Another new Brexit thread

[bluethrunthru]

"Seek and ye shall find".........................or don't bother looking, find nowt and claim that is absolute proof nowt was happening...............

 

[meltonblue]

Who needs spin nowadays eh? It’s done for them.

 

[Vic]

Cummings is Boris's axe man. If he fails then Boris fails and electorate kick Boris and therefore Cummings out.
So your analogy fails on every level.

What analogy?

 

[Vic]

Cummings was fed up with politics in 2015, the key leave stakeholders had to do a lot of convincing to get him to run it.

Since then he’s been given another shot by riding rough with the Tories, who he despises but anyway, that’s another point, your post doesn’t work with Cummings, he’s not power hungry, he just wants a stage to inject his innovation.

Answer the questions on his behalf then.

Or do you think someone who can inject his own choice of adviser into every department of state has no power?

 

[Vic]

So they like Benn for his stance on the EU but not for the questions he always asked. Someone did apply the questions to the EU commission.

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/benns-five-questions/

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

So they like Benn for his stance on the EU but not for the questions he always asked. Someone did apply the questions to the EU commission.

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/benns-five-questions/

I'm sorry, but that's a veneer of democracy for show. In short, the power passes through too many hands between the electorate and the commission for them to be truly accountable. The power lies with people who are chosen by people, who were chosen by people,who were elected by people, who were chosen by people whose parties were elected by the people. In many ways the same as our own house of lords, but with even more dubious layers between the EU commission and council and the electorate. Short of having pan-European political parties and elections I'm not sure what the solution is. Even if we did that, we are then left with the issue of precedence of the EU vs National govt (sovereignty).

 

[Saddleworth2]

All roads lead to revoke/remain or another referendum it seems ;-)
This Russia thing is more steaming cow pat than smoking gun. Essentially there is no evidence - so the conclusion seems to be we didn't look hard enough :-)

No. There is no evidence because those in power closed their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and then took another back hander from their most favourite oligarch.

 

[Saddleworth2]

So, just to be clear remain didn't lie and waste it's time? In that case I take it all back and congratulate you for being right.

Well done mate. Nice to see someone big enough to admit when they are wrong.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

No. There is no evidence because those in power closed their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and then took another back hander from their most favourite oligarch.

Conservatives caught out doing nothing ..........again

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

No. There is no evidence because those in power closed their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and then took another back hander from their most favourite oligarch.

At what point do you say there is no evidence because there is no evidence? This just smacks of people being sore because the long awaited report didn't contain anything of note. Russian interference is of course there - as it has been since the late 1940's. The agenda is clear - just spend a day watching RT. The same people who claim the Russians influenced brexit are with a straight face claiming they influenced the GE in 2019. I don't claim to be a great strategist, but it seems clear that the Russians would much rather face the mighty EU army than NATO, have Corbyn in No.10, and fragmentation of the UK rather than the rejection of Scottish independence. By that measure, their influence on these events (if it exists) was not a success.

 

[Saddleworth2]

At what point do you say there is no evidence because there is no evidence?

Easy one that. After you have looked thoroughly for evidence. Thats the point. We knew that the Scottish Referendum had been targeted. Was it really outwith the bounds of possibility that the EU referendum would be targeted as well? The committee found it 'astonishing' that the Government hadn't asked for a review to be undertaken.

Of course Russia would have no interest in Brexit would they?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Easy one that. After you have looked thoroughly for evidence. Thats the point. We knew that the Scottish Referendum had been targeted. Was it really outwith the bounds of possibility that the EU referendum would be targeted as well? The committee found it 'astonishing' that the Government hadn't asked for a review to be undertaken.

Of course Russia would have no interest in Brexit would they?

Sorry, that's just tin-foil hat stuff. Everything in our democracy is targeted by the Russians and has been since the end of WW2 - we also seek to destabilise their regime. To tie this into every election result you are unhappy with is just silly. If you want to go down that path then we can throw similar doubt upon the results of x-factor, strictly, and big brother. What this seems to boil down to is people not getting their way refusing to believe it is because their ideas and argument failed, and having had a go at blaming the electorate are now seeking to create an external bogey man. I'm sure there were reasons of political convenience for the delay/suppression of the report, but to have a tantrum because there is no evidence and say it's there , we just didn't look is just childish.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Sorry, that's just tin-foil hat stuff. Everything in our democracy is targeted by the Russians and has been since the end of WW2 - we also seek to destabilise their regime. To tie this into every election result you are unhappy with is just silly. If you want to go down that path then we can throw similar doubt upon the results of x-factor, strictly, and big brother. What this seems to boil down to is people not getting their way refusing to believe it is because their ideas and argument failed, and having had a go at blaming the electorate are now seeking to create an external bogey man. I'm sure there were reasons of political convenience for the delay/suppression of the report, but to have a tantrum because there is no evidence and say it's there , we just didn't look is just childish.

Not according to the committee its not :-)
They also found that the risk of Russian attack had significantly increased following the leaking of emails at the US elections, so you are unfortunately wrong that similar risks have existed since WW2.

