It would be better for remainers if they actually sat down and worked out why they lost
start with yourselves
I think we now know. The Leavers cheated.
You've just proved Alanbrooke's point.
The reason they have spending limits is to keep an even playing field. An uneven playing field leads to distorted results. Compare the fortunes of 'Head and Shoulders' and 'Selsun Blue'
time to read your PIMS again Roger
a campaign takes on the accumulated impact of previous advertising and nobody wanted to sell the EU for the last 40 years
I'm pleased you took note. However in a vote as close as this it's impossible to ignore the impetus of a large spend over a very short time known in the business as "A PROMOTION"and the effect it can have on a few people who can't resist a bargain/
Think of it as a DFS sale over an Easter bank holiday but where truth and honesty isn't a requirement and you can throw as much money at it as you like. "Free Sofas! Nothing to pay till 2035!! AND ......£1000 back on your old one in any condition!!! Offer end 24th JUNE!!!!!!
Indeed.
You do realise that Remain spent more than Leave even excluding the outrageous 9m waste of public money to send every household a piece of Remain propaganda....
It would be better for remainers if they actually sat down and worked out why they lost
start with yourselves
I think we now know. The Leavers cheated.
You've just proved Alanbrooke's point.
The reason they have spending limits is to keep an even playing field. An uneven playing field leads to distorted results. Compare the fortunes of 'Head and Shoulders' and 'Selsun Blue'
time to read your PIMS again Roger
a campaign takes on the accumulated impact of previous advertising and nobody wanted to sell the EU for the last 40 years
I'm pleased you took note. However in a vote as close as this it's impossible to ignore the impetus of a large spend over a very short time known in the business as "A PROMOTION"and the effect it can have on a few people who can't resist a bargain/
Think of it as a DFS sale over an Easter bank holiday but where truth and honesty isn't a requirement and you can throw as much money at it as you like. "Free Sofas! Nothing to pay till 2035!! AND ......£1000 back on your old one in any condition!!! Offer end 24th JUNE!!!!!!
Indeed.
You do realise that Remain spent more than Leave even excluding the outrageous 9m waste of public money to send every household a piece of Remain propaganda....
Which, incidentally, is the first result on google if you search for 'brexit propaganda leaflet'
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
That would be simple if it was a good idea.
If the people who promoted it could provide a single example of a way in which it will not make things worse.
They can't even agree amongst themselves. No chance of persuading anyone who wasn't already persuaded by the fraudulent campign
It might well look sub-optimal, temporarily, for the next 5-10 years.
What if we do much better than the EU than in the 2030s and 2040s, as our economy recalibrates with greater regulatory flexibility and a new political contract that means our citizens feel they have greater accountability and control?
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
AM - if you are going to accuse Sandpit of using xenophobic lies then please provide evidence
' UK service providers indicated the fastest expansion of business activity for eight months in June, which continued the recovery in growth seen since March’s snow-related disruption. The latest upturn in service sector output was supported by the strongest increase in new work since May 2017. '
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
But which of the two possible versions of Brexit to get behind? The hard WTO (fuck business) version that is likely to severely impact our economy and standard of living, or the BINO version that leaves us effectively under the control of the EU but with no influence on its decisions (bye-bye rebate). It's a tough one.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
"What you're saying is that Cameron should have done exactly what leavers wanted him to do to help them win."
No, I'm saying David Cameron should have not done as he did, which was to prevent the CS from doing what they would normally have done.
We had a referendum. We voted to leave the EU. There was a variety of reasons for this. We generally like the idea of non-tariff trade (the common market) which is what primarily fuelled the yes vote in 1975. However the EU wanted far more control over all aspects.
Common standards are fine for goods, but not allowed by the EU for people, who must be allowed unlimited access. Few people think no-migration is sensible or practicable, but unlimited immigration is different. Then we come to sovereignty …
There are pros and cons for both sides - hence the vote. If we don't respect it, we are dissing democracy - a far more worrying trend.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Nonsense, its perfectly legitimate to campaign for us to rejoin, and I think there is a very good chance we will rejoin for all practical purposes.
Whenever any political decision is needed by myself, I always try and consider who I'd vote for if there was no campaign involved. Occasionally the campaign does change my mind - the 2015 and 2005 Tory campaigns being two such examples.
Personally I found the brexit campaign no worse than any of Crosby's work.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
What do you think should happen to those who don't get behind it?
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
But which of the two possible versions of Brexit to get behind? The hard WTO (fuck business) version that is likely to severely impact our economy and standard of living, or the BINO version that leaves us effectively under the control of the EU but with no influence on its decisions (bye-bye rebate). It's a tough one.
