The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[Doran754]

"People disagree with me politically, something is wrong. This can't be right, ahh Russians" good contribution guys.

 

[subcon959]

It has already been proven that Russia actively affected both US presidency and UK Brexit.

Was it definitely proven? I haven't been following it for a while. I wonder what ultimate goal was of all this.. or what the end game is going to look like. It can't just be as obvious as self-destruction, that seems too simplistic.

 

[Doran754]

Was it definitely proven? I haven't been following it for a while. I wonder what ultimate goal was of all this.. or what the end game is going to look like. It can't just be as obvious as self-destruction, that seems too simplistic.

Yes it was definitely proven, infact a Russian took me at gun point to my local ballet box and forced me to vote brexit. I told him I didnt know what i was voting for but he didn't care :\

 

[CORE]

The Russians melted my Ice Cream just the other day sick Bastards.

 

[subcon959]

Yes it was definitely proven, infact a Russian took me at gun point to my local ballet box and forced me to vote brexit. I told him I didnt know what i was voting for but he didn't care :\

That remark looks suspiciously like it came from a Russian bot!

The problem with frivolity in these situations is that it provides nothing helpful to people who might genuinely be trying to work through issues. It's actually pretty hard for anyone to wade through the BS to get real information these days... and they call it the Age of Information!

 

[Doran754]

That remark looks suspiciously like it came from a Russian bot!

The problem with frivolity in these situations is that it provides nothing helpful to people who might genuinely be trying to work through issues. It's actually pretty hard for anyone to wade through the BS to get real information these days... and they call it the Age of Information!

Look for information yourself then instead of jumping to the conclusion that everybody's thick, dont know what they're voting for or screeching RUSSIA!

But in all seriousness if you want 100% evidence of foreign interference. All you have to do is go on youtube and type in Obama brexit, Youll find many many clips of the then US president on national TV threatening the uk if they dared to vote against his wishes. But that quite blatant interference doesn't fit your agenda so...

 

[subcon959]

Look for information yourself then instead of jumping to the conclusion that everybody's thick, dont know what they're voting for or screeching RUSSIA!

But in all seriousness if you want 100% evidence of foreign interference. All you have to do is go on youtube and type in Obama brexit, Youll find many many clips of the then US president on national TV threatening the uk if they dared to vote against his wishes. But that quite blatant interference doesn't fit your agenda so...

You are spewing your own side's rhetoric based on an assumption you've made reading a passing remark on a gaming forum. An incorrect assumption btw, but regardless perhaps the real problem here is people like you who jump to attack mode at the slightest provocation without affording anyone the basic courtesy of at least finding out what they actually bloody think first.

 

[Doran754]

You are spewing your own side's rhetoric based on an assumption you've made reading a passing remark on a gaming forum. An incorrect assumption btw, but regardless perhaps the real problem here is people like you who jump to attack mode at the slightest provocation without affording anyone the basic courtesy of at least finding out what they actually bloody think first.

Nowhere did you acknowledge the fact that a sitting president of another country interfered in a national referendum, thus proving my point that you don't care about election interference unless it helps you.

 

[notimp]

Also language. If a US president "threatened people in the UK not to vote against his wishes" - that would be a major international incidence.

So it probably didn't happen.

In foreign politics there is one rule everybody agrees on, and that is 'do not meddle with other countries national affairs (publicly)'.

Because the outcome would be alongside your rant.

So people don't do that.

If you only do as much as say that Trump is an idiot, and a pretty considerable moron, and you do that as the UK ambassador to the US - you can kiss your job goodbye.

Trump is the first high level politician in the west that broke with international protocol, and told countries on twitter, that he thought about invading their neighbors, or what international leaders he would like to have killed.

I wonder what videos you are watching now. Link a few.

Political influence attempts of 'bigger powers' visiting smaller states during election times, usually are tame as can be. Meet and greets, where everyone is very polite, and waiting for the big handshaking moment in front of camera. You do those - to signal to people of a country, that their leader is a real big honcho, that knows even bigger honchos, and that he/she does such a good job at that. That the public likes very much.

This is how you do real political campaigns in that field. Not threatening another nation not to vote a certain way on TV. (Again, all before Trump. Oh how time flies...)

 

[subcon959]

Nowhere did you acknowledge the fact that a sitting president of another country interfered in a national referendum, thus proving my point that you don't care about election interference unless it helps you.

