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.

If we flip the situation and imagine that it is Better Together being investigated for breaking the electoral rules, would we argue that they should be let off?

Isn't it important to investigate and prosecute any infringements against ballot law, whatever the actual result of the poll?

To me this is just further reinforcement for a second referendum. Sadly I have to agree with DINLT that just repealing the original result on this basis is politically impractical at best, but there are a whole host of other issues with that campaign (lies, conflicting proposals, lack of detail, key issues totally unconsidered, i.e. Ireland).

So let’s draw a line under that whole mess and allow the British public to have the final say, once the whole deal is visible on the table.

With what options?

Tabled deal vs standard World Trade rules. (You know the masses would love to snock a crook at the EU again don’t you?).

Or

The tabled deal vs stay in EU. Which is to say a compete waste of the last 2 years.

True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

Herzlos wrote:
Sure Remain ran a fairly bad campaign, but when everything was written off as being "sick of experts" and when fighting that level of disinformation it's always a losing proposition. There was also a lot of complaceny since Remain was the obviously sensible choice.

Can you honestly think of anything Remain could have done to get you to have voted Remain? This was decided long ago, with the waverers being bought over by threats of immigrants and bribes for the NHS.

Remain could have put some effort to point out that most of the grievances from the Leave side had nothing to do with the EU, and in turn highlight how useless a government they've been, though.

Now some of the lies have been exposed as lies, can you see Leave winning a 2nd time?

They were exposed as lies, but they were shouted down with "We are sick of experts" and "Look at project fear!". Remain were always going to struggle. Just the same as the Scottish referendum. The side that wants to continue can never sell it as a land of milk and honey, all they could ever do was shoot down the oppositions arguments. This was deflected and derided by the leave side in both. In the Scottish referendum remain won. In the EU referendum they lost, and I would argue a big part of that was a targeted savvy campaign that undermined and attacked any questioning. Both were very much campaigns dominated by emotion over fact, and advertising does sway much more than fact, and a sexy story wins over the truth. Just go and look at the conspiracy theory thread or the stuff about the Russian attack on the UK to see how many people will ignore vast swathes of evidence just because it does not fit their world view. This extra, illegal, advertising most probably made the small difference. People like to think they are rational, but they aren't. The most rational people are the ones who admit they act irrationally, but they are still often just irrational but aware of it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

 notprop wrote:
With what options?

Tabled deal vs standard World Trade rules. (You know the masses would love to snock a crook at the EU again don’t you?).

Or

The tabled deal vs stay in EU. Which is to say a compete waste of the last 2 years.

Tabled deal vs. standard World Trade rules vs. stay in EU, with the two most popular squaring off in a second round. In practice this'll of course mean that it's either the tabled deal or World Trade rules vs. stay in EU, but it also means that the leave vote isn't unfairly split between the two leave options, and it lets people who are in favour of taking a Tabled deal but would prefer staying in over WTO rules to vote for a more preferred option if WTO rules win the first round.

Like proportional representation but with more tantrums.

I’m sure some of the posters here would see sense in it...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If we flip the situation and imagine that it is Better Together being investigated for breaking the electoral rules, would we argue that they should be let off?

Isn't it important to investigate and prosecute any infringements against ballot law, whatever the actual result of the poll?

Yes, of course. Who wouldn't want to see Boris Johnson in a jail cell?

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?

UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?

 notprop wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?

UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?

We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?

It's a tough one, I think it is pretty clear that Brexit will reduce the total growth numbers for the English economy at this point.

However, I think most people would accept lower overall growth if it is more evenly distributed around the country and the direct benefits of it are more visible.
Even when we were posting great growth numbers, many people were not seeing the 'trickle down' effect. So if we must have a Brexit, the best thing it can do for us is help re-orient the economy away from London.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?

UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?

We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?

Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.

 Kroem wrote:
It's a tough one, I think it is pretty clear that Brexit will reduce the total growth numbers for the English economy at this point.

However, I think most people would accept lower overall growth if it is more even distributed around the country and the benefits direct benefits of it are more visible.
Even when we were posting great growth numbers, many people were not seeing the 'trickle down' effect. So if we must have a Brexit, the best thing it can do for us is help re-orient the economy away from London.

Yes, it's a good point.

The problem is that it's the areas currently left behind which look like suffering worse because of Brexit. London will suffer too, of course, but to a lesser degree. And if London suffers, the ability to force a trickle down to the regions is more limited, because there is less money overall to go around.

I feel that while Brexit is a potential opportunity to force the UK to re-orientate itself, this is not the project that was being "sold" to people, and it probably is not what will happen. Lso, that membership of the EU does not prevent the UK from carrying out a self-examination and re-orientation of the economy.

In point of fact, it's the core EU members which have done best in terms of social economy promoting growth and at the same time limiting inequality to a much better degree than the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/27/tony-blair-tells-tories-to-block-brexit-if-they-want-to-avoid-corbyn-government-politics-live?page=with:block-5aba6e55e4b0ee234a057167#block-5aba6e55e4b0ee234a057167




the Govt. setting up new customs arrangements after Brexit will take much longer than expected .


ie our previous lies of how easy this will be have finally hit the cold hard wall of reality.

again.

Yes I was astounded that places like Cornwall and Wales who have been great beneficiaries of EU subsidies were so keen to vote leave. Quite literally biting the hand that feeds you!

I think people don't want charity, and quickly come to resent those who give it. People want to make a success of their own lives not get crumbs of another's table, Boris and his merry men did a good job of convincing people in these areas that it was the EU preventing them from doing that.

 notprop wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?

UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?

We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?

Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.

Rules we agreed to follow.