BINO is not only bye-bye rebate it will be bye-bye The City. Remember when we were good little members of the "Club" paying the cash, adopting all rules the EU still tried to move Euro Clearing to the Eurozone. They will keep tying until they succeed.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
That would be simple if it was a good idea.
If the people who promoted it could provide a single example of a way in which it will not make things worse.
They can't even agree amongst themselves. No chance of persuading anyone who wasn't already persuaded by the fraudulent campign
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy. If Labour had lied tied their way into power last year with their nonsense manifesto that even a five year old could see could not be financed then it would have been democratic to let them make it work. I don’t agree with far left politics, and I think it would be immediately severe to economic prospects for the country, and in turn that would cause social problems. Look at Venezuela! This is how politics works, and I would have to get on with my life in those circumstances, including supporting the government through taxation, or I would have to leave the country.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
Whatever. You’re a stuck record and not worth engaging.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
Judging by the consistent small leads for "wrong decision", it's apparent that there are plenty of other Remain voters who have yet to be converted by the Leave ayatollahs.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
Whatever. You’re a stuck record and not worth engaging.
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn won a general election with a campaign that demonised Jews and then it turned out he’d overspent during the campaign and the Russians were batting for Corbyn.
Would Tory leavers get behind the result?
That’s even before Corbyn’s have cake and eat it policy was shown to be bollocks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
We WON! Fuck You!!!
We lied about what Brexit would mean.
We cheated to get the result.
Why will you not help us to deliver what we can't?
Whenever any political decision is needed by myself, I always try and consider who I'd vote for if there was no campaign involved. Occasionally the campaign does change my mind - the 2015 and 2005 Tory campaigns being two such examples.
Personally I found the brexit campaign no worse than any of Crosby's work.
Zac Goldsmith's stands out to me as a pretty bad campaign. But to be honest, a campaign led by Tories on both sides, with egos like Boris, Dave and Osborne involved, was always going to be pretty heavy on the lying.
It would be better for remainers if they actually sat down and worked out why they lost
start with yourselves
I think we now know. The Leavers cheated.
You've just proved Alanbrooke's point.
The reason they have spending limits is to keep an even playing field. An uneven playing field leads to distorted results. Compare the fortunes of 'Head and Shoulders' and 'Selsun Blue'
time to read your PIMS again Roger
a campaign takes on the accumulated impact of previous advertising and nobody wanted to sell the EU for the last 40 years
I'm pleased you took note. However in a vote as close as this it's impossible to ignore the impetus of a large spend over a very short time known in the business as "A PROMOTION"and the effect it can have on a few people who can't resist a bargain/
Think of it as a DFS sale over an Easter bank holiday but where truth and honesty isn't a requirement and you can throw as much money at it as you like. "Free Sofas! Nothing to pay till 2035!! AND ......£1000 back on your old one in any condition!!! Offer end 24th JUNE!!!!!!
of course Roger
but this was being pitched against the Sofaland shtick of
buy our fucking sofas or you'll regret it you bunch of thicko oiks, …… APR 250% as our directors are aiming to pay themselves a huge bonus..... old sofas not accepted as we know what theyre like since we sold them to you last time
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
Judging by the consistent small leads for "wrong decision", it's apparent that there are plenty of other Remain voters who have yet to be converted by the Leave ayatollahs.
Ed Miliband had a big lead in 2012/13. Remain being ahead doesn't mean much at this point, the implementation of Brexit was always going to be tough.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
We WON! Fuck You!!!
We lied about what Brexit would mean.
We cheated to get the result.
Why will you not help us to deliver what we can't?
It's almost poetic...
They don't have to get behind the idea, but its happening all the same!
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
Whatever. You’re a stuck record and not worth engaging.
And yet you want *everyone* to be behind it. You need to understand why that isn't happening.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
What do you think should happen to those who don't get behind it?
Those in government and the civil service tasked with doing the work should either shit or get off the pot.
Every individual is entitled to their own opinion, but those who are being paid to do what the people have told them to do need to get with the program. They are servants of the people not the masters.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
The delusion among remainers is stron. They expect to have a Brexit they don’t agree yet still makes them happy. Leave voters are supposed to magically make any Brexit palatable to remainers!
At this point it would be easier to list the SCon councillors who haven't been involved in a Twitter bigotry/racism/misogyny scandal.
Ruth's hoping that the old 'a couple of bad apples spoil the barrel' saw can be put into reverse. Unfortunately she's still searching for those 2 good apples.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
Whatever. You’re a stuck record and not worth engaging.
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn won a general election with a campaign that demonised Jews and then it turned out he’d overspent during the campaign and the Russians were batting for Corbyn.
Would Tory leavers get behind the result?
That’s even before Corbyn’s have cake and eat it policy was shown to be bollocks.
