Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Mr Badger, May 8, 2019.
Here ya go: 'Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.'
Farage has been quiet this weekend. I wonder if he is trying to work out what to do about the surrender deal.
Such a depressing read! Foreign-based businessmen and Russian diplomats conspire to dupe the least intelligent in the UK population to vote for utter UK disarray so those businessmen and foreign powers can profit.
We're to blame for the poor education of our nation's gullible donkeys but those who conned them really deserve prison time.
An interesting link. Though its abit dated. The parts about Leave.EU and Arron Banks have come to a conclusion that no criminality took place.
The issue of the referendum and influence is that the remain side didn't put forward their own vision. They spent all their time countering claims by the leave side. History as shown that negative campaigning with no vision equals no victory.
From what I see in todays political world is people holding extreme views. It should be relatively easy to counter those views, whether thats of the right or left. But there as been a total failure of any real opposition, and instead we have this blame game going on.
All governments need a good opposition.
I think we have to keep things in context. This thread as around 124 pages yet the Brexit Party has no elected representation inside the UK at any level. Even the BNP did better than the BP inside the UK.
Putin played Britain's pro-Brexit voters like a fiddle. It was child's play to manipulate them, and still is.
Apart from their MEPs. But they only took those jobs to leech off the European taxpayer, like Farage has been doing for the best part of 20 years.
Why do you think Russia wanted brexit and Trump to happen? Was it a Kremlin backed operation to make the UK and USA even stronger and more succesful?
But you could say that about any country.
Do you think all your friends want to put you first before themselves? No, they are out for themselves.
I think we have to address the genuine fears that people have over certain issues to do with the EU. When people are being told by the UK government that they can't stop immigration from the EU then it allows people like Banks and others to jump on the bandwagon and play on peoples fears. If we start calling people racists, xenophobes, we're 1. not addressing the issue, and 2. actually pushing them away from us and allowing the fear merchants to gain voter traction. In order to have the high moral ground we have to be the reasonable one, presenting both the facts and the vision to include everyone and move forward.
One of the big fears was immigration, and you know what? It turns out the UK government can control it using the current EU rules. Here is an interesting article written by Charles Clarke and Alan Johnson, a former home secretary and former shadow home secretary, in 2018.
This alone would have won the vote for remain. Yet sadly we've allowed the government to play the victim when they already had the power to address one of the main issues.
The biggest threat to the UK seems to be the incompetence of the UK government in my humble opinion.
So what you are saying is, Russia embarked on this endeavour in an effort to weaken the UK and US.
Why would Russia help to make Brexit and Trump happen, if those events were going to make their respective countries stronger?
I understand brexiteers and trump supporters don't want to think about it, because it is quite worrying to realise that what you voted for exactly what Russia (who are ostensibly a rival/hostile power to the west) wanted. However, it is important that they do.
He's been anything but quiet, just go to the LBC youtube channel and look at his reactions. I'm playing his LBC show from this morning and he's spent the first hour talking about it with callers. But even if i post videos it's unlikely you'll watch them because you don't like the guy. That's your call
I don't think its anything special that brexit/trump supporters dont want to think about it. A major flaw in humans through-out history is they don't question the narrative when its going their way. This can be the left, right, fascists, communists etc. Even with friends, when a friend does something bad very few people will actually call them out about it. I was only watching recently about a guy who held up a store at gun point in the US and got shot (I'm not sure if he died or not) but his friends were blaming the store for shooting him.
I consider all countries hostile to us. Every country is a rival to one degree or another.
I think the Russian issue, while it deserved to be looked in to when questions are asked, is a side show. The main propaganda put out by the leave campaign went largely unchallenged. I voted leave and now I discover that 1. EU immigration can controlled, and 2. how incompetant the UK government is. I would have voted differently now I have more facts. I knew the government was dodgy, but I thought the remain officials would put up more of a fight.
The odd thing I find is wheather MP's or governments are pro or anti EU they never allow us to get the full benefits of the EU. I don't understand it.
Some people don't see worker and consumer rights, environmental protections, animal welfare standards etc. as being positive because they can get in the way of making money.
