Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

I would be genuinely interested in what Scara, Parklane and others who are more pro Leave think of this article. Of course Remain voters are going to find it an injustice, but do others? Is it Remoaning, do we care if our political system is manipulated by US and UK elites? Its also interesting to see the Brexit funding links with the DUP.

Follow the data: does a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?
We reveal how a confidential legal agreement is at the heart of a web connecting Robert Mercer to Britain’s EU referendum




US billionaire Robert Mercer in Washington DC in March this year. Photograph: Oliver Contreras/The Washington Post via Getty Imag

• This article is the subject of a legal complaint on behalf of SCLE and Cambridge Analytica.

On 18 November 2015, the British press gathered in a hall in Westminster to witness the official launch of Leave.EU. Nigel Farage, the campaign’s figurehead, was banished to the back of the room and instead an American political strategist, Gerry Gunster, took centre stage and explained its strategy. “The one thing that I know is data,” he said. “Numbers do not lie. I’m going to follow the data.”

Eighteen months on, it’s this same insight – to follow the data – that is the key to unlocking what really happened behind the scenes of the Leave campaign. On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform.

But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired, and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.

I'm struggling to see exactly what it is they're implying.

There was an IP agreement between two data companies. I don't know if that's particularly common or not - in my time working on databases I've certainly seen them but wouldn't know how regularly they happen. If they're both working on a single data set (voter database), I can see that it would make sense that they have an agreement. Honestly, I don't know, because the article is full of suggestion and hints of dark seediness without actually going into specifics.

Those two companies in some way have a link to an American that the Guardian clearly doesn't like, that's about the only thing clear in the article. Other than him being involved in the Trump campaign, have they anything on what makes him this shadowy, evil figure or even why he would want to influence a UK referendum?

In this case I'm not massively concerned about the advantage this may give to one side because the Remain side had the government on theirs. There's no provision in our electoral law that I know of which properly stops the increased influence that statements made by the PM, Chancellor, Home Secretary (ok, maybe not her) will have on people. If we wanted a truly fair campaign then nobody in government should have been allowed to campaign for either side.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Remain Core Promises

- An 'immediate and profound economic shock’. The economy will ‘fall into recession, with four quarters of negative growth’.
- 'Unemployment will increase by around 500,000’
- UK tourists will face mobile roaming charges on their holidays

Reality

- Growth has remained positive for every quarter since, with Britain one of the fastest growing economies in the G7
- Employment rate has risen. Unemployment has fallen to 4.7% – the lowest rate since 1975
- People aren't really that shallow

We haven't brexited yet.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm struggling to see exactly what it is they're implying.

There was an IP agreement between two data companies. I don't know if that's particularly common or not - in my time working on databases I've certainly seen them but wouldn't know how regularly they happen. If they're both working on a single data set (voter database), I can see that it would make sense that they have an agreement. Honestly, I don't know, because the article is full of suggestion and hints of dark seediness without actually going into specifics.

Those two companies in some way have a link to an American that the Guardian clearly doesn't like, that's about the only thing clear in the article. Other than him being involved in the Trump campaign, have they anything on what makes him this shadowy, evil figure or even why he would want to influence a UK referendum?

In this case I'm not massively concerned about the advantage this may give to one side because the Remain side had the government on theirs. There's no provision in our electoral law that I know of which properly stops the increased influence that statements made by the PM, Chancellor, Home Secretary (ok, maybe not her) will have on people. If we wanted a truly fair campaign then nobody in government should have been allowed to campaign for either side.

Leave and UKIP had one shot at leaving the EU. They prepared well, threw a tonne of cash and time at it. Remain didn't run such an effective campaign - maybe partly due to funding. What this article starts to show - if you read the full article - is that campaign funding rules were at best circumnavigated so more money could be used to get the desired outcome. That saw kids being given £100,000+++ for online campaigns, money going to the DUP via the Royal Legion, and a web of transactions which trace back to an American. Should a US billionaire be able to influence a UK referendum? Election laws don't think so.

Furthermore, it seems quite plausible that Leave.EU and UKIP coordinated and worked together - of course they did. But to get around our democratic funding rules, they hushed it up.

