Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court
It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court. An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.
Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court
It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court. An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.
Because if it wasn't an alleged overspend , the remain camp would come up with something else . I doubt very much there is anyone in the leave camp or indeed for that matter quite a group from the remain camp who sees all of this as anything othewr than desperate .
haysie bad news i am afraid the French have said they wont take you, something about they dont want any Cretins. Maybe try Belgium.
This is a very clever and well thought out post. It must have taken you a long time to think of it. You should maybe think about opening a debating school, where you could run your own masterclasses. You could be famous. Or maybe not. First you need to try a capital I when referring to yourself, and explain why you think cretin would have a capital C. You could to get beyond one sentence, on occasion. Unless you are lost, you may even attempt the odd post with some Brexit content. Alternatively, you could start a thread specialising in short, pathetic, unfunny comments, and confine yourself to posting on it.
What will happen if Theresa May’s Brexit deal is voted down? Here are all the potential scenarios
If MPs reject the government’s Brexit deal next Tuesday, there will be a whirlwind of political activity like nothing the UK has witnessed for generations. Although it is hard to predict exactly how things will unfold, a people’s vote will ultimately be the main game in town – not least because, by passing a momentous amendment on Tuesday, MPs took back control of Brexit from the prime minister. But before then, there will be multiple twists and turns. Here’s a guide to the drama ahead, based on an analysis of what Labour, Theresa May and other players will do.
Vote Leave's targeted Brexit ads released by Facebook
The official Vote Leave campaign spent more than £2.7m on targeting ads at specific groups of people on Facebook - helping it to win the 2016 EU referendum. The US social media giant has now released these ads to a committee of MPs investigating fake news - meaning everyone, not just those they were originally aimed at, can now see them. The ads, created by Canadian company Aggregate AIQ, often focused on specific issues - such as immigration or animal rights - thought likely to push the buttons of certain groups of people, based on their age, where they lived and other personal data taken from social media and other sources. The 120 pages of documents appear to back up the findings of the Electoral Commission, which ruled last week that Vote Leave broke electoral law by working jointly with another campaign, BeLeave - something denied by both groups. A number of BeLeave ads were sent from the Vote Leave Facebook account, including this one:
Brexit: What will happen if MPs reject Theresa May's deal?
It feels like Westminster is tumbling towards a political crisis without modern precedent. On Tuesday 11 December, the House of Commons will conclude five days of debate with a vote on a government motion to approve the EU withdrawal agreement and accompanying political declaration. The terms of the UK's departure from the EU.
Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court
It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court. An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.
Because if it wasn't an alleged overspend , the remain camp would come up with something else . I doubt very much there is anyone in the leave camp or indeed for that matter quite a group from the remain camp who sees all of this as anything othewr than desperate .
There was nothing alleged about the overspend. Some of the culprits have been fined, and there is currently a police investigation. It seems that new information is still being uncovered. The most serious thing is that there appears to be no real remedy. If it was proved that voters were influenced enough to affect the result, the result would seemingly still stand.
I would think that to prove the effect of any influence, and whether or not it was enough to affect the result, would be extremely difficult.
There was clearly interference caused by Russian bots, the use of illegally obtained data, the use of targeted adverts, fake news, overspending, and doubts over funding sources.
There are companies that now specialise in providing this influence.
It is easy to see that things like Social Media make it easy to target groups of people, and the use of fake news may influence some people, and give them a view of the world that is untrue.
If you took the Britain First stuff, that Donald Trump retweeted. This was a selection of short videos that were biased against immigrants, in this case Muslims. The videos weren't true, but it would be easy to see that constant bombardment of this type of information via Social Media may easily influence some people that they should vote Leave in order to end Freedom of Movement. The fact that they weren't true, didn't come into it.
Social Media makes it very easy to spread the word. People are generally connected to others that are like them. This makes it very easy to target large numbers of people to influence.
The amount of personal information that is available on all of us via the internet, provides the ammunition used by these companies to successfully target us.
Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court
It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court. An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.
