Maybe but if so it's nuts... why is it metropolitan elite to point out that the rich powers behind Brexit used technology and money to cheat in the election? That argument is absolutely twisted round as far as I can see. I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's the con job that has been so well pulled off - completely valid criticism of the technocratic elites for their technocratic elitism marks you out as... a member of the technocratic elite. It's the same as that rebellious anti-establishment outsider Trump. It's brilliant I guess.This absolutely dovetails with exactly the kind of metropolitan elite technocrat stuff that Brexit voters hate.
So I think what you're saying is that there are two possible arguments to be made (or next steps to follow).Well I think a lot of people are going to do exactly that which means it will take generations for us to get anywhere, sadly.
Well in terms of point (2) I think the important thing is to fight for social justice, public health, a decent distribution of resources etc.So I think what you're saying is that there are two possible arguments to be made (or next steps to follow).
1. We were cheated and brought to this point undemocratically by lies and money and as a result we need to reverse the decision.
2. We are where we are, let's see how it's working. Oh, it's not, let's try and improve things - the best way to do that is rejoin.
And you believe that the second is more likely to succeed. Maybe you're right, but the problem with this for me is that it is going to take years (decades?) for this to lead to a consensus. People will die, lives are going to be ruined, a generation will lose their future. I think it's too slow.
For me a two-pronged approach is better. Something more like;
The referendum (and everything that has followed from it) was a scam, and it has caused this situation we are in now where nothing is working, businesses are leaving and so on... two pretty good reasons to change course quick smart. I think they go hand in hand.
Um, well actual Tory voters, let alone Boris Johnson fans, are fairly thin on the ground in these parts, so you're probably safe.Anyone who wasn't crushingly disappointed pulverised pierced to the quick by this election I simply don't want to know and people who are inclined to crow about it I want dead. This is why I have to shun dissensus.
I think you can make the case that any party supporting a second referendum is a Remain party by default. After all, a party that was pro-Brexit is hardly likely to want a second referendum that might overturn the result of the first one. In terms of the feelings of the majority of its MPs, members and (at least as far as the 2017 GE was concerned) its voters, the Labour party is overwhelmingly Remain. On the other hand, Corbyn and his closest supporters are all ardent Leavers, so it's moot.I don't have much truck with the idea that Labour is or was a remain party - the fact that they tried to be all things to all people on this issue is one of the reasons that they were obliterated. (And let's remember that the Tories were a remain party too until the referendum result).
Like with the US elections where there were similarly tight margins there seems to be a significant amount of evidence that dark money, targeted ads and social media manipulation may actually have played a decisive role in tipping the balance of the result. There's been a ton of research and investigative work done in the area and it seems clear that various actors attempted to game the process, with some success.I'm afraid the bottom line is that most people don't believe that the Russians had a decisive effect on the outcome of the referendum. Or that the cheating was outside of the usual parameters of these things.
If I'm honest, I don't believe that either.
I don't think it's a massive stretch to think that the overspend, combined with the targeted facebook disinformation using stolen data and when added to the unchallenged lies on the bus and elsewhere could have made a difference of at least two percent. EDIT as Droid said above.I'm afraid the bottom line is that most people don't believe that the Russians had a decisive effect on the outcome of the referendum. Or that the cheating was outside of the usual parameters of these things.
If I'm honest, I don't believe that either.
I'm astonished by this claim. When I logged on to fb or looked at Twitter or read the newspaper comments sections I saw more fighting between Labour and Lib Dems on the question of whether they could be trusted and how Lib Dems voted in that coalition than anything else. These fights were more vicious than anything I saw between Brexiters and Remainers or Tories and Labour or whatever - they spawned a whole kind of meta-fight between those who thought the opposition should combine and those who thought it was important to have that fight at whatever cost.Most people don't remember the LibDems u-turn on student fees now.
You're conflating two issues here. There was undoubtably Russian interference in the Trump election that has been well documented. I think that there is also strong evidence that they also got involved in Brexit. I would say it's more of a conspiracy theory to DENY this at this point. How much it changed things I don't know but we know that disinformation via social media is a major Russian strategy, it would be naive to think that they didn't at least attempt to get involved to some extent with this major event.Using Russian interference as a central plank of your identity/politics marks you out as an obsessive and veers towards conspiracy theory.
I honestly don't think it is the smoking gun that people think it is. I don't know what's in the report, but neither does hardly anyone else. Same as that base in Roswell
But the resources to distribute will be MUCH smaller as a result of brexit. People are going to be worse off, that's the issue.Well in terms of point (2) I think the important thing is to fight for social justice, public health, a decent distribution of resources etc.
I'm not saying that it's a quick fix. I'm saying that it's the right thing to do morally, it MAY result in a (slightly) quicker fix AND if we don't do it we're basically saying that it's ok to cheat in elections and Johnson will say "thank you very much" and we can forget any kind of fix at all.My point is that if you go for option (1) this is not the quick fix you think it is.
It will lead to a huge upsurge in far right activity for starters. It will set the agenda for decades to come so nothing else is discussed (like 2017-2019). And it isn't certain that it will lead to the decision being reversed. At all.
The problem is that after Brexit has emboldened the (fairly) far right who are running the country there is fuck all chance of a fairer world.Fighting for what you actually want (a fairer world) is better, in that respect, than fighting to rejoin an institution that you think symbolises these things (but not everyone does).
Well, that's true, but with the Lib Dems, after 2010 I swore I would never vote for them again, I saw it as a massive betrayal. Actually after Brexit I realised that there were bigger issues and I was prepared to be persuaded (potentially) but it was the first thing in my mind when anyone mentioned them. And there were lots of articles about that, Labour mentioned it a lot, I heard it from friends, I saw it when I turned on BBC worldwide. Come on, it was everywhere. The coalition was from 2010 not 1983, I can't believe you're trying to say that it wasn't a factor - a lot of the same people who were there then were there for the election, including the leader.If Twitter was real Corbyn would be PM.