Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[scoundrel]

What I remember about the last referendum is that no truthful or reliable facts emerged from the campaigning on either side. Despite jacques22, I absolutely do put both the Leave campaign(s) and the Remain campaign(s) on exactly the same level - both were mendacious, deceitful and both showed the actual voters no respect at all. As a general rule of thumb, the more money is spent on electioneering, the lower will be the quality of the debate. To argue that a second referendum will be more truthful and better informed than the first one is quite laughable and of course it would not settle the argument because whichever side loses will cry foul.

From the beginning the case made for the EU and for Remain has been centred on the economy. That was the losing argument in 2016 and since then an awful lot of the predictions and lamentations have been shown by events to have no substance. This will also have a bearing in any future referendum and the debate will not all be about the bus which told us we would save £350m a week. So what happens if the vote confirms the first referendum decision? I can confidently forecast that Blair and Major will continue to parrot the same script as before and will strain every nerve to seek to deny the people their chosen outcome.

I depend on the British economy for my daily bread as much as anyone else here. However I also believe in considering the future for generations yet to come, and whereas the weather and the economy changes, the climate and the economic fundamentals are what matter more when thinking long term. I am not persuaded that the EU is beneficial to the structural economic base of its members, Germany excepted. I am persuaded that the EU is an existential threat to the national identity of all its member states, not even Germany excepted. Britain IMHO is right to be leaving; but wrong to be seeking such a subordinate and subservient deal as the one outlined by Mrs May. The sooner she is deposed, the better.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by seany65

As far as I understand it, 2 Leave campaign groups got together and collectively spent a bit more than they should have. Are we sure that the total they spent together is NOT the same amount as the total they would've spent had they stayed completely separate?
Either way I strongly doubt that the 'extra' spending made any difference to the result.

Maybe the spending by the Leave campaign would have made no difference in the result of the referendum, but what matters is that the Leave campaign broke the electoral law by breaching the spending limit. The UK is a democracy, so only the rule of law matters.

And it was no honest mistake from the Leave campaign.
First, the Electoral Commission found out that Vote Leave spent £7,449,079, breaching its £7m spending limit. Good luck trying to prove that £449,079 was an honest mistake.
And second, it was a deliberate ploy by Vote Leave to circumvent the spending limit. Vote Leave sent £675,315 to another group, BeLeave, so that the money could then be sent to a marketing firm, Aggregate IQ. To put it bluntly, Vote Leave illegally coordinated with another group. That's what the Electoral Commission concluded: " We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a common plan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits."

Originally Posted by seany65

The supposed Russian involvement is just part of the demonization of Russia that has been going on for a few years. As far as I'm concerned it's a bit like the "Zinoviev Letter" that was bandied about in the 1920's that prevented the election of the Labour party during a campaign which had previously seen the popularity of that party being far higher than certain people liked.

It's no demonization of Russia. Don't underestimate Putin. He still lives in the nostalgia of the Soviet era, when the Soviet Union was a great power. It's quite obvious that Putin is leading a destabilisation campaign to divide Western nations. If Europe and the U.S. are divided, it will be easy for Russia to invade former Soviet republics like they invaded eastern Ukraine to annex Crimea.
Russia hacked the Democratic Party in the U.S. to help Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Trump has received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs close to Putin, and dozens of Russians have been indicted by Mueller in his investigation about a collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Russia also tried to destabilise France during the 2017 presidential election. Macron's party was hacked and thousands of emails were leaked. Putin clearly wanted the far-right Le Pen to win the election.
And last but not least, Russia poisoned Litvinenko and Skripal on British soil. Russia clearly acted like a hostile nation. So what's Russia's interest in Brexit? The more a Western nation is divided (the UK is clearly divided by Brexit) or the more extremists seize power in Europe (recently the far right in Italy), and the more Russia will be unopposed in Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by judy84

The Remain side have so much to answer for. Massive over spending, free campaigning by the govt (leaflet to every household), Government civil servants, Bank of England, just about all the establishment mass media (including BBC, Sky, C4, Euronews, Guardian, Independent, FT, Observer, Mirror, Economist) and all the celebs and luvvies putting out stories of disasters that will befall us if we even dare to consider voting to Leave.

Don't try to blur the lines. The Remain campaign did not break the electoral law and did not breach the spending limit, while the Leave campaign did. The Remain campaign did nothing illegal, while the Leave campaign acted illegally.
Brexiters haughtily keep saying "the will of the people" to describe the result of an advisory referendum, but then they have double standards when the Electoral Commission concludes that Vote Leave broke the law and acted illegally.
You probably think it wasn't fair for the Cameron government to promote the Remain campaign, but it wasn't illegal and Cameron as a prime minister simply told the British people what he thought was in the best interest of the country. If the prime minister had been pro-Brexit, you wouldn't have complained about him campaigning for Vote Leave.

Originally Posted by judy84

Foreign interference with the referendum (Obama,Clinton, G7, IMF) to name just a few of the dubious practices.

