UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.

Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.

Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.

That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.

**r_squared**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.

Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.

That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.

Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I know, its a pipe dream.

**Mr. Burning**

r_squared wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.

Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.

That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.

Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.

With Putin involved regime change is out of the window anyway.

Really though, It wasn't likely even with kind words of encouragement being sent in droves from the west. And the red line defence shield being put in place.

**tneva82**

r_squared wrote:
Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.

If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.

**AlmightyWalrus**

r_squared wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Part of that will and should involve talking with Assad.

Give the guy an out. Let him retire peacefully with criminal immunity. Acknowledge his regime as the legitimate government. Provide aid and intelligence in combating the extreme Islamist sections of the Syrian rebels, particularly IS. Set a timetable for his departure, and tie western cooperation and aid to future Human Rights reform, secularisation (in the interests of protecting minorities from oppression by the Islamic majority) and possible democratisation. Pressure the more moderate rebels to work with the Syrian government on condition that Assad steps down.

That might be one of the most reasonable suggestions I've read in a while on Dakka.

Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.

"Reasonable" as in "this could potentially work without nuking the Middle East" and "worth working towards", not "reasonable" as in "easy". As you say, the various rebel groups in Syria aren't exactly thrilled with al-Assad, and al-Assad in turn isn't thrilled about the rebels.

tneva82 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Why would he accept such an offer? TBH it's spectacularly naive, for a start he has absolutely no reason to trust the West, we've been actively fighting his regime. Also, he doesn't want an "out", he's President, as far as he's concerned, we are his enemies.
He also has no interest in enacting any human rights reform, or democracy. Moderate rebels also aren't interested in working with the regime, with or without Assad. They want to overthrow it.
This might seem like reasonable suggestions to a western mind set, but they are likely to be received with scorn, and would certainly be ignored by the factions fighting in Syria.
The best , and only action the West can take is to stay out of it. If we can't do that, we need to take on our enemies, ISIS and Assad.

If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.

Who'd be sentencing him to death?

**A Town Called Malus**

tneva82 wrote:

If he starts to figure he might get overthrown he knows he will be facing trials for war crimes and very likely death penalty. People generally don't like idea of dying.

If that happens he'll just flee to some other country and live off the money he'll have been stashing away in swiss bank accounts. Then it is up to the new syrian government to try and get him extradited back, which can take a long time if it happens at all.

**whembly**

Did you guys see this study?

Gary Bennett: Stop blaming the old and the ignorant for Brexit – the statistics just don’t support these myths

Look at the charts derived from their statistical models...

Spoiler:

TL;DR: I pulled from the article that jumped out at me:

if “Vote Leave” had been a political party it would probably have won 421 seats. A landslide representing 65 per cent of all seats (including Scotland) and 73 per cent of seats in England and Wales.

Does that jive with you're seeing in UK?

**Silent Puffin?**

whembly wrote:
Did you guys see this study?

I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.

In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.

**Goliath**

whembly wrote:

"Stop blaming the old and the ignorant for Brexit – the statistics just don’t support these myths"

*proceeds to provide data showing that the old and less-educated are responsible for Brexit*

**whembly**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
whembly wrote:
Did you guys see this study?

I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.

In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.

Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.

Whereas the leave majority were in: N. East, N. West, Yorkshire & Humberside, W. Midlands, E. Midlands, Wales, East England, S. East and S. West.

Is it true (I know it's over simplifying this) if the 'leave' vote was a Political party, it'd be a landslide? If you buy that argument, the author's point was that this vote "wasn't that close".

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
whembly wrote:
Did you guys see this study?

I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, the real message from the data presented there is that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to have voted remain. Additionally looking at the Lord Ashcroft data the older the voter the more likely they are to have voted leave.

In other words the old and the 'ignorant' (in this case less educated) are to blame for Brexit.

Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.

Whereas the leave majority were in: N. East, N. West, Yorkshire & Humberside, W. Midlands, E. Midlands, Wales, East England, S. East and S. West.

Is it true (I know it's over simplifying this) if the 'leave' vote was a Political party, it'd be a landslide? If you buy that argument, the author's point was that this vote "wasn't that close".

We had a political party that was basically "Vote Leave", UKIP. They got a single seat at the last general election.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

No, it was close, of the 72ish% that voted, it was 52% leave, 48% remain.

