Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 author

[impulse]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

You're fantasizing. Putin had no influence over the brexit referendum. He had no means/ability to do so.

 

Maybe he did.  Maybe not. 

 

But it's pretty naive to think he had no means/ ability to do so.  

 

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Maybe he did.  Maybe not. 

 

But it's pretty naive to think he had no means/ ability to do so.  

 

 

So tell me how he did it. Internet trolls on message boards that only a fraction of a percentage of the voting population reads ? How?

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

So tell me how he did it. Internet trolls on message boards that only a fraction of a percentage of the voting population reads ? How?

 

They've been overthrowing governments since long before Al Gore even invented the Interweb... 

 

Influencing a vote to weaken the EU would have been child's play.

 

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

They've been overthrowing governments since long before Al Gore even invented the Interweb... 

 

Influencing a vote to weaken the EU would have been child's play.

 

 

So explain how they did it.

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

So tell me how he did it. Internet trolls on message boards that only a fraction of a percentage of the voting population reads ? How?

As an example how they influence the public perception of events.

Recall the terror attack on Westminster Bridge earlier in the year , and the picture of the muslim woman walking past looking into her phone , with the quote muslim woman walks past uninterested. That was posted from the Russia troll farm

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

As an example how they influence the public perception of events.

Recall the terror attack on Westminster Bridge earlier in the year , and the picture of the muslim woman walking past looking into her phone , with the quote muslim woman walks past uninterested. That was posted from the Russia troll farm

 

And it was a perception which was quickly corrected in the msm. Now, how about some specifics on this Russian influence in the referendum?

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

So explain how they did it.

 

Seriously?  You figure they'd be stupid enough that any of us posting here would have the goods on them? 

 

That goes beyond naive.   

 

Tell you what.  Here's a challenge that's just as reasonable.  Prove that he didn't.

 

[Khun Han]

Just now, impulse said:

 

Seriously?  You figure they'd be stupid enough that any of us posting here would have the goods on them? 

 

That goes beyond naive.   

 

Tell you what.  Here's a challenge that's just as reasonable.  Prove that he didn't.

 

 

Oh dear. Not that silly argument again. You're the one who made the claim. You have no proof. It's just tin foil hat nonsense. You might be better off posting on David Icke's forum. You'll feel at home there.

[rockingrobin]

16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And it was a perception which was quickly corrected in the msm. Now, how about some specifics on this Russian influence in the referendum?

It was initiallay picked up by the msm to condemn the woman, and if my recollection is correct , on this forum itself.

The perception was only corrected by the woman speaking out herself

[mrfill]

15 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

As indeed happened when the ROI rejected the Lisbon treaty only for Brussels to ask them to vote again.... in the middle of a recession I might add...

 

 

 

 

You seem to have forgotten to mention that the terms of the first vote were terrible and after considerable changes, the terms improved sufficiently to make ratification acceptable to the Irish. Their economic growth since accepting the Lisbon Treaty suggests they were correct.

However, the UK electorate are expected to accept whatever crappy deal is put together with no chance of rejection and re-negotiation as the Brexit camp will not accept that the people should decide if a deal is bad or good. Now, why would that be?

[Khun Han]

18 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

It was initiallay picked up by the msm to condemn the woman, and if my recollection is correct , on this forum itself.

The perception was only corrected by the woman speaking out herself

 

Speaking out herself in the msm, an action which was taken up on by said msm in a big way. Now, how about we get back to how Putin allegedly changed the course of the referendum? So far, we are told that he did it, but 'how' is top secret and nobody outside his cabal knows .

Edited November 11, 2017 by Khun Han

[JAG]

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's a moot point

 

on the one hand, the bigger the single market the better; economies of scale and all that

 

On the other hand the UK has been a pain in the arse for many years. Half the population just don't get it (both metaphorically and literally) and probably would prefer to live in the USA.

 

With an incompetent government we should have a new general election

An "incompetent government" ( I don't particularly disagree with that analysis) is the result of a recent general election. But it is the second "vote" which has endorsed leaving the EU.

 

It is a very "European" habit to ask for another vote, and so hope to achieve the result which you desire.

 

Furthermore, given the alternative, do you really think that they would be any more competent?