 Kroem wrote:
Yes I was astounded that places like Cornwall and Wales who have been great beneficiaries of EU subsidies were so keen to vote leave. Quite literally biting the hand that feeds you!

I think people don't want charity, and quickly come to resent those who give it. People want to make a success of their own lives not get crumbs of another's table, Boris and his merry men did a good job of convincing people in these areas that it was the EU preventing them from doing that.

EU money isn't charity though.

1. It comes out of the EU centtral funds that the UK has paid into.
2. It's usually attached to a condition that the recipient government stumps up an equal sum. E.g. if the UK wants to take up the £350M development grant for Cornwall, the UK needs to put in £350M too.
3. In other cases the money comes from loans from the EU Long Term Investment Bank (backed by the UK) and has to be paid back.

All that said, the morning after the referendum, the local government of Cornwall was asking central government if they would replace the EU money that was now going to be lost.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.

It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.

Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.

Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?

UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?

We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?

Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.

Rules we agreed to follow.

But cannot directly change...still don’t see the problem?

Meanwhile, up here in Scotland, we have a Catalan politician fighting extradition to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43567678

It's my understanding that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was supposed to be for dealing with crime lords, drug barons, war criminals, and not for people voting on self-determination...

The EU's silence on this has been deafening.

Luckily for the politician in question, sedition is not a crime up here, and it's a supreme irony that the law was originally introduced in the first place by Franco back in 1940...

Thank God for the independent Spanish judiciary.

This is one of those rare occasions where I'm glad to see my tax money spent on Scottish judges, courts, and lawyers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And some good news for Remain supporters.

Worried about dodgy chicken from the USA that's been washed in chlorine?

Fear not. Move to an EU country and get dodgy meat and milk from Brazil instead.

There's no link for this yet, because the farming supplement in my local newspaper came out today, but there's an article on the EU/Mercosur trade talks. And Google has plenty articles on this.

The EU seem to have been turning a blind eye to unhygienic practices in the Brazilian meat and milk sector, because trade deals always trump public health. Right?

On a serious note, I apologise for the earlier tone, but my point is that ordianry people on dakka like us, don't add up to a hill of beans.

Am I worried about chroline chcken from the USA? Absoluetly, but let's not fall into the trap of thinking the EU is any better. Money talks.

Remain. Brexit. Normal people like us are always the last to know, so in a way, it doesn't really matter what side you're on, you're getting screwed anyway.

Yes they had her lawyer on Radio 4 and he was asked "Do you want the Scottish government to intervene on her behalf?"

And his immediate response was along the lines of "Gosh no, that would make them as bad as the Spanish!"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Rules we agreed to follow.

Rules we helped define in the first place.

People seem to forget that we held a very prominent position in the EU and led it to an extent.

Now we're relegated to having to follow those rules with no say whatsoever, all so that we can do things we could have done anyway.

I also understand that people feel the Brexit is a good opportunity for big changes to everything, yet I've seen no hint that any government is even considering moving away from the status quo (beyond the Tories dismantling of human and animal rights).

Outside the EU we will still be subject to all kinds of international rules, such as the features of passports, WTO, and EU legislation on products and services.

We will be able to avoid all that by either not engaging and trading with anyone, or else flouting the rules and using our Imperial power to force others to toe the line we set down.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's no link for this yet, because the farming supplement in my local newspaper came out today, but there's an article on the EU/Mercosur trade talks. And Google has plenty articles on this.

The EU seem to have been turning a blind eye to unhygienic practices in the Brazilian meat and milk sector, because trade deals always trump public health. Right?

All the Mercosur deal means is that Brazilian or Chilean dairies are free to export to the EU..... As long as they meet the EU standards which they will need to be certified for (much in the same way EU meat and dairy producers need to be cleared by the FDA to export to the US, even if US standards are on the whole more relaxed than those in the EU)

That's why there are inspections and stuff.

The Brexit chlorinated chicken debate is a whole different game, basically lowering your own standards to get the deal going.

Apples and oranges here.

Well, on a final note for the day, and apologies to people who might be fed up with Scottish politics...

and I say this with genuine sincerity, but if Remain supporters are hoping for help from the Electoral Commission with regard to dodgy Brexit money and Cambridge Analytica,

then I'm afraid you guys are in for some disappointment.

check out this statement: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/statement-on-scotland-in-union" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/statement-on-scotland-in-union

To cut a long story short, Scotland in Union were formed to fight another Scottish independence referendum and there was concerns over how much money they were taking from undeclared donations. It's over £600,000

one of their donators was a company that once dealt with Saddam Hussein (in violation with UN sanctions at the time)

Despite all this, the Electoral commission have just said nothing to see here, move along. A group formed to fight a referendum, is 100% not political

Utter, utter whitewash...

Again, I say to Remain supporters, don't look to the EC. They are a toothless watchdog.

Another Brexy Bonus!

UK car industry warns of problems if Brexit resolution is not up to scratch.

Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-is-doingjust-fine-thanks-1521819089

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/the-uk-is-doing-just-fine-thanks/ar-BBKKYrD?ocid=spartanntp
(same article but shouldn't need a subscription)

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Some more Remoaner Boners for you...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-is-doingjust-fine-thanks-1521819089

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/the-uk-is-doing-just-fine-thanks/ar-BBKKYrD?ocid=spartanntp
(same article but shouldn't need a subscription)

Just a slight edit to match have the current syntax in use in the thread.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-is-doingjust-fine-thanks-1521819089

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/the-uk-is-doing-just-fine-thanks/ar-BBKKYrD?ocid=spartanntp
(same article but shouldn't need a subscription)

Or The Economist, of course.