Call it roughly 30million voters, there's about a 2million difference in the votes. Otherwise known as quite close.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Goliath wrote:
whembly wrote:

"Stop blaming the old and the ignorant for Brexit – the statistics just don’t support these myths"
*proceeds to provide data showing that the old and less-educated are responsible for Brexit*

Then you aren't reading carefully enough.

**whembly**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
No, it was close, of the 72ish% that voted, it was 52% leave, 48% remain.

Call it roughly 30million voters, there's about a 2million difference in the votes. Otherwise known as quite close.

Nah...

*THIS* was close:

The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote recounting in Florida that occurred during the weeks after Election Day in the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The Florida vote was ultimately settled in Bush's favor by a margin of 537 votes when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the Florida Supreme Court. That in turn gave Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College and victory in the presidential election

Skin-o-teef close!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
We had a political party that was basically "Vote Leave", UKIP. They got a single seat at the last general election.

One seat. And 4 million votes. More than the SNP and Lib Dems.

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
We had a political party that was basically "Vote Leave", UKIP. They got a single seat at the last general election.

One seat. And 4 million votes. More than the SNP and Lib Dems.

Right, so all the article has done is highlight the problems of First Past The Post. It hasn't defeated the issue of the disparity in education level or age.

**Silent Puffin?**

whembly wrote:

Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.

That doesn't change the fact that leavers are statistically older and less educated.

**whembly**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
whembly wrote:

Look at it in a different way... if you look at the distribution of those who wanted to stay, they'd essentially be Scotland, N. Ireland & London.

That doesn't change the fact that leavers are statistically older and less educated.

Of course not.

And really, it shouldn't matter. An older, less educated vote is worth the same as the younger, more educated crowd.

**Goliath**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Goliath wrote:
whembly wrote:

"Stop blaming the old and the ignorant for Brexit – the statistics just don’t support these myths"
*proceeds to provide data showing that the old and less-educated are responsible for Brexit*

Then you aren't reading carefully enough.

Want to point out what I'm not understanding then, rather than just going "Well you're too dumb to get it!"

Because if you look at the data, older people were more likely to vote leave, and younger were more likely to vote remain.
And less educated people were more likely to vote leave, and more educated people were more likely to vote remain.

Want to point out the flaw in the logic?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I hope people are not going to fall into the trap of thinking that every leave voter is a toothless simpleton

I'm not old, I'm not young, I have a masters degree, and as Harry Enfield's Yorkshireman said, I've also been to Leeds, so I'm sophisticared.

Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...

I also live in an area that rarely sees an immigrant, so immigration barely effects me, and I still voted to leave...

Also, I don't read or buy the Sun, or the Daily Mail, so that's another leave voter stereotype shot down...

Seriously, I know my fellow dakka members won't fall into the trap of making sweeping generalizations and will be aware that there is always exceptions on both sides,

but I do get fed up of the whining, petulant tone of newspapers like the Guardian, and their editorial line that basically regards all leave voters as Murdoch stooges, and that BREXIT will unleash the four horsemen on us...

That does annoy me...

**Whirlwind**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
No, it was close, of the 72ish% that voted, it was 52% leave, 48% remain.

Call it roughly 30million voters, there's about a 2million difference in the votes. Otherwise known as quite close.

The difference in changing the result was approximately 700,000 votes. Not massive considering the total voting population. Remember it's always half the difference between the two results because you only need half the votes to swing the results (that's why at elections they talk about swings not actual numbers - it's how many that actually would be needed to change the result). The problem is that from a statistics perspective the result wasn't conclusive either way. If you take a sample (like the vote) you will always get a distribution of results even if you voted several times straight after each other because of chaotic changes in behaviour). The problem with a result this close is that it is quite possible that either result is the 'true result' because we don't know the error margin.

The article does show all that's wrong about first past the post. But in reality I fear there is a bit of picking the bit of statistics they like. Take the proportion per region, that's fine but it isn't reflective of the total population because the number of people in each bin aren't the same. London and the SE have a much larger proportion of the population, including all this area in one bin is misleading and makes it look like the Country as a whole apart from a few areas are pro leave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope people are not going to fall into the trap of thinking that every leave voter is a toothless simpleton

No but statistically a significant fraction of people that didn't understand the issues but believed they did because they listened to politicians that spouted bigoted nonsense (or downright lies or possible promises according to IDS). This is in effect means the result was won on these issues because there is a large enough fraction of such people to sway the vote one way or the other.