 

The incompetence is largely due to a lack of discipline. Mrs May cannot enforce that - it would never have happened under Maggie (I am only partly "tongue in cheek")!

Edited November 11, 2017 by JAG

[rockingrobin]

24 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Speaking out herself in the msm, an action which was taken up on by said msm in a big way. Now, how about we get back to how Putin allegedly changed the course of the referendum? So far, we are told that he did it, but 'how' is top secret and nobody outside his cabal knows .

You requested how it was possible. I provided an example of how one tweet shaped the news in a manner to cause discourse 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

So tell me how he did it. Internet trolls on message boards that only a fraction of a percentage of the voting population reads ? How?

You assume the means to manipulate people's opinions and from that voting intentions is by trolls on message boards.

Here's something we can all observe:

 

We search from a product or service on the internet, perhaps look for information on "Water Heaters" . Within moments of us searching for this we find adverts for "Water Heaters" start appearing in the adverts we see alongside the online newspapers we read, or indeed here on Thai Visa. 

Water heaters will start appearing in our social media streams and we might start receiving messages over social media for water heaters, perhaps even via our email.

 

The algorithms driving this direction of adverts also drive the news feeds that are presented to us, the recommendations we receive for articles and information that might interest us. 

 

The means to manipulate public opinion have come out of the advertising industry and and are embedded into the internet, search engines and social media. 

 

The tools to manipulate opinion exist, are in operation, are proven to work and are available for hire. 

 

Cambridge Analytica, a company that provides these services, gave it's services free to the Brexit Leave campaign and is now implicated as having acted for Russia in the US elections. 

 

Cambridge Analytica is being investigated in both the US and UK for the part it has played in manipulating voter opinions. 

 

 

 

[adammike]

17 minutes ago, JAG said:

An "incompetent government" ( I don't particularly disagree with that analysis) is the result of a recent general election. But it is the second "vote" which has endorsed leaving the EU.

 

It is a very "European" habit to ask for another vote, and so hope to achieve the result which you desire.

 

Furthermore, given the alternative, do you really think that they would be any more competent?

 

The incompetence is largely due to a lack of discipline. Mrs May cannot enforce that - it would never have happened under Maggie (I am only partly "tongue in cheek")!

The referendum was a second vote we had one back in 75,that didn't stop the brexiters campaigning to leave and have another referendum so don't expect the remainers to just dissappear.The EU and the terms we signed up for back in 75 have changed so the referendum was hard to deny,only 38% of the electorate voted to leave that won the ballot  hardly the will of the people. Theresa campaigned to give her a mandate for a hard Brexit she didn't get it,What we know now and due to the scandalous leave campaign with dubious backing and funding and the way the Tories are handling the Brexit negotiations a new referendum or election when it's clear what's on the table near to the date when we leave the EU should happen. 

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Article 50 has no mention of phases. Just negotiations. The EU have been dictating the exit process all the way through. Unfortunately this weakly led UK government has tagged along, hoping, in vain, for a change to pragmatic talks after each negotiating session. Of course this will continue, until the EU finally decide to compromise, or not. This is typical behaviour from them and proves one of the main points as to why we should get out now.  

I agree with much of what you say.  However all negotiations have phases or stages if you prefer.  As Barnier says, there is not enough clarity yet to move on to the next stage.  A two week deadline has been given to get there.  So far the Brits haven't agreed an amount they will pay although they have said that they will pay something over and above the initial 20 billion pounds offered.  They haven't come up with a viable solution to the Irish border issue and they haven't yet agreed on the terms of citizens rights after Brexit.  You talk of the EU compromising and they have said that they may well do but as far as the money is concerned (the biggest stumbling block by far) they have to have a starting point which has to be the offer of how much the UK are prepared to pay.

 

One thing we know is that one side or the other has to blink first because all the time wasting needs to be over.

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I agree with much of what you say.  However all negotiations have phases or stages if you prefer.  As Barnier says, there is not enough clarity yet to move on to the next stage.  A two week deadline has been given to get there.  So far the Brits haven't agreed an amount they will pay although they have said that they will pay something over and above the initial 20 billion pounds offered.  They haven't come up with a viable solution to the Irish border issue and they haven't yet agreed on the terms of citizens rights after Brexit.  You talk of the EU compromising and they have said that they may well do but as far as the money is concerned (the biggest stumbling block by far) they have to have a starting point which has to be the offer of how much the UK are prepared to pay.

