Discussion:
Did Leave.EU conspire with the Russians to swing the Brexit vote?
Add Reply
MM
2018-06-10 09:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.

- 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.

- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.

- 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>


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:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting

MM
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 10:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-10 12:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
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...

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 available Y/N?"

Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 15:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
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'.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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 available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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.
pensive hamster
2018-06-10 16:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-prepared-vote-brexit-plan-jeremy-corbyn-aims-softest-deal-095510567.html
Labour ‘prepared to vote against Brexit plan’ as Jeremy Corbyn aims for ’softest’ deal
Post by Norman Wells
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.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 17:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-prepared-vote-brexit-plan-jeremy-corbyn-aims-softest-deal-095510567.html
Labour ‘prepared to vote against Brexit plan’ as Jeremy Corbyn aims for ’softest’ deal
Can you point to where that says anything about a second referendum,
which is what we were discussing?
pensive hamster
2018-06-10 18:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-prepared-vote-brexit-plan-jeremy-corbyn-aims-softest-deal-095510567.html
Labour ‘prepared to vote against Brexit plan’ as Jeremy Corbyn aims for ’softest’ deal
Can you point to where that says anything about a second referendum,
which is what we were discussing?
We are only halfway through Act 1, who knows how the plot may
develop. The final paragraph of the above linked report reads:

'Brexit minister Suella Braverman said: “Labour have shattered their
promise to respect the referendum result – this amendment means
accepting free movement and continuing to follow EU rules with
absolutely no say in them, which is the worst of all worlds.”

If she is correct, that “Labour have shattered their promise to respect
the referendum result ...", then the plot thickens ...
tim...
2018-06-10 19:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-prepared-vote-brexit-plan-jeremy-corbyn-aims-softest-deal-095510567.html
Labour ‘prepared to vote against Brexit plan’ as Jeremy Corbyn aims for
’softest’ deal
That's when the vote for final deal is offered

The odds are that all of the Tories/DUP will vote for the final deal unless
is it "no deal"

They will all know that "go back for better" is not a real option and
anything else will mean an election and either:

a) a Corbyn government
b) a better majority for May/ANOther making their chances for rebellion even
smaller.

Depending on how the polls are swinging on the day.

Their preferred "stay in" is just not going to happen.

tim
BurfordTJustice
2018-06-10 20:15:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"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
leave
: >> 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:
: >>>
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
: >>
: >> 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
available Y/N?"
: >
: > Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been
found out!
:
: 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.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-11 16:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
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'.
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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?
Not on social media, which is why I qualified it 'probably' - plenty of news reports about it though even in your preferred rightard rags.
Post by Norman Wells
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'.
The swing required to reverse the referendum result is just 1.8% - that IS tiny in electoral terms. In a parliamentary seat such a thin majority (less than a thousand in a typical constituency) would be described as "highly marginal". You just big it up by describing it in a rather unusual way.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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 available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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.
Ask me on Wednesday.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 16:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
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'.
The swing required to reverse the referendum result is just 1.8% - that IS tiny in electoral terms. In a parliamentary seat such a thin majority (less than a thousand in a typical constituency) would be described as "highly marginal". You just big it up by describing it in a rather unusual way.
What, by saying what the majority actually was, in numbers?

That's not 'unusual'.

An unusual way of describing it would be to point out that it's 1,386
times all the votes you managed to garner in Wigan in the 2017 general
election.

Either way, it's quite a lot.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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 available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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.
Ask me on Wednesday.
You mean you don't have any idea as yet. Are you waiting to be told
what to think, as usual?

