hotmail.com wrote: » It seems that you want to pinpoint the loss of the referendum squarely on the illegal practices of the Leave side during the campaign. My point as I've said already, that this is nonsense. There was a long standing anti European attitude in Britain. Again given the tone of your post, you seem to think I'm defending the Leave side. I'm not. I'm trying to commentate and explain what happened. Accusing me of having no moral compass is perhaps the most over dramatic post I've read on here. Can you please read my posts. Not everyone on here is a partisan. I'm Irish and I didn't vote in the thing!
Joe_ Public wrote: » I have serious problem believing that. If corbyn did defy all indications and became pm, obviously with snp and others' help, they would be guaranteed a referendum. Surely they'd agree to negotiations, without red lines, on that basis. I didnt find Schulz all that convincing tbh, his opinion not necessarily reflected eu-wide.
devnull wrote: » So just to confirm, you are saying that if someone cheated and broke the law and we punish them, then they are a bigger victim than the people who were cheated if we do nothing? That's quite frankly outrageous and just tells people to cheat and break the law, because nobody will stop you and you'll prosper. It's one thing to try and influence someone, it's a completely different thing to break the law. If you cannot see the difference then honestly I don't know what else I can say to you, other than saying that I'm a law abiding person and I have respect for the law and that it something that a lot of people in the UK in the leave campaign could learn, as they've spent the last few years and even recent weeks and months basically thinking they can do what they like and the law and the rules don't apply to them . It's times like this when I'm glad that we're in Ireland.
Enzokk wrote: » It is also that there isn't a better deal out there apart from a permanent UK customs union. But maybe they cannot be put into the WA but will always have a place in the PD. In any case all Labour has ever wanted was the chance to negotiate a deal and lately they have said they will put the deal they can get up for a vote and will decide which one to back once they have seen the deal. If the EU offers only the May or Johnson deal you suspect Labour would back remain as neither one will have much benefits for the country. Seems a fair policy for me, give the people a chance to decide if they want the deal that is on offer or remain. No-deal has been ruled out again and again and if Labour is in charge then it is off the table as well.
Akrasia wrote: » In the case of the brexit vote, they needed to influence about 2% of the population and they did this with stolen social media, personal data used to bombard these people with targeted messages specifically designed to play up to their existing fears and biases.
GM228 wrote: » Those seeking the truth were given untruths by those who had the ability to easily pass what they liked as the truth, when you have great wealth and high profile faces backing you it's not hard to pass off what you say as the truth even to those who wish to dig deeper.
GM228 wrote: » Remind me how old the EU is?
Akrasia wrote: » You don’t understand how election rigging works. You don’t have to win 100% of the vote, you just need to cheat just enough to influence the swing voters, the undecided, the people vulnerable to being influenced by lies or fearmongering. In the case of the brexit vote, they needed to influence about 2% of the population and they did this with stolen social media, personal data used to bombard these people with targeted messages specifically designed to play up to their existing fears and biases.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » I think watching Question Time is like engaging in a mild form of self-harm at this stage.
hotmail.com wrote: » You haven't dealt with my point... the long standing anti European attitude in Britian. Perhaps it's easier to explain things away by a 6 week campaign. It doesn't involve actual reading up and finding out about Britons attitude to Europe.
Varta wrote: » You are very naive if you think politics is clean and fair in Ireland... or anywhere. BTW your first paragraph makes no sense, either on its own or in response to my post. And my point stands: Do due diligence before you cast your vote.
Danzy wrote: » Your post is all the whys the EU do not want Corbyn to win.
Varta wrote: » But you were wise enough to see through it. Yet you condescend to those who you believe were not 'wise' enough.