There you go again. Go back and read my actual posts, I'm not even the one that mentioned Russia, I merely asked a question to someone that did. Your the one trying to push me on a particular side based on an assumption you've made. I can't stand this tribal bollocks so you're wasting your time. Unlike you, I have no personal agenda no matter how much you'd like me to.

 

[Taleweaver]

It has already been proven that Russia actively affected both US presidency and UK Brexit.

Erm... Is like to keep these instances separate, if you don't mind. For the US, it's indeed pretty clear that there was meddling. I can name names, witnesses, anekdoten evidence and so on. It's not for nothing that the agencies have reached an unanimous agreement on this.

But on the UK? The best I've found is speculation in that direction. Which agencies make these claims? None that I've heard of. Warnings that it might have happened, yes. And a response from may that the UK won't stand for it. But concrete meddling? Not quite.

The closest I've heard is the funding from the brexit campaign. They spent more on pr than was legal (which would be a reason for disqualification if anyone gave a damn)... And it isn't exactly clear where the money donated from Arron Banks to Farage originated from. But again: I've got no reason to assume that it was Russia (1). From what I read, the investigation is still ongoing on at.

(1): my personal opinion is more in the direction of a few large companies that want some strict EU (or even UK) laws removed. After all : it started with the idea that trade deals wouldn't be a problem

 

[Doran754]

This is a good watch.

 

[IncredulousP]

Erm... Is like to keep these instances separate, if you don't mind. For the US, it's indeed pretty clear that there was meddling. I can name names, witnesses, anekdoten evidence and so on. It's not for nothing that the agencies have reached an unanimous agreement on this.

But on the UK? The best I've found is speculation in that direction. Which agencies make these claims? None that I've heard of. Warnings that it might have happened, yes. And a response from may that the UK won't stand for it. But concrete meddling? Not quite.

The closest I've heard is the funding from the brexit campaign. They spent more on pr than was legal (which would be a reason for disqualification if anyone gave a damn)... And it isn't exactly clear where the money donated from Arron Banks to Farage originated from. But again: I've got no reason to assume that it was Russia (1). From what I read, the investigation is still ongoing on at.

(1): my personal opinion is more in the direction of a few large companies that want some strict EU (or even UK) laws removed. After all : it started with the idea that trade deals wouldn't be a problem

Thanks for clearing that up, perhaps it isn't quite "proven" that Russian influence affected Brexit, yet, but they sure as hell influenced it, even if only minimally.

"They reference University of Edinburgh research showing more than 400 Russian-run Twitter accounts that had been active in the US election had also been actively posting about Brexit.

In addition, the senators noted that research conducted by a joint team of experts from the University of California at Berkeley and Swansea University reportedly identified 150,000 Twitter accounts with various Russian ties that disseminated messages about Brexit.

The report also points to the vast flow of Russian money into the UK, including the London property market." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fluence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report .

"242.The Government also cannot state definitively that there was “no evidence of successful interference” in our democratic processes, as the term “successful” is impossible to define in retrospect. There is, however, strong evidence that points to hostile state actors influencing democratic processes. Cardiff University and the Digital Forensics Lab of the Atlantic Council have both detailed ways in which the Kremlin attempted to influence attitudes in UK politics.270

243.Kremlin-aligned media published significant numbers of unique articles about the EU referendum. 89 Up researchers analysed the most shared of the articles, and identified 261 with a clear anti-EU bias to the reporting. The two main outlets were RT and Sputnik, with video produced by Ruptly.271 The articles that went most viral had the heaviest anti-EU bias.272 The social reach of these anti-EU articles published by the Kremlin-owned channels was 134 million potential impressions, in comparison with a total reach of just 33 million and 11 million potential impressions for all content shared from the Vote Leave website and Leave.EU website respectively.273 The value for a comparable paid social media campaign would be between £1.4 and 4.14 million." - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/179109.htm#footnote-079

"Researchers at the University of Edinburgh identified that 400 of the Internet Research Agency-linked accounts were active in the Brexit conversations, generating 3,468 individual tweets. Larger degrees of involvement have been suggested by researchers at Swansea University who used open-source Twitter data and Russian-style account features to suggest that up to 150,000 accounts linked with Russia tweeted about Brexit in the run up to the referendum. Similarly, researchers at City University London identified 13,493 accounts that tweeted about the Brexit referendum, only to disappear shortly after the vote. Research by BuzzFeed News used a database of 17 million Brexit-related Tweets and applied network analysis to uncover an additional 45 accounts that were shown to interact heavily with the known Russian accounts published by Twitter (suggesting they are being run in a combined way). Of these new accounts, 21 showed a huge spike of activity on 23 June 2016 – the day of the referendum." - https://www.cybersecurityintelligen...in-the-brexit-referendum-is-unclear-3032.html .

