Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 08:52AM

I think Farage is wanting his cake and want to eat it as well. If he has a pact with the Tories he wins a seat most likely and sits in the HoC, if they decline and the Tories lose the election then the UK most likely doesn't leave the EU and he keeps his EU MEP job. It is a win win for him.

Edit: Just came across this tweet.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171691602772996097?s=20

Another casualty of proroguing parliament, PayPal gets to miss out on questioning and their role in funding the Brexit Party and the likes of Katie Hopkins spewing hate, but will now not have to testify.

11-09-2019 09:14AM

Enzokk wrote: »

And here is a small thread from Carole Cadwalladr about these same tactics in 2017.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171540235257352192?s=20

It is a little depressing really that I know already how to spell her surname as well, I wish I didn't have to as the assault on our personal data for personal gain of others should really concern us all. The plan for Cambridge Analytica/SCL was to win government contracts on projects that would allow them to have access to people's information which they in turn would harvest and use in upcoming election. But now the fox is in the hen house and he has access to it all, or at least it trying to get it.

'The Great Hack' is a good Netflix documentary to watch for those uninitiated with Cambridge Analytica and/or Carole Cadwalladr. It's not a perfect watch, but it demonstrates just how our data is being weaponised today for political gain and private profit.

It's quite eye-opening to see how these people operate. It's the kind of stuff which would be confined to ludicrous conspiracy theories, only you have one former CA/SCL COO and CFO recounting the company's methods throughout the documentary, plus their ongoing chief recorded on hidden camera in a meeting with a potential client bragging about how CA (or SCL) delivered results in a previous foreign election. He goes into examples about videoing political opponents with prostitutes and using the footage for blackmail purposes. Bribery is also discussed.

What SCL pulled in Trinidad and Tobago with the 'Do So' campaign among young Afro-Caribbean voters (increasing apathy, encouraging them to be 'heard' by staying at home and not using their vote) was enough to deliver that election to their clients, the United National Congress who were mostly Indian.

Election and voter manipulation is in a golden age, and the next UK General Election is going to be peak. If Cummings is demanding the prioritisation of this data collection, you can see the method to victory he is planning. Photoshops of JFC, language like "Surrender Bill" and jokes about chlorinated chicken are for the front pages and those voters not in the online sphere. The real battle and concentration will be on finding appropriate demographics online and bombarding them with a very honed and specific message.

Thankfully Carole Cadwalladr is busy, but we need many more of her.

farmchoice · 11-09-2019 09:18AM

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2019 09:27AM

farmchoice wrote: »

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

SFAIK the suggestion is that they received donations through Paypal, and that those donations were intentionally broken down into a large number of small donations so as to avoid a requirement to disclose large donations, and that Paypal records and data will show that this happened. I don't think that there is any suggestion that Paypal itself made any donations, or that it was complicit in a plan to evade disclosure obligations; just that it was the vehicle through which the perpatrators did this , and so its records contain the relevant evidence.

VinLieger · 11-09-2019 09:29AM

farmchoice wrote: »

regarding the above story about katie hopkins and paypal. am i right in thinking that what happened here is that Hopkins and the brexit party were asking for and presumably receiving donations from ''people'' through paypal.

or is it a case that paypal were themselves as a company making donations to them?

if its the latter then its obviously pretty shocking. if its the former the accusation seems a bit of a stretch. while both Hopkins and the BP are not my cup of tea, in any kind of democracy they should be allowed to campaign and spew their vile retoric and raise funds, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

A private corporation being made to enforce their TOS and rules has nothing to do with stifling free speech or stopping people fundraising.

Its similar to Gemma OD and youtube, she broke the rules, twice, so her channel was shut down, she claims this is anti free speech but they as a private corporation have no legal obligation to provide her a platform

farmchoice · 11-09-2019 09:42AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK the suggestion is that they received donations through Paypal, and that those donations were intentionally broken down into a large number of small donations so as to avoid a requirement to disclose large donations, and that Paypal records and data will show that this happened. I don't think that there is any suggestion that Paypal itself made any donations, or that it was complicit in a plan to evade disclosure obligations; just that it was the vehicle through which the perpatrators did this , and so its records contain the relevant evidence.

right that makes sense so Paypal are being less then forth coming in revealing their data.

who was asking them for it, was it just journalists who were conducting an investigation or was it some state agency. I'm assuming it was not part of a police investigation.