Varta wrote: » Why? It's irrelevant to what the poster said.
devnull wrote: » I know more about British attitudes to Brexit you can dream of because I have half of my family in the UK who are Brexiteers and I spent a good percentage of my time working in the UK as well with a mixture of leavers and remainers, so actually I do know exactly what i am talking about. My experience as to what Britons think is through day to day dealings with people face to face, I forget the last time I read a newspaper, because the British press is toxic. I'm not saying that every single person in the UK was influenced by the campaign but a large number have been and the fact remains that the win of the leave campaign who won and managed to drum up support was based on illegal activity. Nobody will know just how much that had an influence on, it could have been enough to sway the vote it might not have been. I don't know and neither do you, we are simply speculating and giving our opinion, however any cheating brings into question the integrity of the result and it's in my belief that if there is any serious doubt into the integrity of the result and how it was achieved then it should not be allowed to stand. Do you think if a soccer team fielded a couple of players who were not eligible and won in the final of the League of Ireland Cup, that the result should stand because they won 2-0 and someone thinks they'd have won anyway as they were in better form or do you think that the integrity of the contest had been broken so the result shouldn't stand?
Strazdas wrote: » It's not even certain Corbyn could get a WA through parliament. The Labour Leave MPs could rebel and vote the deal down.
Headshot wrote: » I think this will damage the DUP so much in the eyes of NI Voters, it could be such a huge set back that they'd never be in power for along time again God I would be over the moon
hotmail.com wrote: » This isn't true. They viewed their neighbours with scorn for having them got involved in two world wars. If it weren't for their cultural cousins, America, Britain was screwed. It wasn't Europe that saved Britain in the wars, it was America.
bilston wrote: » Lucidtalk have a poll out on Sunday about attitudes towards this deal in NI. It will be interesting to see what Unionism thinks. I haven't much support for it at all amongst Unionists. But as ever it may be down to a loud minority. However when even neutral political commentators such as Jon Tongue describe it as an even bigger shift towards a United Ireland than the Anglo Irish Agreement then I suspect that most Unionists will take a fair bit of persuading that this deal.is a good thing which if that's the case will surely just boost the DUP vote. But again let's wait and see.
hotmail.com wrote: » Well I'm glad you admit you don't know what influence the campaigning had.
Now if we can actually discuss real matters concerning Brexit without mentioning personal circumstances and weird analogies.
GM228 wrote: » Many saw through it, many didn't, but where have I given the notion I look down on those who were not wise enough to see through it? It was more of a light hearted joke as I already stated, but where are these 100s of years of anti European feelings coming from, the leave side capitalized on Euroscepticism or Europhobia feelings which are a more modern and more specific phenomenon intrinsically linked to the EU. William of Orange, Napolean, perhaps WW1 - surely those events are not considered to have created long lasting anti European feelings?
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The US and UK fought from Norway to France and Germany and Italy and North Africa and Greece and Crete. But 90% of German Army casualties were on the Eastern Front. The Russians had a bigger population, more space. The were more flexible they moved all the factories. Having US supplies helped. The Germans didn't capture Moscow. Napoleon did and still lost. Brexit is such a mess I don't even know which analogy to use. - comparing the Germans vs Soviet Union to UK vs EU. Fritz Todt knew the war was lost in 1941 and tried to get Hitler to make peace. Pressing on split and impoverished Germany in 1945. Except there won't be any Marshall Aid for the UK. - the Russians are powerful and pulling strings on Brexit. - the UK didn't win a major WWII land battle without US assistance after El Alamein. The one way traffic of patents and technology from the UK during and after WII ( penicillin, jet engine, radar ) show just how one way the "special relationship" is.
Joe_ Public wrote: » It may or may not be relevant that the two most referenced military episodes in the context of brexit are Dunkirk and the dam busters, one that should have been a humiliating defeat (only germans curiously failed to turn the screw) and the other an overblowm operation that killed close to 20,000 civilians. I heard it said once that people who list the dam busters as their favourite film are very likely to be hard brexiteers while those who were actually in the dam busters, as in flew the mission, would - had they lived - be staunch remainers. Strong grain of truth in that i reckon.
Varta wrote: » How can anyone know what way dead people would have voted?
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Edit: Kate Andrews of the IEA
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Iv got to admire this young lady brexiteers confidence on question time talking about Nissan and car manufacturing. The business is fast moving JIT manufacturing and cut throat. Edit: Kate Andrews of the IEA
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