Can't you venture even a little opinion of your own?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 10:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
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'.
The swing required to reverse the referendum result is just 1.8% - that IS tiny in electoral terms. In a parliamentary seat such a thin majority (less than a thousand in a typical constituency) would be described as "highly marginal". You just big it up by describing it in a rather unusual way.
What, by saying what the majority actually was, in numbers?
That only 634,751 people would need to change their mind to reverse the result - that's a pretty small number compared with electorate or the number that voted (33M+).
Post by Norman Wells
That's not 'unusual'.
An unusual way of describing it would be to point out that it's 1,386
times all the votes you managed to garner in Wigan in the 2017 general
election.
More pathetic personal jibes - I don't suppose you have ever stood for anything, just jeered from the sidelines - grow up!
Post by Norman Wells
Either way, it's quite a lot.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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 available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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.
Ask me on Wednesday.
You mean you don't have any idea as yet. Are you waiting to be told
what to think, as usual?
Can't you venture even a little opinion of your own?
Why speculate how the MP's will vote tonight when we will know tomorrow?
Norman Wells
2018-06-15 13:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
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'.
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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?
Not on social media, which is why I qualified it 'probably' - plenty of news reports about it though even in your preferred rightard rags.
Post by Norman Wells
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'.
The swing required to reverse the referendum result is just 1.8% - that IS tiny in electoral terms. In a parliamentary seat such a thin majority (less than a thousand in a typical constituency) would be described as "highly marginal". You just big it up by describing it in a rather unusual way.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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 available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
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.
Ask me on Wednesday.
Sorry, I was away. However, the long grass you spied has now been
flattened by the lawnmower of events. So, can you tell us how you
envisage a second referendum 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?
BurfordTJustice
2018-06-10 20:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
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...

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
available Y/N?"

Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been
found out!
abelard
2018-06-10 21:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:15:22 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
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...
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,
8% is not a whisker, it is several day growth at the very least
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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.
these crafty ruskis...only a million votes eh...

meanwhile i do hear a refrain from (who those like myself)
went for remain...'get on with the democratic will and stop
messing about'
Post by R. Mark Clayton
"Do you agree that the UK should leave the EU under the terms currently available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
too late...you lost
--
www.abelard.org
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 10:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:15:22 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
SNIP
Post by abelard
Post by R. Mark Clayton
OTOH when Leave won the 2016 referendum by a whisker,
8% is not a whisker, it is several day growth at the very least
It is not even 8% if you double count it (like Norman).
Post by abelard
Post by R. Mark Clayton
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.
these crafty ruskis...only a million votes eh...
meanwhile i do hear a refrain from (who those like myself)
went for remain...'get on with the democratic will and stop
messing about'
Post by R. Mark Clayton
"Do you agree that the UK should leave the EU under the terms currently available Y/N?"
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
too late...you lost
Best of three, especially as the second referendum was so close...
Post by abelard
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2018-06-11 06:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
"Do you agree that the UK should leave the EU under the terms currently available Y/N?"
Any vote which excludes a 'reject the terms & leave anyway' option is
IMO biased in favour of Remain.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course the LAST thing leavers want is another vote now they have been found out!
Yawn.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
pensive hamster
2018-06-10 16:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
But the Observer didn't call it *the* 'official campaign', it said
'... Leave.EU launched its official campaign.'

Was there an official process for deciding which campaign was
the 'official campaign'?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
- 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?
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
Oh, the Russians couldn't possibly have had any influence,
could they ...? Anyway, how would you know?
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 17:22:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
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 leave
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.
But the Observer didn't call it *the* 'official campaign', it said
'... Leave.EU launched its official campaign.'
Was there an official process for deciding which campaign was
the 'official campaign'?
Yes there was. The Electoral Commission had the job of deciding.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/designation-of-lead-campaigners-for-the-eu-referendum
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
- 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?
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Or that?
Post by MM
- 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?
Post by MM
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
Oh, the Russians couldn't possibly have had any influence,
could they ...?
No, I don't think they could.
Post by pensive hamster
Anyway, how would you know?
By you telling me, as I asked, what they did and how they did it.

Otherwise, it's just the usual Project Fear vague hints and innuendo
with no substance whatsoever. Another passing straw clutched at.

Someone went to Russia to discuss a financial deal. Must have made
people vote Leave. Referendum therefore invalid. Must have another one
to get the right result.

As pathetic arguments go, that's one of the best.
pensive hamster
2018-06-10 18:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe

------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister

------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU

'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'

------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say

------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit

'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 19:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe
------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister
------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU
'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'
------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say
------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Maybe it is. Maybe that's Russia's aim. What I asked, however is what
Russia did in the build-up to the referendum to influence the result.

Can you tell us please, because you haven't told us anything yet.
pensive hamster
2018-06-10 19:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe
------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister
------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU
'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'
------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say
------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Maybe it is. Maybe that's Russia's aim. What I asked, however is what
Russia did in the build-up to the referendum to influence the result.
Can you tell us please, because you haven't told us anything yet.
I don't know what Russia did, or how effective they may have been.
You'll have to ask MI5 for their opinion.

In the final link I provided above, there was this section:

'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'

[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]

'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.

