"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 10/06/2018 13:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
: > On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:18:26 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
: >> On 10/06/2018 10:38, MM wrote:
: >>> It's all beginning to look highly suspicious. This morning the
: >>> Observer newspaper reports on suggestions that Arron Banks, who
: >>> bankrolled Nigel Farage's campaign, 'met with Russian officials
: >>> multiple times before Brexit vote'.
: >>> There were, according to the Observer
: >>> <quote>
: >>> - Multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking
: >>> Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
: >>> - Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
: >> Well, no, not really. Leave.eu was not the official or recognised
: >> campaign group. That was Vote Leave.
: >> It's a bit disingenuous of the good old Observer to call it the
: >> 'official campaign', if not downright misleading.
: >>> - An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador,
: >>> the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered
: >>> Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
: >> And that has what exactly to do with Brexit?
: >>> - A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
: >>> financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
: >> Or that?
: >>> - Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when
: >>> Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and
: >>> Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump's candidacy.
: >>> </quote>
: >> So what?
: >>> Suffice to say that it looks decidedly murky, but given the
: >>> disappearance of the Skripals from public view after what happened to
: >>> them in Salisbury, I'm going to keep stumm now.
: >>> But you can still read all about it here:
: >> Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
: >> didn't we?
: > No a tiny majority voted leave because of
: > Lies of the Leave campaign in particular £350M pw ...
: > Overspending by the Leave campaign.
: > Probably - fake social media content generated be er Russia...
: Can you point to any?
: I didn't see anything on social media. Did you?
: If there was a fake social media campaign, it could surely only have had
: any effect at on the young because they're the ones who use it. But
: it's your view that those in that age group overwhelmingly voted Remain
: anyway. So, it clearly didn't work even if it did exist which I doubt,
: and it's just totally implausible that it changed the result.
: By the way 108 people voted to Leave for every 100 people who voted to
: Remain. The majority was 1,269,501. Count them one by one before you
: lie to us again that it is 'tiny' or 'a whisker'.
: > When the UK voted to join the EU by more than a two to one majority in
1975, one could sensibly say that the issue was settled for a generation.
: > When Scotland voted to stay in the UK by a 10% majority it certainly
seemed settled for many years to come (despite inevitable SNP backsliding
from THEIR stated position before and soon after the vote.
: > OTOH when Leave won the 2016 referendum by a whisker, it only needs less
than 1M (<2%) of the electorate to change their minds, or more likely the
demographic of the electorate to move on to reverse the result, so another
vote now that the terrible mess it is turning into would seem not only
reasonable but almost essential to ensure that this irreversible course of
action has a genuine democratic mandate.
: > "Do you agree that the UK should leave the EU under the terms currently
: > Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been
: We've had the vote. We've moved on. A second one isn't being offered.
: Can you tell us how you envisage one coming about when the Tories and
: Labour are both against it? Will it be by way of a general election
: returning a majority LibDem government do you think?
: Do tell us - we need a good laugh now and again.