I'd accept Corbyn being in power for a few years, much the same as the lack of rainfall right now is creating poor pasture for our horses.
Disagree entirely. If the vote's legitimate, then the result stands. If it isn't, a re-run is required.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy. If Labour had lied tied their way into power last year with their nonsense manifesto that even a five year old could see could not be financed then it would have been democratic to let them make it work. I don’t agree with far left politics, and I think it would be immediately severe to economic prospects for the country, and in turn that would cause social problems. Look at Venezuela! This is how politics works, and I would have to get on with my life in those circumstances, including supporting the government through taxation, or I would have to leave the country.
And we could vote them out at the next election.
How do we "vote out" Brexit?
Oh.
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy...
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy. If Labour had lied tied their way into power last year with their nonsense manifesto that even a five year old could see could not be financed then it would have been democratic to let them make it work. I don’t agree with far left politics, and I think it would be immediately severe to economic prospects for the country, and in turn that would cause social problems. Look at Venezuela! This is how politics works, and I would have to get on with my life in those circumstances, including supporting the government through taxation, or I would have to leave the country.
And we could vote them out at the next election.
How do we "vote out" Brexit?
Oh.
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy...
A Labour minority Gov't being elected in 2022 gives a fair chance of a rejoin campaign being created given it would rely on SNP and Lib Dem votes (Who are both in favour of remaining now). Stop fretting - no parliament is bound by previous decisions.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
My sense is about 75% of Remain voters have doubled down, but about 25% aren’t impressed with the EU and think Brexit should go ahead even if they are worried about it.
The ship has sailed on everyone getting behind it, I’m afraid.
The best hope is that the passions fade as time goes on, as it turns out to not be so bad, which may or may not happen.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
What do you think should happen to those who don't get behind it?
Those in government and the civil service tasked with doing the work should either shit or get off the pot.
Every individual is entitled to their own opinion, but those who are being paid to do what the people have told them to do need to get with the program. They are servants of the people not the masters.
Cool. I'm happy that an anti Brexit government (+ assorted civil servants) representing constituencies that uniformly voted against Brexit should be servants of the people.
I expect politicians to lie and cheat. I've very seldom had a government I voted for, but that's life. I don't expect fate always to pander to my wishes.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
What do you think should happen to those who don't get behind it?
Those in government and the civil service tasked with doing the work should either shit or get off the pot.
Every individual is entitled to their own opinion, but those who are being paid to do what the people have told them to do need to get with the program. They are servants of the people not the masters.
Civil servants are implementing the programme, that's why we have all that legislation about how we are leaving in March. Its not their fault the govt can't agree on what to prioritize.
On topic, the keenest of Remainers are onto a loser here. It doesn’t pass the basic British test of fair play.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
Judging by the consistent small leads for "wrong decision", it's apparent that there are plenty of other Remain voters who have yet to be converted by the Leave ayatollahs.
I see you don't answer the question.
So here's another - how many other Remain voters constantly rant about 'xenophobic lies' ?
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy. If Labour had lied tied their way into power last year with their nonsense manifesto that even a five year old could see could not be financed then it would have been democratic to let them make it work. I don’t agree with far left politics, and I think it would be immediately severe to economic prospects for the country, and in turn that would cause social problems. Look at Venezuela! This is how politics works, and I would have to get on with my life in those circumstances, including supporting the government through taxation, or I would have to leave the country.
And we could vote them out at the next election.
How do we "vote out" Brexit?
Oh.
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy...
We vote to rejoin in a referendum or we vote for a party that wants us back in the EU.
So to change the subject slightly, and look at a wonderful example of deflecting blame, the below is a quote from The Times:
The man whose allegations led to Scotland Yard’s disastrous inquiry into a VIP paedophile ring has been charged with making false claims of abuse. The 50-year-old, known only as Nick, was the sole complainant in Operation Midland and is to face trial on 12 charges of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud. He is accused of deceiving police over four years with false claims of a historical paedophile ring made up of senior politicians, military officers and other prominent figures. Nick, who is also accused of falsely claiming that he saw three children being murdered, will appear before Westminster magistrates in September. He cannot be named for legal reasons. The Crown Prosecution Service says that Nick fraudulently claimed £22,000 from the Criminal
Shouldn't the blame be shared by or accepted by a police force that is gullible, bends to political pressure, seeks high profile publicity and forgets that implementing basic policing skills would have prevented then being duped by 'Nick'
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
Judging by the consistent small leads for "wrong decision", it's apparent that there are plenty of other Remain voters who have yet to be converted by the Leave ayatollahs.
I see you don't answer the question.
So here's another - how many other Remain voters constantly rant about 'xenophobic lies' ?