'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.

'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 20:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe
------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister
------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU
'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'
------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say
------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Maybe it is. Maybe that's Russia's aim. What I asked, however is what
Russia did in the build-up to the referendum to influence the result.
Can you tell us please, because you haven't told us anything yet.
I don't know what Russia did, or how effective they may have been.
You'll have to ask MI5 for their opinion.
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
Hardly persuasive, is it? Who on earth would plough through the
thosands of tweets with that hashtag?
pensive hamster
2018-06-11 15:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe
------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister
------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU
'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'
------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say
------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Maybe it is. Maybe that's Russia's aim. What I asked, however is what
Russia did in the build-up to the referendum to influence the result.
Can you tell us please, because you haven't told us anything yet.
I don't know what Russia did, or how effective they may have been.
You'll have to ask MI5 for their opinion.
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
Hardly persuasive, is it? Who on earth would plough through the
thosands of tweets with that hashtag?
I don't understand your point. I don't use Twitter, so I'm not
familiar with it, but I don't think it depends on people ploughing
through thousands of tweets with a particular hashtag.

People post messages, and sometimes "follow" people they
know, or whose opinions they are interested in. Sometimes
they "retweet" other people's messages. D Trump is
apparently keen on tweeting, and some people have pointed
to his use of Twitter as politically a very effective way of
connecting with "ordinary voters".

Perhaps the Russians, with their reported 150,000 accounts
(not necessarily all on Twitter), also see social media as an
effective way of connecting with ordinary voters in the West.

If you know any tame teenagers, you can probably ask them
to explain it all to you.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 15:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
The concern is that Russia may have been trying to weaken and
destabilise the EU (for its own political, strategic, and financial
reasons).
But how?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-propaganda-campaign-weakening-europe-2017-1
'The aim is to weaken the West': The inside story of how Russian
propagandists are waging war on Europe
------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/russia-sees-uk-as-weak-because-of-brexit-says-lithuanian-minister
Russia sees UK as weak because of Brexit, says Lithuanian minister
------------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/putin-balkan-countries-eu-join-russia-problem-serbia-albania-a8355866.html
Why it’s such a big problem for Putin if the Balkan countries enter the EU
'The last thing the Kremlin wants is more European integration and a
seamless chain of EU member states from the Aegean to the Alps'
------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-russia-tusk-idUSKCN12L01N
Russia wants to weaken the EU, EU leaders say
------------------------------------
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
'... Michael McFaul – a former US ambassador to Russia – put the case in
similar terms, tweeting “Putin benefits from a weaker Europe. UK vote
[to leave the EU] makes EU weaker. It’s just that simple”.
Maybe it is. Maybe that's Russia's aim. What I asked, however is what
Russia did in the build-up to the referendum to influence the result.
Can you tell us please, because you haven't told us anything yet.
I don't know what Russia did, or how effective they may have been.
You'll have to ask MI5 for their opinion.
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
Hardly persuasive, is it? Who on earth would plough through the
thosands of tweets with that hashtag?
I don't understand your point. I don't use Twitter, so I'm not
familiar with it, but I don't think it depends on people ploughing
through thousands of tweets with a particular hashtag.
People post messages, and sometimes "follow" people they
know, or whose opinions they are interested in. Sometimes
they "retweet" other people's messages. D Trump is
apparently keen on tweeting, and some people have pointed
to his use of Twitter as politically a very effective way of
connecting with "ordinary voters".
Perhaps the Russians, with their reported 150,000 accounts
(not necessarily all on Twitter), also see social media as an
effective way of connecting with ordinary voters in the West.
If you know any tame teenagers, you can probably ask them
to explain it all to you.
You make my point for me. It's only 'tame teenagers' who might possibly
have seen the tweets, and they by all accounts voted Remain anyway, so
they couldn't have had much effect.

By the way, I've searched on Twitter for the so-called Svetal1972 but he
doesn't seem to exist.
pensive hamster
2018-06-11 16:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
Hardly persuasive, is it? Who on earth would plough through the
thosands of tweets with that hashtag?
I don't understand your point. I don't use Twitter, so I'm not
familiar with it, but I don't think it depends on people ploughing
through thousands of tweets with a particular hashtag.
People post messages, and sometimes "follow" people they
know, or whose opinions they are interested in. Sometimes
they "retweet" other people's messages. D Trump is
apparently keen on tweeting, and some people have pointed
to his use of Twitter as politically a very effective way of
connecting with "ordinary voters".
Perhaps the Russians, with their reported 150,000 accounts
(not necessarily all on Twitter), also see social media as an
effective way of connecting with ordinary voters in the West.
If you know any tame teenagers, you can probably ask them
to explain it all to you.
You make my point for me. It's only 'tame teenagers' who might possibly
have seen the tweets, and they by all accounts voted Remain anyway, so
they couldn't have had much effect.
By the way, I've searched on Twitter for the so-called Svetal1972 but he
doesn't seem to exist.
Maybe they've deleted their account?

I've searched online for the so-called Swansea University, and it does
seem to exist. Or at least, there is a website.

Perhaps you could contact them, to tell them their research is flawed,
and that the so-called Svetal1972 doesn't seem to exist.

http://www.swansea.ac.uk/the-university/contact/
pensive hamster
2018-06-11 16:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
D Trump is
apparently keen on tweeting, and some people have pointed
to his use of Twitter as politically a very effective way of
connecting with "ordinary voters".
Perhaps the Russians, with their reported 150,000 accounts
(not necessarily all on Twitter), also see social media as an
effective way of connecting with ordinary voters in the West.
If you know any tame teenagers, you can probably ask them
to explain it all to you.
You make my point for me. It's only 'tame teenagers' who might possibly
have seen the tweets, and they by all accounts voted Remain anyway, so
they couldn't have had much effect.
I don't think it is only teenagers who read tweets, not in
America anyway:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tweets-twitter-social-media-facebook-instagram-fox-business-network-would-not-be-a8013491.html
22 October 2017
'Donald Trump says he would not be President without Twitter

'Donald Trump has defended his use of Twitter and admitted he believes
he would not have won the presidency without it.

'The US leader said social media was a “tremendous platform” that
allowed him to bypass what he claimed was unfair media coverage
and speak directly to voters. '

[...]
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 16:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
D Trump is
apparently keen on tweeting, and some people have pointed
to his use of Twitter as politically a very effective way of
connecting with "ordinary voters".
Perhaps the Russians, with their reported 150,000 accounts
(not necessarily all on Twitter), also see social media as an
effective way of connecting with ordinary voters in the West.
If you know any tame teenagers, you can probably ask them
to explain it all to you.
You make my point for me. It's only 'tame teenagers' who might possibly
have seen the tweets, and they by all accounts voted Remain anyway, so
they couldn't have had much effect.
I don't think it is only teenagers who read tweets, not in
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tweets-twitter-social-media-facebook-instagram-fox-business-network-would-not-be-a8013491.html
22 October 2017
'Donald Trump says he would not be President without Twitter
'Donald Trump has defended his use of Twitter and admitted he believes
he would not have won the presidency without it.
'The US leader said social media was a “tremendous platform” that
allowed him to bypass what he claimed was unfair media coverage
and speak directly to voters. '
It's hardly surprising that the President of the United States,
especially such an outrageous one, attracts many followers on Twitter,
and that his views will be widely read. It's hardly the case with
Svetal1972 and his ilk, or any of the supposed Russian accounts you
think influenced us all to vote Leave.
pensive hamster
2018-06-20 21:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/heres-what-we-know-about-alleged-russian-involvement-in-brexit
'Here’s what we know about alleged Russian involvement in Brexit
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
By the way, I've searched on Twitter for the so-called Svetal1972 but he
doesn't seem to exist.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/how-to-delete-twitter-account-2951623

'... How to delete Twitter permanently

'When you deactivate your Twitter account, Twitter will retain all
of your user data for a 30-day period. Once that’s over, Twitter
starts purging your data from its systems, which takes about a
week. When that’s done, your Twitter account is gone forever.'