The more you look, the more dodgy the whole affair becomes. What is right for the people is the last consideration.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Remain Core Promises

- An 'immediate and profound economic shock’. The economy will ‘fall into recession, with four quarters of negative growth’.
- 'Unemployment will increase by around 500,000’
- UK tourists will face mobile roaming charges on their holidays

Reality

- Growth has remained positive for every quarter since, with Britain one of the fastest growing economies in the G7
- Employment rate has risen. Unemployment has fallen to 4.7% – the lowest rate since 1975
- People aren't really that shallow

Remains Core Point - not a promise - was that the UK economy would suffer. It wasn't communicated well and Leave did a phenomenal job making the vote about immigration. Hats off to the researchers, pollsters etc. paid for by wealthy Leave biz men, they absolutely nailed the brief. The Remain campaign by comparison didn't have a clue, and got dragged into red herrings on immigration etc.

 

[Grays_1890]

Out of interest, what does "Brexit" mean to you? What would you like to see happen?

Thats a HUGE one.

I think the world economically and prospect wise is a bigger place outside it, I always felt there was a finger in the honeypot mentality to the EU, if your in you can sample the goods, if your not you can't and I don't agree with that. I also believe the EU attitude to us leaving by democratic vote rather strong and only enhances my view to leave, alot of "this won't me easy for you to leave" etc just makes me think it was mafioso country, why would it be made difficult for us to leave? Why would an organisation go out of its way to make it hard for us to leave it? Hardly this organisation of togetherness its painted.

I think migrants have been a key part of our development as a country so I am not all about immigration, however I think migration has helped plug a more complicated hole of lack of skills, reskilling and a pipeline of learning so that we as a nation are skilled in areas in which they have offered cover. Foreigners coming to take our jobs should not be a scary notion at all they should push us to want to do more and be better at what we do and I think we need to learn from where we lacked which opened opportunities for those abroad and make it an attractive option for the British to go into those jobs. If that means do abit of work in house to encourage some people to work rather than shirk in the lower paid level then so be it, but make it work. In short we should be cherry picking the talent that improves the country, not plugs the gaps.

I would like see us push forward with our SME and start up industries, really start to export the talents and products this country produces, some of the things that have and will make this country a stand out. Alot of what I hope for will be 2nd and 3rd generational, to realise the potential for this country might take 20/30 years to realise it, but I am happy to be the generation through the wall with a bloody nose if it means a long time prosperous country.

 

[Grays_1890]

Remains Core Point - not a promise - was that the UK economy would suffer. It wasn't communicated well and Leave did a phenomenal job making the vote about immigration. Hats off to the researchers, pollsters etc. paid for by wealthy Leave biz men, they absolutely nailed the brief. The Remain by comparison didn't have a clue, and got dragged into red herrings on immigration etc.

Remain brick the bed because they didn't know why they wanted to remain, there was nothing to communicate

The leavers were life leavers, had reasons, had worked a life time on why to leave, there was probably more to sell on saying leave to a generation. Leave and you will get this............ where as stay was, Stay and stay the same which for alot was not a prospect

 

[SpurMeUp]

Thats a HUGE one.

I think the world economically and prospect wise is a bigger place outside it, I always felt there was a finger in the honeypot mentality to the EU, if your in you can sample the goods, if your not you can't and I don't agree with that. I also believe the EU attitude to us leaving by democratic vote rather strong and only enhances my view to leave, alot of "this won't me easy for you to leave" etc just makes me think it was mafioso country, why would it be made difficult for us to leave? Why would an organisation go out of its way to make it hard for us to leave it? Hardly this organisation of togetherness its painted.

I think migrants have been a key part of our development as a country so I am not all about immigration, however I think migration has helped plug a more complicated hole of lack of skills, reskilling and a pipeline of learning so that we as a nation are skilled in areas in which they have offered cover. Foreigners coming to take our jobs should not be a scary notion at all they should push us to want to do more and be better at what we do and I think we need to learn from where we lacked which opened opportunities for those abroad and make it an attractive option for the British to go into those jobs. If that means do abit of work in house to encourage some people to work rather than shirk in the lower paid level then so be it, but make it work. In short we should be cherry picking the talent that improves the country, not plugs the gaps.

I would like see us push forward with our SME and start up industries, really start to export the talents and products this country produces, some of the things that have and will make this country a stand out. Alot of what I hope for will be 2nd and 3rd generational, to realise the potential for this country might take 20/30 years to realise it, but I am happy to be the generation through the wall with a bloody nose if it means a long time prosperous country.

