Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

J Mysterio

26000 Elephants wrote: »

That was certainly an element of it, but Merkel and Macron played an neccessarily harsh form of Hardball. I think if the Jillet Jaune thing had happened a few years earlier, it would have heightened their understanding of how tricky the situation was for Cameron.

Those two things are not readily comparable in my view.

The Jilet Jaunes were a 'common person' street level protest which occurred quite organically, whereas the antipathy for Europe was not so great in the British public consciousness that they would get out and protest about it without incitement. It was the call for the vote itself (to placate his party) and the agitation of irresponsible politicians and a sick media which resulted in this madness. Also, the French like a good protest.

First Up

26000 Elephants wrote: »

That was certainly an element of it, but Merkel and Macron played an neccessarily harsh form of Hardball. I think if the Jillet Jaune thing had happened a few years earlier, it would have heightened their understanding of how tricky the situation was for Cameron.

Macron became President in 2017, a year after the referendum.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Good. The reason I am asking is that it seems maybe you don't take criticism of the 'motherland' very well. You should understand that in the Brexit threads, people are mostly discussing Brexit. And, as Brexit is a British idea, naturally Britain and British people will be criticised for that. If that upsets you, Brexit threads might not be for you.

And I have no issue with that, that is fair play as far as i am concerned. The issue I have, is that a lot of the comments (see the one earlier about "English Superiority complex) are little more than then people's own prejudice coming through.

here are hundreds of ill informed comments made, but when corrected, the response is just ad hominem and petty sniping, see pretty much every response Francis Brady gives, as an example.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yes, of course. But in the context of Brexit, what criticisms might you have?

Of the government regarding Brexit, none as yet. Varadkar and Coveney are doing pretty much the only thing they can as they know putting any form of infrastructure on the border is impossible.

Danzy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What made it tricky for Cameron was his fairly spineless campaign to remain. The onus was on him to win that campaign and he failed spectacularly in so many ways.

Cameron and Osborne made a good stab at getting a Remain win.

They could have been more ruthless in dealing with internal opponents.

Without them the Remain campaign would have been near non existent.

You had big businesses, city finance and nearly every billionaire in Britain willing to throw money at remain campaign but very little campaigns that were not party machine exercises were undertaken.

Near every media outlet only delighted to give such groups exposure.

Remain left it on the pitch because they presumed having all main parties, near every big business finance sector media etc all behind them presumed that the working class wouldnt turn out, that it would be an easy win.

Presumption is fatal in politics.

FrancieBrady

Danzy wrote: »

Cameron and Osborne made a good stab at getting a Remain win.

They could have been more ruthless in dealing with internal opponents.

Without them the Remain campaign would have been near non existent.

You had big businesses, city finance and nearly every billionaire in Britain willing to throw money at remain campaign but very little campaigns that were not party machine exercises were undertaken.

Near every media outlet only delighted to give such groups exposure.

Remain left it on the pitch because they presumed having all main parties, near every big business finance sector media etc all behind them presumed that the working class wouldnt turn out, that it would be an easy win.

Presumption is fatal in politics.

That is what I mean. They made no effort...or very little effort to get to these people and try to persuade them.
I think that is something politics understands here regarding the differences between a referendum and a GE. You cannot depend on party support, you have to get the information to all voters.

26000 Elephants

First Up wrote: »

Macron became President in 2017, a year after the referendum.

Thanks, updated the post.

SeaBreezes

Aegir wrote: »

... the response is just ad hominem and petty sniping ....

Yes, I too dislike the petty sniping when sharing Brexit humour.

Awful, isn't it?

SeaBreezes

Interesting post, Mirror article:

8 of the top 10 Brexit Party promoting Twitter accounts appear to be bots

https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1184000266145796096?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

ohnonotgmail

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Interesting post, Mirror article:

8 of the top 10 Brexit Party promoting Twitter accounts appear to be bots

https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1184000266145796096?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

that should not be a surprise to anybody.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Cameron and Osborne made a good stab at getting a Remain win.

They could have been more ruthless in dealing with internal opponents.

Without them the Remain campaign would have been near non existent.

You had big businesses, city finance and nearly every billionaire in Britain willing to throw money at remain campaign but very little campaigns that were not party machine exercises were undertaken.

Near every media outlet only delighted to give such groups exposure.

Remain left it on the pitch because they presumed having all main parties, near every big business finance sector media etc all behind them presumed that the working class wouldnt turn out, that it would be an easy win.

Presumption is fatal in politics.

The Tories only thought they had to convince their own supporters and Labour presumed that theirs were not pro Brexit until the last minute.