The fact that the US attack was recognised only a month or so after our referendum, you would have thought the Government might look at any possible interference with ours. Its an important report, not because of Brexit - thats done and dusted, but because it highlights the lack of diligence undertaken by our Government in protecting democracy in the UK.

 

[blueinsa]

Of course Russia would have no interest in Brexit would they?

Of course they did in the exact same way the USA led by Obama did and the EU did and the whole political world did.

We know Obama batted for remain very publicly as did the EU and we even had an American/Hungarian Billionaire paying for remain campaigning but RT coverage aside, what proof do we have that Russia stepped over a line in the sand and subverted the vote?

None is the answer and we are yet again facing the truth that interference and influence is fine so long as you agree with it.

It is literally the biggest bunch of sour grapes ive seen and a last, sad, desperate attempt to get their own way by sticking the biggest 2 fingers up to our democracy imaginable.

 

[mcfc1632]

'The British government and intelligence agencies failed to prepare or conduct any proper assessment of Kremlin attempts to interfere with the 2016 Brexit referendum, according to the long-delayed Russia report.

The damning conclusion is contained within the 50-page document from parliament’s intelligence and security committee, which said ministers in effect turned a blind eye to allegations of Russian disruption.

It said the government “had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes” at the time, and it made clear that no serious effort was made to do so.

The committee, which scrutinises the work of Britain’s spy agencies, said: “We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference”. It contrasted the response with that of the US.'

Ill founded? Not sure you can claim that.

Ill founded is indeed entirely accurate and your quotes from the report only emphasise that to be the case I'm afraid....

All those comments confirm with any 'certainty' is that there is not explicit proof that it happened or did not happen.

'Certainty' is the word I use in the post that you replied to:

"Should Leavers not therefore point out that the level of certainty that they expressed was 'ill-founded'?"

So the report makes absolutely clear that my post is entirely accurate - the level of certainty with which some posters declared the interference too have taken place was indeed clearly ill-founded - e.g.:

Still beats me how people can support Brexit whilst the Government are sitting on a report (despite a petition demanding it be released) which allegedly confirms Russian interference in the referendum (If it didn't it would've been released by now)..... the similarities to the support of Trump are mind blowing.

Surely the Government should be forced to release it / make the results public (no redactions) .... discuss it in parliament and then a decision should be made.

So, starting with this poster, it would be appropriate surely for those that expressed such levels of certainty to acknowledge that they have been proven to be wrong...

Taking such action appears to be something that Remainers have real issues with - so I won't hold my breath

 

[mcfc1632]

................There is no evidence - so it must have happened.

Yep - this is the strength of the Remainer view - and they present it as compelling and evidence that it 'certainly' took place...

This is only the latest example of their ability to state black = white or bollocks = facts etc.

They are only convincing each other - nobody else

 

[mcfc1632]

I Tweeted that Brexit was a shit idea in 2016, I apologise for interfering in the referendum.

You subversive so and so....

 

[blueinsa]

Politics is rigged. Always has been.

Do small parties have the luxury of electoral budgets that match the Tories and Labour? Do they get the same opportunities of air time? Are electoral boundaries fair or are they a carve up between the big 2 to cement their place in Westminster? Is Labour and the Tories spending £Millions on ads for social media and using super computers/agencies to target voters using sophisticated software fair on the Lib Dems who cant match?

We could go on forever, literally.

Lets get rid of it all. A true level playing field. Set budgets for campaigns. Strict and prohibitive punishments for all those that break the rules. True PR.

Not going too happen is it because vested interests will kick in as people dont want fair, they just want their own way.

 

[west didsblue]

Of course they did in the exact same way the USA led by Obama did and the EU did and the whole political world did.

We know Obama batted for remain very publicly as did the EU and we even had an American/Hungarian Billionaire paying for remain campaigning but RT coverage aside, what proof do we have that Russia stepped over a line in the sand and subverted the vote?

None is the answer and we are yet again facing the truth that interference and influence is fine so long as you agree with it.

It is literally the biggest bunch of sour grapes ive seen and a last, sad, desperate attempt to get their own way by sticking the biggest 2 fingers up to our democracy imaginable.

Why haven’t you mentioned Obama and Soros before?

If you mention it a few more times you might convince people that it’s a valid comparison.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Ill founded is indeed entirely accurate and your quotes from the report only emphasise that to be the case I'm afraid....

All those comments confirm with any 'certainty' is that there is not explicit proof that it happened or did not happen.

'Certainty' is the word I use in the post that you replied to:

"Should Leavers not therefore point out that the level of certainty that they expressed was 'ill-founded'?"

So the report makes absolutely clear that my post is entirely accurate - the level of certainty with which some posters declared the interference too have taken place was indeed clearly ill-founded - e.g.:

So, starting with this poster, it would be appropriate surely for those that expressed such levels of certainty to acknowledge that they have been proven to be wrong...

Taking such action appears to be something that Remainers have real issues with - so I won't hold my breath

Its not like they weren't warned....at which point does turning a blind eye to Russian Interference become collusion?