Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007

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.

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.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I think there's enough there to warrant a public inquiry. I mean the DUP thing alone is extremely suspicious.

Frankie Boyle made an excellent point. In a developing country the DUP-Tory cash for votes would be called a bribe.

Panrich

I reckon if the Japanese were doing their job yesterday they would have told May and Fox that the only reason that several of their companies are based in the U.K. is as a gateway to the EU and that future deals will have to be based on that remaining the case.

Peregrinus

Panrich wrote: »

I reckon if the Japanese were doing their job yesterday they would have told May and Fox that the only reason that several of their companies are based in the U.K. is as a gateway to the EU and that future deals will have to be based on that remaining the case.

Future deals - which is to say, future trade deals between Japan and the UK - don't have to be based on that being the case.

But - and it's a big but - the utility of such deals to the UK will be affected by the UK's deal with the EU. Suppose that Japan and the UK negotiate a trade deal which offers very easy terms for Japanese investment in the UK. That in itself doesn't cause any investment to happen; investments will only happen if they are attractive to Japanese investors. And a Japanese investor will find it far more attractive to build a plant in the UK if the produce of that plant can be sold freely throughout the EU than it will if the plant is producing for the UK market only. Hence the UK needs both a deal with Japan that facilitates investment and a deal with the EU that makes investment in the UK attractive.

Reportedly, what they are targetting with Japan is a deal which parallels the just-negotiated Japan-EU deal - a deal which would, of course, already be in the bag for the UK, were it not for this tiresome Brexit decision. And, even if they get that deal, in order to benefit fully from it they need to negotiate with the EU a trade relationship to replace the trade relationship that they would automatically have, were it not for this tiresome Brexit vote.

In essence, Brexit gives the UK the freedom to try and negotiate trade deals which will repair some of the damage which Brexit threatens to the UK.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course I do. However, change in EU attitudes is going to take a lot more than a terribly weak party leader looking for concessions merely to placate the fanatics in his own party.

Why was going to Brussels weak? This is what leaders like Hollande and Merkel were doing all the time. I think the only difference between Britain's position and that of France and Germany is that Britain wanted less integration and France and Germany wanted more.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU has trade deals with over 50 countries. I highly doubt that this will be quicker.

Not all of these trade deals are free trade agreements. Many of them leave tariffs unchanged. You can see the details on the European Commission's website.

When it comes to free trade deals the EU have a knack of either scuppering them (as with TTIP) or dragging them out for a very long time (like CETA).

When you don't have to ratify every trade deal in 27 countries. No doubt this will get quicker.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You were just talking about representation. This would solve that. Not sure what your point with the 44% is. I've never disputed that.

You didn't answer my question about how being subject to the ECJ is in the British national interest. It obviously isn't. A bilateral deal should have equal representation of both parties and a third party.

The UK won't be permitted to sit on the ECJ after Brexit if it isn't a member of the EU.

On the 44% I ninja edited your post to deal with another poster.

demfad wrote: »

In Trumps election we had hacking, fake news and the coordination and propagation of fake news by professional trolls and by delivering the correct fake news to the correct Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica is part of the Trump-Russia investigation for coordinating with Kremlin propaganda to put the disinformation/fake news into personalised ads on peoples facebook profiles. Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge as well as CEO of Breitbart.

At last, British media is starting to realise that the Russians may not have taken the Brexit campaign off.
All 5 Leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ which is the backend and sister company to Cambridge Analytica. Official Leave paid thsi obscure Canadian tech company £3.5 million HALF their total expenditure. 2 former Cambridge bosses were on the official leave's campaign lead.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Farage's Leave.eu got 7 figure benefit in kind from Robert Mercer's Cambridge

Two days ago the below article appeared in the Times. Just one Russian troll caused this much influence. Imagine what his 5000 friends got up to.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thousands-of-twitter-users-deceived-by-russian-agent-david-jones-bv0c2ssj5



Hopefully the questions will now be asked around if and how Russia campaigned for Brexit and whom did they coordinate with?
Brexit and hard Brexit is Russian foreign policy after all.

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.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A FTA is not the FTA the UK already has.

Outside of a customs union FTA's are usually limited and both sides have exceptions. There may also be quotas. So at best the UK is looking at free trade on some things but not all.

I keep saying that apart from Food and Jet Turbines and Computers the UK's imports are very similar to the exports.


An optimist might say Quid Pro Quo , sharing of equals , free trade \o/

But a pessimist or an EU politician might think that "if we tighten the screws just a little we won't be risking competing jobs back home"


In the future I'd expect more EU rules on workers rights for imported goods, like they have had for years on abattoirs for imported meat. This may affect any competitive advantage the UK may gain from rolling back EU working time or health and safety rules.

Obviously it isn't the same as single market membership. I accept that much. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat something everyone already understands.

The objective with EU trade seems to be to preserve as much of it as possible whilst looking to the wider world for increased trade. I think this is the biggest advantage of Brexit. Control over trade policy.

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

Yet, you've provided not a single good reason as to why or how seeking free trade deals with other countries is "fairy tale economics".

You need to start backing up your ad hominems with substance.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

The Conservatives have seats in Wales and Scotland. Hardly regional. You could also say this about Labour, who also have a majority of their seats in England.

Again, this seems to be just an argumentum ad hominem. Encouraging a good business environment is good for everyone, dealing with the deficit is good for everyone. The working class voted for the Conservatives in increasing numbers in the last election. Labour's vote actually increased amongst the middle classes.