The Tory Leadership didn't get out of London to listen to the genuine concerns people had and it distorted their view and gave Cameron the impression it would be easy and a simple in/out vote would kill off the question for a generation, while Labour and the unions wrote the whole thing off as just nationalism and racism and presumed that their supporters were neither. I mean, Sunderland has been a Labour stronghold for pretty much ever and yet the vote there seemed to shock them. If they can't get the general feeling in their own backyard, then that is a major party failing.

BarryD2

Aegir wrote: »

Of the government regarding Brexit, none as yet. Varadkar and Coveney are doing pretty much the only thing they can as they know putting any form of infrastructure on the border is impossible.

Not impossible, just undesirable. We're in a different but the same sort of boat as the Brits - we want to keep our cake and to eat it.

begsbyOnaTrain

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Interesting post, Mirror article:

8 of the top 10 Brexit Party promoting Twitter accounts appear to be bots

https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1184000266145796096?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I have to say, so what? People on Twitter seem to have a highly elevated opinion of its importance.

threeball

Aegir wrote: »

And I have no issue with that, that is fair play as far as i am concerned. The issue I have, is that a lot of the comments (see the one earlier about "English Superiority complex) are little more than then people's own prejudice coming through.

here are hundreds of ill informed comments made, but when corrected, the response is just ad hominem and petty sniping, see pretty much every response Francis Brady gives, as an example.



Of the government regarding Brexit, none as yet. Varadkar and Coveney are doing pretty much the only thing they can as they know putting any form of infrastructure on the border is impossible.

I made that comment and it is easily seen in the majority of british leaders that they think they are generally better than the people they are dealing with and that others should doff the cap and give in to their demands. We've had english politicians talking about starving us again but you had little to say about that. In parliament last night they stood up and walked out when an SNP memeber stood to speak and some shouted go back to Skye. Downing playing violence and the murder of Jo Cox not beyond your PM either. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time actually assessing the qualities of your politicians than spending time on here trying to change how others see them. From day one of this Brexit debate they have been an absolute disgrace.

SeaBreezes

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

I have to say, so what? People on Twitter seem to have a highly elevated opinion of its importance.

Funnily enough I'm not on twitter.

I do use it via google to get news on topics like Brexit.

I thought the funding of the party and who can afford this level of bots is a more interesting question...

begsbyOnaTrain

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Funnily enough I'm not on twitter.

I do use it via google to get news on topics like Brexit.

I thought the funding of the party and who can afford this level of bots is a more interesting question...

Level of bots? The article gives no such indication of numbers. It says in some study that the majority of the top ten accounts (according to them) using the official Brexit party handle, appear to have some automated characteristics. Meh. That wouldn't cost a lot, it's cheap as chips - https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-bought-a-russian-bot-army-for-under-dollar100

J Mysterio

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

I have to say, so what? People on Twitter seem to have a highly elevated opinion of its importance.

It has become surprisingly important. It's the source of a lot of breaking news and lots of analysis and debate. Many politicians and other figures regularly release statements on twitter.

26000 Elephants

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Level of bots? The article gives no such indication of numbers. It says in some study that the majority of the top ten accounts (according to them) using the official Brexit party handle, appear to have some automated characteristics. Meh. That wouldn't cost a lot, it's cheap as chips - https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-bought-a-russian-bot-army-for-under-dollar100

The cost isn't the issue; its the use of bots to misrepresent the grass-root level of activity in a particular party. Its surprisingly effective, but reflects badly on the bona fides of those who engage in it.

begsbyOnaTrain

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The cost isn't the issue;

I was addressing the poster who explicity said that it was of interest.

its the use of bots to misrepresent the grass-root level of activity in a particular party. Its surprisingly effective, but reflects badly on the bona fides of those who engage in it.

Agreed but that's not what this study says. And tbh the Brexit party seem to be highly in touch with the grassroots to me.

26000 Elephants

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Agreed but that's not what this study says. And tbh the Brexit party seem to be highly in touch with the grassroots to me.

With that level of Bot activity, of course they are!

Donnielighto

marieholmfan wrote: »

Unfortunately we will fold in the end. Varadkar has nothing in common with Pearse or Casement.

I really don't get the idolation of pearse. Aside from the personal stuff he didn't care about his countrymen some some ideal. He lied to his troops and intentionally sent them to their deaths when the possibility of surrender was being talked of initially. It's accepted he lied about the German guns to make the gpo stand longer for no strategic benefit. He martyred himself intentionally which is bad enough but lied to his supporters and martyred more of them than would have otherwise. The country or any other for that matter should be looking at him in any good light.

begsbyOnaTrain

26000 Elephants wrote: »

With that level of Bot activity, of course they are!

