Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:40 AM

Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.More..."

A short extract there (from a post intending, without irony, to excoriate someone else over their use of English) that contains five blatant solecisms. Physician, heal thyself.

Yep, very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works. May has survived remarkably well, considering, but she's rapidly running out of road. Now Fallon has put his oar in and the beloved ECJ is considering whether we can unilaterally ditch Article 50 if we want to. I reckon that it wouldn't need to be unilateral. The EU would bite our hand off.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:32 AM

"So is his protectionism."
It Remains to be seen if this will impinge on relations with Brexit Britain
He has a nasty habit of threatening to cut trade if you don't jump through his hoops - Britain isn't actually flush with bargaining chips
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:25 AM

Ironically, they are saying that 'services' won't be kept within the customs union. Now that seems to be one of our main exports, so in terms of being able to strike deals outside of the UE customs union. May's deal seems to have achieved something.

It isn't a 'bombshell' from Washington either; Trump's dislike of Europe is well-known. So is his protectionism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:16 AM

"Why not use a spellcheck and spare us all our abuse of the english language."

A question with no question mark, and the word English written without an initial capital. Hoist with his own petard, perhaps?

Given that Trump regards May's Brexit deal as a threat to a US/UK trade deal, I'm warming to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

No response - just semantic bullshit
No intention of getting this thread closed - I'm off -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:34 AM

The CPS was formed in 1985. The police have not prosecuted since then.
As you are a fossil police prosecution may be common parlance for you, but not for the rest of humanity it most assuredly is not.
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains ????? Oh Dear! He knoweth not what he says!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - should have written Institute OF Race relations'
Don't want to give you another back door to sneak out of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

Racial violence and the Brexit state
Jon Burnett First Published April 4, 2017 Research Article

Abstract
Research by the Institute of Race Relations into over one hundred incidents of racial violence reported in the mass media in the month after the EU referendum indicates that the ‘spike’ in such attacks has to be understood in terms of the racist climate created not just during the clearly nativist referendum debate, but also in the divisive policies and programmes of successive governments preceding it. The politicians and police chiefs, who have recently condemned the violence, analyse it in terms of already given media frameworks about ‘hate crime’: bigoted individuals are to blame; this is a law-and-order issue not a socially based problem – thus avoiding any responsibility for the creation of state racism. The research also reveals the central role of the police, at the expense of community groups’ or victims’ voices, when the media decides an attack is newsworthy.

"I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute."
The term "police prosecution" is common in our language usage - you are hising behind it because you are unable to answer the points made - jus as you are returning to your old abusive self in an attempt to talk down people - doesn't work
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains
Flinging interminable blogs bty criminal bloggers is not debating

Lets see how you get on with the statement from the Institute for Race Relations - probably a 'leftie' extremist group

If you are good at debating - how about dealing with that one (denial doesn't count as debate)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:47 AM

Pointing out your gross factual errors is hardly semantics. I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute. Your powers of debate are on a par with your spelling. Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.Most of your scribbling above makes no sense at all. Is it a version of jimmie's esperanto or just the usual incoherence? We need to know these things.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:26 AM

Brexit was sold on a arcist ticket which has led to a rise in racist incidents, which include attacks on non nationals - simple as that and totally indisprab[e
One more time
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

All your crapping around with semantincs does not alter a single syllable of what I wrote
"Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?"
You are the only one disputing it - it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if you are claiming to speak for everybody here
Wake up pal - you and yours are very much in the minority here
How about some real evidence instead of your insulting denials - you've been given enough to show it is you who is talking crap
If you are incapable of debating intelligently, why are you here ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 03:51 AM

"Outrageous nonsense"

More literary coprolites from the resident fossil.The police do not have authority to prosecute. Do try and get your facts right!

You are up to your usual trick of introducing multiple irrelevancies to pad out your nonsense.

What has the (p)orld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people got to do with brexit?
Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 02:13 AM

"There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated."
Outrageous nonsense
The police may decide they cannot or do not want to prosecute hate posting but this does not make it hate posting and it dosen't alter one iota the fact that hate crimes have increased sharply and have been linked directly to Brexit
You may think it clever to dismiss everything that doesn't suit you out of hand - but it isn't it's stupid, it's immoral and in the cse of the hate thtat leads us back to the porld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people
That's what racism is about

I wish you people would take it elsewhere

"but you fool no one."
You obviously need reminding that your little band are very much in the minority here - it's you who are not fooling anybody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 09:02 PM

That requires freedom of movement. I'd love it, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:45 PM

Glad to see stories in the media suggesting that a Norway style Brexit might be on the cards. Strikes me that could be fine by me. Solves the Irish border problem, and preserves the right of freedom of travel within Europe. And remember, the only thing on that referendum ballot paper was leaving the EU, nothing about any of the other stuff that's been tied into it since then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:00 PM

The amount of money we have tied up with the EU is around one percent of our GDP. Just thought I'd mention it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:23 PM

From the BBC news today:

"Theresa May: "We will take back control of our money, by putting an end to vast annual payments to the EU.