Handsome Jack
2018-06-11 10:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
What is the evidence that they were fake, or Russian, or bots?
Post by pensive hamster
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
So what?
--
Jack
pensive hamster
2018-06-11 15:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
pensive hamster posted
Post by pensive hamster
'Did Russian fake accounts try to influence the EU referendum?'
[This section is mostly fairly inconclusive, but it concludes with this:]
'Separately, an upcoming paper from researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley, and Swansea University is set to reveal an
even wider network of pro-Brexit Russian bots.
'The research – which has been seen by the Times newspaper –
tracked over 150,000 Russian accounts that used the hashtag “Brexit”,
most of which were advocating Britain’s departure from the EU.
What is the evidence that they were fake, or Russian, or bots?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions
in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber
Incident Attribution'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
The Russian troll factory at the heart of the meddling allegations

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html
'Russian Influence Reached 126 Million Through Facebook Alone'

etc.
Post by pensive hamster
'One account, “Svetal1972”, posted 92 tweets between 20 and 24 June,
including one that called for Britain to “make June the 23rd our
Independence Day”.
So what?
Yellow
2018-06-11 12:57:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.

Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.

But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.

No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.

My head is spinning. :-)
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 13:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
Yes it is. It was only £70,000!

It's probably because of all the sour grapes around.
Yellow
2018-06-11 15:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
Yes it is. It was only £70,000!
One of the groups was fined £70,000 but I was referring to the money
that was given to BeLeave.
Post by Norman Wells
It's probably because of all the sour grapes around.
Surely not.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 15:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
Yes it is. It was only £70,000!
One of the groups was fined £70,000 but I was referring to the money
that was given to BeLeave.
Post by Norman Wells
It's probably because of all the sour grapes around.
Surely not.
Yes, they make terrible whine.
Incubus
2018-06-11 13:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion, didn't
we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's door,
hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts from
Cambridge Analytica.
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
*chortle*

I might plagiarise your post during my next argument on social media.
tim...
2018-06-12 09:22:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous

we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).

And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.

You couldn't make it up

tim
Post by Yellow
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
pensive hamster
2018-06-12 15:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
No, it was because the official campaign over spent by £700,000.
My head is spinning. :-)
tim...
2018-06-12 17:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
I meant the idea that somehow these contacts by social media changed the way
we voted

and that is what has been claimed

tim
pensive hamster
2018-06-12 17:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"pensive hamster" wrote .
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
I meant the idea that somehow these contacts by social media changed the way
we voted
and that is what has been claimed
I don't know of anyone who has claimed that contacts by social media
definitely changed the way people voted, only that various sources
have suggested they may have done.

It's difficult to imagine that social media has zero influence on voters,
but it is obviously difficult to quantify any influence. But there are
some reasonable concerns about the possible effects of social
media in various fields.

Apart from the Russians possibly using social media to try and
influence people, the Leave.EU guys had some interesting and
somewhat provocative things to say today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446632
12 June 2018
'Leave.EU led people up the garden path - Arron Banks

'Arron Banks has told MPs investigating "fake news" his Brexit
campaign "led people up the garden path".

'But he said politicians were also guilty of spin and claimed
Parliament was the "biggest source of fake news".

'... [Leave.EU] ran a "disruptive" campaign instead, Mr Banks told the
committee, adding: "We were not above using alternative methods to
punch home our message or lead people up the garden path if we had
to."

'Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said "the piece
of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember
referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion and you have got
to tap into that emotion".

'... Asked what the difference was between provocation and lies, he
said: "If you are trying to sell something or put a good case over to
somebody you will tell the best story. If that's provocation - or a lie,
if you want to call it that, yeah."
tim...
2018-06-12 22:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
"pensive hamster" wrote .
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
I meant the idea that somehow these contacts by social media changed the way
we voted
and that is what has been claimed
I don't know of anyone who has claimed that contacts by social media
definitely changed the way people voted, only that various sources
have suggested they may have done.
I think that holding the position of arguing for a "re-run" or nullification
because of the influence of these social media contacts implies that you
think that they changed the result.

I accept that only a very small number of people argued this, but there are
some that did.
Post by pensive hamster
It's difficult to imagine that social media has zero influence on voters,
agreed

but only amongst those that use social media, which I think is unarguably
skewed towards the same demographic that profiles the average remain voter.

Of course there were people in that set that voted leave, but they are the
minority.

tim
kat
2018-06-12 17:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
What is he supposed to have made up? Even in assorted threads in this
newsgroup people say ( or have quoted others saying ) that it's the "old,
uneducated" people who voted for Brexit and the "young " people want to Remain,
and when the old die off the majority would change, you can't possibly have
missed those comments.

And the discussion in this thread is apparently all about certain influences on
social media - something used far more by the young than the old.