I have never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. It's pretty obvious that Leave have deeply alienated large numbers of Remain voters. I have an explanation for that. Leave supporters seem completely nonplussed by the development.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
You're projecting. The average UK voter saw two well-funded campaigns with supposedly serious people on both sides.
Mr. Freggles, if the vote were unsound it should be re-run. If it were sound, it should be respected.
You can have wrongdoing without needing a rerun. If it were proven that Farage voted 100times it would be wrong, but it wouldn't necessitate a rerun. In the same way, I don't see these breaches as significant enough to merit a rerun.
the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
The David of the UK Government versus the Goliath of illegal Russian spending?
Blaming the Russians is the “dog ate my homework” excuse, coupled with Manchurian Candidate levels of fantasy.
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
You're projecting. The average UK voter saw two well-funded campaigns with supposedly serious people on both sides.
I don’t expect repentance. I do expect the vote to be respected which, by and large, it is.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
A vote to give a referendum A referendum A supreme court decision to give parliament sovereignty over the decision A huge parliamentary majority for A50 Passage of the withdrawal bill right through the Commons and Lords.
The final stanza is the conclusion of negotiations with Barnier, after the Cabinet decides what it wants.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Fuck that. I'm not going to get "behind" something I consider to be politically, economically and philosophically caustic. Not even if the imprecation is gilded with asterisks.
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
Do you think you speak for all Remain voters ?
Judging by the consistent small leads for "wrong decision", it's apparent that there are plenty of other Remain voters who have yet to be converted by the Leave ayatollahs.
I see you don't answer the question.
So here's another - how many other Remain voters constantly rant about 'xenophobic lies' ?
I have never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. It's pretty obvious that Leave have deeply alienated large numbers of Remain voters. I have an explanation for that. Leave supporters seem completely nonplussed by the development.
oh dont be silly
Leave had had 40 years of people like yourself ignoring their views and doing what you fancy. Now the shoes on the other foot theres no reason why they shouldn't play by your rules and not give a shit what you think. So they don't.
Nobody's in any doubt that if the vote % was the other way around you'd be claiming a clear democratic mandate and signing us up to all sorts of Eurobollocks
If someone sees a betting opportunity and believes England are over-valued for the QFs, they can bet on Sweden. That's fine.
However, if they do so, and actively try to stop England succeeding by bringing vexatious court-cases, starting scare-stories about their best players, or generally trying to obstruct their training or sleep we might question their motives a little more.
Edit: Only the media and politicians have the power to do this, so you know who I'm talking about.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
The David of the UK Government versus the Goliath of illegal Russian spending?
Including the £10m the Government spent on its pro remain leaflet to all households the remain campaigns (the official and other entities) are estimated to have spent around £15 million more than the leave ones. And that doesn't include the weight of influence of unions, the main parties and large corporations.
As for supposed Russian influence it is amazing that no one seemed interested in or aware of these supposed mass tweets etc until their side lost - if it is was so effective and influential and massively affected the votes of 35 million people it's amazing no one was aware of it all at the time! But then the vast majority of voters dont follow politics on Twitter.
Of course the London Evening Standard is owned by a Russian oligarch and through his paid for mouthpiece - our ex Chancellor - he seems to be using his billions to push a very pro remain agenda daily. Now that is Russian spending influence clearly evident - every day pushed at Londoners and commuters.
The Lib Dems, Tories and Labour have all been found guilty of breaches by the Commission in the past and some investigations remain ongoing as was the European movement in relation to the referendum. If that is the criteria perhaps we should just declare all recent elections null and void and ban those 3 parties from standing in the next one as punishment. But that would be silly - that of course only applies to the leave victory!
It would be better for remainers if they actually sat down and worked out why they lost
start with yourselves
It would be good for Brexiteers if they actually sat down and worked out why Brexit is turning into such an unholy mess.
Start with yourselves.
Because our politicians, Sir Humphreys and 'expert' diplomats are useless ?
If we look at the economy things are going much better than predicted.
LOL. No. The hardcore Brexiteers own Brexit, and they're making an almighty mess of it. Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis, JRM et al are sadly showing their utter lack of skills and competence.
I want Brexit to be a success; saying otherwise would mean I want the country not to prosper. But if it's a success it won't be down to the hardcore Brexiteers, but the pragmatists on *both* sides.
May, Hammond, Javid and others weren't Brexiteers, hardcore or otherwise. Neither were our Sir Humphreys and 'expert' diplomats.
And which government ministers have shown their skills and competence in anything ?
As to your 'pragmatists' it was their lack of skills and competence which led to Brexit.