Instead, we will be able to spend British taxpayers' money on our own priorities, like the extra £394m per week that we are investing in our long-term plan for the NHS."

Hmm.......... it would seem that the "gullible" remainers were not the only one's taken in by the slogan on the bus then!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:41 PM

The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster.

There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated.
You may think you are being cute with wordplay, but you fool no one.
The photo made the point the subjects in the photo were young single males. Are they in fear of their lives, potential free loaders or economic migrants?
Asylum seekers are covered by the Dublin agreement, any other illegal migrants should be deported. They have regular channels they can apply through. If they cannot satisfy that set of criteria then deport them back from whence they came.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:34 PM

"A prime example of remainer lies and distortions."
That the DPP did not act on it - I said it was a lie, not a crime (though it should be)
The poster depicts hordes aof invading foreigners, suggesting that these are the reason Britain should leave Europe - that is a ****** lie
Even government surveys have not made immigration a major problem in the fortunes of Britain; reports have shown over and over again that immigration had benefited Britain both economically and socially
Pewll was kicked out of his party for using this disgustingly racist argument
Like it or not, Britain's Imperial history has made immigration a permanent feature of its life
As far as refugees are concerned, Britain's policies abroad have made us part of the creation of the mass mif=grations that are taking place - oil, propping up dictators, and particularly arming them
Your denial of this is typical of those who share your racist views (begorrah), as is your refusal even to acknowledge the disgusting effect it has had in accelerating racism amnt turning a built-in passive prejudice into action - yhoui ignore it - Nigel downplays it
Nobody suggested the poster was the sole cause - just part of the hate campaign that is Brexit
Even May, the most dignified of the bunch, is crowing about keeling them out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:15 PM

The DPP make decisions about how likely a prosecution is to suceed. The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster. The fact that racist hate crimes increased sharply following the referendum indicates that there was a link between the racist nature of some of the leave propaganda, including that poster, and motivation for such crimes.

There could be other reasons for the increase in hate crimes of course but, to date, no one has yet out any forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

"THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL"
A prime example of remainer lies and distortions.
Unison’s Dave Prentis said poster showing a queue of migrants and refugees incites racial hatred

This is obviously an opinion masquerading as fact as we can easily tell.
The article is dated Thu 16 Jun 2016 14.08 BST
As can clearly be seen no court case resulted. the DPP obviously saw no case to answer.
Therefore we can take it as fact that the picture, that had been licensed from Getty Images and was taken in Slovenia in 2015 by its staff photographer Jeff Mitchell, DID NOT INCITE RACIAL HATRED.

As Jim points out (inadvertently I am sure) the article was based on a lie. The remainiacs stoop to any level to force their false news upon us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:07 AM

"Yet another acolyte dodges the issue."
None of you have addressed the issues raise - not one of them
Denying research and persistently bombing the discussion with partisan blogs just about sums the level adopted here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 07:42 AM

Stanron, there is no interpretation of my words that leads to the conclusion that no one told the truth. I am simply saying that some people told some lies some of the time. The fact that you seem to interpret this as "no one told the truth" is not my problem. There was plenty of truth told by both sides but it is the lies that seem to have swung the issue.

Now, rather than get bogged down in the past, do we have any forecasts of a rosy future for us all yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Reports can consist of rumours, hearsay and outright lies.
Yet another acolyte dodges the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Result of the lie
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crimes-racism-eu-referendum-vote-attacks-increase-police-figures-official-a7358866.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:24 AM

There are been enough reports of this during the past 30 months. You, in particular, have chosen to ignore them.

There is no evidence that you would listen to anything anyone posted regarding this so why should they once again provide you with the reports.

Waste of time and effort.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:20 AM

The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Can we have some links to give factual support for any of the above, or is it merely a fairy tale to make you feel better because you lost?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

Looks suspiciously like nitpicking to avoid the mani issues to me

INTERESTING STATS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:51 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

This is your post. You say that the leave side lied. Am I wrong to read from your post that the remain side lied as well? If both sides lied where is the truth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:21 AM

You said "Your post suggests that no one told the truth" which is nothing like what I said so I assumed your question was a rhetorical joke. It was, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:17 AM

Who changed what? I asked a question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:08 AM

Very good Stanron:-)

A perfect example of changing what was actually said into suitable propaganda too!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 03:33 AM

Your post suggests that no one told the truth, so why should any one believe you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:46 PM

"
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!"