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 09:43AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Farage presumably knows this. So what he is doing here is the appearance of making an offer to the Tories with the intention that in fact no pact will result.

Which tells us what the Brexit Party are going to do at the next election. They have decided the Tories are not going for No Deal, so they can run against them and bleed off Brexit voters.

This will hurt the Tories and let in Remain parties, Brexit won't happen, and Farage can run a Brexit Party (under whatever name) until he retires. The suckers who kicked in £100 a month to fund his Party get what they deserve.

listermint · 11-09-2019 09:44AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A hard border was not voted on.

The referendum was a simple in/out of the EU question.

Literally nothing else was voted on.

Not the single market, not the customs union, not trade deals, not the NHS, not deregulation, not immigration.

That's how Leave won and why Leave campaigners abandoned the project of coming up with a realistic Brexit proposal some years before 2016, and were as vague as they possibly could be and promised the sun, the moon and the stars to everybody.

Half analysis and not entirely accurate.

The leave campaign was entirely based on leaving the EU whilst retaining all the benefits. That was their manifesto. It was what they said in interviews it's what the distributed in print and in social media.

Basically everything will stay the same but we will be out of the EUs rules controls. Anything else is project fear.

So people voted on the status quo with no EU a simple but false message.

It wasn't a simple out message as you have tried to paint here.

josip · 11-09-2019 09:48AM

The bridge suggestion is so farcical I can't believe that even the politicians are managing to keep straight faces while it's being mentioned.
A £20bn estimated cost now will inevitably go the same way as HS2, which has doubled in cost since first proposed from £30bn to £60bn.
HS2 could be seen as making London more accessible for how many, 10 million people ?
A NI bridge would make Scotland and Northern England more accessible for 1 million people.

The Channel Tunnel, serving all of the UK, France and Benelux did not have a viable business case and had to be bailed out.
There won't be a bridge across the Irish Sea in even my grandchildren's lifetimes.

Boris couldn't even get a bridge across the Thames built.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2019 09:49AM

farmchoice wrote: »

right that makes sense so Paypal are being less then forth coming in revealing their data.

who was asking them for it, was it just journalists who were conducting an investigation or was it some state agency. I'm assuming it was not part of a policy investigation.

I would imagine Paypal has privacy obligations to its customers, both arising out of its standard terms of contract and imposed on it by GDPR and similar legislation in other jurisdictions. Their position would presumably be "We can't share this data with you unless legally compelled to. Subpoena, please."

(At least, I hope that would be their position.)

J Mysterio · 11-09-2019 10:01AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Meanwhile it looks like the Tory-BXP pact will come at a higher cost than many imagined:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171540275975602176?s=19

Johnson would be unwise to accede to this IMO. I think Farage is overestimating his chances but even so, an accord would mean curtailing a potential Conservative victory.

The whole point of Boris 'going hard' on Brexit was to avoid the need to compromise with Farage and his Brexit Party. They should rightly tell them to bugger off, particularly as if (when) it all falls apart, to be in a political pact with these degenerates would be absolutely damning and would taint the Tories for a generation. They will probably be in the wilderness at the end of this anyway (when Brexit comes home to roost) but no need to make it even worse.

The' party of business', the 'unionist party', the 'safe pair of hands'.

I really think they have already damaged themselves so thoroughly that Labour will be in, at least in a coalition.

At any rate, most of the BXP candidates are close to unelectable, even by some of the worst deplorables. Where they stand against familiar names and faces with an actual background in politics and with actual policies and ideas... I can't see them doing well.

I'm imagining BXP candidates canvassing and I can't see how that will go well at the doors of anyone but the dimmest, stupidest most uninformed.