I didn't see all this influence on facebook, not to Leave, anyway. Clearly I
missed out. Can I sue someone ? :-)
--
kat
Post by pensive hamster
^..^<
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 17:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
What is he supposed to have made up? Even in assorted threads in this
newsgroup people say ( or have quoted others saying ) that it's the "old,
uneducated" people who voted for Brexit and the "young " people want to Remain,
and when the old die off the majority would change, you can't possibly have
missed those comments.
And the discussion in this thread is apparently all about certain influences on
social media - something used far more by the young than the old.
I didn't see all this influence on facebook, not to Leave, anyway. Clearly I
missed out. Can I sue someone ? :-)
--
kat
Post by pensive hamster
^..^<
There are plenty of young uneducated people on social media.

Look at these insane lynchings in India: -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/11/two-lynched-india-police-struggle-contain-whatsapp-rumours-child/
pensive hamster
2018-06-12 17:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
What is he supposed to have made up? Even in assorted threads in this
newsgroup people say ( or have quoted others saying ) that it's the "old,
uneducated" people who voted for Brexit and the "young " people want to Remain,
and when the old die off the majority would change, you can't possibly have
missed those comments.
But that is not quite what was said above, plus as far as I can see,
you have slightly misrepresented what various people have said in
this newsgroup in the past.

As far as I remember, roughly they have said there is some
correlation between lower educational attainment and voting Leave,
plus a majority of older voters (not quite sure what the cut-off age
is) voted Leave, while a majority of younger voters favoured
Remain. Some have argued that when the old die off the majority
would change, while others argue that people become more
sensible (if that is the right word) as they mature.
Post by kat
And the discussion in this thread is apparently all about certain influences on
social media - something used far more by the young than the old.
I didn't see all this influence on facebook, not to Leave, anyway. Clearly I
missed out. Can I sue someone ? :-)
kat
2018-06-12 20:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by kat
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
What is he supposed to have made up? Even in assorted threads in this
newsgroup people say ( or have quoted others saying ) that it's the "old,
uneducated" people who voted for Brexit and the "young " people want to Remain,
and when the old die off the majority would change, you can't possibly have
missed those comments.
But that is not quite what was said above, plus as far as I can see,
you have slightly misrepresented what various people have said in
this newsgroup in the past.
As far as I remember, roughly they have said there is some
correlation between lower educational attainment and voting Leave,
plus a majority of older voters (not quite sure what the cut-off age
is) voted Leave, while a majority of younger voters favoured
Remain. Some have argued that when the old die off the majority
would change, while others argue that people become more
sensible (if that is the right word) as they mature.
"some correlation between lower educational attainment and voting Leave,"

"a majority of older voters"

While you have attempted to separate those things, I can recall it being said
here that older people are uneducated because back in the day they didn't all go
to university.

Not much misrepresentation because that's what was suggested - if you are old
you are most likely uneducated.

I see you presented the counter argument to old leavers dying off, but not the
suggestions that people were just as likely to be intelligent and well informed
despite not having a heap of paper qualifications.
--
kat
Post by pensive hamster
^..^<
pensive hamster
2018-06-14 18:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pensive hamster
Post by kat
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Yes, we all voted Leave because of Russian influence and persuasion,
didn't we?
I thought it was because we are stupid and ill-educated and at death's
door, hankering for the return of the day of empire.
Oh, hang on, it was because we all believed what was on the side of a
bus.
But wait a minute, it was because we all got targeted Facebook adverts
from Cambridge Analytica.
This is the one that most ridiculous
we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).
And yet we were somehow influenced by social media.
You couldn't make it up
But you just did make it up, didn't you? Can you cite any source
which has actually said something along the lines of what you
say above, or is it just out of your imagination?
What is he supposed to have made up? Even in assorted threads in this
newsgroup people say ( or have quoted others saying ) that it's the "old,
uneducated" people who voted for Brexit and the "young " people want to Remain,
and when the old die off the majority would change, you can't possibly have
missed those comments.
But that is not quite what was said above, plus as far as I can see,
you have slightly misrepresented what various people have said in
this newsgroup in the past.
As far as I remember, roughly they have said there is some
correlation between lower educational attainment and voting Leave,
plus a majority of older voters (not quite sure what the cut-off age
is) voted Leave, while a majority of younger voters favoured
Remain. Some have argued that when the old die off the majority
would change, while others argue that people become more
sensible (if that is the right word) as they mature.
"some correlation between lower educational attainment and voting Leave,"
"a majority of older voters"
While you have attempted to separate those things, I can recall it being said
here that older people are uneducated because back in the day they didn't all go
to university.
Not much misrepresentation because that's what was suggested - if you are old
you are most likely uneducated.
Saying there is some correlation between lower educational
attainment and voting Leave is not the same as saying that
"if you are old you are most likely uneducated." I can't recall
anyone actually saying the latter.