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 04:34 PM

"I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum..."

Not so. Remainers complain that no-one was given sufficient information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:26 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts .........not allegations.

Plenty of facts both in the article and in the links therein........pity they don't accommodate your ideological position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:14 PM

"Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate"
Patronising shite - nice to see we aren't the ones you talk down to]
If you ask people to vote for something - a political party or a referendum, you are committed to explain what they are being invited to vote for - that's how democracy is supposed to work
This friggin referendum was won on getting rid of immigrants and meaningless "taking our country back" - nothing else - sort of like Trump's "Lets make America Great Again"
Both are a lie - America may have been powerful, but it was as bad as some of the worst dictatorships - Britain is in the hands of multinationals - no industries to sustain it and no plans to rebuild an industrial foundation to make Britain self sustaining - Britain's largest export percentage is finance to the tune of 30 plus percent
Britain can never become viable in that situation and, as the Financial Times has been pointing out since the referendum, it cannot plan to do so until the economy gets over the aftershock of Brexit - at least twenty years
When Britain leave Europe, it will have to find somebody else to be dependable on - who - Russia, China, Daffy Donald's U.S,...... the mind really does boggle

You appear to be describing a system that runs elections on the basis of an uninformed electorate and the only way to achieve that is by legislation - what the **** has that got to do with democracy ?
These are the horror stories that were told about Soviet Russia at the height of the Cold War - a "massive Empire held in thrall by ignorance and oppression"

Another referendum can be held simply on the basis as the last one was; "Knowing what you now know, do you still wish to leave Europe?"
There can be no possible argument that the electorate now knows far more of the consequences than it did last time around
The Ireland you despise so much as "bog-trotters" holds referenda on a regular basis, during which they have taken decisions that have overturned centuries of fears and ignorance imposed by the most powerful mind-controlling body on the planet
Two more in the pipeline, both on Constitutional issues - the women' place in society and divorce
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM

Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate but who will chose the syllabus, who will teach it, and who will ensure subject matter neutrality. I think you will agree it ain't gonna happen. There is no such requirement for any other election. Wherein lies the difference?
For another referendum I would suggest the following.
1)The required legislation is in place to make the outcome binding on Parliament
2)the electoral commission is made fit for purpose
3)Total transparency is required for all donations
4)all donations to cease 6months prior to voting in order all donations may be vetted
I am sure many other requirements could be added.

We could of course turn many of the arguments here on their head and argue that the remainers were totally illiterate and easily bamboozled by flim flam, and as such should be disenfranchised.

To try to argue the vote should be declared null will cause many to lose faith in the judiciary. Such an argument should be the outcome of parliamentary debate in my view, and the courts should keep well clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:02 PM

You've been given exactly what people were given Iains - if you have any proof to the contrary, please give it
The Financial Times puts it quite well (can't link to it, so I've put it up in full - well worth reading
Hope the FT s not too "leftie" for you
Jim Carroll

UK approach to referendums needs ‘overhaul’
Independent commission says vote should take place after significant preparation
Henry Mance, Political Correspondent JULY 10, 2018 Print this page85
The UK’s approach to referendums needs “wholesale reform”, and major constitutional changes should be subject to a second vote once the details have been worked out, an expert panel has concluded.
The Independent Commission on Referendums, run by University College London, is one of the most detailed attempts so far to reform the use of referendums, following the votes on Brexit and Scottish independence.
The panel said that Britain should only hold referendums where parliament would know what to enact after the vote, and where governments had first undertaken “significant preparatory work”.
That is an implicit rebuke for the former prime minister David Cameron, who refused to allow contingency planning for a Leave vote. Brexiters have blamed Mr Cameron’s approach for many of the difficulties in negotiations with the EU.
The UCL panel also concluded that referendums should normally take place once the relevant legislation has been passed. If a referendum takes place without detailed plans for change being set out, a further vote should be held once they are.
That finding could give succour to those now calling for a second Brexit vote, before Britain leaves the EU in March 2019. However, the panel made clear that its report was not retrospective, and that the prospect of a second referendum should be made clear before the first vote was held. Public appetite for a second Brexit vote varies depending on whether it is described as “a second referendum” or “a vote on the deal”.
In the past two decades, referendums have taken place on Brexit, Scottish independence, electoral reform, Welsh devolution and peace in Northern Ireland. The Brexit vote, in particular, has exposed constitutional tensions between the popular will, parliamentary democracy and legal safeguards. Yet opinion polls have showed support for more referendums in future.
UCL’s panel, which included two pro-Brexit and two anti-Brexit politicians, said that referendums should not be seen as quick-fix solutions, but as “coexisting alongside” representative institutions.

