Leaked Russian Interference Report Raises Questions About Brexit, UK Election Security (baltimoresun.com) 174
A report from the U.K. Parliament's intelligence committee concludes that "Russian interference may have had an impact on the Brexit referendum," reports the Times of London, adding that "the effect was 'unquantifiable.'"
The Associated Press reports: The committee said British intelligence services failed to devote enough resources to counter the threat and highlighted the impact of articles posted by Russian new sites that were widely disseminated on social media, the newspaper reported... [Conservative Prime Minister Boris] Johnson's government has said it needs more time to review the security implications of the report, but it will be released after the election. Critics have alleged the report is being withheld because it shows Russians have made large donations to the Conservative Party, which is seeking to win a majority that would allow Johnson to push his Brexit deal through Parliament....
The House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee began its investigation following allegations of Russian interference in both the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum earlier that year. The committee sent its report to Johnson for review on Oct. 17, saying it expected to "publish the report imminently." Committee Chairman Dominic Grieve has criticized Johnson's government for failing to release the document amid media reports it has already been cleared by British security services.
The debate comes amid growing concerns about the security of elections fought in an increasingly digital world. Britain's election laws were written for a time when campaigns pushed mass-produced leaflets through mail slots, rather than flooding Facebook and Twitter accounts with individually targeted messages.
The Associated Press reports: The committee said British intelligence services failed to devote enough resources to counter the threat and highlighted the impact of articles posted by Russian new sites that were widely disseminated on social media, the newspaper reported... [Conservative Prime Minister Boris] Johnson's government has said it needs more time to review the security implications of the report, but it will be released after the election. Critics have alleged the report is being withheld because it shows Russians have made large donations to the Conservative Party, which is seeking to win a majority that would allow Johnson to push his Brexit deal through Parliament....
The House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee began its investigation following allegations of Russian interference in both the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum earlier that year. The committee sent its report to Johnson for review on Oct. 17, saying it expected to "publish the report imminently." Committee Chairman Dominic Grieve has criticized Johnson's government for failing to release the document amid media reports it has already been cleared by British security services.
The debate comes amid growing concerns about the security of elections fought in an increasingly digital world. Britain's election laws were written for a time when campaigns pushed mass-produced leaflets through mail slots, rather than flooding Facebook and Twitter accounts with individually targeted messages.
American here (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point we should all ask ourselves if our interests really align with the sorts of people that would look on at a foreign power interfering in our elections to their benefit and say "Yeah, that's fine". Sure, in the short run you'll get some victories, but will those victories be worth it?
Re: (Score:2)
Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:4, Interesting)
In America the big wedge issues are gun control and abortion. They're used to create black and white single issue voters. There really aren't that many of those voters, but you can use them to tip an election your way.
The crazy thing is there's documents and recordings of the GOP discussing the creation of new wedge issues in the 60s and settling on abortion. It's bizarre that even knowing that it's still an effective issue for us. Then again, it's nearly impossible to have a reasoned conversation on the issue (or gun control for that matter), which is exactly why they were chosen as our wedge issues...
Re:Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is crazy, because on the other issue, they are willing to be absolutist. Very few anti-abortion crusaders will actually acknowledge that they understand there is at least one 'righteous' abortion, whether it be rape, lethal defect, maternal mortality, known son of Satan, or the like. Because of that, they'll never address the question of why it's okay to stigmatize those good people. If someone could give me a straight answer of how many babies they have to save to justify making how many people keep a dark secret of a very painful part of their lives, I might actually learn something.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people!
Re: (Score:2)
Our war numbers are wayyyyyyyy below Europe's, even in living memory.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as though a collection of over 50 countries do more things between them than a single country.
Re:Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone told me 'I'm a 2nd amendment absolutist, I don't care what the data says' I'd be fine discussing that. That's defensible. But this relativist idea that there aren't *quite* enough mass shootings, suicides, accidents, etc. to merit gun control,
Suicides aren't the issue. Accidents aren't the issue, either. Most gun accidents either involve family members, or cops with shitty trigger discipline shooting people. Gun control doesn't keep guns out of the hands of the cops, who kill over 1,000 people yearly, but only report half of them to the FBI so they can be counted in the list of justifiable homicides. We're left to assume that the other half were unjustifiable. Suggesting that The People should give up guns while their oppressors remain armed and stupid is a fascist point of view.
or that the various data aren't real, that's just garbage, and it certainly doesn't cover why my family has to face risks to support their view of freedom.
The data is real, but misleading, and deliberately so. The CDC's 2013 study showed that most uses of guns are defensive, and often do not involve firing the weapon [nap.edu]. But they buried that fact because it didn't fit the gun control narrative, so we only found out about it well after.
The idea that taking guns away from The People will make a better nation is ludicrous. Start with effective gun control in the police department, where it's defined as cops who don't shoot up women and children in cars and so on, and SWAT teams which don't unload on people who come to the door without so much as a butterknife, and then we can talk about Gun Control again. Maybe then you'll find support for a constitutional amendment which eliminates the 2a, which is what is needed to legally take the guns out of the hands of the citizenry.
You cannot have freedom without risk. Or put another way, risk cannot be eliminated if you have freedom. If you're allowed to stand up and walk around on hard surfaces, you might fall down and hit your head. The only way to eliminate all risk is to put you in a rubber room, or tie you to a table. And even then, you might die from a congenital defect — so we'd better make sure everyone is made up from the same collection of safe, approved genes, right?
Very few anti-abortion crusaders will actually acknowledge that they understand there is at least one 'righteous' abortion, whether it be rape, lethal defect, maternal mortality, known son of Satan, or the like.
Many of them in fact do not believe that there are any legitimate reasons for an abortion, even in those cases. But then, many of them also believe in the death penalty, which is a spectacular disconnect. Those people don't have rational reasons for their belief. That's what religious faith is all about — willfully ignoring logic and reason.
If someone could give me a straight answer of how many babies they have to save to justify making how many people keep a dark secret of a very painful part of their lives, I might actually learn something.
To those who oppose all abortion, any price is worth paying, including the lives of doctors — who they see as murderers, at least when they perform abortions. That the same alleged figure that told them not to kill didn't make any exceptions for preventing others from "killing" "babies" is irrelevant because there's so many counterexamples in the same source, where that figure condoned or even commanded murder.
Re:Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that taking guns away from The People will make a better nation is ludicrous.
Do you have a single example of a modern country where having an armed populace has definitively improved the country? For example, where a dictator was overthrown using those arms, or where lack of effective policing was made up for by having an armed population? Or any other way that being armed had some quantifiable benefit?
I was trying to think of a country where hunting was a major benefit, but that would be a bit marginal anyway because most countries do allow people to obtain guns for hunting under licence.
Re:Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:5, Insightful)
But then, many of them also believe in the death penalty, which is a spectacular disconnect.
No, one death is of the innocent, one is death of the guilty.
So it goes "thou shalt not kill unless you believe someone is guilty"? Fascinating, that's not how I learned it.
Re:Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:4, Informative)
"Thou shalt not kill" is an incorrect translation.
"Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation.
Killing and murder are very different acts.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing and murder are very different acts.
Yes, murder is the premeditated killing of a human. You know, like the death penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence of the legally-appointed judicial representative of society, giving a due process penalty for extensive egregious crimes and the protection of society, is not murder.
Corresponding to the quality of your analysis, I have no other word for you than "nutball".
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.
However, a Christian is concerned with the saving of souls, and so killing is extra awful because it forecloses any chance at redemption for the victim. They should thus be opposed to the death penalty. Eye for an eye is OT, and is appended by be ye kind.
Re: (Score:3)
The sentence of the legally-appointed judicial representative of society, giving a due process penalty for extensive egregious crimes and the protection of society, is not murder.
Of course it is. It is merely state-sanctioned murder.
Further, we know for certain that we have executed the innocent on more than one occasion. Even if for no other reason, that would make the death penalty murder at least some of the time.
Corresponding to the quality of your analysis, I have no other word for you than "nutball".
When you combine the fact that it costs more to execute someone with due process, and the fact that this process has results in the deaths of innocents, it's the supporters of the death penalty who are insane. They think they're god. I don't know if god exists, but I kno
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is the -intentional unjust killing- of another person.
If you believe in god, only he can justly take life. It's his to judge, remember? For anyone else, justness is an unlicensed judgement call.
To avoid this error, and in complete contrast to a simple murderer, there are exhaustive rules of evidence, review, appeal, opportunities for appeals for clemency, reducing this eventuality to a minimum. That "something bad can happen" does not negate the value of a necessary institution of society.
It is not a necessary institution. It's cheaper to simply keep them locked up, which also has the added advantage of not being murder. You can't condemn killing and then go on to kill people without being a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe in god, only he can justly take life. It's his to judge, remember? For anyone else, justness is an unlicensed judgement call.
Oh, you're Christian now? You want me to take your statement as valid while you claim its basis is invalid? To be accurate, you are wholly wrong on your theological premise. God himself appointed judges to convict crimes, and determine punishment, including death.
If you're going to quote theology to me, do it while not being completely clueless and wrong about what it says.
It is not a necessary institution. It's cheaper to simply keep them locked up, which also has the added advantage of not being murder. You can't condemn killing and then go on to kill people without being a hypocrite.
The legal system is a necessary institution, that's what I said and what you are attempting to undermine. Capital punishment, itself
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're Christian now?
Fuck no. I just hate religious hypocrites even more than other hypocrites. I am sufficiently bullshit-resistant that the indoctrination didn't take.
The legal system is a necessary institution, that's what I said and what you are attempting to undermine.
Then stay on fucking topic, we are talking about the death penalty, not every aspect of the legal system.
Some will say that someone who slaughters an entire family deserves additional punishment, and that additional deterrent for the next actual murderer so motivated, is an overall benefit to society.
Yes, and we call those people hypocrites.
Re: Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:2)
Admit it. You aren't a Christian bro.
Re: Lifestyles of the rich and famous? (Score:2)
"judge not, lest ye be judged"
Re: (Score:2)
I fully support the right of women to defend themselves against parasites endangering their health.
If that results in the death of the parasite then, well, it should've thought about that before attacking the woman.
But I'm also pro-abortion. Abort the fucking lot of them, that'll sort out global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
The memes bouncing around inside each side's memeplex echo chambers sound great, until they quantum tunnel out of the energy well containment and pating pating around like a steelie in a knockoff Addams Family pinball game.
Re: (Score:3)
At some point we should all ask ourselves if our interests really align with the sorts of people that would look on at a foreign power interfering in our elections to their benefit and say "Yeah, that's fine". Sure, in the short run you'll get some victories, but will those victories be worth it?
Of course your interests don't align with them; there was a good comment in the last China article about the American ruling class [slashdot.org] and ours are exctly the same, the people even overlap - these people are selling out our countries. The Barclay Brothers, The Murdochs (same ones that run Fox news), Zuckerberg and his lapdog Nick Clegg [cityam.com] all can see enough to know exactly what's going on. The Russians are likely causing chaos, but they are doing it with the effective permission of the UK's ruling class. Almos
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, true, but I'll also call out the "Third Way" (Score:2)
Ultimately what matters is _policy_. Take a guy like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lose an Election? (Score:2, Insightful)
Use our exclusive Blame Russia kit.
It comes with a dozen press conference talking points, two interchangeable conspiracy theories, video classes on expressing genuine Outrage!
Only 3 easy payments of $29.95.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They admitted that part (maybe most) of the plan to impeach trump is because they cannot guarantee they will win the next election.
Who was that? Got a recording, or perhaps a transcript they released?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
AOC told Wolf Blitzer that part of the impeachment effort is to prevent a disastrous outcome next year.
https://rumble.com/v8g1n3-aoc-speaks-with-wolf-blitzer-about-impeachment-efforts.html
At the 2-minute mark,
Re: (Score:2)
The disastrous outcome she spoke of was illegal interference with the election. Considering that the impeachment proceedings surround an abuse of the presidency to influence the upcoming election, that seems quite reasonable, and is not what the post I replied to was plainly trying to say.
But you knew that...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(disclaimer: Russian here, one that hasn't actually lived in Russia since I moved to SFBA 10 years ago)
Russian interference has been a talking point with many politics shows in the US. I don't think there is any doubt that "we"/"they" (as in Russian government) are doing "something", but there is hardly is any evidence that whatever "we"/"they" is actually effective, well in other regards than reinforcing dissenting opinions of the status quo. During Soviet times, one of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism was t
Re:American here (Score:5, Insightful)
but there is hardly is any evidence that whatever "we"/"they" is actually effective
Sorry but as a Russian who is fed only the Kremlin-approved 24h newsfeed, you might be excused for being so clueless.