 

One thing we know is that one side or the other has to blink first because all the time wasting needs to be over.

 

Well there you go, "Barnier says". It's all a bit like "Simon Says", eh? Do this, do that.

 

May has always said she preferred a sensible negotiated deal. This hard Brexit stuff was invented elsewhere.

 

Compromise - I hope so soon. Time wasting - yes - but a lot of that could be avoided with early sensible compromise. 

 

I haven't seen Juncker joking and kissing much on the news recently. Maybe he's waiting for the Christmas party? 

 

The EU will drag this out in the hope they get all they want, which is ultimately a complete reversal and no Brexit.

  

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, petermik said:

You don,t like brexit...tough......the majority wanted it.....get used to it.

You sound like the folks in the US who wanted Trump to get elected.The reason I recommend a 2nd vote, is because now Brits have a better idea of what's involved with pulling out of the EU.  Before the vote, most didn't have a clue, particularly rural folks.  Right after the election, the #1 searched item in Britain (for days) on Google was "What is Brexit?"

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

Oh gawd! Here we go with 'the Russians' again! The globalists think they've found the perfect whipping boy here, it's the new McCarthyism. And their useful idiots are all over it like a rash. It's a complete red herring, of course. Did the Russians infiltrate all the workplaces,  pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, etc in the UK then (where nearly everyone formed their opinions)? The vast majority of people don't spend any time whatsoever discussing politics on internet message boards.

Remain's excuses just keep getting more and more silly.

Your shrill response indicates I've touched a sensitive nerve.  Overly defense, perchance?

 

The most successful thief is one who the victims don't even suspect, or when the victims don't even know they've been robbed.

Similarly, if the Russkies did clandestinely influence a swath of British voters, they may have done it so craftily that Brits didn't even know it happened.   That's what the Russkies wanted to happen in their support for Trump in the US campaign of '16, but we're now finding out about it.

As for '......infiltrate all the workplaces,  pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, etc in the UK' 

Boomer responds; .....are you a Luddite?  Most interactions nowadays are on the internet.  Russkies know how easily people are influenced by stuff they see/read on the internet.   What % of Brits are on FB, for example?  My guess:  over 70%. 
   I'm not saying it happened.  But am saying it's a possibility.   Again, if Russkie influence was successful, it would accomplish two things: 
    A. Brexit would get voted in, and
    B. The Russkies would not even be suspected of interfering.

 

In the US, #A (Trump getting elected) was successful for the Russians/Putin, but #B didn't surface (for the general public) until after the election. 

 

addendum:  I just googled it:  "Facebook gets used more than once a day by around 44 percent of the UK online population. Only 21 percent of UK adults that go online don't use Facebook at all. "

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by boomerangutang

[daveAustin]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:02 PM, mfd101 said:

The figures for 'total contributions by nation' to the EU budget in 2014 are, for the 4 biggest economies:

• Germany 29.143b€
• France    20.967b€
• Italy         15.888b€
• UK            14.072b€

 

Nice try, but pointless unless you show net figures. France gets most of its stake back, for example, while Britain has been paying additional on net again due to big gains in economy.

 

As for Britain whining 'the whole time' and making things difficult - and EU being better off without UK, blah-de-blah  - well that is just more puerile I-don't-have-a mind-of-my-own twaddle. Negotiations over the years in general have been productive and other EU states have only gained when Britain has stood up for itself and others with creative options... something no other state ever has the balls to do.

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

You sound like the folks in the US who wanted Trump to get elected.The reason I recommend a 2nd vote, is because now Brits have a better idea of what's involved with pulling out of the EU.  Before the vote, most didn't have a clue, particularly rural folks.  Right after the election, the #1 searched item in Britain (for days) on Google was "What is Brexit?"

Your shrill response indicates I've touched a sensitive nerve.  Overly defense, perchance?

 

The most successful thief is one who the victims don't even suspect, or when the victims don't even know they've been robbed.