**Sarouan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...

Actually, the point was more about true knowledge of how the EU works, what can UK really do alone and real consequences of a Brexit. I remember what you were saying before the vote, and after it. It wasn't the same tone, and it's not really surprising.

Usually, people bragging about their education are the most ignorant of all people. Blinded by their "knowledge", most of the time.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Sarouan wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Point is, I have higher education qualifications, and I voted to leave...

Actually, the point was more about true knowledge of how the EU works, what can UK really do alone and real consequences of a Brexit. I remember what you were saying before the vote, and after it. It wasn't the same tone, and it's not really surprising.

Usually, people bragging about their education are the most ignorant of all people. Blinded by their "knowledge", most of the time.

I know how the EU works - it's a bureaucracy, and like every bureaucracy since the dawn of time, it wants more and more, and grows and grows...

And the evidence for this. Look at how much the EEC or the EU has changed since 1973 when Britain joined the common market.

There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...

Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...

The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...

And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...

People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

No but statistically a significant fraction of people that didn't understand the issues but believed they did because they listened to politicians that spouted bigoted nonsense (or downright lies or possible promises according to IDS). This is in effect means the result was won on these issues because there is a large enough fraction of such people to sway the vote one way or the other.

I think people greatly overestimate Farage's influence.

I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...

**reds8n**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/19/help-to-buy-isa-scandal-500000-first-time-buyers-told-scheme-can/

The Government’s much vaunted Help to Buy Isa was on Friday described as a “scandal” after it emerged that first-time buyers will not be able to use it for an initial deposit on their new home.

More than 500,000 savers have opened the accounts after being told by George Osborne, the former chancellor, that it provided “direct government support” for those saving for a deposit, as a way of getting “Generation Rent” on to the housing ladder.

But on Friday it emerged that a flaw in the scheme means a 25 per cent government “bonus” on savings will not be paid out until the sale has completed.

Experts say this renders the scheme technically useless as it is designed for those who are struggling to find the initial outlay involved in buying a home and means they will still be reliant on loans from their parents, if available.

A maximum of £200 can be saved monthly, plus a £1,000 initial deposit
When the Isa balance is put towards buying a house, the Government adds a 25pc bonus
The bonus is paid out on a minimum balance of £1,600 and a maximum balance of £12,000
To save enough to claim the full £3,000 bonus would take an individual 55 months, not accounting for interest earned
The Isas are easy access and generally offer comparatively high rates, but these are variable meaning they are subject to change
Can only be used on sub £450k properties in London and sub £250k properties outside the capital
To qualify for the 25pc bonus the property must be in the UK and cost up to £250,000 (£450,000 if buying in London). It must not be a second home or a buy-to-let property and must be purchased with a mortgage

Buyers are usually required to provide a deposit of 10 per cent of the value of the home when they exchange contracts, and for many first-time buyers this is all the equity they have to put into the purchase.

The small print means the bonus cannot be used for this initial deposit, and can only be spent as part of the purchase cost, for example on mortgage payments, once the deal is completed.

The Treasury has been forced to admit that the clause was included to stop people benefiting from the bonus without actually buying a house.

The accounts, which were launched last year, let customers save £200 a month to which the Government adds £50, up to a final total of £15,000.

So far fewer than 1,500 people have used them to help buy a home as the limit on how much can be paid in means they have only just accrued a realistic amount to put toward a deposit.

Andrew Boast of SAM Conveyancing, said: “It is a scandal. The Government launched this scheme declaredly to help people save the large exchange deposit required to buy a home. But what unsuspecting first-time buyers are now horrified to discover is that under the scheme rules they cannot use the bonus as part of this deposit.”

Sources at high street banks said they were unaware of the restrictions, which state: “The bonus cannot be used for the deposit due at the exchange of contracts, to pay for solicitor’s, estate agent’s fees or any other indirect costs associated with buying a home.”

Banks and building societies have been selling the Isas on the premise that they can be used to boost home deposits. They may now be forced to change their advertising.

HSBC’s website reads: “Saving up for a deposit for your first home? Open an HSBC Help to Buy Isa and the UK Government will reward you with an additional 25 per cent of the amount you save, up to a maximum of £3,000.”

A promotional video by Halifax claims it helps customers “save for a bigger deposit”. Natwest provides an online tool to show how a Help to Buy Isa could “help save for the deposit on your first home”.

They echo Mr Osborne’s comments when he launched the scheme. He said: “This new Isa provides direct government support to anyone saving for the deposit on their first home.”