Again, there's a big difference between a foreign politician expressing his opinion about Brexit, and a businessman acting as an agent to channel foreign money to a campaign, which is illegal.
Obama, Clinton and Trump have given their opinion about Brexit, and there's nothing wrong with that. They don't break any law. But when businessmen like Banks are suspected of using Russian money to finance Vote Leave, that's illegal.
Brexiters keeps talking about sovereignty but they don't seem to care at all when Russia corrupts British businessmen and the electoral process in the UK. Double standards, again.

Originally Posted by judy84

The country voted to Leave and all the predictions failed to materialize, much like the new set will fail to realize on March 30th 2019.

Make Britain Great Again. Lol!
In the era of big trading blocs, it will be very difficult for the UK to survive economically. With a market of 65 million people, the UK will have less leverage in any trade negotiation than the EU (450 million people without the UK).
Over the past few years, the EU has done a good job to conclude trade deals with Canada, Japan, South Korea and other countries. When Brexit becomes official in March 2019, you have to realise that the EU will keep all its trade deals, while the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit will be removed from those trade deals and will have to renegotiate them in a position of weakness with dozens of countries.
Actually, I'm quite pessimistic about the UK. There's an economic recession expected for the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, according to investors and fund managers, because of Trump's idiotic policies. The timing is really bad for Brexit. A global recession means that a Brexit UK will be more impacted than any other country. But we know it's all about sovereignty and taking back control. No one cares about the economy, right?

[seany65]

Out of curiosity, what question(s) would British remainers want on the ballot paper if there were to be a 2nd referendum?

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by seany65

Out of curiosity, what question(s) would British remainers want on the ballot paper if there were to be a 2nd referendum?

1) Leave the EU or Remain?
2) Leave the Single Market or Remain?
3) Leave the Customs Union or Remain?

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by seany65

Out of curiosity, what question(s) would British remainers want on the ballot paper if there were to be a 2nd referendum?

There won't be one partly because no one in the Gov't/Parliament would even be able to agree what the questions or options should be.

My guess is that May's proposals it will be softened during negotiations and it will go down to a vote in Parliament between a 'no deal' and a de facto Customs Union. Parliament will go for the Customs Union as the least worst option.

The whole last 2 years will been a complete waste of time and money.
The only good thing that will come of it will be the destruction of the Tory Party in it's current form. A split between the Pro-EU Centrists and the hard right nationalist Brexit fanatics.

[judy84]

This political elite really think the public are stupid. What Greening, Blair etc. have suggested is something like:


1. Theresa May’s final Brexit deal as negotiated with the EU.

2. Leaving the EU with no deal at all.

3. Remaining in the EU.



So if the ratio is 60/40 for leave/remain and the voting is 30% leave as in 1 or 2 and 40% for remain then remain wins, even though most people want to leave.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...rexit-chequers
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...stine-greening


Forget it, it isn't going to happen. Apart from anything else it would take at least 7 months for legislation for a 2nd referendum, by which time we will have left the EU.


https://theconversation.com/brexit-h...al-deal-100109

[judy84]

Yes there might be a split in the Tory party between the centre right Leavers and the hard left Marxist, Fascist Remain fanatics.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by judy84

Yes there might be a split in the Tory party between the centre right Leavers and the hard left Marxist, Fascist Remain fanatics.

Of course they're just proud patriots who just want to protect our borders and make Britain 'Great' again, like 'the Good Old Days'.

How about 'Trumpians?'

[judy84]

The Electoral Commission report alleges that Vote Leave had overspent their £7 million budget by £499,000, equating to just 7.1%.
The Electoral Commission is infamous for its members being part of the pro-Remain Establishment, as has been widely reported in the press.
Confidence in the elections watchdog is evaporating as it emerged that almost half of its board have made public statements criticising the pro-Brexit campaign or backing calls for the result to be overturned, despite strict impartiality rules.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...n-brexit-bias/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...e-leave-remain

The Commission led several inquiries into the official Leave campaign but never looked into alleged illicit collusion by pro-Remain campaign groups.

Part of the £9.3 million that the government spent on its propaganda for Remain went on the internet in the form of 'digital promotion'.
Day after day we are told that Russia or Cambridge Analytica or Donald Trump or Arron Banks or someone else bought the result of the Referendum. In fact, the British government spent almost £3 million on a website and on 'digital promotion', in order to influence the result for Remain.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ublicity-blitz

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...stagram-Google

Amongst complaints about the Remain campaign was Prit Patel's : Britain Stronger in Europe avoided breaching its spending limits by channeling funds through smaller Remain campaigns which were set up less than a month before the referendum vote.
https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/

In the leadup to the ref Leave spent £13m cf. Remain £28m.

Haven't seen any investigations into Remain campaign...has anyone?

[judy84]

Originally Posted by ********

It would have to be a simple leave/remain.

Should the UK leave the EU with the deal as negotiated, or remain in the EU?

Parliament are already voting on that.


How about a referendum on having a second referendum?