Brexit: Boris' Big Belgian Bangers - The Bear and Badger

WorKid

We definitely had much less control of our laws though. As a fully independent state we have much greater autonomy (unless we cede it all again as part of the exit deal of course), on stuff like the working time directive, or what makes an acceptable banana.

What WOULD be the stupidest thing to do is to leave entirely, giving up any influence or democratic representation at all, and still follow nearly all the EU's rules.

Oh.

GooberTheHat

I quite liked laws that didn't allow (or at least reduced the ability of) employers to exploit workers. Now the Tories will be free to tear up the rules and demand that everyone must work, pay or no pay, and to hell with workers rights.

[Deleted User]

monkey wrote:

The more fucked various countries get, the more the bigwigs realise that something is deeply wrong with Western democracy and the quicker we sort out some real change.

Maybe.

But change that is electable, so no change, yeah?

Diluted Dante

It's the price of a free trade deal with the US.

Now shut up and eat your chlorinated chicken, then get back to work, we have to pay for these steel tarrifs somehow.

monkey

legaldinho wrote:

monkey wrote:

The more fucked various countries get, the more the bigwigs realise that something is deeply wrong with Western democracy and the quicker we sort out some real change. Maybe.

But change that is electable, so no change, yeah?

monkey wrote:

Hi guys. This is your periodic reminder that Corbyn lost the election against the worst, most cack-handed campaign and opponent you're ever likely to see in your lifetimes.

monkey

Although I saw a few of my past political predictions when digging up that quote and yeesh I did not know what I was talking about. Luckily nor did anyone else.

Yossarian

I'm not sure how we (a global 'we' rather than specifically us in the UK) get out of our current political moment, it feels to me like it might have to get worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, with a looming climate calamity bearing down on us very quickly indeed, we don't really have the luxury of time.

Brooks

Anything short of a multilateral recalibration is going to feel like piss fo sho.

Blue Swirl

Here's an ironic twist for you - apparently, any time the UK transfers power to the EU, the people are allowed to ask for a referendum. Now, while Brexit is about "taking back control", the EU Withdrawal Bill does give some powers to Brussels.

So we're actually within our rights to demand a second referendum on this basis. It's a dumb way to get it, but I'll take the shot.

CrowdJustice campaign here.

WorKid

So they can the transition and end up with no deal? Pretty dumb.

Hodge360

If the UK goes to war with Russia, will the EU stand back and watch?

WorKid

Nato members won't.

[Deleted User]

It would probably take a state of emergency to stop Brexit.
I will take brexit over a war with Russia though thanks.

pantyfire

Omg. It's all a contrived excuse to say that now is not the time to be cutting ties with our friends and allies.

RedDave2

pantyfire wrote:

Omg. It's all a contrived excuse to say that now is not the time to be cutting ties with our friends and allies.

Fuck it, I'll take that. Almost sounds plausible.

hunk

Guys, if there ever was a time to turn the ship around, that time is now! Y'know, that Cambridge Analytica thing?
Surely warrants a second referendum no?

WorKid

Because people were influenced by people trying to influence them? I must be missing something.

I mean, there were bigger, more brazen and more effective lies and half-truths throughout, and on both sides of the campaign. That's just politics. Shit as it is.

hunk

Because science just works and effectively, Brexit has been bought for a fistful of million dollars.

WorKid

Three decades of campaigning by the Mail.

Lies on a bus.

Johnson.

Farage.

Leaflet drops.

hunk

3 years of prep by Cambridge Analytica funded by Bannon, Mercer and co. CREAM!
And of course result.

But yeah, those others laid the perfect foundation.

GooberTheHat

WorKid wrote:

Three decades of campaigning by the Mail.

Lies on a bus.

Johnson.

Farage.

Leaflet drops.

Cambridge analytica and farage in cahoots with Russia too.

Foreign power subverting our democracy.

WorKid

As if we needed any help.

hunk

GooberTheHat wrote:

WorKid wrote:

Three decades of campaigning by the Mail.

Lies on a bus.

Johnson.

Farage.

Leaflet drops.

Cambridge analytica and farage in cahoots with Russia too.

Foreign power subverting our democracy.

Which is the crux of the matter.
Foreign actors injecting money and finances in highly effective social media powered political ads and thus hijacking democratic elections. It's an obvious blind spot the West somehow missed as we patted ourselves on the back because of the smartphone and social media revolution. Result: Brexit and Trump.

Solution: block foreign actors from buying political ads on social media platforms.

The law is always, always a step behind technical developments in society.

Not saying workid does not have a valid point as he obviously does.
It's just that:
A. Targeted ads work and work much more efficient than regular ads in traditional media because: targeting of swing voters at a micro level.
B. They are fucking unregulated for some reason. Why?

WorKid

How is it different to what Murdoch has been doing? Or any other foreign media owner. Or Gisela Stewart for that matter.

I just think the impact has been overstated and there are other more obvious things being forgotten about as a result.

hunk

See point A. It's the precise and direct targeting of swing voters (with dubiously acquired fb data) from the shadows that doesn't sit well with me. But there has to be an investigation first to clarify all that.

WorKid

And I'm not at all convinced by A. Not to the extent it would swing 650,000 voters, in the UK, from Stay to Leave.

Obviously it doesn't sit right with me what happened either, and hopefully heads will roll, although it doesn't appear to have been illegal activity, so far anyway.

hunk

Surely you mean the other way around?
But yeah, an inestigation is needed to clear that matter up.

WorKid

I originally meant the absence of the ads wouldn't have swung the result by 650k to give Leave the win but you are right it makes more sense so I've swapped it.

GooberTheHat

WorKid wrote:

How is it different to what Murdoch has been doing? Or any other foreign media owner. Or Gisela Stewart for that matter.

I just think the impact has been overstated and there are other more obvious things being forgotten about as a result.

It's the intent.

Murdoch's influence (as much as I dislike it) is to influence things to his (and his friends) benifit. That does not necessarily mean that it is not in some way also of benifit of the nation in some way (debatable obvs).

Russian influence is entirely designed to achieve an outcome that will be of detriment to the UK.

hunk

Intent and motivations for Brexit?

Russia: Weaken the EU and the UK politicaly-Fight amongst yourselves! Gives Russia more room to maneuvre in Eastern Europe. Makes the EU look weak and divided and Russia strong and stable boosting Putin's image. Excellent for winning elections in the motherland.
Mercer, Bannon and co: Want to safeguard their accumulated wealth, democracy be damned as they don't really believe in it (Ayn Rand style). Brexit was just a testing ground for their super secret social media powered propaganda spewing machine. Phase 1 was obviously a success and the CA developed fb powered contraption was reused in the US elections of 2016. Again, with success.
CambridgeAnalytica: Cold hard cash as online marketing is big business. Targeted political propaganda (unregulated) is even bigger if you can somehow convince investors your tech can 'skew' election outcomes. And that they did.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories