Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[Top Cats Hat]

24 minutes ago, apelike said:

No matter how marginal the first vote was that was democracy in action.

A marginal vote that was influenced by outside interference on behalf of one side of the argument is actually a travesty of democracy.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Top Cats Hat

[apelike]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

A marginal vote that was influenced by outside interference on behalf of one side of the argument is actually a travesty of democracy.

Show the proof of that then, and I do mean proof and not speculation about what may have occurred.

 

[L00b]

14 minutes ago, apelike said:

Many local councils have been included citing job losses and yet those very councils have been suffering from government cuts for over 8 years. That data has been included as other data has because the author recons that austerity should have ended but because of Brexit it has been extended so those job losses are of course been because of Brexit.

 

The data and the way it has been used is very suspect.

 

And I have very clearly acknowledged those entries open to counter-argument, such as those Council jobs, and pointed you to those entries which can only be directly or indirectly related to Brexit, with reasons given as trade barriers and/or EU relocation.

 

You can take issue with the inclusion of the earlier ones, but you don't get to broad-brush away the later ones under the pretext that the earlier ones are included, when the granularity of the data, i.e. the reasons for each set of job losses, clearly allows you to distinguish between them.

 

Now then, with Brexit preparations running at £800m per week in the UK, shall we talk about the continually-postponed deficit removal that shoukd have happened by 2017 (or 2019, can't remember off hand)...or the £350m per week to the NHS? 

[hobinfoot]

The speaker has ruled the brexit deal cannot be voted on again.

[apelike]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

You can take issue with the inclusion of the earlier ones, but you don't get to broad-brush away the later ones under the pretext that the earlier ones are included, when the granularity of the data, i.e. the reasons for each set of job losses, clearly allows you to distinguish between them.

I,m using a tablet at the moment but when I get back on the PC I will be better able to analyse that.

 

1 minute ago, L00b said:

 

Now then, with Brexit preparations running at £800m per week in the UK, shall we talk about the continually-postponed deficit removal that shoukd have happened by 2017 (or 2019, can't remember off hand)...or the £350m per week to the NHS? 

You can if you want but that is not for me as I never saw the advert on the bus till after the referendum as I don't watch TV or read newspapers.

[Top Cats Hat]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

Show the proof of that then, and I do mean proof and not speculation about what may have occurred.

 

You know as well as I do that most of the targetted pro-Brexit fake news posted on social media during the referendum campaign originated in either Russia or the United States and that 33% of voters admitted to believing it before discovering  it was fake.

[apelike]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You know as well as I do that most of the targetted pro-Brexit fake news posted on social media during the referendum campaign originated in either Russia or the United States and that 33% of voters admitted to believing it before discovering  it was fake.

Where did you get that idea from? Basically you and others cannot prove how it affected voting habits in the UK. Isn't that 33% also  US data?

 

 

[I1L2T3]

6 minutes ago, apelike said:

Where did you get that idea from? Basically you and others cannot prove how it affected voting habits in the UK. Isn't that 33% also  US data?

 

 

So you think there was no interference?

[apelike]

Just now, I1L2T3 said:

So you think there was no interference?

No what I think is there is no proof about how much it influenced people especially give the demographics of Facebook etc. It didn't influence me as I'm not on any social media site.

 

Unlike the fact that many people who moan about the outcome of the vote and could have influenced the vote couldn't be  bothered to vote.

 

 

 

[L00b]

33 minutes ago, apelike said:

You can if you want but that is not for me as I never saw the advert on the bus till after the referendum as I don't watch TV or read newspapers.

But you opined about the haircuts to Councils' budgets that accounted for the Council  job losses. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is attributable to policies for curbing the deficit since 2010, which was supposed to be eradicated by 2017 (or 2019)...until Brexit and its billions for bribing the DUP (twice now), for staffing DExEU, for extra lifting capacity from startups with inexistent ferries but very capable contract lawyers...