Because if it wasn't an alleged overspend , the remain camp would come up with something else . I doubt very much there is anyone in the leave camp or indeed for that matter quite a group from the remain camp who sees all of this as anything othewr than desperate .
There was nothing alleged about the overspend. Some of the culprits have been fined, and there is currently a police investigation. It seems that new information is still being uncovered. The most serious thing is that there appears to be no real remedy. If it was proved that voters were influenced enough to affect the result, the result would seemingly still stand.
I would think that to prove the effect of any influence, and whether or not it was enough to affect the result, would be extremely difficult.
There was clearly interference caused by Russian bots, the use of illegally obtained data, the use of targeted adverts, fake news, overspending, and doubts over funding sources.
There are companies that now specialise in providing this influence.
It is easy to see that things like Social Media make it easy to target groups of people, and the use of fake news may influence some people, and give them a view of the world that is untrue.
If you took the Britain First stuff, that Donald Trump retweeted. This was a selection of short videos that were biased against immigrants, in this case Muslims. The videos weren't true, but it would be easy to see that constant bombardment of this type of information via Social Media may easily influence some people that they should vote Leave in order to end Freedom of Movement. The fact that they weren't true, didn't come into it.
Social Media makes it very easy to spread the word. People are generally connected to others that are like them. This makes it very easy to target large numbers of people to influence.
The amount of personal information that is available on all of us via the internet, provides the ammunition used by these companies to successfully target us.
GDPR privacy rules have made it easier than it ever has been to control how and if we are to be contacted . How is internet propaganda any different to the lies both sides presented pre vote , in the media ?. It isn't ! It's not possible to constantly nanny the gullible .
Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court
It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court. An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.
Because if it wasn't an alleged overspend , the remain camp would come up with something else . I doubt very much there is anyone in the leave camp or indeed for that matter quite a group from the remain camp who sees all of this as anything othewr than desperate .
There was nothing alleged about the overspend. Some of the culprits have been fined, and there is currently a police investigation. It seems that new information is still being uncovered. The most serious thing is that there appears to be no real remedy. If it was proved that voters were influenced enough to affect the result, the result would seemingly still stand.
I would think that to prove the effect of any influence, and whether or not it was enough to affect the result, would be extremely difficult.
There was clearly interference caused by Russian bots, the use of illegally obtained data, the use of targeted adverts, fake news, overspending, and doubts over funding sources.
There are companies that now specialise in providing this influence.
It is easy to see that things like Social Media make it easy to target groups of people, and the use of fake news may influence some people, and give them a view of the world that is untrue.
If you took the Britain First stuff, that Donald Trump retweeted. This was a selection of short videos that were biased against immigrants, in this case Muslims. The videos weren't true, but it would be easy to see that constant bombardment of this type of information via Social Media may easily influence some people that they should vote Leave in order to end Freedom of Movement. The fact that they weren't true, didn't come into it.
Social Media makes it very easy to spread the word. People are generally connected to others that are like them. This makes it very easy to target large numbers of people to influence.
The amount of personal information that is available on all of us via the internet, provides the ammunition used by these companies to successfully target us.
GDPR privacy rules have made it easier than it ever has been to control how and if we are to be contacted . How is internet propaganda any different to the lies both sides presented pre vote , in the media ?. It isn't ! It's not possible to constantly nanny the gullible .
A set of rules will obviously help, but many of the less reputable businesses that are prepared to sail close to the wind, will look upon the rules as a challenge, and merely find a way around them. I think many people will continue to get caught out via the internet, and not all of them will be considered gullible. Although those that are less educated or gullible may need the most protection.
Many of the laws and regulations that apply to the media, don't apply to the internet.
Content that regularly appears on the internet, would result in prosecution if published in a newspaper, or broadcast.
Brexit: JP Morgan says probability of UK staying in EU has risen to 40%
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan. They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states. The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week. “The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note. “That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
Brexit: JP Morgan says probability of UK staying in EU has risen to 40%
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan. They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states. The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week. “The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note. “That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
Never going to happen , because as already iterated , to do so , would completely eradicate the uk citizens faith in the Government to carry out their wishes . And yes that's an opinion , the same as JP morgans is .
Brexit: JP Morgan says probability of UK staying in EU has risen to 40%
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan. They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states. The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week. “The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note. “That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
Never going to happen , because as already iterated , to do so , would completely eradicate the uk citizens faith in the Government to carry out their wishes . And yes that's an opinion , the same as JP morgans is .
So do you think that the public has any faith in them now?
Brexit: JP Morgan says probability of UK staying in EU has risen to 40%
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan. They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states. The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week. “The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note. “That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
Never going to happen , because as already iterated , to do so , would completely eradicate the uk citizens faith in the Government to carry out their wishes . And yes that's an opinion , the same as JP morgans is .
So do you think that the public has any faith in them now?
Not a lot no ...but it would completely denigrate the last vestiges of faith if they invoke article 50 . And at the end of the day it's in the interests of all political parties to ensure that at least a percentage of the electorate have some faith in them and their policies . Even though the Labour partys' main objective is to force a General election , even they wouldn't be mad enough to want to completely erode the wishes of the public ...and I've been a labour voter all my life , in case anyone's questioning my political leanings .
Brexit: JP Morgan says probability of UK staying in EU has risen to 40%
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan. They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states. The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week. “The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note. “That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
Never going to happen , because as already iterated , to do so , would completely eradicate the uk citizens faith in the Government to carry out their wishes . And yes that's an opinion , the same as JP morgans is .
So do you think that the public has any faith in them now?
Not a lot no ...but it would completely denigrate the last vestiges of faith if they invoke article 50 . And at the end of the day it's in the interests of all political parties to ensure that at least a percentage of the electorate have some faith in them and their policies . Even though the Labour partys' main objective is to force a General election , even they wouldn't be mad enough to want to completely erode the wishes of the public ...and I've been a labour voter all my life , in case anyone's questioning my political leanings .
The Labour Party Policy is to support a second referendum, if they are unable to get a General Election. This was agreed at their Party Conference.
I have just seen an interview where it was said that over half the Labour MPs that spoke today, finished their speeches calling for a second referendum.
A General Election looks unlikely, but things can change very quickly.
Many people are arguing for another referendum, as they felt ill informed for the first one. This is an argument that you have put forward.
Some people have changed their minds since the first one, in both directions.
It may be, that as there seems to no majority in Parliament for any deal, including no deal, that another referendum may be the only way out of the mess.
Many people that were arguing for taking back control during the referendum, don't appear happy that Parliament has taken back control of the Brexit process.
It seems strange that we are expecting our own Government to knowingly inflict damage to our economy because of the referendum.
I think that if you go back to the referendum, the remain argument was based on what we had, and very difficult to exaggerate. However they did predict some pretty dire consequences of a leave vote, which did not materialise.
This contrasted with the leave side which was all about what might happen. Since the referendum it has become obvious that some of the claims made are not going to be forthcoming. I don't think that the political gains amount to very much, and the financial impact will affect many people.
I think that a second referendum may well happen, although the result would not be a foregone conclusion, and not necessarily the ideal outcome.
Whatever happens we will be dogged by Brexit for years to come.
Comments
It must have taken you a long time to think of it.
You should maybe think about opening a debating school, where you could run your own masterclasses.
You could be famous.
Or maybe not.
First you need to try a capital I when referring to yourself, and explain why you think cretin would have a capital C.
You could to get beyond one sentence, on occasion.
Unless you are lost, you may even attempt the odd post with some Brexit content.
Alternatively, you could start a thread specialising in short, pathetic, unfunny comments, and confine yourself to posting on it.
It feels like Westminster is tumbling towards a political crisis without modern precedent.
On Tuesday 11 December, the House of Commons will conclude five days of debate with a vote on a government motion to approve the EU withdrawal agreement and accompanying political declaration. The terms of the UK's departure from the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46320368
It seems that new information is still being uncovered.
The most serious thing is that there appears to be no real remedy.
If it was proved that voters were influenced enough to affect the result, the result would seemingly still stand.
I would think that to prove the effect of any influence, and whether or not it was enough to affect the result, would be extremely difficult.
There was clearly interference caused by Russian bots, the use of illegally obtained data, the use of targeted adverts, fake news, overspending, and doubts over funding sources.
There are companies that now specialise in providing this influence.
It is easy to see that things like Social Media make it easy to target groups of people, and the use of fake news may influence some people, and give them a view of the world that is untrue.
If you took the Britain First stuff, that Donald Trump retweeted. This was a selection of short videos that were biased against immigrants, in this case Muslims. The videos weren't true, but it would be easy to see that constant bombardment of this type of information via Social Media may easily influence some people that they should vote Leave in order to end Freedom of Movement.
The fact that they weren't true, didn't come into it.
Social Media makes it very easy to spread the word. People are generally connected to others that are like them. This makes it very easy to target large numbers of people to influence.
The amount of personal information that is available on all of us via the internet, provides the ammunition used by these companies to successfully target us.
A set of rules will obviously help, but many of the less reputable businesses that are prepared to sail close to the wind, will look upon the rules as a challenge, and merely find a way around them.
I think many people will continue to get caught out via the internet, and not all of them will be considered gullible.
Although those that are less educated or gullible may need the most protection.
Many of the laws and regulations that apply to the media, don't apply to the internet.
Content that regularly appears on the internet, would result in prosecution if published in a newspaper, or broadcast.
The probability of the UK remaining in the EU is now 40 per cent, according to economists at JP Morgan.
They raised the likelihood of no Brexit from 20 per cent after the European Court of Justice’s advocate general said earlier this week that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other EU states.
The pound jumped after the court’s opinion was issued, although analysts warned the currency is likely to stay volatile until the government votes on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement next week.
“The UK now appears to have the option of revoking unilaterally and taking a period of time of its own choosing to decide what happens next,” economist Malcolm Barr wrote in a research note.
“That time could be used to hold a second referendum on terms entirely decided by the UK.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-jp-morgan-says-probability-082200723.html
I have just seen an interview where it was said that over half the Labour MPs that spoke today, finished their speeches calling for a second referendum.
A General Election looks unlikely, but things can change very quickly.
Many people are arguing for another referendum, as they felt ill informed for the first one. This is an argument that you have put forward.
Some people have changed their minds since the first one, in both directions.
It may be, that as there seems to no majority in Parliament for any deal, including no deal, that another referendum may be the only way out of the mess.
Many people that were arguing for taking back control during the referendum, don't appear happy that Parliament has taken back control of the Brexit process.
It seems strange that we are expecting our own Government to knowingly inflict damage to our economy because of the referendum.
I think that if you go back to the referendum, the remain argument was based on what we had, and very difficult to exaggerate. However they did predict some pretty dire consequences of a leave vote, which did not materialise.
This contrasted with the leave side which was all about what might happen. Since the referendum it has become obvious that some of the claims made are not going to be forthcoming. I don't think that the political gains amount to very much, and the financial impact will affect many people.
I think that a second referendum may well happen, although the result would not be a foregone conclusion, and not necessarily the ideal outcome.
Whatever happens we will be dogged by Brexit for years to come.
Therefore the solution surely has to be either to agree a deal, or have a second referendum.
There is definitely not a majority in favour of The PMs deal.
The most popular plan b is a Norway deal, but no majority. Norway means paying annual contributions, and Freedom of Movement.
Any deal that doesn't include The Customs Union, will have to include The Backstop.
There is not a majority that will vote for The Backstop.
Any deal that includes The Customs Union stops us striking free trade deals elsewhere.
The Labour Party is in favour of The Single Market, and The Customs Union.
Not many of these difficulties were forseen during the referendum campaign.
It is difficult to see any deal that could command a majority in Parliament. No deal cant happen.
A General Election solves nothing, it would just give a different Government the same problems.