Europe - in or out - RR Votes

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

WT I think the answer to your election fraud question is that this wasn't election so the relevant Act doesn't apply.

I've seen some interesting rumblings on the BBC about the Scottish Parliament and suggestions that it has to give it's consent. That could make things very interesting indeed because I can't see any way that they will or any political imperative for them to do so. I can't even see any levers that the Westminster Parliament could pull to make them.

[Banquo]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

WT I think the answer to your election fraud question is that this wasn't election so the relevant Act doesn't apply.

I've seen some interesting rumblings on the BBC about the Scottish Parliament and suggestions that it has to give it's consent. That could make things very interesting indeed because I can't see any way that they will or any political imperative for them to do so. I can't even see any levers that the Westminster Parliament could pull to make them.

Yep, there's a lot in Pandora's box, and that's the most worrying part for me.

[jared_7]

Osborne's were porkies as he presented them as facts, which they weren't, and then span them even further to suit his argument. I'll agree that Leave and their £350 million was the biggest porky of the lot, though.

Let's be honest, it's been a skip full of **** from both sides with Leave's skip being slightly bigger and smellier.

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

[Mellsblue]

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.
If he was telling the truth then he didn't do a very good job of getting his message across. As the details fall out, it seems the demographic that swung it was 'white van man', as Emily Thornberry would put it, and the long term unemployed. Osborne and Cameron shouting GDP etc etc at them wasn't going to win them over but the leader of the Labour Party may have......if he'd tried.

[Mellsblue]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

[Banquo]

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

correct....but the thought of power...

[Banquo]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

its at least half right...and I assume you mean the campaign headliners....even accepting your 'model' is what is being presented.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

[jared_7]

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

[Sandydragon]

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Months ago I was concerned that this referendum was going to be less about fact and more about personality and spin. Nothing in the campaign changed my mind on that.

[Mellsblue]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

[Mellsblue]

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

It wasn't his opinions that were useless or insufficient it was his sheer lack of engagement. If he or indeed anyone from Labour had got the message across that they accept there are problems with the EU but that the time to vote against it was by voting Labour at the next election then there might not have been a vacuum for Farage and the £350 million lie to step in to.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

He didn't have to go remain. He chose to go against what he believed in for political expediency and to further his own leadership. That's better than other cynical stances because...

[Digby]

Months ago I was concerned that this referendum was going to be less about fact and more about personality and spin. Nothing in the campaign changed my mind on that.

Just odd to me that people like the personality of a Gove, Galloway, Farrage, Johnson...

[Mellsblue]

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

[jared_7]

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

He didn't have to go remain. He chose to go against what he believed in for political expediency and to further his own leadership. That's better than other cynical stances because...

He's the leader of a party, has certain responsibilities and working with others sometimes requires compromise. Do you think its good leadership to take a stance that differs from 95% of your fellow MPs? At a time when the Tories are so divided?

May as well just move to a system of Presidency?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

[Mellsblue]

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb filed a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority after Brexiteers kept using the £350m-a-week figure. Sir Andrew Dilnot replied saying the number was "potentially misleading".
So, not incorrect but potentially misleading. Just as Osborne's quotes are potentially misleading.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Again, perception.

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb filed a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority after Brexiteers kept using the £350m-a-week figure. Sir Andrew Dilnot replied saying the number was "potentially misleading".
So, not incorrect but potentially misleading. Just as Osborne's quotes are potentially misleading.

. If you can't see that the UK statistics authority in the middle of campaign might choose to use modified language then you're either stupid (which you clearly aren't) or you're being disingenuous. We do not send £350 million to the EU. They repeatedly stated that we did, whilst knowing that we do not. That is a lie. It is not a matter of perception.

[Mellsblue]

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb filed a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority after Brexiteers kept using the £350m-a-week figure. Sir Andrew Dilnot replied saying the number was "potentially misleading".
So, not incorrect but potentially misleading. Just as Osborne's quotes are potentially misleading.

. If you can't see that the UK statistics authority in the middle of campaign might choose to use modified language then you're either stupid (which you clearly aren't) or you're being disingenuous. We do not send £350 million to the EU. They repeatedly stated that we did, whilst knowing that we do not. That is a lie. It is not a matter of perception.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It's getting to the point where I'm almost defending the £350 million claim and that's not the case.

[zer0]

On a related, and mildly interesting, note, I came across a live update web-map that records the locations of people officially requesting a second EU referendum.

[Lizard]

Well so far the main impact on me has been a deluge of virtually identical emails from UK law firms summarising how Brexit hasn't yet changed anything from a legal perspective.

The most interesting thing I have learned though is that European Trade Marks will be affected by Brexit, as the European Trade Mark Office is an EU body, whereas European Patents will not be affected as the European Patent Office is not an EU creation but the result of a separate treaty.

Fascinating.

[Len]

On a related, and mildly interesting, note, I came across a live update web-map that records the locations of people officially requesting a second EU referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... _b-gdnnews

Its actually astonishing. Another one is Port Talbot who voted leave. They've literally learnt nothing. I'd love to say I'll have no sympathy if it goes tits up but it wouldn't be the truth.

[Lizard]

Wow. I'm not even going to bother posting the obvious Life of Brian clip.

I suppose you can always posit the question of net value given the UK's contributions to the EU, but on a regional basis (and relying on that article alone) I doubt it would be in favour of the EU.

I guess I'm completely naive to think that a successful Leave movement (not to mention a prepared governing party) would already have answers to questions like:
1. When and by whom shall clause 50 be invoked?
2. What are the intended terms to be sought in a negotiation under clause 50 (at least to the level of Norway/Switzerland/ordinary FTA/complete divorce level of generality)
3. Will the central government in any event make up for specific lost EU funding or not.

This is especially so after the Scottish independence movement was rightly criticised for not doing the equivalent of 2 and 3 in that context.