"May, Hammond, Javid and others weren't Brexiteers,"
Yes. They saw the result of the vote and are trying to deliver it. They are pragmatists. Their job is being made harder by the likes of JRM and the apparent incompetence of Davis, Fox et al, many of whom have an ideological sickness.
Likewise many Remainers have ideological sickness.
Though I doubt May and her team know what they want to deliver let alone how to deliver it.
Oh yes, there are extremes on both sides.
I think May and her team know what they want. However:
1) Too many people in the Conservative party want something different; there are a few hardcore remainers who think leaving is wrong, and more hardcore leavers who won't countenance (what I view as) a sane deal (an EEA-style arrangement).
2) This is a deal between two major blocs: even if outside come to agreement, the EU may (reasonably or unreasonably) disagree.
Comment under Daniel Finkelstein's article in The times today (which is worth a read BTW)
David Stewart 12 hours ago
@David Evans Exactly. The Tory Brexos are so myopic that they can't see what's been staring them in the face for three years: they're going to end up with BRINO (most of the obligations, rules and regulations, yet no influence whatever), AND a Corbyn "government".
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
I thought it was the bus that won it ? Downthread it was Putin. And campaign spending.
you ran a shit campaign that's all there is to it.
Bit late to the party here but I agree with Mike's final point about the football - all the media attention will be away from Chequers this weekend.
I don't however agree with his first one. We're far too far down the road to stop Brexit now and even though Leave broke some rules, the effect will have been trivial (or even nil, as the donors could have funded their money through other channels who then spent it to equal effect, rather than going through the middle-man of the big campaign). The only people who will notice the Electoral Commission ruling are the political nerds and the deeply committed on either side.
In any case, as Remain spent the first year of after the referendum arguing that it wasn't binding, and as parliament has since voted to enable A50 to be triggered, and then passed the Withdrawal bill last month, it'd be a hell of a U-turn to say that parliament wasn't in fact sovereign and that the legislation passed - and the government actions authorised by it - were hence invalid.
A vote to give a referendum A referendum A supreme court decision to give parliament sovereignty over the decision A huge parliamentary majority for A50 Passage of the withdrawal bill right through the Commons and Lords.
The final stanza is the conclusion of negotiations with Barnier, after the Cabinet decides what it wants.
Quite.
Huge thanks owed to Gina Miller's case for enhancing the certainty of Brexit. Oh the irony. The golden rule strikes again....
A question: if it were not for the hardline Brexiteers and the ERG within the Conservative Party, how much nearer would we be to a final deal with the EU?
(regardless of whether you'd like the sort of deal you may get from that.)
Erm, without the Brexiteers (and notably Steve Baker) of the ERG we wouldn't have had Brexit. A read of All Out War shows that.
You also wouldn't have had Brexit without the moderate leavers (of which there is a representative sample on this site) who want an EEA-style approach.
I read PB most days. Even though I never bet. I read for the political news and analysis, which is excellent. And why the site is held in such high regard.
Although, actual betters should keep in mind, the Lib Dem tinted glasses do sometimes mean what is presented as a possibility, is often , more just wishful thinking.
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
Brexit is akin to a massive national transformation programme, with a wide portfolio of projects to move from the inception to implementation to operational phase.
Phased implementation over 7-12 years is a typical timescale for successful change programmes of that sort.
And most importantly needs *everyone* to be behind it, not still arguing about whether or not it’s a good idea two years after the decision was made.
Probably shouldn't have sought to win with xenophobic lies if you want everyone to be behind it.
Whatever. You’re a stuck record and not worth engaging.
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn won a general election with a campaign that demonised Jews and then it turned out he’d overspent during the campaign and the Russians were batting for Corbyn.
Would Tory leavers get behind the result?
That’s even before Corbyn’s have cake and eat it policy was shown to be bollocks.
If he won an election he would have the right to form a government
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
You're projecting. The average UK voter saw two well-funded campaigns with supposedly serious people on both sides.
The “understand why you lost” argument is a response to the claim the referendum divided the country
In my view it was already divided but the result just brought it to the media’s attention.
The response of some - not all - of the Remainers has been that the leave voters are stupid or unimportant and must be ignored because they (the Remainers) know what is best for the country. In that context “understand why you lost” is an important part of the healing process
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
Why do you think the tyrant was pro Brexit?
He thought it would weaken and divide Europe to his advantage.
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
Why do you think the tyrant was pro Brexit?
Putin wants the EU to fail. As long as there is growing chaos outside Russia, he can justify remaining in power to preserve the Motherland.
By some strange coincidence Trump also wants the EU to fail.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
I thought it was the bus that won it ? Downthread it was Putin. And campaign spending.
you ran a shit campaign that's all there is to it.
Don't forget xenophobic lies!