Very well made points. And I kind of agree with the sentiment, if not the detail.

Re. why the EU wanted us to stay in, the EU is a mutually beneficial customs union, that's what it is at heart. It makes trade easier. That makes trade easier for them, and easier for us. Hence they want us to stay in. They also respect our values, and as a cultural and economic leader alongside Germany and France, of course they wanted us to remain. The working language of the EU is English. It won't be in the future.

The EU is also a project borne out of the worst war in recent history. It was designed to bring together a continent, and enhance collaboration and trade. I'm not sure why anyone would want to give those premises up, though I appreciate the image of the EU from the UK of it being all red tape and johnny foreigners wasting money etc. and I'm sure there is some truth to it. Goodness knows successive UK governments waste an awful lot of money.

We need to invest in education. Not for the elite but for those out of work or in underpaid work. Not something the Conservatives have been great at traditionally, but now if May style Brexit occurs with curbed immigration we will have to train up from within. The implications for farmers, software developers, builders etc etc are massive. It could put whole industries out of business. Who will pick fruit for the minimum wage? Who will setup a start up tech firm in the UK when it can't import programmers, and your labour costs are half the price in another location? Tech firms don't have to be in one specific place.

Re. exporting more, Germany exports 4 or 5 times what the UK does...from within the EU. That suggests its not the EU that is the issue. It's not the EU that has stopped us from exporting.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Remain brick the bed because they didn't know why they wanted to remain, there was nothing to communicate

The leavers were life leavers, had reasons, had worked a life time on why to leave, there was probably more to sell on saying leave to a generation. Leave and you will get this............ where as stay was, Stay and stay the same which for alot was not a prospect

Yes it was a vote for change, and in that sense positive. It's one of the most disheartening things for me, as it shows that with ideology and a strong message people will vote for revolution. It is such as shame that it has been wasted on this - which is not revolution - but a backward step. We were outside the EU in the 70s when our economy was shyte. Brexit 'control' won't make a jolt of difference to people. Most likely Brexit will affect peoples pockets adversely, that is all. In fact that is the only outcome of Brexit we have seen thus far - prices rise.

 

[Grays_1890]

Very well made points. And I kind of agree with the sentiment, if not the detail.

Re. why the EU wanted us to stay in, the EU is a mutually beneficial customs union, that's what it is at heart. It makes trade easier. That makes trade easier for them, and easier for us. Hence they want us to stay in. They also respect our values, and as a cultural and economic leader alongside Germany and France, of course they wanted us to remain. The working language of the EU is English. It won't be in the future.

The EU is also a project borne out of the worst war in recent history. It was designed to bring together a continent, and enhance collaboration and trade. I'm not sure why anyone would want to give those premises up, though I appreciate the image of the EU from the UK of it being all red tape and johnny foreigners wasting money etc. and I'm sure there is some truth to it. Goodness knows successive UK governments waste an awful lot of money.

We need to invest in education. Not for the elite but for those out of work or in underpaid work. Not something the Conservatives have been great at traditionally, but now if May style Brexit occurs with curbed immigration we will have to train up from within. The implications for farmers, software developers, builders etc etc are massive. It could put whole industries out of business. Who will pick fruit for the minimum wage? Who will setup a start up tech firm in the UK when it can't import programmers, and your labour costs are half the price in another location? Tech firms don't have to be in one specific place.

Re. exporting more, Germany exports 4 or 5 times what the UK does...from within the EU. That suggests its not the EU that is the issue. It's not the EU that has stopped us from exporting.

Its not so much why they want us to stay its the pure aggression in which they talk about us leaving like its a threat which to be honest does not sit well with me. There are threats from them, this whole "Eat whats on the table" attitude makes me look back and think "if thats what it was like thank GHod we are out".

The EU served a huge purpose, there is no doubting and still does and maybe we will be worse off out, but this is not post war UK anymore, the time we have been in the EU is a long time in modern terms so someone had to be first out the door, maybe the timing might be off, maybe its not we will soon find out.

Its a big subject I grant you and one that in fairness is well over my head, I just feel that there is a place out the EU and we will now see if thats for us and for now

 

[SpurMeUp]

Its not so much why they want us to stay its the pure aggression in which they talk about us leaving like its a threat which to be honest does not sit well with me. There are threats from them, this whole "Eat whats on the table" attitude makes me look back and think "if thats what it was like thank GHod we are out".

