Brexit (Old)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand the point. It's not like Farage was wanting for a BBC audience, they would put him on no matter what.

My point is that Farage was not part of the official Leave campaign but he was a high profile member of the overall Leave campaign and as such had a national platform, ably assisted by the BBC, to spread his lies. Lies that had a direct and tangible effect on the result.

The fact that his campaign was run by criminals is no surprise ..

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

My point is that Farage was not part of the official Leave campaign but he was a high profile member of the overall Leave campaign and as such had a national platform, ably assisted by the BBC, to spread his lies. Lies that had a direct and tangible effect on the result.

The fact that his campaign was run by criminals is no surprise ..

Can you link to the convictions ?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Can you link to the convictions ?

He will have a job - they don't exist.

Calling someone a criminal when they are not, nor have any convictions, or have not been convicted of any offence, this is considered Defamation of character and thus, libellous, so it should cease immediately.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

He will have a job - they don't exist.

Calling someone a criminal when they are not, nor have any convictions, or have not been convicted of any offence, this is considered Defamation of character and thus, libellous, so it should cease immediately.

Good to know.

So when someone breaks into your home when you are out and steals your valuables, you refer to them as "suspected" criminals? Yeah right ...

Meanwhile:

Arron Banks faces criminal inquiry over Brexit campaign

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Good to know.

So when someone breaks into your home when you are out and steals your valuables, you refer to them as "suspected" criminals? Yeah right ...

Meanwhile:

Arron Banks faces criminal inquiry over Brexit campaign

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.

[1andrew1]

I think Brexit negotiations should continue for now. But if Arron Banks is proved to have financially doped the Brexit referendum then the Government will find itself in a tricky situation. I'm sure the British public's sense of play will come into play here; we don't like a cheat.
We know that the public doesn't want a hard Brexit as the only party to have this on its manifesto saw a huge slump in the vote at the last election. The only logical solution in such circumstances would be another vote, though what form would be appropriate I don't know.
But would the trial be successfully concluded by next March? By all accounts, the evidence looks pretty damning but rich people have been known to string these things out.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Brexit negotiations should continue for now. But if Arron Banks is proved to have financially doped the Brexit referendum then the Government will find itself in a tricky situation. I'm sure the British public's sense of play will come into play here; we don't like a cheat.
We know that the public doesn't want a hard Brexit as the only party to have this on its manifesto saw a huge slump in the vote at the last election. The only logical solution in such circumstances would be another vote, though what form would be appropriate I don't know.
But would the trial be successfully concluded by next March? By all accounts, the evidence looks pretty damning but rich people have been known to string these things out.

There isn’t going to be another referendum. Stop clutching at straws.

It’s been said endlessly since 2016, but ... we are leaving the EU. Deal with it.

[ianch99]

Just to illustrate the reality of the influence of the Leave campaign endorsed by Farage, part of which is suspected of criminal behaviour:

UK news coverage of the 2016 EU Referendum. Report 5 (6 May  22 June 2016)

The Top thirty media appearances (6 May – 22 June):

Position Name Number of appearances Percentage of items in which they appeared
1 David Cameron (Conservative IN) 499 24.9%
2 Boris Johnson (Conservative OUT) 379 18.9%
3 George Osborne (Conservative IN) 230 11.5%
4 Nigel Farage (UKIP OUT) 182 9.1%
5 Michael Gove (Conservative OUT) 161 8.0%
6 Ian Duncan Smith (Conservative OUT) 124 6.2%
7 Jeremy Corbyn (Labour IN) 123 6.1%

Despite all having longstanding positions on the European issue the other party leaders, with the exception of Nigel Farage, received markedly less coverage than they had in the 2015 General Election.

This shows the label of "official" Leave campaign is meaningless ...

Straws. Clutching; stop.

Seriously.

You’re just giving yourself faint thrills of false hope. We’re leaving and nothing’s going to stop it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

There isn’t going to be another referendum. Stop clutching at straws.

It’s been said endlessly since 2016, but ... we are leaving the EU. Deal with it.

Sorry Chris, but that aggressive tone was uncalled for. Are you afraid that Crooked Banks is going to upset Brexit?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sorry Chris, but that aggressive tone was uncalled for. Are you afraid that Crooked Banks is going to upset Brexit?

No, I’m not. I’m just slightly saddened to see so many intelligent, reasonable people deceiving themselves at the slightest sign of anything they think might, somehow, just maybe, stop or delay or undermine Brexit in some way.