That coming from people who want us to retain an immigration system via the EU which prioritises predominantly white Europeans for permanent residency in the UK - even if they are unskilled and have zero qualifications - over potentially highly skilled people in the rest of the world.
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
Why do you think the tyrant was pro Brexit?
Like many leavers, he wants the EU to fail. Common enemy and all that.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
Are 'Breiteers' Brexiters who read Breitbart? Though that may be most of them of course.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
What a shame to read your final sentence, which shows you’re capable of not much more than echoing the attack lines of others rather than being a man with your own mind.
You failed to convince the voters of your case. I don’t expect you to give up, and you’re perfectly welcome to try and convince them again, but it will be a different case now.
Everything has moved on. Far too many Remainers think their point has already been made, and I see precious little thinking and understanding of why they lost the first time other than ‘we was robbed’.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
You're projecting. The average UK voter saw two well-funded campaigns with supposedly serious people on both sides.
The “understand why you lost” argument is a response to the claim the referendum divided the country
In my view it was already divided but the result just brought it to the media’s attention.
The response of some - not all - of the Remainers has been that the leave voters are stupid or unimportant and must be ignored because they (the Remainers) know what is best for the country. In that context “understand why you lost” is an important part of the healing process
Absolutely.
That Remainers only came to appreciate this division when they lost is not exactly to their credit....
Rubbing noses in diversity and low wages was never a good policy; not being able to understand why this might not be attractive to a majority is pretty myopic.
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
Why do you think the tyrant was pro Brexit?
Like many leavers, he wants the EU to fail. Common enemy and all that.
"If Brussels invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
What a shame to read your final sentence, which shows you’re capable of not much more than echoing the attack lines of others rather than being a man with your own mind.
You failed to convince the voters of your case. I don’t expect you to give up, and you’re perfectly welcome to try and convince them again, but it will be a different case now.
Everything has moved on. Far too many Remainers think their point has already been made, and I see precious little thinking and understanding of why they lost the first time other than ‘we was robbed’.
You complain that Remainers don't try to understand why they lost. But Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about how they won.
The vote is and was legitimate. The question seems to be around undue influence and to what extent voters were hoodwinked.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
Some Breiteeers place an inordinate amount of weight on the 2016 result and constantly implore Remainers to "understand why they lost", as if we need to seek repentance for having the temerity to hold a different view.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
You're projecting. The average UK voter saw two well-funded campaigns with supposedly serious people on both sides.
The “understand why you lost” argument is a response to the claim the referendum divided the country
In my view it was already divided but the result just brought it to the media’s attention.
The response of some - not all - of the Remainers has been that the leave voters are stupid or unimportant and must be ignored because they (the Remainers) know what is best for the country. In that context “understand why you lost” is an important part of the healing process
I see “understand why you lost” more as an intra-elite game of one-upmanship where the Brexit elite seek to claim the mantle of being more in touch with ordinary people. This is why they're so desperate for the purity of their victory to be maintained.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
This is not true.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
What a shame to read your final sentence, which shows you’re capable of not much more than echoing the attack lines of others rather than being a man with your own mind.
You failed to convince the voters of your case. I don’t expect you to give up, and you’re perfectly welcome to try and convince them again, but it will be a different case now.
Everything has moved on. Far too many Remainers think their point has already been made, and I see precious little thinking and understanding of why they lost the first time other than ‘we was robbed’.
You complain that Remainers don't try to understand why they lost. But Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about how they won.
I agree there are lessons that both sides need to learn. The aftermath of the referendum was far more bitter than I anticipated and I’ve been reflecting on that for over 2 years.
I’m just trying to provide some balance the other way too.
Comments
You do realise that Remain spent more than Leave even excluding the outrageous 9m waste of public money to send every household a piece of Remain propaganda....
If the people who promoted it could provide a single example of a way in which it will not make things worse.
They can't even agree amongst themselves. No chance of persuading anyone who wasn't already persuaded by the fraudulent campign
What if we do much better than the EU than in the 2030s and 2040s, as our economy recalibrates with greater regulatory flexibility and a new political contract that means our citizens feel they have greater accountability and control?
Would you revise that opinion?
The delusion among Leavers is strong. They have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain voters that their concerns are understood or even being heard. But Remain voters are supposed magically to get behind an idea that they previously rejected.
' UK service providers indicated the fastest expansion of business activity for eight months in June, which continued the recovery in growth seen since March’s snow-related disruption. The latest upturn in service sector output was supported by the strongest increase in new work since May 2017. '
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/b47dc6e053404819b7485cc100f7fb41
It seems the real business world has been doing rather better than twatterdom claimed.
Which means there's likely to be an interest rate rise in August.