The EU served a huge purpose, there is no doubting and still does and maybe we will be worse off out, but this is not post war UK anymore, the time we have been in the EU is a long time in modern terms so someone had to be first out the door, maybe the timing might be off, maybe its not we will soon find out.

Its a big subject I grant you and one that in fairness is well over my head, I just feel that there is a place out the EU and we will now see if thats for us and for now

While we might be more footloose, and agile as a nation - able to change things quicker or broker more simple trade terms with the rest of the world, I fail to understand what the big changes will be when we're out. Other than we will have lost: 27 trade partners, 50 non-EU Free Trade Agreements, research collaboration, free movement across Europe - all good things no? We'll also have to put in place a whole heap of UK bureaucratic nonsense that the EU handled - 30 or more regulators, trade negotiation ministries etc. Finally we'll end up having to conform to EU regulations to sell stuff anyway, but we won't be able to influence whats in the regulations as we currently do. I'd also suggest that people in the UK prefer the highly educated cousins from the EU coming to work here, than the more far flung less educated peoples (and everyone agrees we will need some form of work immigration).

So my take is, we gain very little, and lose an awful lot. No one has provided an argument or evidence that stacks up to show different (to me) and worse, since Brexit I've heard zero about what the U.K. will do with this supposed opportunity. You'd think UKIP or Leave would be busy outlining how we can develop new industries, or training facilities, or just show some excitement about our prospects and the new 'freedoms' we will have; eagerly planning how we will exploit them. Have you seen anything like this? I cant recall a thing.

 

[the dza]

In other news...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b043e55e14383c#block-5949386de4b043e55e14383c

According to Sky’s Ireland correspondent David Blevins, the Tory/DUP talks do not seem to be going particularly well.


David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: DUP urging government to give "greater focus" to negotiations. "Party can't be taken for granted." 1/2

June 20, 2017

David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: "Negotiations haven't proceeeded in a way that DUP would have expected." 2/2

June 20, 2017

_______________________________

I wonder if both parties are looking to back out of any deal due to a legal challenge over The Good Friday Agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-faces-legal-challenge-proposed-deal-dup

​

Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.


An experienced legal team, which has been involved in constitutional challenges, is planning to apply for a judicial review of the deal once it is announced, the Guardian has learned.


High court judges would be asked to examine whether the pact breaches the British government’s commitment to exercise “rigorous impartiality” in the Good Friday agreement.

 

[parklane1]

I don't believe it, I never did. But you are being disingenuous if you seriously can't see why some people would have looked at that and thought "I'll vote for £350m for the NHS." Show me where on that sign it says "Let's use some of that money to fund our NHS." It is written the way it is deliberately, so people make the simple connection. You know that as well as I do.

As it happens, I am far from a "remoaner" (not saying you said I was one, by the way). I voted to remain, but I'm not rabid about it and I can see there might be some upsides to leaving as well as downsides. But that election promise is deliberately misleading and it did mislead a lot of people, that's why a fuss was made about it; not just by people with agendas, but people who actually voted for what the sign intimated.

Turning that round, how the hell does any sane person get the conclusion that said it was going to give ALL 350 mill to the NHS. So no i do not know that as well as you do at all, maybe i thought more of the general public had enough brains to understand what was written before their own eyes, rather then make up fairy storys about what they thought it said.

If it mislead some into thinking that it had any other meaning then what it said well that is their foolish mistake and maybe, just maybe i gave to much credit to them having enough intelligence to fathom that out.

 

[scaramanga]

Leave and UKIP had one shot at leaving the EU. They prepared well, threw a tonne of cash and time at it. Remain didn't run such an effective campaign - maybe partly due to funding. What this article starts to show - if you read the full article - is that campaign funding rules were at best circumnavigated so more money could be used to get the desired outcome. That saw kids being given £100,000+++ for online campaigns, money going to the DUP via the Royal Legion, and a web of transactions which trace back to an American. Should a US billionaire be able to influence a UK referendum? Election laws don't think so.

Furthermore, it seems quite plausible that Leave.EU and UKIP coordinated and worked together - of course they did. But to get around our democratic funding rules, they hushed it up.

The more you look, the more dodgy the whole affair becomes. What is right for the people is the last consideration.

I certainly don't think that any external influence should be brought to bear on a UK election, neither should the campaign rules be broken.