Recommended
Explainer Brexit
Brexit timeline: key dates in UK’s divorce with EU
Alan Renwick, an academic at UCL, said that citizens’ assemblies could be held before future referendums, “to consider the issues and work out what the options should be — as was done successfully before Ireland’s recent referendum on abortion”.
However, the panel shied away from other potential safeguards — such as introducing a threshold for turnout, or a ‘supermajority’ requirement for a referendum to back major constitutional change. A “simple majority is considered sufficient for electing MPs and for almost all parliamentary decisions, even those of major constitutional importance”, it noted.
Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and a member of the panel, said the public appetite for referendums followed from a decline in trust in politicians and an expectation that politics should be participatory. Young people were more likely than old people to favour more referendums, she said.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts ......... not allegations.

I am sure even you kow the difference.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains - PM 
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM 

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides

I think I was clear enough that this applies, not only to both sides, but all campaigning everywhere in the world.

I can see where there might be a lack of information even when buried alive by propaganda. I think there is a meaningful distinction. If you do not, we must simply disagree about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:31 PM

"So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?"
I don't support Blair, which is, in fact "a rightie" war criminal who removed much of the left wing policies of the Labour party
I have said exactly why I believe there to be the need for a referendum without having to rely on the opinions of such people - in detail
I put up information, not opinions
To suggest the BBC is "left wing" is an indication of how far right your own opinions are - Atilla the Hun springs to mind
It would help if you specified why you regard information as "rubbish" - argument is far more convincibng as nake-calling dismissal
Fairly pointless attempting to justify Staines by saying he distrusts politicians - most people do, it indicates nothing
He is recognised widely as the spokesman of Right-wing toryism

"and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. "
So you believe Russian money paid for "information" - what on earth brought on that little brainstorm ?
The money paid to a Ukip Supporter - its major donor - paid for Brexit propaganda - hardly information !!
What was missing was a prognosis of what might happen when Britain left Europe - the Independent (suppose that counts as "leftie") produced a magnificent article pointing out that THERE HAD BEEN NO PLAN FOR LEAVING, NO STUDY OF THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF DOING SO... NOTHING, UNTIL THE REFERENDUM HAD BEEN HELD - A TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY FOR A GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW SUCH A VOTE TO TAKE PLACE
It was a deliberate use of populism by a now discredited leader of a now discredited party
The consequences of that populism was a sharp rise in racist incidents
May is now crowing about how Brexit will control immigration - not a single explanation of how her "better Britain" will be achieved.
Brexit played the same race card Powell was thrown out of his party for
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides. The original argument still applies, a cute change of name does not alter the fact that you cannot argue the vote was swayed by propaganda(facts) and in the same breath argue the propaganda(Facts) was/were inadequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. 
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

Not in the slightest. The problem lies in your presumption it provided information.   However information and propaganda are quite different, whichever side is providing it.

As a general rule, all political advertising everywhere in the world is far more concerned with swaying opinion than providing information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:55 AM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information.
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

It has already been established that the elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled.
Donations to both sides seem to lack clarity.

From Reuters
Ever since the shock vote, supporters of EU membership have been exploring an array of different legal and political methods to prevent what they see as the biggest mistake in post-World War Two British history.

Brexiteers say such efforts threaten political stability as they go against the democratic will of 17.4 million people. They have vowed to fight any attempt to stop Brexit.

“The new Soros-led coalition is planning a coup in Britain, against the democratic will of the people,” Richard Tice, who chairs the Leave Means Leave campaign group, told Reuters. “They have been outed and will be defeated.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:34 AM

"Guido is a predictable right-wing cretin who offers little than his own opinions - he is reputed for doing so"
So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?

Are you trying to tell me Blair, Marr and the BBC are rightwing?
You do post some nonsense!

From the Gruniard about Guido(therefore you know it must be right!)
Five years ago he told the Guardian: “I still hate politicians. My contempt for them is undiminished.” The politicians know this, but they appear to nervous of crossing him. “We cringe and simper around Guido,” Johnson said at the anniversary celebration, “in the pathetic delusion that we may thereby encourage him to be merciful to us.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"Here ya go Raggy:"
Incidentally Bobad, the writer of your article, Robert Philpot, was a supporter of Blair' New Labour, the veterans of which are now attempting to have Corbyn removed fro leadership
As I said - very convincing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Waiting for the bump that never comes.