Russian interference has been very effective. Probably much more than Putin himself could ever have hoped.
- Britain has been politically paralyzed for years because of Brexit, and the EU as a whole has been weakened by this folly that doesn't make sense for Britain or the EU, and is the canopener for new conflicts with Ireland and Scotland.
- Donald Trump is consistently undermining democratic institutions in the US, as well as his own intelligence agencies, while further dividing US society with his aggressive, uncompromising style. The country is basically at cold war with itself between die-hard liberals and die-hard Trump supporters.
- Ukraine is unable to join NATO due to occupation in the east and annexation of Crimea by Russia.
All of this weakens NATO, who Putin considers the great enemy, responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Remember, Putin is a former KGB agent, and at the moment he is applying a wrecking-ball to the West, mostly by supporting right-wing parties (or conservatives, where no viable alternative exists) and flooding political discourse with fake news intended to be divisive, so that societies in western countries fight among themselves, distracting them and weakening them while Russia asserts its influence across the globe, such as in Ukraine and Syria.
As a Westerner concerned with our liberties and democratic institutions, I'm shocked and worried how much damage Russia has been able to do with relatively small means.
Re: (Score:2)
It is our intelligence agencies that are profoundly anti democratic and are trying to oust the elected government. You'd think that believers in liberalism would know the "blame the dirty foreigners" rhetoric for the xenophobic garbage that it is.
Ukraine in NATO? Why? There's no benefit to it whatsoever. The weakening of NATO is being done by Europeans, who publicly state that they would not help other allies if they were attacked. If they took NATO seriously, they'd fund their militaries to the minimum l
Re: (Score:3)
Get real. I see a report with the words 'may have' and unquantifiable or lets put in better unmeasurable, that means they found NOTHING else they would have reported it nay 'screamed' about it to the high heavens. Skripals anyone, what ever happened to the Skripals have they been executed by the UK government for refusing to continue with the Novicok scam. Perhaps a balcony diving White Helmet founder, what is going on their. What about this mob https://orbisbi.com/about-orbi... [orbisbi.com] and that Steele guy up to hi
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but as a Russian who is fed only the Kremlin-approved 24h newsfeed, you might be excused for being so clueless.
Sorry but as a Westerner who is fed only the MSM-approved newsfeed, you might be excused for your vitriol against anyone who happens to voice anything that goes against the narrative you're used to. In particular, the part where a claim that "X would benefit if A happened" is enough of a reason to believe that "X made A happen" is clearly impact of propaganda rather than rational thinking.
- Britain has been politically paralyzed because the split over Brexit is real in the country, and also because the poli
Re: (Score:2)
"As a Westerner concerned with our liberties and democratic institutions" you should be much more concerned about your domestic problems. What Russia does is stirring shit up a bit, but that shit is completely home-made. Brexit is purely a result of the woes of their conservative party, Trump is a president the USA absolutely deserves, Ukraine is, well, a tragedy, but one that has been secretly welcomed by all sides.
Re: American here (Score:2)
Well, and of that 1/2 a sizeable portion is deliberate interfering - or using all the tools and resources available for them at a cost.
People like Mercer, Bannon and companies like Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ etc were integral for devising and executing the strategy of Leave campaign. They specifically wooed swing voters with over one billion micro-targeted messages on Facebook and elsewhere.
Thatâ(TM)s legal but is it fair? They got enough of people on board and won. If new referendum was organ
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the Remain side assumed there would be a campaign following the normal rules, and never had a counter-measure for the repeated outright falsehoods the Brexiteers came up with.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why is unsure how many children he has, and why he has been fired from jobs.
So of course I am partisan. Any sensible person is when it comes to Boris Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that his dishonestly has driven him to fully embrace populism. It's his only option because people just assume everything he says is a lie anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So Americans can chime into foreign elections on social media platforms, but the Russians aren't allowed to? Is it the "doing it in the open" versus anonymously? Isn't anonymous speech and saying things differently a core part of your First Amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. He also endorsed Macron in France. "Russian interference" means "something happened I don't like so I need to blame some external force".
Re: (Score:2)
He was doing it out in the open. It was unseemly, but not the same issue, which is Russia and China astroturfing fora without letting you know it is a state-level actor doing it.
Re:American here (Score:4, Informative)
As a fellow Canadian, I say get a grip.