Of course (currently at least) we are the EU. However, when attempting to apply logic to understanding why the EU receives so much unjustified criticism, never forget that it is massively convenient to be able to blame what is perceived as an external entity rather than face the fact that problems are really the fault of the UK. Why admit that you aren't investing enough in infrastructure when you can blame immigrants and lend credence to the lie that immigration can't be controlled because we are in the EU? Take the Tories who repeatedly said they would reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but didn't actually do anything to stop non EU immigration or use the existing powers to control EU immigration. Yes they made some bold claims, created a hostile environment and really upset some West Indian pensioners who had spent their whole working life in the UK, but no effective measures were taken to seriously reduce immigration. It's all smoke and mirrors, talking tough to look good in the gutter press and win votes.
I believe this is relevant:
I've long said that if Cameron had come back from the EU negotiations with a list of things that we could have done under EU law but chose not to, and presented them to the British public as EU concessions, remain would have walked the referendum. That's the absurdity of it.
The real issue with successive UK Governments isn't what they've done, it's not even actions they've taken that the populace hasn't approved of, the problem is their tendency to shift the blame. In terms of immigration, if they had come out and said, "well we could take some steps to curb EU immigration, but we haven't because of reasons x, y, and z" then people would be better educated on the point, and, if they disagreed then they could do something about it with the understanding of where the problem actually lies. Hell, I wouldn't even mind them saying "I acknowledge that we can take some steps to curb immigration, but I don't think that goes far enough, and as such I still want to leave the EU".
The fact of the matter is the political classes in this Country have decided, whether actively or passively, that their best interests are served by keeping the electorate ill informed.
Once you get a rep for fake news and lies its hard to take anyone like that seriously.
This is very true. One of the main reasons people voted leave is because we were told by the government, even Cameron, that we had no way to control EU immigration. I thought at the time that the only reason we could stop someone entering the UK from the EU is if they had been convicted of a serious crime. So I thought that meant an open door policy, that X amount of millions of EU citizens could all just move here and we couldn't do anything about it. The fact nobody recognisable on TV challenged it let the lie continue.
We were told that as far as EU immigration is concerned it was largely unregulated and that we need an australian points system. This was a policy I think UKIP, then the Brexit Party, and now I think the Conservative party has. But in reality we only needed to start enforcing EU rules.
If people had known that the government could enforce these EU rules I'm confident Remain had won. It is frustratingly sad/angry that the point wasnt made.
It annoys me that the opposition parties didn't bring up the EU rules. I suspect because of ideological reasons. But the pro EU people inside the Tory party could have brought it.
It was hard to be heard on anything during the referendum as everything was dominated by lies on buses people calling facts lies and the term project fear!
I must agree with this, whenever something sensible was mentioned it was met with a disproportionate response. For example on the idea of free movement how do you contend with this:
Indeed. Pointing out that this was a literal copy of a Nazi propaganda movie didn't help.
Donald Tusk has apparently said that he regrets not speaking out to debunk the more egregious lies of the Brexiteers. But of course he couldn't do that without being accused of meddling in our domestic politics. So in addition to regaining sovereignty that we already had, we're leaving the tyrannical EU dictatorship because they let us decide our future without interfering.
It's incredibly annoying, I wonder whether part of the reason for the lack of challenge is that actually, beyond knowing the party line, a lot of MPs don't necessarily know what the situation is themselves unless they are involved in a ministerial capacity.
The lack of challenge in general is a real issue for me at the moment. I listened to a bit of Stephen Nolan's show a few days ago, he had a chap from Extinction Rebellion on and he was giving his fact and figures, citing various reports etc, then on came a couple of callers, who were an ex high ranking police officer and a small business owner, so clearly vetted to be able to provide a level of coherent debate. These guys started to talk about how ER were just causing disruption for no reason, stating that the climate changes due to natural causes, asking what he was going to do about super volcanoes. The chap from ER made a point that I don't hear very often, he basically said that balance is all well and good, but surely, given the general scientific consensus, the reports, the studies, etc, climate change denial is not something that should be given airtime in the name of balance.
This is part of my problem with BBC coverage in particular at the moment, they have a requirement to provide balance and need to tread a fine line but it's all too often that I hear an MP either spout lies, debunked nonsense, or misdirection with little or no call back. If a blatant lie, or erroneous information is given in response to a question, I don't want the other side of the argument to be given as a response by the interviewer, I want them to come out and say no, that's a lie, and then cite the evidence that people can check for themselves. Balance does not mean providing a soap box for an argument that is demonstrably false just because it represents the other side.
We really have entered the land of alternative facts and it's extremely worrying.
Separate names with a comma.