111–120 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> misinformed voters I have this notion that EU votes are repeated the number of times necessary to have the 'informed' result win.
As an American, this is definitely what it looks like to me.
What about the effect Obama had, when he supported UK remaining in the EU? How many percent did his endorsement move?
That's quite the whataboutism. What rules did Obama's statement break?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are any of those xenophobic? To me that sounds similar to labeling someone as antisocial if they don't want a stranger living in their house.
No, the equivalent here would be saying "vote for me or my opponent will force a stranger into your house". The ads are lies targeted at people whose xenophobia is stronger than their grip on the facts.
Starting reading an article on some info handed over, ended up reading a politicized article. Can someone link me the source this article is using for the new news? I'm having a hard time finding it in the inline links of the text. EDIT: Via [0], I found the docs at [1]. Tech Crunch is a shameful, op-ed joke of a site. 0 - https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1022437025667014656 1 - https://www.parliament.uk/docu…
Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... . 2924.jpg 2966.jpg 2968.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If just 1% of the population of the UK changed their voting intention (from Remain to Leave) because of illegally bought or misleading advertising, then undoing that effect would mean that Remain would have won. Invoking the "democratically determined result" is begging the question, since we don't really know whether the result would have been the same if the Leave campaign hadn't broken the rules: https://www.thegu…
I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate. There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly,…
That's an argument against referenda?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do know that UK could have vetoed the entrance of Turkey, Macedonia, etc in EU...
Of course they do. They also know that migrant workers have a positive impact on our economy. They also know the unelected bureaucrats are elected and held to account. And they also knew that there would be issues around Northern Ireland's border that wouldn't be easy to resolve. And they also knew that... I'm bored now but you get the picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democratic yes, but ludicrous. Setting up something as critical as that to have such a slim majority decide is illogical. The U.K. doesn’t seem to get referendums. Important note however - they didn’t have a referendum to join the EU but maybe that’s covered by the one on joining the European Communities?
Yes, the UK voted strongly in favour of Common Market membership in 1975. While the process around the EC becoming the EU has changed the nature of it substantially, I think it would be misleading to say that there was no referendum. The UK fwiw has only had three referendums in its history. Precisely because they have a habit of leading to the current fucking stupid situation we now find ourselves in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't turkey joining the EU mean that Turkish citizens would have the right to freely emigrate to the UK?
That would be one of the consequences, yes. However, Turkey isn’t even remotely close to joining the EU and given the current political situation in Turkey I would not expect talks to move forward any time soon. So pretending there’s even a remote chance is disingenuous. It uses fears of foreigner not founded in reality. That’s pretty much the definition of xenophobic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not making a point either way than to say this. Legalism is probably the weakest argument to make for or against something. Slavery was once "legal".
The OP simply said that Obama's statement is not under investigation because it did not break the law. The leave campaign advertising did break the law, so it is. That's usually how criminal investigations work.
It's really interesting coming to HN and watching the indignant 'stabbed in the back' theories about why the establishment lost the Brexit referendum and 2016 US presidential election. 2 years on and it still stings that the people didn't vote the way they were supposed to. There is definitely a classist, privileged undertone to the discourse as well - ironic but not surprising coming from many self-described sociali…