False equivalence much? Obama expressing an opinion about someone he likes in the Canadian elections is in no way the same as a covert astroturf misinformation campaign to confuse, anger, frighten, and divide voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, Trump has said on several occasions that he supports Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.
Re: (Score:2)
So Americans can chime into foreign elections on social media platforms, but the Russians aren't allowed to? Is it the "doing it in the open" versus anonymously?
In short, no. It's "doing it in the open" versus fraudulently. Russians subverting the American political process aren't just doing it anonymously, they're pretending to be someone they aren't. In fact, they're often pretending to be American citizens.
Isn't anonymous speech and saying things differently a core part of your First Amendment?
Yes. But fraud is not protected speech. In fact, high value fraud is felonious.
Re: (Score:2)
Although false political speech is still protected. But foreign governments have to register and let you know they are speaking. People have a right to speak anonymously in the US, but foreign governments do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Russians can. It's about doing so without not only registering, but even letting people know who is speaking. Everyone should know who is astroturfing forums, pretending to be grass roots opinions, be they countries, parties, companies, politicians, Zima, whoever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, please show us how it's done.
How much have you condemned Clinton for arranging for the Steele Dossier (purchased gossip from the UK and primarily Russian agents) and Comey and Brennan and others for pushing it and the resulting Russia investigation?
Have you condemned Ukraine's attempts to interfere with the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton yet?
Please tell us what you think of those incidents, the first of which generated a multi-year investigation and media frenzy.
Re: American here (Score:2)
Re:American here (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the other half the country's politicians seem to want open borders, apparently they'd have no problem with it if the people accused of doing all of this interfering would just sneak across the borders first.
I'm not aware of anyone representing half the country's politicians who has called for open borders. Care to name names?
The Ministry of Truth - Welcome to this new World (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>"They only want one thing: Implementing 'The Ministry of Truth'!
Flag as Inappropriate"
+1
It is interesting that now anytime the "elite" don't like the political winds of "the people", it must be due to outside interference. They just can't fathom anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that now anytime the "elite" don't like the political winds of "the people", it must be due to outside interference. They just can't fathom anything else.
I think you're confused about who the true "elite" is. It's the top 1%, who in recent history have held consistently about 40% of the wealth. [wikipedia.org] They tend to lean Republican, and they benefit from Russian influence in the direction of the "political winds."
Robert Mueller's report and his congressional testimony made three things clear:
1. The Russians interfered in the 2016 election.
2. The Russians are still interfering in the US electoral process.
3. We need to be concerned about it.
I can certainly fathom that
Re: (Score:2)
I meant "call out such misinformation", not "call out for such misinformation." Edited and hit submit too quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but this is about the UK. Where, apparently, the Russians have also interfered.
Is it still the 1% holding 40% in the UK? Or is it higher, or lower? I presume this varies from nation to nation, however slightly (or not.)
Oh, ya think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Brexit was the trial run preparing for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit was the trial run preparing for Trump.
[[Citation needed]]... oh here you go [netflix.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible that Russians interfering in the referendum campaigns and UK politicians being clueless about their voters are both true.
Re: Oh, ya think? (Score:3)
The conservatives were also anti Brexit.
Kim Philby's Ghost (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else find it interesting that Johnson only wants to release the report about Russian election interference after the next election?
James Bond world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference is that James Bond sucks at his work in the real world. Otherwise those morons would have ended in the crocodile pit long ago.
The difference is that James Bond is a fictional character, but Bond story-like villains are real.
Re: (Score:2)
Orangefinger bad!
You just had to know it was true (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this: look at how much utter chaos Brexit has thrown the UK into; it's scrambled their entire government thoroughly, doing a great job of paralyzing them from getting anything else done, and more to the point, distracting them and UK citizens from so many other things going on in the world.
Futhermore, being one of the principle members of the EU when it was formed, it creates chaos in the EU and distracts them as well. An EU without the UK is a weaker EU overall. No doubt there would/will be (depending on whether UK exit actually happens) animosity between the UK and the EU, which could have other long-term effects (like their continued desire to be members of NATO, for instance).
Confuse, confound and foment chaos amongst your enemies.
Sounds almost like a kind of guerilla warfare to me.