"Concern about Russian influence in British politics has intensified as it emerged that more than 400 fake Twitter accounts believed to be run from St Petersburg published posts about Brexit." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets .

"An email, seen by The Daily Beast, was sent to Banks at 11.57am on Friday by Cadwalladr advising him that The Observer had obtained copies of his emails which laid bare the scale of his interactions with Russia. They appeared to show that he and Leave.EU colleague Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with high-ranking Russian officials, that Banks visited Moscow in February 2016, and that he had been introduced to a Russian businessman by the Russian ambassador who allegedly offered him a multibillion dollar investment opportunity in Russian goldmines." - https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-journalist-kept-russias-secret-links-to-brexit-under-wraps .

There was definitely influence, although how much it affected the vote is still debated.

It's also worth noting that Russian influence of Brexit is still being heavily investigated.

 

[notimp]

This is a good watch.

It actually is - if you can identify the made up parts. The rest really is somewhat interesting.

First, context. The AFD is the german far right party (11% of votes on the last EU elections, which is a downwards trend compared to their results at the last national elections) - its the party that noone wants to cooperate with (they are politically ostracized) and its also the party that follows the nationalists drumbeat (Farage, Trump, ..) of destroying europe from within. Their current main pre election campaign topic is a 8 year old that was killed by a foreigner.

But also - being against further integration (Germany paying more for social projects throughout the EU). As context for that you have to know, that in the current economical and financial configuration - 'all the money' ends up in germany (lowest investment risk, high industry percentage, export focused - no growth opportunities in the european south - really. This has to do with the comparative strength of the german economy. They even lowered income (Harz 4) to outcompete other markets better. And they reaped benefits for the last ten years (now its different, as global growth and export opportunities are declining again) (thats why we now have signed Mercosur.))

Now - Europe has been created in a configuration where you really have tied together France and Germany (which have very different economies, and 'competitiveness' levels, so that if germany outcompetes the rest of europe again, france is there to 'remind' them, that they have to be more considerate to their other partners as well. Mainly france. ) politically - that kind of was how the EU was conceptualized (designed).


So - considering, that britain now left and germany might not have as easy of a blocking majority as in the past (33%), they will now have to cooperate with france more often - that is correct.

Now from a position of "Germany first" (which the AFD is selling), this is bad. The speaker is correct on that one.

The speaker also mentions, that 'the only thing the UK wanted was to remain more independent - and not be forced into tighter social integtrration' (paying more for people in the poorer countries) - this is correct as well and can be seen as the actual reason, why the political forces behind the brexit campaign started to write the populist playbook for brexit.

A few things that arent correct at all: "We now need to quickly write laws that allow "countries that exit the EU to remain better economical friends". No - not at all, no need. (The UK is big enough so that those decisions will get made in that specific case - through negotiations, without needed established 'common' law.) Because there arent many other countries that want to follow the british 'example' (of now being fed by the US), and because as the EU you dont want them to be many. If smaller countries would also leave the EU, they would have to negotiate outcomes individually (just as the UK did), and have worse negotiation positions than the UK has. Which kind of is the point.

Now - why are you demanding "common rules" for exiting countries? Again, because the AFD is part of the fraction, that wants to 'destroy' the EU from within. (National independance movement.)

Did the UK really just "want what it had"? No - a path was set for further integration - and as they saw it THEY came up with the entire movement to leave the EU. LEAVE the EU.

Is further integration necessary? Kind of - because of the way the Euro works - which doesnt allow smaller countries in the south, in the monetary union to compete with germany - so they will go into perpetual crisis - if we dont solve that somehow/better. And further integration kind of always was the project of the EU in the first place.

If we don't fix the issues with our more southern countries, economy wise (which will cost the states in the north more money, hopefully not in perpetuity) - that will also become an existential issue for the EU - which again, the AFD - likes.