I’ve kept out of the debate for the most part because so much of it just revolves around the latest piece of pointless intrigue. I’m not planning on getting drawn into it now either. I just think it would do you no harm to accept reality. I know you’ve erected a shell around yourself so that the phrase “we’re leaving, deal with it” just sounds aggressive and combative, but there’s actually no reason why it necessarily has to be so. It also happens to be the truth. We are leaving, and you are going to have to deal with it at some point. That doesn’t mean you have to like it, but it does mean you are going to have to find some way to make peace with it, or else you’re just going to end up permanently bitter. Which would be a sad state of affairs indeed.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sorry Chris, but that aggressive tone was uncalled for. Are you afraid that Crooked Banks is going to upset Brexit?

What are you on about "aggressive tone"? When people say stupid things they can be called out. Clutching at straws is exactly right.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, I’m not. I’m just slightly saddened to see so many intelligent, reasonable people deceiving themselves at the slightest sign of anything they think might, somehow, just maybe, stop or delay or undermine Brexit in some way.

I’ve kept out of the debate for the most part because so much of it just revolves around the latest piece of pointless intrigue. I’m not planning on getting drawn into it now either. I just think it would do you no harm to accept reality. I know you’ve erected a shell around yourself so that the phrase “we’re leaving, deal with it” just sounds aggressive and combative, but there’s actually no reason why it necessarily has to be so. It also happens to be the truth. We are leaving, and you are going to have to deal with it at some point. That doesn’t mean you have to like it, but it does mean you are going to have to find some way to make peace with it, or else you’re just going to end up permanently bitter. Which would be a sad state of affairs indeed.

I do strongly urge you to read my post again. My first sentence is about Brexit negotiations continuing. Hardly the words of someone who is in denial! For those of us like me who are in the business world, accepting and planning for Brexit is a given.
Quite how "I know you’ve erected a shell around yourself.." is bizarre when we've not met and had minimal interaction on this forum. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
Deal with it is just an aggressive instruction. I accept that it may not be to you.
One point of my post is what do you do if something has been fixed. If it's a football match, do you replay it? If it's the Olympics, you strip the winners of the medals?
I'm saddened that what I thought was a thoughtful, discussive post from me has been so severely misinterpreted. But I'm pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight.
But it would also be great to hear if you are concerned that the Arron Banks criminal enquiry will discredit the Brexit vote.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What are you on about "aggressive tone"? When people say stupid things they can be called out. Clutching at straws is exactly right.

Chris has kindly reworded his post, so my remarks refer to the post quoted and not the one you have read.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Total rubbish ... Farage had a big influence on the Brexit result.

Congratulations you win the “master of the bleedin obvious” prize.

Not due to any impropriety, if proven, by Leave.EU.

Farage had a big influence, full stop. Farage cause the referendum to exist in the first place.

Farage was a big influence way before, and during, the campaign.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We know that the public doesn't want a hard Brexit as the only party to have this on its manifesto saw a huge slump in the vote at the last election.

So you accept that the last election was also a vote on Brexit?

Therefore you agree that the country, for a second time, voted for Brexit? By a large margin.

Therefore a notion of a third vote is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I do strongly urge you to read my post again. My first sentence is about Brexit negotiations continuing. Hardly the words of someone who is in denial! For those of us like me who are in the business world, accepting and planning for Brexit is a given.
Quite how "I know you’ve erected a shell around yourself.." is bizarre when we've not met and had minimal interaction on this forum. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
Deal with it is just an aggressive instruction. I accept that it may not be to you.
One point of my post is what do you do if something has been fixed. If it's a football match, do you replay it? If it's the Olympics, you strip the winners of the medals?
I'm saddened that what I thought was a thoughtful, discussive post from me has been so severely misinterpreted. But I'm pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight.
But it would also be great to hear if you are concerned that the Arron Banks criminal enquiry will discredit the Brexit vote.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------


Chris has kindly reworded his post, so my remarks refer to the post quoted and not the one you have read.

Andrew, earlier today you listed a series of predicted brexiteer responses to the news about Aaron Banks, including variations on the “deal with it” theme. This is what I mean about a “shell” - your predictions are designed to caricature and thereby diminish the views of those you disagree with in order to trivialise them. You can then safely ignore them. I don’t need to interact with you directly to see this ... the forum is public; I don’t post as much as I used to but I can, and do, read it.

If this is what works for you then fine ... but I don’t think it’s tenable in the long run because I don’t think anything that has happened since the vote poses any threat to the result of that vote. You are personally going to have to make peace with that. Might as well be sooner than later. And no, I don’t think there is anything Aaron Banks can be convicted of that will result in the result being discredited, short of wholesale ballot stuffing, and nobody has (yet) tried to claim there has been fraud of that type.