On Friday night the Treasury backtracked on the stated original aim, claiming it was never intended to boost deposits. A spokesman insisted the bonus was instead designed purely to reduce the size of buyers’ mortgages by boosting the equity they put in on completion.

After The Telegraph raised the issue, the Treasury updated its Help to Buy Isa web page to make the clause more prominent.

Experts who had previously praised the scheme criticised it for simply providing a “perk” to savers who could already afford a home.

The need for a large down payment remains the biggest block to home ownership, the intermediary mortgage lending association says. The average first-time deposit has risen to £33,000, according to Halifax.

There's more at the link if you can stomach it.

What a surprise.

It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.

**r_squared**

reds8n wrote:
..... There's more at the link if you can stomach it.

What a surprise.

It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.

The current neo-liberal "meritocracy" is a funny old beast. You're only allowed to have nice things and "aspire" if you can struggle through the toughest artifical barriers they can create. Hence the bedroom tax et all.
I standby to see how Theresa May's interpretation of help for the Workers pans out. Although I'm not hopeful. Even in the face of a working class rebellion against the establishment dragging us out of the EU, we'll soon get the measure of whether any lessons have been learned.
Somehow, I doubt it. I think all those who thought the establishment needed a kick up the arse, and delivered it with a Leave vote, will see how hard the establishment will kick back when the dust settles.

**Mr. Burning**

r_squared wrote:
reds8n wrote:
..... There's more at the link if you can stomach it.

What a surprise.

It's like they're genetically incapable of helping anyone who doesn't already have money.

The current neo-liberal "meritocracy" is a funny old beast. You're only allowed to have nice things and "aspire" if you can struggle through the toughest artifical barriers they can create. Hence the bedroom tax et all.
I standby to see how Theresa May's interpretation of help for the Workers pans out. Although I'm not hopeful. Even in the face of a working class rebellion against the establishment dragging us out of the EU, we'll soon get the measure of whether any lessons have been learned.
Somehow, I doubt it. I think all those who thought the establishment needed a kick up the arse, and delivered it with a Leave vote, will see how hard the establishment will kick back when the dust settles.

Help to buy ISA's CAN be used as deposit.

Before final exchange the HtBISA account is closed. The solicitor acting on behalf of the buyer sends the notice of closure to the government who then release the funds to the mortgage provider.

This deposit is taken into account at all stages of the house buying process. Lenders do not take deposit cash straight away. Both Lenders and Estate Agents may require proof of deposit though. (Standard practice).

My wife is an FC and has had clients using this ISA and its bonus complete on their exchanges.

EDIT:

"The bonus cannot be used for the deposit due at the exchange of contracts, to pay for solicitor’s, estate agent’s fees or any other indirect costs associated with buying a home.”

If this is the case my wife and many others in the industry may no longer advocate this product. Its no better than a standard ISA and the bonus being used for mortgage payments is really neither here or there for providers since all applicants are affordability tested.

**Sarouan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...

That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.

EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.

It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries. So that's why nationalists like to attack EU's administration; it's so convenient to have someone to blame for their own inability to solve things when they would be able to if they really wanted to.

Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...

Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.

Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.

I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.

The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...

And you think lobbies don't exist in UK? You should rather hunt your corrupt people in your country first before trying to give lessons to EU. Because, you know, that's your people you send to EU in the positions of power. So, maybe roots of corruption aren't exactly where you think they are...

And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...

People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...

Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.

I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...

And you still voted for his side. Mind you, no matter how you justify it, the results are still there. When people in Germany voted for That Man before the World War 2, they sure thought it was in their interest. And in the end, they suffer so much for that terrible price.

You may say it's not the same thing. And it's true. But the consequences of your choice will still be there. Voting for a side with so many obvious holes while knowing fully of the horsegak they were saying is, to me, one of the worst things to do as a human. Because it just shows you are not better than EU you decry so much.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I think people greatly overestimate Farage's influence.

I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...

Farage wasn't the main player though. It was Boris, Gove, IDS etc that provided a lot of support to the idea that immigrants are bad for the Country, the EU spends our money with no return etc without using quite the same wording. Nor did they ever challenge Farage on his approach, rather distanced themselves because even then they knew that his message was pandering to a certain crowd that they wanted to vote their way, even if their views were generally unpalatable to them. They manipulated the situation to help them win their goals of climbing the political ladder (either now or in the future).