"What you're saying is that Cameron should have done exactly what leavers wanted him to do to help them win."
No, I'm saying David Cameron should have not done as he did, which was to prevent the CS from doing what they would normally have done.
We had a referendum. We voted to leave the EU. There was a variety of reasons for this. We generally like the idea of non-tariff trade (the common market) which is what primarily fuelled the yes vote in 1975. However the EU wanted far more control over all aspects.
Common standards are fine for goods, but not allowed by the EU for people, who must be allowed unlimited access. Few people think no-migration is sensible or practicable, but unlimited immigration is different. Then we come to sovereignty …
There are pros and cons for both sides - hence the vote. If we don't respect it, we are dissing democracy - a far more worrying trend.
Personally I found the brexit campaign no worse than any of Crosby's work.
Would Tory leavers get behind the result?
That’s even before Corbyn’s have cake and eat it policy was shown to be bollocks.
We lied about what Brexit would mean.
We cheated to get the result.
Why will you not help us to deliver what we can't?
It's almost poetic...
But to be honest, a campaign led by Tories on both sides, with egos like Boris, Dave and Osborne involved, was always going to be pretty heavy on the lying.
but this was being pitched against the Sofaland shtick of
buy our fucking sofas or you'll regret it you bunch of thicko oiks, …… APR 250% as our directors are aiming to pay themselves a huge bonus..... old sofas not accepted as we know what theyre like since we sold them to you last time
and then you wonder why you lost
Every individual is entitled to their own opinion, but those who are being paid to do what the people have told them to do need to get with the program. They are servants of the people not the masters.
Leave exaggerated claims as did Remain. Neither campaign covered themselves in glory.
A question Remain should be asking is why it was so unconvincing as to turn a 60:40 result on (average) opinion polling in the months leading up to it into a 52:48 loss, but it isn’t.
To the extent it is, it blames everyone else but itself.
How do we "vote out" Brexit?
Oh.
I just don’t understand how the people on here don’t understand democracy...
The ship has sailed on everyone getting behind it, I’m afraid.
The best hope is that the passions fade as time goes on, as it turns out to not be so bad, which may or may not happen.
Elections results with undue influence and hoodwinked voters are not legitimate
I expect politicians to lie and cheat. I've very seldom had a government I voted for, but that's life. I don't expect fate always to pander to my wishes.
Remainers (the gobby ones) = spoilt bastards.
Most Remainers = realists.
To be clear, any breach of the law is a breach of the law and should be punished. But, the average UK voter viewed the EU ref campaign as David v. Goliath. And rightly so.
They aren’t going to begrudge David for sneaking an extra small stone out of his pocket in the final few seconds to catapult up to an already teetering Goliath.
So here's another - how many other Remain voters constantly rant about 'xenophobic lies' ?
I thought voters were hoodwinked by Tony Blair in 1997, and the media exercised an undue influence for New Labour.
I didn’t challenge the legitimacy of the vote or demand it should be re-run.
Or is it just the ones lost?
Glad we got that clear.
The man whose allegations led to Scotland Yard’s disastrous inquiry into a VIP paedophile ring has been charged with making false claims of abuse.
The 50-year-old, known only as Nick, was the sole complainant in Operation Midland and is to face trial on 12 charges of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud.
He is accused of deceiving police over four years with false claims of a historical paedophile ring made up of senior politicians, military officers and other prominent figures.
Nick, who is also accused of falsely claiming that he saw three children being murdered, will appear before Westminster magistrates in September. He cannot be named for legal reasons.
The Crown Prosecution Service says that Nick fraudulently claimed £22,000 from the Criminal
Shouldn't the blame be shared by or accepted by a police force that is gullible, bends to political pressure, seeks high profile publicity and forgets that implementing basic policing skills would have prevented then being duped by 'Nick'
That doesn't mean everybody has to like it, support it or "suck it up"
Yes, Putin is a chancer and the Russians had sockpuppet twitter and Facebook accounts posting pro-Brexit messages. Some dodgy cash may have even found its way via Leave.EU.
But, that wasn’t the reason Remain lost.
I don’t think I’m projecting on the second. The Government, business, Union, political, broadcasting and funding advantages the Remain campaign had were huge.
A vote to give a referendum
A referendum
A supreme court decision to give parliament sovereignty over the decision
A huge parliamentary majority for A50
Passage of the withdrawal bill right through the Commons and Lords.
The final stanza is the conclusion of negotiations with Barnier, after the Cabinet decides what it wants.
Leave had had 40 years of people like yourself ignoring their views and doing what you fancy.
Now the shoes on the other foot theres no reason why they shouldn't play by your rules and not give a shit what you think. So they don't.