BXP: 'We're going to make sure we leave the EU!' (gurning Liz Truss face)
Voter: 'What then? What are your policies'?
BXP: 'All that matters is getting out!'

Surely these schmucks have to release a manifesto at some point. That's when they get further into trouble.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 11-09-2019 10:04AM

josip wrote: »

The bridge suggestion is so farcical I can't believe that even the politicians are managing to keep straight faces while it's being mentioned.
A £20bn estimated cost now will inevitably go the same way as HS2, which has doubled in cost since first proposed from £30bn to £60bn.
HS2 could be seen as making London more accessible for how many, 10 million people ?
A NI bridge would make Scotland and Northern England more accessible for 1 million people.

The Channel Tunnel, serving all of the UK, France and Benelux did not have a viable business case and had to be bailed out.
There won't be a bridge across the Irish Sea in even my grandchildren's lifetimes.

Boris couldn't even get a bridge across the Thames built.

A bridge from NI to Scot? Is he insane? The maintenance costs alone would deem it unfeasible.

Water John · 11-09-2019 10:07AM

The first bridge Johnson will need to build is to Scotland, as after a GE it will be an alien land to the Tories.

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 10:10AM

This is an interesting development. Government are appealing to Supreme Court, so not done yet.
This is the High Court case against the prorogation of parliament.

Professor Moriarty · 11-09-2019 10:13AM

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

First Up · 11-09-2019 10:15AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

I wonder what they will sing.

LeinsterDub · 11-09-2019 10:15AM

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056

Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

Leroy42 · 11-09-2019 10:16AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

A Scottish court telling the sovereign HoC what it can and can't do?

They will be after the bananas next!

99problems1 · 11-09-2019 10:17AM

The prorogation is pointless now anyways as the whole thing was to ensure opposition couldn't do anything, which they did anyways.

devnull · 11-09-2019 10:17AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056

Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

Will go to supreme court now.

Dyr · 11-09-2019 10:18AM

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Farage is wanting his cake and want to eat it as well. If he has a pact with the Tories he wins a seat most likely and sits in the HoC, if they decline and the Tories lose the election then the UK most likely doesn't leave the EU and he keeps his EU MEP job. It is a win win for him.

Edit: Just came across this tweet.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171691602772996097?s=20

Another casualty of proroguing parliament, PayPal gets to miss out on questioning and their role in funding the Brexit Party and the likes of Katie Hopkins spewing hate, but will now not have to testify.

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 10:20AM

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

I don't know what she wants, but at the very least it would have been great if they could give evidence to MPs on how they work. I am sure questions would have been asked on how they could ensure foreign donations could not be made to UK political parties, but now we will not know. This evidence could have been used to update the electoral laws.

J Mysterio · 11-09-2019 10:21AM

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

That's bollocks. She wants to stop illegal funding of political groups which break the rules. She wants transparency and for these companies to be held to account.

Cadwalladr.

boggerman1 · 11-09-2019 10:31AM

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

And if that fails would the British government appeal to the ecj.oh the irony

LeinsterDub · 11-09-2019 10:32AM

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

LBC are reporting that it's unclear if this is allowed . Owe joy.

Dyr · 11-09-2019 10:32AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

That's bollocks. She wants to stop illegal funding of political groups which break the rules. She wants transparency and for these companies to be held to account.

Cadwalladr.

Illegal funding is covered by the law already, hence the term "illegal"
Who's illegally funding Katie Hopkins? Because the Bould Carol makes it clear that she wants PayPal to deny her their service

lawred2 · 11-09-2019 10:33AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056

Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

The courts will be ignored. Laws schmaws.

trellheim · 11-09-2019 10:33AM

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

Where on earth do you get this. She exposed Cambridge Analytica ffs and for that deserves multiple Pulitzers. ( ffsx2)

GM228 · 11-09-2019 10:33AM

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

Not necessarily, to appeal an application for leave to appeal is required of the Inner House or the Supreme Court. It is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed though considering the public importance leave is unlikely to be refused.

Professor Moriarty · 11-09-2019 10:33AM

Various legal opinions stating that it is now lawful for MPs to sit in parliament.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments