To think the Brexit referendum result should be set aside if allegations of corruption are proved?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Vanity Fair article about this

Just like the US election last year, there is more and more evidence emerging now that some parts of the Leave campaign were fundedy in very shady ways. Also, social media was manipulated to feed personalised fake news to voters before the referendum. Even the ludicrous #usepens seems to have been pushed by Russian bots as a way of undermining confidence in the electoral process.

We are teetering on the brink of making the biggest political mistake of my lifetime (and I'm in my 50s and remember a good many other bad times). That's bad and bad enough, but if it wasn't even a legitimate vote surely it should just be set aside?

Where are we in the queue?

Thought id cut and paste

However, he used his appearance at a press conference in the Foreign Office alongside David Cameron to dismiss the central claim made by Leave campaigners that Britain’s economy would not be harmed by a vote to leave.

Attacking Eurosceptic ministers for “ascribing to the United States certain actions we will take if the UK does leave the EU”, he said: “I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.

"And on that matter, for example, I think it's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it's not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.

"The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.

Oops bold fail

So what some people are saying is that the American president should have just listened to the leave campaign saying we would get a good deal with the USA and not told what he felt was the truth

My post wasnt for you baby if that helps

It probably doesnt

"The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.
That's what China said as well. As far as they are concerned we are now a 'practice country before they negotiate with the big boys like the EU'. This is what they said when they went to the select committee. It's on parliamentary TV if anyone is interested.

Of course Putin wanted Leave to win, as you say babybarrister that is 'blindingly obvious'. The next question is why he wanted this? The 'blindingly obvious' answer is that he wanted to damage both the UK and EU. Job done. He must be delighted with his work.

Allegretto Handing on to a democrat I thought the U.S. had elections; not just a transfer of power being handed on within one party. Silly me, or silly Obama taking it as read Clinton would get in. Furthermore, his policy might not have been hers, and iirc, the EU/US trade deal is dead in the water at the moment.....

Of course Putin wanted Leave to win, as you say babybarrister that is 'blindingly obvious'. The next question is why he wanted this? The 'blindingly obvious' answer is that he wanted to damage both the UK and EU. Job done. He must be delighted with his work

But baby barrister still remains to be convinced about the effects of that so that's ok then.

And others think that remain was equally illegally infiltrated by foreign influences so that's fine and dandy too. Yay.

(These are the same people who keep going on about 'democracy', funnily enough)

That's what China said as well. As far as they are concerned we are now a 'practice country before they negotiate with the big boys like the EU'.

That's interesting, I was watching "Look East" or one of those progs last week & they were talking to a dairy farmer who was sending his milk out to Quatar & China - the Chinese dealer especially said that it was "easier to deal with 1 country rather than 27" - there will be deals like that all over the place (and they're being negotiated now).

I was more amazed that he gets more for his milk from sending it to China than he would for selling it to the Tesco 20 miles away (who import theirs from the Netherlands) - if the big retailers paid our farmers and businesses a fair price in the first place we might not be in this position in the first place!

You are genuinely trying to argue that it matters not about illegal Russian funded social media influences?

Wow.

I am saying very clearly that there is a further logical step that it would be necessary to prove what effect it had on voting which would involve balancing lies told on both sides.

No, that is not a necessary logical step and just because you frequently use the word 'clearly' does not make it so.

I have already made it absolutely clear that leave also told lies!

Assuming you mean the remain campaign, no you haven't 'made it absolutely clear'. Many posters, inc yourself, have instead attempted to pretend that BOTH remain and leave lied equally, deliberately obscuring the fact that leave are being investigated for covertly receiving finance from foreign interests. There is no evidence of that on the remain side.

We should ignore illegal Russian infiltration of our political process because hey, it'll be a bugger to prove if it actually changed votes.

Really? This is your argument?

Eh? If it is found that the remain campaign was illegally funded by foreign interests deliberately spreading disinformation then no,why would I think that should be ignored?

I said before if you and Julie do have evidence/knowledge of corruption then take it to investigators.

Somehow I doubt that saying that all anti-discrimination law is derived from the EU is on a par with £350 million on the side of a bus.

Or why Leave funding for data analytics and advertising to sway English and Scottish voters was deliberately funnelled through the DUP to obscure its origins.