Don't let the facts get in the way of the ad hominems though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fine. If what the UK wants is a trade deal with the EU that looks like, say, the EU's deals with Canada or South Korea, that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction.

The thing is, though, I don't think that's the kind of trade deal the UK wants or needs. That would be signficantly more disadvantageous to the UK than the trade deal they now have, and it's not remotely realistic to think that the UK could make up for the disadvantages of this trade deal by doing whizz-bang-super trade deals with third countries. The UK negotiators know this. In teh UK's interests they really have no choice but to target a very good trade deal with the EU; not so much like the SK or Canada deals but, in selected areas and sectors at least, more like the kind of deal they now have.

And the kind of deal they now have, of course, involves ECJ jurisdiction.

I get why, for political and face-saving reasons, the May government has to be seen to have a problem with ECJ jurisdiction. But they also need to understand that the the EU has a problem with no ECJ jurisdiction. If the UK seeks a trade deal with involves the kind of access that to the single market that comes with ECJ jurisdiction, well, that comes with ECJ jurisdiction. There is absolutely no reason why the EU would be inclined to move on this; neither abstract principle nor naked self-interest suggest that they should.

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.

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately. This is a different deal to what they have now.

The UK need to say no to the ECJ. It isn't reasonable to have a biased court sitting over UK affairs.

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

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately. This is a different deal to what they have now.

Yes. In terms of free trade, it's a much worse deal than the deal they have now.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK need to say no to the ECJ. It isn't reasonable to have a biased court sitting over UK affairs.

Of course, if the UK completely leaves the Union, the single market and the customs union, there's no reason to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

But to the extent that the UK seeks to retain even partial participation in any of these arrangements, then obviously the question of jurisdiction of the ECJ does arise.

And if the reason for ruling out even partial participation in any of these institutions is to avoid the jurisdiction of "a biased court", well, it would be ludcrous, irrational and self-harming to proceed on that basis without some evidence of bias.

You've been asked before to produce evidence to back up this assertion of bias. I think you had any evidence, you'd have produced it by now.

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.

And here's the unresolved contradiction. You can rule out a priori any participation in the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Or you can seek the best outcome for the UK. But you can't do both. At some point, you're going to have to subordinate one of these objectives to the other.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately.

This ultimately is a subtle put important change to your position.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the reason for ruling out even partial participation in any of these institutions is to avoid the jurisdiction of "a biased court", well, it would be ludcrous, irrational and self-harming to proceed on that basis without some evidence of bias.

You've been asked before to produce evidence to back up this assertion of bias. I think you had any evidence, you'd have produced it by now.

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And here's the unresolved contradiction. You can rule out a priori any participation in the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Or you can seek the best outcome for the UK. But you can't do both. At some point, you're going to have to subordinate one of these objectives to the other.

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.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This ultimately is a subtle put important change to your position.

No it isn't. I've always said that staying in the customs union or the single market for a transitional period is an outcome that I would accept provided that the UK leaves entirely after this period.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad

Lemming wrote: »

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

Russia's new strategy has been to destabilise democracies from the inside.
To do they manipulate existing situations and drive wedges into existing cracks strategically and in such a way as to achieve a desired result. On the US side, they were able to influence RW religeous groups in the US. They were able to accelerate the corruption of capitalism in the US and UK via money laundering through real estate, stock fraud etc. They were able to set up parrallel Russian groups such as the 'right to bear arms' to gain influence in the NRA. They were able to train (in Russia) and direct the US alt-right, secession movements in propaganda and the use of SM.
Crucially they were able to use ideological far right US billionaires and push them in the desired direction. Key among these were Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The father was a computer scientist, a genius who wrote a lot of the google analytics software and now runs the biggest hedge fund in the world (50 billion) that runs off his algorithms. If you wondered why typing 'Nazis are' into google got the top reply of 'good' until recently and now gets the reply 'left wing' look no further than Robert Mercer. He controls a vast network of servers designed to amplify and propagate far right messages, ultra biased and fake news. Once a user clicks on any links to these servers they can be followed around the internet and targetted with dark social media posts based on their personality to influence or suppress their vote. The fact that this network coordinated with Russian active measures is not in doubt in my mind. The Russians didnt have the US infrastructure to get the disinformation to targetted social media voters. The Mercers did via their big data firm Cambridge Analytica.

In Europe the Kremlin also trained and funded the far right and have interfered in several elections already. Many of the far-right groups (including UKIP) travelled to Crimea after its annexation to observe the plebiscite and declared it fair. Farage has done many appearances on Russia Today and has also over a decade been politically involved with the Mercers and their workers: Steve Bannon, Kelly Anne Conway, Dave Bossie (Citizens United). He has also been seen visiting Assange and Roger Stone around the times of the Clinton email dumps and he and main UKIP funder Aaron Banks are people of interest for the FBI in Trump-Russia.

Just to remind: ALL 5 leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ a small obscure Canadian tech company which holds the backend of Cambridge Analytica. Offical leave paid them £3.5 million which was HALF their total campaign allowance. Robert Mercer even owns the IPs for AgIQ (to make it more obvious.)

To put it bluntly Cambridge Analytica was all over this campaign and was paid illegally via AggregateIQ.
Brexit needs to be suspended pending a full investigation.
IMO the huge RW push for the hardest of hard Brexit is understanable knowing the above. RW policy is after all Kremlin policy.

Full details here and worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

Enzokk

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

Thomas__

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

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__

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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__

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

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

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

Lemming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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--

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

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

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

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--

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

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

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

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.

listermint

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

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

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

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

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--

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

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

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

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

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.