As a sidebar to this, consider the timing and patterns to the unrest in Catalonia. Given the revelations of this news story, and past associated news stories of Russian interference in various countries' politics, what do you think the likelihood of Russian influencing in Catalonia, whipping the separatist movement into high gear? I'd say pretty damned high, and it would further destabilize western Europe, and provide a massive distraction to the Spanish government and citizenry in the process.
Meanwhile Russian aggression (and of course it's precursors) is less noticed, and can proceed with much less interference. Sounds like a workable plan to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much as soon as I heard about the original referendum movement, I suspected it wasn't totally home-grown just based on the patterns of it, and of course the timing.
Is this the 1975 EC referendum, the call in the 90s for a referendum by The Referendum Party, the promise by Blair for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or the calls by the Liberal Democrats in 2007 for an EU referendum?
I'm just checking, as your comment on the timing is tricky to understand without that clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet more Brexit bollocks (Score:2)
ridiculous (Score:3)
It's becoming ridiculous. Are we back in the 50s already, with evil communists lurking behind every bush?
These elections are a failure of the system. For decades, our political parties have worked hard to divide us into two pretty equal groups in order to play us against each other and distract from the fact that they're all corrupt fuckers out for power and money and with zero interst in any part of their oath of office.
Result: All elections are now even things decided by tiny margins. Which means a small influence of recent events, random chance or people with an interest can swing it. Maybe some of those people are Russians, maybe not. But stop crying, because you fuckers broke the system in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
It's becoming ridiculous. Are we back in the 50s already, with evil communists lurking behind every bush?
What does communism have to do with Russia, which has social classes and currency?
All elections are now even things decided by tiny margins. Which means a small influence of recent events, random chance or people with an interest can swing it. Maybe some of those people are Russians, maybe not. But stop crying, because you fuckers broke the system in the first place.
Nobody is crying. There are only people trying to stop the Russians for illegally manipulating our systems, and those trying to enable them.
Re: (Score:2)
What does communism have to do with Russia, which has social classes and currency?
First price for taking the exact wrong part out of a statement.
Apart from the fact that the Russians were the scapegoats for everything before, the point isn't about Russia or communism, but about building up a boogieman and making a specific type of people (jews, communists, Russians, immigrants, whatever) responsible for whatever.
Nobody is crying. There are only people trying to stop the Russians for illegally manipulating our systems, and those trying to enable them.
Every binary division of any group of people is guaranteed to be wrong. There is always at least a third class, in this case, for example, trivially those who never stop nor enab
Good Lord ... (Score:2)
... you people are the sorest losers I have ever had the displeasure to see.
I'm not sure how to get this through your head. It's not illegal to disagree with you. Uncool, perhaps. Illegal, no.
Sometimes, you are going to lose. Not because of sinister forces, but because you lost.
Liberals need to get over it (Score:2)
Trust me, the Russians didn't do it. Guys like me did it! I VOTE against the NWO bitches!
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)
This is part of the Remain narrative which ignores the fact that support for Brexit has been declining for decades. If we'd had the referendum in 1999 it would have been a landslide for Leave; would that have been because of Russian interference too? ... what?
Meanwhile, France and Germany have put huge efforts into blocking the result of the referendum - and succeeded - and no one's producing a report about that, are they?
Oh yeah, by not giving us everything we had before and a bunch more they're "blocking the results of the referendum". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. France and Germany are not under any obligation to help us. They are under an obligation to work for the greater good of the remaining EU27.
Re: (Score:3)
Both Merkel [express.co.uk] and Macron [sky.com] have admitted outright that they wouldn't put an EU exit to a vote, because they'd know the result would not be what they want.
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
Both Merkel and Macron have admitted outright that they wouldn't put an EU exit to a vote, because they'd know the result would not be what they want.
First, no they didn't.
Second, no it wouldn't. Boris Johnson is arguably the saviour of the EU. Even Front Nationale has dialled back their rhetoric to not actually really wanting to leave.
Third, as we can now see, "let's leave" is a deeply foolish thing to have a vote on because it doesn't mean anything remotely specific enough. Citation: the UK.
And finally, even if they did then I'd say: Yes. And?
Referendums are not the ultimate form of democracy. In fact in living memory Germany has something of a history of referendums being badly abused to give all sorts of things a patina of legitimacy by being the "will of the people". Doubly in fact Germany has no mechanism for having referendums at the federal level precisely because of the very serious problems they've had with referendums in the past.