Did Germany or France make so many mistakes in not giving the british, what they would like to have (everything, without paying), not really. The issue here always was - if you give them what they demanded (free movement of money, but not people) - all the rich boys would have moved from the enitre EU to GB, wile running their EU businesses remotely - being pampered by the UK tax wise - and not having to fear public resentment - because all the poor workers wouldnt be allowed in country. (Thats the populist version - you can also make an argument, that kind of draws the same story, but for banking and finance sectors only - so without people.) GB would have loved that - the rest of europe wouldnt have. Then GB would have refused to pay more for the problems of the European south, and celebrated all the way to the year 2100.

Does hard Brexit (no access to UK markets) hurt the UK as well as Germany. Yes. That was allways the point. Its a loose-loose configuration.

But it (no access to EU markets) hurts the UK more. Because its the smaller market, with more dependency on EU ressource and supply chains.


So what the speaker in the video is saying, is kind of correct - but then she is in the exactly same political fraction as Farage and Trump ('Germany first'), she has no political power whatsoever, and as a smaller opposition party leader in germany, her job is to make up excuses, why the current government failed in everything they did. Thats literally her job. (To make the public more angry, to vote for opposition parties.) And she is in a direct coalition with the parties responsible for Brexit, and Trumps america first stance (they exchange campaign managers, and other experts.)

So - if thats your sole source of information - you by now outed yourself as a far right banner carrier - that never thinks beyond the party line.

Again - the UK cant blame germany, or france for the situation they are in currently. They did it to themselves.

"We need to harm GB greatly, so they will come into the union again, defeated - out of necessity" - was a potential political tactic, thats not compatible with endless negotiations. Endless negotiations result in "a middle ground". But its a perfectly arguable political stance - if the UK wants to move towards hard Brexit (=hurt the EU most) it will become the palybook again - no doubts about it.

But again - its the UK that first decided, we want to hurt the EU, by leaving the union. Not the EU. You cant pin that onto EU member states.

With the far right you have to always be careful of populistic "reality reversals", they try to make up fake continuities that, start from a point - where brexit was just something that doesnt have to concern anyone too much - right, right? And then end up being the victims somehow. Its boring. Thats all they ever do..

Then they make and finance youtube channels like "Cassius", that takes the time, to subtitle german right wing politicians speaking in the german parliament. Then they share that to their twitter army. shamizie kind of is part of that movement.

(Sole source of news for him. Carrying allong the youtube searchwords, people should use, to end up with far right content on the net. What was it last time? Obama threatens the people of the UK, not to do brexit?

If you type in the right search terms into google - more than half of all results will be non mainstream opinions. So the far right do SEO in that field to recruit peoples minds.)

 

[kevin corms]

Brexit had 'Russian interference' written all over it from the beginning, which is not surprising since they're one of the few countries that stand to gain from a weakened EU. From the UK's perspective there's nothing to be gained here, the best they'll be able to claim is, "well, at least the cost of everything didn't go up too much."

Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.

 

[Pipistrele]

As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.

 

[notimp]

Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.

RT spins stories as well. RT plays to "contrarian" positions, and leads emotionally, and...

But something they do indeed is, that they dont outright spread lies. They spin. Which makes them harder to deal with. And yes, they only ever show you one viewpoint, and yes - which is always compatible with the russian governments position.

They are against nazis in the ukraine - and against political corruption in brussels, but they never are against political corruption in the ukraine, and nazis in poland, f.e.

Which kind of is how that works. So they only ever show you a part of the picture as well, and yes they do it while being 'guided politically'.

It might be fun to look at them for a while, but if you find yourself only doing it, because you get the emotional payoff, that you looked for (and they have very pretty female news ankers.. ). Read some of the other positions as well. They are not impartial. But they are a great source for interviews with south american dictators, that analyze the US' involvement in potentially ongoing coups for example.. Just know what to expect.

 

[IncredulousP]

As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.

From my viewpoint, it's not Russian citizens, it's the Russian government that's fucking with everyone. But then again, that's been the world's governments' job for centuries.

 

[Doran754]

As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.

From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.

 

[kevin corms]

From my viewpoint, it's not Russian citizens, it's the Russian government that's fucking with everyone. But then again, that's been the world's governments' job for centuries.

From my viewpoint the DNC are the new Nazis and Russians are their Jews. The DNC also uses Marxist like tactics and tons of useful idiots who dont even realize they are going against their best interests. And yes I know the GOP is corrupt as well, but I dont feel the need to uncover what they do since its right in our face.