Similarly, if the Russkies did clandestinely influence a swath of British voters, they may have done it so craftily that Brits didn't even know it happened.   That's what the Russkies wanted to happen in their support for Trump in the US campaign of '16, but we're now finding out about it.

As for '......infiltrate all the workplaces,  pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, etc in the UK' 

Boomer responds; .....are you a Luddite?  Most interactions nowadays are on the internet.  Russkies know how easily people are influenced by stuff they see/read on the internet.   What % of Brits are on FB, for example?  My guess:  over 70%. 
   I'm not saying it happened.  But am saying it's a possibility.   Again, if Russkie influence was successful, it would accomplish two things: 
    A. Brexit would get voted in, and
    B. The Russkies would not even be suspected of interfering.

 

In the US, #A (Trump getting elected) was successful for the Russians/Putin, but #B didn't surface (for the general public) until after the election. 

 

addendum:  I just googled it:  "Facebook gets used more than once a day by around 44 percent of the UK online population. Only 21 percent of UK adults that go online don't use Facebook at all. "

 

This Brexit search Google comment has come up before, without any stats about who exactly was searching, of course. By their uneducated answers, comments and replies to easy questions, the demonstrating remainers in London, the day after the referendum, managed to display virtually zero knowledge about the EU. As they were all in total disbelief, I would bet money that most of these searches were actually done by remainers, who most likely use FB more than leavers too. 

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by nauseus

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Some say..........that more remainers use FB than leavers! 

And some don't 

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Well there you go, "Barnier says". It's all a bit like "Simon Says", eh? Do this, do that.

 

May has always said she preferred a sensible negotiated deal. This hard Brexit stuff was invented elsewhere.

Really?  Check the soundbites and the "No deal is better than a bad deal" statements.

 

Quite right that "Barnier says".  Davis on the other hand is saying nothing except "progress is being made."  It isn't and that is why Barnier is now pressing for some action.  Actually we are all pressing for some action from the blustering Davis or his boss.

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Really?  Check the soundbites and the "No deal is better than a bad deal" statements.

 

Quite right that "Barnier says".  Davis on the other hand is saying nothing except "progress is being made."  It isn't and that is why Barnier is now pressing for some action.  Actually we are all pressing for some action from the blustering Davis or his boss.

Yes, I remember, the "no deal is better than a bad deal" statement, however "hard Brexit" not from TM. 

 

DD is trying to negotiate with a huge dictatorial bureaucracy. Not easy. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by nauseus

[nauseus]

42 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

And some don't 

A Jeremy Clarkson moment

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You assume the means to manipulate people's opinions and from that voting intentions is by trolls on message boards.

Here's something we can all observe:

 

We search from a product or service on the internet, perhaps look for information on "Water Heaters" . Within moments of us searching for this we find adverts for "Water Heaters" start appearing in the adverts we see alongside the online newspapers we read, or indeed here on Thai Visa. 

Water heaters will start appearing in our social media streams and we might start receiving messages over social media for water heaters, perhaps even via our email.

 

The algorithms driving this direction of adverts also drive the news feeds that are presented to us, the recommendations we receive for articles and information that might interest us. 

 

The means to manipulate public opinion have come out of the advertising industry and and are embedded into the internet, search engines and social media. 

 

The tools to manipulate opinion exist, are in operation, are proven to work and are available for hire. 

 

Cambridge Analytica, a company that provides these services, gave it's services free to the Brexit Leave campaign and is now implicated as having acted for Russia in the US elections. 

 

Cambridge Analytica is being investigated in both the US and UK for the part it has played in manipulating voter opinions. 

 

 

 

 

Presenting information to your target voters effectively is not wrong or immoral.

 

http://influence.cipr.co.uk/2017/09/15/micro-targeted-messages-sinister-manipulation-new-pr-reality/

 

Of course, the losers of elections are always full of excuses as to why they lost. What is really sinister about all this is the way that the liberal left now takes it's excuses into organised campaigns to undermine and discredit the election winners.

 

Cambridge Analytica is not being investigated in the UK, it's subject to a private lawsuit by some liberal lefties. Wrt the US investigations, see my above paragraph.