Yeah, I'm sure you know it all. Meanwhile in the real world, they have so far run on a very simple platform. No Deal. Everyone and their dogs know it. But yes, you can console yourself with the conspiracy theory that 8 out of 10 selected accounts in a study, have automated features. And therefore have steered the party? The one that has had one issue since launch...

Nate--IRL--

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Meanwhile in the real world, they have so far run on a very simple platform. No Deal.

This is not true.


Nate

Danzy

Aegir wrote: »

The Tories only thought they had to convince their own supporters and Labour presumed that theirs were not pro Brexit until the last minute.

The Tory Leadership didn't get out of London to listen to the genuine concerns people had and it distorted their view and gave Cameron the impression it would be easy and a simple in/out vote would kill off the question for a generation, while Labour and the unions wrote the whole thing off as just nationalism and racism and presumed that their supporters were neither. I mean, Sunderland has been a Labour stronghold for pretty much ever and yet the vote there seemed to shock them. If they can't get the general feeling in their own backyard, then that is a major party failing.

Spot on.

Labour just write off being 50/50 with the work ing Class as "false consciousness".

Which as an analysis has been a real problem for the left worldwide.

Means you don't have to listen, never reflect, never change.

The Tories has a similar vein of woe.

threeball

threeball wrote: »

I made that comment and it is easily seen in the majority of british leaders that they think they are generally better than the people they are dealing with and that others should doff the cap and give in to their demands.

I'm sure some do, just like any leaders around the world do. most people wouldn't equate that to an "English Superiority complex" though.

threeball wrote: »

We've had english politicians talking about starving us again but you had little to say about that.

sorry, what would you like me to say? that some irish posters took an ill advised comment and interpreted it in a way to cause maximum outrage?

threeball wrote: »

In parliament last night they stood up and walked out when an SNP memeber stood to speak and some shouted go back to Skye.

oh the poor thing, is he OK?

threeball wrote: »

Downing playing violence and the murder of Jo Cox not beyond your PM either.

Boris is a gob****e, we all know that, but I haven't heard him downplay what happened to Jo Cox.

threeball wrote: »

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time actually assessing the qualities of your politicians than spending time on here trying to change how others see them. From day one of this Brexit debate they have been an absolute disgrace.

and there it is, the ad homnem we all knew was coming.

**** off Brit, we don't want your type here.

begsbyOnaTrain

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is not true.


Nate

Alright Nate Dogg. I see that has changed. From wiki

The party's first non-Brexit-related policy was announced on 4 June 2019: a proposition to transform British Steel into a partly worker-owned company, in what has been described as "a hybrid of Conservative and Labour policy".[45] The party also supports cutting Britain's foreign aid budget, scrapping the proposed HS2 project and introducing free WiFi on all British public transport.[46] Furthermore, the party has said it will scrap all interest paid on student tuition fees, has suggested reimbursing graduates for historic interest payments made on their loans,[47] and has pledged to abolish inheritance tax.[48]

26000 Elephants

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure you know it all. Meanwhile in the real world, they have so far run on a very simple platform. No Deal. Everyone and their dogs know it. But yes, you can console yourself with the conspiracy theory that 8 out of 10 selected accounts in a study, have automated features. And therefore have steered the party? The one that has had one issue since launch...

They run on a platform of lies and misinformation. The same platform used by Vote Leave before them. It's not a matter of persuading people, it's about hoodwinking enough idiots into believing your self serving lies.
That's where bots come in: automated drones preaching to the simple folk in a language they can make sense of.

Nate--IRL--

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Alright Nate Dogg. I see that has changed. From wiki

Apologies - I'd misread the chain of posts. Disregard my erroneous comment.


Nate

begsbyOnaTrain

26000 Elephants wrote: »

They run on a platform of lies and misinformation.

They've run, so far, on one major policy and a handful of smaller ones which have broad appeal. Actually more arguably they only ran on a "We shouldn't be having these elections" for the Euros (which is absolutely fine and dandy in my book), and I guess the rest are aimed at the recent locals and by-elections.

Donnielighto

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure you know it all. Meanwhile in the real world, they have so far run on a very simple platform. No Deal. Everyone and their dogs know it. But yes, you can console yourself with the conspiracy theory that 8 out of 10 selected accounts in a study, have automated features. And therefore have steered the party? The one that has had one issue since launch...

Did you read the link, your making comments that the link didn't say, infact it said the opposite of some of your interpretation.

begsbyOnaTrain

Donnielighto wrote: »

Did you read the link, your making comments that the link didn't say, infact it said the opposite of some of your interpretation.

I read the Mirror article. By some measure (I don't know how far in time they measured, what level of access they had either to e.g. deleted or private tweets) they arrived at the top 10 accounts which mentioned the Brexit party handle. 8 of these seem like they could be automated in some way.

Others have been jumping into the costs and that this is steering the party.