Suggesting the two statements mean the same seems a sort of
strawman argument. It is misrepresenting the first statement to
make it seem an unreasonable or even ridiculous kind of
statement.

That's the point I was trying to make. It sometimes seems
in Brexit discussions, that Leavers don't address the concerns
raised by Remainers, they misrepresent or caricature those
concerns in order to try and make them appear ridiculous.

In my opinion, the following is an example of that caricaturing
tactic, used by a previous poster in this thread:

------------------------------------
"This is the one that most ridiculous

"we are all uneducated old fogies (statistically that is true) who probably
don't know one social media company from another (and at the margins that's
true for me and I'm an IT professional).

"And yet we were somehow influenced by social media."
------------------------------------

Earlier in this thread, I posted the following quote:

'Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said
"the piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was
remember referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion
and you have got to tap into that emotion".

To me, that pretty much sums up the whole Brexit debate - it's all
about emotion, not facts.
Post by kat
I see you presented the counter argument to old leavers dying off, but not the
suggestions that people were just as likely to be intelligent and well informed
despite not having a heap of paper qualifications.
I thought about presenting that point, but decided that would make
my post a bit too long and unwieldy. I think it is generally best to
try and just make one or two points per post.

I just wish intelligent and well informed people of whatever age
had been able to contribute more to an intelligent and well informed
Brexit debate.
pamela
2018-06-10 11:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
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.
- 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.
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
- 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>
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-
banks-russia-brexit-meeting
MM
Very interesting. Clearly Aaron Banks had an unusual number of very
close contacts with Russians whose key political objective is to sow
disarray in Western political systems. They did this by intefering
in the US presidential election and also various European elections.

Now we find the Russians were close to a Brexit financier.

The Russians got what they wanted because there has never been
anything as divisive in British politics as Brexit.

Aaron Banks either got played by the Russians or he was a willing
accomplice. Either way we should have a public inquiry into this
Russian influence just as ther US is looking into what happened
there.

Defensive Brexiteers fear their narrow majority at the referendum
was achieved only with outside interference and may need re-testing
in another referendum which they know they would lose if the
campaign was fair.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 15:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by MM
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.
- 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.
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and
financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
- 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>
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-
banks-russia-brexit-meeting
MM
Very interesting. Clearly Aaron Banks had an unusual number of very
close contacts with Russians whose key political objective is to sow
disarray in Western political systems. They did this by intefering
in the US presidential election and also various European elections.
Now we find the Russians were close to a Brexit financier.
The Russians got what they wanted because there has never been
anything as divisive in British politics as Brexit.
Aaron Banks either got played by the Russians or he was a willing
accomplice. Either way we should have a public inquiry into this
Russian influence just as ther US is looking into what happened
there.
Defensive Brexiteers fear their narrow majority at the referendum
was achieved only with outside interference and may need re-testing
in another referendum which they know they would lose if the
campaign was fair.
Care to tell us just how we were supposedly influenced by the Russians
to vote Leave?
Altroy1
2018-06-10 17:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
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.
You are so right to retain an element of scepticism.

On my reading of pro-Russia online media such as rt.com, the Russians are not
much pro-Brexit.

The reason is obvious. Leave.EU's opinions aint worth a fiddler's fig. The
Russians must know it.

Leave.EU are pro voting reform and are sceptical about the "Assad must go"
strategy. I have seen Nigel Farage , Katie Hopkins etc on Fox News criticise the
American bombing of alleged chemical weapon loving Assad.

On the other hand, voteleavetakecontrol would sooner swallow a bucket full of
cold vomit rather than criticise America or accept voting reform of the beloved
FPTP voting system. [Keep one person, one vote - Matthew Eliott].
Voteleavetakecontrol simply believe to a man and woman that America is the
greatest nation on earth. A true sunlit upland regulation-lite paradise awaits
once the shackles of the hated EU are ripped off and a UK-USA chlorinated
chicken free trade deal firmly in place.
Post by MM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
MM
Loading...