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I remember, the "no deal is better than a bad deal" statement, however "hard Brexit" not from TM. 

 

DD is trying to negotiate with a huge dictatorial bureaucracy. Not easy. 

Quote from the Lancaster House speech:

 

" But I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe.  Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.

 

That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.

 

Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain."

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Your shrill response indicates I've touched a sensitive nerve.  Overly defense, perchance?

 

The most successful thief is one who the victims don't even suspect, or when the victims don't even know they've been robbed.

Similarly, if the Russkies did clandestinely influence a swath of British voters, they may have done it so craftily that Brits didn't even know it happened.   That's what the Russkies wanted to happen in their support for Trump in the US campaign of '16, but we're now finding out about it.

As for '......infiltrate all the workplaces,  pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, etc in the UK' 

Boomer responds; .....are you a Luddite?  Most interactions nowadays are on the internet.  Russkies know how easily people are influenced by stuff they see/read on the internet.   What % of Brits are on FB, for example?  My guess:  over 70%. 
   I'm not saying it happened.  But am saying it's a possibility.   Again, if Russkie influence was successful, it would accomplish two things: 
    A. Brexit would get voted in, and
    B. The Russkies would not even be suspected of interfering.

 

In the US, #A (Trump getting elected) was successful for the Russians/Putin, but #B didn't surface (for the general public) until after the election. 

 

addendum:  I just googled it:  "Facebook gets used more than once a day by around 44 percent of the UK online population. Only 21 percent of UK adults that go online don't use Facebook at all. "

 

 

Difficult to know where to begin with the above pile of nonsense. Why is flagging up your evidence-free tin foil hat theory about the Russians shrill or defensive? And your theory gets ever-more crackpot - now you're saying that they changed peoples' minds without people even realising it .

 

Luddite? No I live in the UK in a big city, where people meet and interact day in day out. Most people use the internet for shopping and a bit of social interaction outside of actually meeting their friends socially (you know? posting photos and comments about parties, nights out and suchlike on Facebook, etc?). Maybe you, living in the middle of nowhere, in a foreign culture, rely on the internet for most of your interaction with the outside world?

 

I'm no fan of Trump. But it's easy to see why he won the presidency: enough people are sick to the back teeth of being treated like mushrooms by the establishment. I very much doubt Trump will be any better for the people, but he, as an outsider, got a huge protest vote. Of course, the establishment, instead of giving itself a good dose of self-reflection and working out how it can improve to better serve the public, merely goes on the attack with it's red herrings like 'Russian interference'.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Khun Han

[Dagnabbit]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:54 PM, Grouse said:

Because you don't REALLY think things through. Does it not give you pause that ALL the bright people are anti Brexit? But we have a majority of low level munchkins who are going to get shafted yet won't see it coming!

 

I am pro-Brexit and I think I may be bright. I work from home running a software company that I started from nothing & now makes 7 figures a year.  I designed it, marketed it, became the face of the company. Soup to nuts - all from me sitting down in front of a PC with some good ideas and half-decent execution skills.  I literally have no asset I can use to do my job other than my brain and of course - my fingers.

 

I am pro-Brexit because the whole EU political machine is corrupt and cannot be fixed. 

 

Are you saying I am an anomaly? Because I have a friend who is also pro-Brexit and he also runs a software company in a different field that he started from scratch and it dwarfs mine. 

 

I can't actually think of anything dumber than believing people with a different opinion from me are less intelligent. That sort of opinion is born through complete lack of critical thinking. You would have to be thoroughly dense to believe such a thing. Now - I am sure you will display your lack of critical thinking skills with a dose of confirmation bias, which I await with baited breath...

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

You requested how it was possible. I provided an example of how one tweet shaped the news in a manner to cause discourse 

 

But you didn't provide any examples of how Putin could influence the result of the referendum. You merely provided an unrelated story which flared up in the msm and was got to the bottom of by said msm.

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Presenting information to your target voters effectively is not wrong or immoral.

 

It's a bit dodgy if the targeting is being done by a foreign government - effectively a foreign government interfering in the electoral process. 

 

Or do you feel that foreign governments interfering with the electoral process is acceptable?