Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Those lines were put there in a humorous way but they do have a serious message. People seem far too happy to readily fall for conspiracy theories that support their viewpoint instead of opening their minds.
Maybe companies are telling the truth about the impact of no-deal and maybe Arron Banks is being referred to the important National Crime Agency for the right reasons. Are you open to these things being true?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

People seem far too happy to readily fall for conspiracy theories that support their viewpoint instead of opening their minds.

Oh...the Irony............................................. .........

Andrew, I’m not sure of the relevance of your question. Even assuming that not a single piece of Brexit bad news is in any way politically motivated whatsoever (which is unlikely), I’m actually not interested in whether any of those things are true or not. Your question perhaps suggests that you think there’s a debate still to be had about whether Brexit is a good idea, the right decision and something that should proceed. You’re not going to get that debate with me; the points you’re trying to raise simply aren’t relevant to me.

We have become far too entangled in the EU; far more so than any sovereign country should have. The difficulties encountered during negotiations simply reinforce the argument I’ve been making for more than 20 years. We are leaving, and that’s a good thing.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Andrew, I’m not sure of the relevance of your question. Even assuming that not a single piece of Brexit bad news is in any way politically motivated whatsoever (which is unlikely), I’m actually not interested in whether any of those things are true or not. Your question perhaps suggests that you think there’s a debate still to be had about whether Brexit is a good idea, the right decision and something that should proceed. You’re not going to get that debate with me; the points you’re trying to raise simply aren’t relevant to me.

We have become far too entangled in the EU; far more so than any sovereign country should have. The difficulties encountered during negotiations simply reinforce the argument I’ve been making for more than 20 years. We are leaving, and that’s a good thing.

My points have been around the veracity of information and how we would handle a situation if Arron Banks broke campaign rules substantially. I'm not re-debating whether Brexit's a good idea or not nor assuming that he is guilty at this stage. I would speculate that it's either poor admin or something darker.
I will find it interesting to see how the Arron Banks case develops but happily accept that this interest is not universally shared.
For the reputation of the UK, I hope he hasn't acted illegally as it would cast a shadow on our country's standing. And if he has, how can we measure the impact it has had? Should we believe that it has had no impact and continue as is or should we step back and think what good practice in a modern democracy looks like?

... for which I read “is this an argument for re-running the referendum”, and to which I reply, with the greatest of respect to you, we are leaving, there isn’t going to be a re-run, and you need to deal with it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not re-debating whether Brexit's a good idea or not

well that’ll be a blessed relief.

I will find it interesting to see how the Arron Banks case develops but happily accept that this interest is not universally shared.

thT’s because it’s irrelevant.

For the reputation of the UK, I hope he hasn't acted illegally as it would cast a shadow on our country's standing.

I don’t see how ?

And if he has, how can we measure the impact it has had? Should we believe that it has had no impact

yes, because it hasn’t. What impact do you think it may if had?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Pierre

well that’ll be a blessed relief.

thT’s because it’s irrelevant.


I don’t see how ?

yes, because it hasn’t. What impact do you think it may if had?

No one can unequivocally state whether there is an impact or not. That is for the NCA and the electoral commission to determine. The significance of the influence (if it is proven) will be the determinant of harm done.

The leave campaign has misled people. Who was influenced to vote differently based on the NHS bus, or the single market claims and other campaign slogans, will be harder to quantify.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

... for which I read “is this an argument for re-running the referendum”, and to which I reply, with the greatest of respect to you, we are leaving, there isn’t going to be a re-run, and you need to deal with it.

I'm clear in my head that I accept we're leaving. But I get that I've not got this point across to you.
My interests are what people trust in terms of Brexit news, what happens with Arron Banks. And if there was substantial illegal campaign funding, what do we do in the context of the referendum.
For the sake of British democracy, all options should be on the table if a strong case of illegal and substantial election interference was proved.
This is not the "let's look for another reason for a second vote" argument that you may be after.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

For goodness sake, get a bloody grip, there was nothing aggressive about Chris post whatsoever.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

For goodness sake, get a bloody grip, there was nothing aggressive about Chris post whatsoever.

Ha ha. Don't drag us back to that post Mick, we've moved on from that.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Angua

No one can unequivocally state whether there is an impact or not. That is for the NCA and the electoral commission to determine. The significance of the influence (if it is proven) will be the determinant of harm done.

You can’t prove it, it’s completely subjective, unprovable.

The leave campaign has misled people. Who was influenced to vote differently based on the NHS bus, or the single market claims and other campaign slogans, will be harder to quantify.

You can’t quantify it.

Originally Posted by Angua

The leave campaign has misled people..

And so did the Remain campaign!

When will you stop it with the one sided rubbish?

Both campaigns tried to mislead people, they played by the same rules.

The Remain camp lied as well as well as them getting a £9 Million tax funded boost, in the form of a Pro Remain leaflet.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm clear in my head that I accept we're leaving.

Whoohoo.

And if there was substantial illegal campaign funding, what do we do in the context of the referendum.

nothing.

For the sake of British democracy, all options should be on the table if a strong case of illegal and substantial election interference was proved.

which it can’t be, how do you prove it?

The leave “ message” is not being questioned. The funding of a splinter organisation is.

One of the “so called “ biggest lies.....the 350million to the NHS was from the official campaign, which is not under investigation

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Both campaigns tried to mislead people, they played by the same rules.

The criminal investigation today concerns one of the leave campaigns acting illegally in terms of the sources of its funding. If true, they certainly didn't all play by the same rules.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The criminal investigation today concerns one of the leave campaigns acting illegally in terms of the sources of its funding. If true, they certainly didn't all play by the same rules.

Innocent until proven guilty!!!

Still does not invalidate the result!!!