot fuzzier.

If the rules were broken and ignored the only logical conclusion is that you need to re-run the referendum on the basis of a clear, fair campaign.
It's that or just don't enforce the law because it's inconvenient.

I mean what's the point in having spending limits if they're not enforced.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

I did say it was a starting point. Are you making the assertion that no rules were broken? or are you looking for information?

Just for everyone a interesting bit in the 2015 Act

“2)In section 148 of the 2000 Act (general offences), the references in each of subsections (1) to (3) to any of the provisions of that Act include any of the provisions of this Schedule.”

This schedule relates to the finance rules, any breach that schedule is an offence as per the 2000 Act.

Havockk

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

I doubt this is going to change anything, principally for the reason that the powers that be have no interest in this changing anything.

This story illustrates just how badly the entire system has been corrupted. And if you doubt that just go right now and check for yourself how this story is being managed by the media. Bar the Guardian, and on the politics section of the Mirror hardly anyone is running with it. An attack on the very essence of democracy and it's not even newsworthy??

The DUP bit should be massive news in the North, but the story doesn't even appear on the Belfast Telegraph, which is just insane.

There is no fixing this, best anyone can do is strap in and enjoy the ride.

demfad

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.
It's significant that the board of SCL include former heads of MI5/MI6, huge establishment Tory donors etc. In other words the old grey deep establishment of the UK. At the report of the Commons committee on Wylie there was one Tory MP present.

Wylie's testimony was before the Commons committee, it's not a fleeting media story and it won't go away. The powers that be include the DUP who employed AIQ/CA/SCL during the referendum and the subsequent assembly election.

Silence from the Labour leadership...

GalwayMark

demfad wrote: »

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.
It's significant that the board of SCL include former heads of MI5/MI6, huge establishment Tory donors etc. In other words the old grey deep establishment of the UK. At the report of the Commons committee on Wylie there was one Tory MP present.

Wylie's testimony was before the Commons committee, it's not a fleeting media story and it won't go away. The powers that be include the DUP who employed AIQ/CA/SCL during the referendum and the subsequent assembly election.

Silence from the Labour leadership...

Yeah the collusion with one of Putin’s goons may been a precursor to some post brexit anti-eu alliance while passing on secrets of nato eu members notably the Baltic states.

Havockk

demfad wrote: »

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.

I thought you were taking the piss for I saw the story on BBC earlier. I just rechecked and it's been scrubbed. No mention AT all.

catrionanic

Not a mention of it in the headlines on BBC news at six. Headlines included the black cab rapist, plastic bottle charges, the funeral of that French policeman, the North Korean visit to China, and the Australian cricket cheating... but not a mention of the cheating in the Brexit referendum.

This is very very strange.

Zubeneschamali

catrionanic wrote: »

This is very very strange.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Capt'n Midnight

Havockk wrote: »

The DUP bit should be massive news in the North, but the story doesn't even appear on the Belfast Telegraph, which is just insane.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden

Political donations have traditionally remained secret in Northern Ireland because of the potential risks to the security of donors whose names might be made public.

Nice loophole, and it was abused.

Capt'n Midnight

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

And parliament can do what it wants regardless.

Really Interested

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

And parliament can do what it wants regardless.

What the 2015 Act said.

“1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.

Lawyers in 50 years may talk about this time as the point when parliament was no longer supreme.

Gerry T

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

Really Interested

Gerry T wrote: »

It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

Where in the 2015 Act was the word advisory used?