Nobody's in any doubt that if the vote % was the other way around you'd be claiming a clear democratic mandate and signing us up to all sorts of Eurobollocks
However, if they do so, and actively try to stop England succeeding by bringing vexatious court-cases, starting scare-stories about their best players, or generally trying to obstruct their training or sleep we might question their motives a little more.
Edit: Only the media and politicians have the power to do this, so you know who I'm talking about.
Any advantages they had were economic.
The campaign was won by xenophobic lies, where rational entities were severely disadvantaged.
As for supposed Russian influence it is amazing that no one seemed interested in or aware of these supposed mass tweets etc until their side lost - if it is was so effective and influential and massively affected the votes of 35 million people it's amazing no one was aware of it all at the time! But then the vast majority of voters dont follow politics on Twitter.
Of course the London Evening Standard is owned by a Russian oligarch and through his paid for mouthpiece - our ex Chancellor - he seems to be using his billions to push a very pro remain agenda daily. Now that is Russian spending influence clearly evident - every day pushed at Londoners and commuters.
The Lib Dems, Tories and Labour have all been found guilty of breaches by the Commission in the past and some investigations remain ongoing as was the European movement in relation to the referendum. If that is the criteria perhaps we should just declare all recent elections null and void and ban those 3 parties from standing in the next one as punishment. But that would be silly - that of course only applies to the leave victory!
I think May and her team know what they want. However:
1) Too many people in the Conservative party want something different; there are a few hardcore remainers who think leaving is wrong, and more hardcore leavers who won't countenance (what I view as) a sane deal (an EEA-style arrangement).
2) This is a deal between two major blocs: even if outside come to agreement, the EU may (reasonably or unreasonably) disagree.
David Stewart 12 hours ago
@David Evans Exactly. The Tory Brexos are so myopic that they can't see what's been staring them in the face for three years: they're going to end up with BRINO (most of the obligations, rules and regulations, yet no influence whatever), AND a Corbyn "government".
Downthread it was Putin.
And campaign spending.
you ran a shit campaign that's all there is to it.
I don't however agree with his first one. We're far too far down the road to stop Brexit now and even though Leave broke some rules, the effect will have been trivial (or even nil, as the donors could have funded their money through other channels who then spent it to equal effect, rather than going through the middle-man of the big campaign). The only people who will notice the Electoral Commission ruling are the political nerds and the deeply committed on either side.
In any case, as Remain spent the first year of after the referendum arguing that it wasn't binding, and as parliament has since voted to enable A50 to be triggered, and then passed the Withdrawal bill last month, it'd be a hell of a U-turn to say that parliament wasn't in fact sovereign and that the legislation passed - and the government actions authorised by it - were hence invalid.
https://twitter.com/robwattsf1/status/1014435849449168897
Huge thanks owed to Gina Miller's case for enhancing the certainty of Brexit. Oh the irony. The golden rule strikes again....
Hence the current mess.
27 May
Single
Open
This bet has been boosted!
Esther McVey
(To Leave First)
22/1
Next Cabinet Minister to Leave
Stake
£5.00
Returns
£115.00
I read for the political news and analysis, which is excellent. And why the site is held in such high regard.
Although, actual betters should keep in mind, the Lib Dem tinted glasses do sometimes mean what is presented as a possibility, is often , more just wishful thinking.
I'm not sure TMay will be around long enough as PM to ask parliament for EEA status if she continues this path.
Gil de Ferran is a good call. Lots of team management experience. Maybe Boullier off to Indy?
In my view it was already divided but the result just brought it to the media’s attention.
The response of some - not all - of the Remainers has been that the leave voters are stupid or unimportant and must be ignored because they (the Remainers) know what is best for the country. In that context “understand why you lost” is an important part of the healing process
Do you think I don’t know that?
By some strange coincidence Trump also wants the EU to fail.
That coming from people who want us to retain an immigration system via the EU which prioritises predominantly white Europeans for permanent residency in the UK - even if they are unskilled and have zero qualifications - over potentially highly skilled people in the rest of the world.
You failed to convince the voters of your case. I don’t expect you to give up, and you’re perfectly welcome to try and convince them again, but it will be a different case now.
Everything has moved on. Far too many Remainers think their point has already been made, and I see precious little thinking and understanding of why they lost the first time other than ‘we was robbed’.
I has money on this.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/05/27/esther-mcveys-betting-problem-is-why-im-taking-the-20-1-on-her-as-next-out-of-the-cabinet/
That Remainers only came to appreciate this division when they lost is not exactly to their credit....
Rubbing noses in diversity and low wages was never a good policy; not being able to understand why this might not be attractive to a majority is pretty myopic.
McLaren are not in great shape.
I’m just trying to provide some balance the other way too.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1014433828453183493