I think the Guardian are still a long way from proving any of that though. Made even less effective by the appalling way that article is structured - reads like it was written by an autist with a really low attention span.

If they do prove it, then I hope those responsible are held accountable. I don't think it even nearly made as much difference as having the government of the day support the other side though, and I really don't think it would have swung the needle anyway. Do you vote for the side that has the most campaign posters or do you just assume that side's better at marketing?

 

[scaramanga]

We haven't brexited yet.

But the markets have priced it in.

 

[Gutter Boy]

In other news...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b043e55e14383c#block-5949386de4b043e55e14383c

According to Sky’s Ireland correspondent David Blevins, the Tory/DUP talks do not seem to be going particularly well.


David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: DUP urging government to give "greater focus" to negotiations. "Party can't be taken for granted." 1/2

June 20, 2017

David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: "Negotiations haven't proceeeded in a way that DUP would have expected." 2/2

June 20, 2017

_______________________________

I wonder if both parties are looking to back out of any deal due to a legal challenge over The Good Friday Agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-faces-legal-challenge-proposed-deal-dup

​

Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.


An experienced legal team, which has been involved in constitutional challenges, is planning to apply for a judicial review of the deal once it is announced, the Guardian has learned.


High court judges would be asked to examine whether the pact breaches the British government’s commitment to exercise “rigorous impartiality” in the Good Friday agreement.

Like transfer speculation when there's been no news for a few hours. Next will come rumours of the medical

 

[parklane1]

The priorities comment supersedes the NHS part and is argued that the NHS comment would be an example of where money could be spent not as a fact but as an example

Sense, but some of the remainers have still got their teeth into the story that is was the bus poster that made folks vote for freedom from a bunch of control freaks and nothing else.

 

[parklane1]

Yeh I agree, and thats why I don't think it made a difference, if you was Brexit you was Brexit

More sense, are they really folks out there who believe the majority voted out because of a bus poster. The vast majority who voted out were those who wanted a change, not because of a bus sticker and if anyone believes that they are living a dream.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I certainly don't think that any external influence should be brought to bear on a UK election, neither should the campaign rules be broken.

I think the Guardian are still a long way from proving any of that though. Made even less effective by the appalling way that article is structured - reads like it was written by an autist with a really low attention span.

If they do prove it, then I hope those responsible are held accountable. I don't think it even nearly made as much difference as having the government of the day support the other side though, and I really don't think it would have swung the needle anyway. Do you vote for the side that has the most campaign posters or do you just assume that side's better at marketing?

I agree with most of that. I would say that Leave ran a smart campaign. These 2 research /polling companies funded by UKIP, Leave, Trump's right hand man, did an excellent job. They sat down with voters and found out what was key. If you read Arron Banks book - the money man behind UKIP - he outlines how they identified that the referendum campaign in the last week had to not be about the economy otherwise they would lose. Thus they made it about immigration, with the posters of Turks queuing up etc. Whether it was the money spent on these research firms or a lazy Remain campaign, one side had a blinder, and the other had a terrible campaign that didn't communicate its rationale or connect. I would suggest that it was money well spent and that various Leave factions worked together (illegally).

 

[parklane1]

No, but it was heavily intimated.

Only to those who did not like the result, as i have said i know no one who believed that the poster suggested that the NHS would get the whole 350 million.

 

[scaramanga]

In other news...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b043e55e14383c#block-5949386de4b043e55e14383c

According to Sky’s Ireland correspondent David Blevins, the Tory/DUP talks do not seem to be going particularly well.


David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: DUP urging government to give "greater focus" to negotiations. "Party can't be taken for granted." 1/2

June 20, 2017

David Blevins (@skydavidblevins)
Sky sources: "Negotiations haven't proceeeded in a way that DUP would have expected." 2/2

June 20, 2017

_______________________________

I wonder if both parties are looking to back out of any deal due to a legal challenge over The Good Friday Agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-faces-legal-challenge-proposed-deal-dup

​

Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.


An experienced legal team, which has been involved in constitutional challenges, is planning to apply for a judicial review of the deal once it is announced, the Guardian has learned.


High court judges would be asked to examine whether the pact breaches the British government’s commitment to exercise “rigorous impartiality” in the Good Friday agreement.

Surely all the government has to do in order to show "rigorous impartiality" is to offer the same deal to Sinn Fein - we'll pretend you're part of the government and chuck you a few £M if you vote with us on everything.