The other problem is that referendums are a form of direct democracy but France and Germany are representative democracies. You can see the mess it is making in the UK when you try to mash together two completely different systems without any real thought as to what happens when they conflict.
The toffs wanted to leave and held a "democratic vote". I put it in scare quotes because it was (a) advisory and (b) ultimately fraudulent. Were it a binding referendum then by law it would need to be re-run. Treating it as binding but without the protections of a binding vote is a subversion of both democracy and the rule of law. But I digress, the toffs watned to leave and scraped a tiny majority in a referendum. They then fucked it up and "the people" then took away their majority and gave power to parties who either wanted to remain or wanted a rather different tack on leave (labour).
So now what? Who's vote is the most legitimate? The dodgy referendum or the most recent general election? I've heard people claim both. So which is it?
Etc.
As the elected leader of a country you have a duty to not do something stupid and damaging.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, by not giving us everything we had before and a bunch more they're "blocking the results of the referendum". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
There's a difference between not helping and opposing. The extensions didn't have to be granted - no one that wanted to leave wanted these extensions.
I don't understand why people like you can't see what's going on in the EU. I mean, when the EU sided with private companies against the people of Greece, what was the rationale you used to look the other way?
It might not be armbands and torchlight processions, but the systematic dismantling of democracy in the EU is a new form of fascism. Or maybe you don't m
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)
Typical brexiters, always blaming the foreigners for their own mess. Blame your own government and your own parliament. You could have been out two years ago. Neither France nor us have any jurisdiction to block the decisions of your government. It is the UK that is constantly begging for an extension because instead of doing their job, your parliament has decided to recess, to recess yet again, to change the prime minister and to recess again. Neither Germany, nor Russia, nor France are at fault, just the English.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical brexiters, always blaming the foreigners for their own mess. Blame your own government and your own parliament.
There's plenty of blame to go around. However, since the original story is about foreign interference I focused on that specific issue.
You're right that most of the blame is at home, and I probably should have mentioned that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because brexiteers never had a plan. They didn't agree what they wanted before the vote, and then afterwards immediately started squabbling over what brexit was supposed to be.
Theresa May realized this early on which is why she kept repeating her nonsense phrases like "brexit means brexit", hoping to ram her deal through at the last moment when it was too late to do anything about it. Fortunately Gina Miller managed to prevent that from happening by taking the government to court and forcing a meaningf
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that the Scottish, the Welsh and the Irish are just as at fault as the English (and the Scots far more so).
The EU have acted predictably. It has indeed been a failure of the British Parliament to plan for this, to mitigate against it and to implement the democratic outcome nonetheless.
However, the EU has also colluded with British traitors intent on handing control of the country to a European superstate. That I do not forgive, and yes, I do fucking blame the 'foreigners' for doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)
Only?! He has been the prime minister in 1999, the president 2000-2008, the prime minister again until 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)
It's entirely leavers fault. They couldn't agree what they wanted. Should have done it before the referendum, and now three years after it they still don't have a united position.
Look at Farage. Went from "let's have Norway+" to "crash out and try to fix it later". Brexit's biggest proponent doesn't even know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just a few pointers
If you are going to be Russian, then make sure that you are one of Putin's pals, he will use you to launder money and you will swim in luxury while those who oppose you die in 'random' shootings, terrorist acts or just being thrown out a window.
If you are not one of Putin's buddies, then expect a long hard haul, as you are lied to by your media about how Putin is saving you from those dastardly westerners, and watch as Putin and his buddies take everything of value as they "save" yo
You'd think they would have won the cold war (Score:2)
Being able to pull off this kind of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
That was before social media reduced the cost of media manipulation. In this day and age, the mainstream news media has literally been reduced to having to report on what's being discussed on social media sites like Faceboot and Twatter. We're predominantly doing it to ourselves, and they're just giving nudges.
Re:The all-powerful Russians ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What *didn't* they do?
"Russia is a pretty cool guy. Eh hacks ALL the elections and doesn't afraid of anything." ;)
It takes surprisingly little to actually interfere with elections when part of the electorate is complete boobs that haven't read a conspiracy theory they didn't believe.
As long as their are impressionable people on the internet that are easily whipped into a frenzy then there will be someone trying to exploit them. The key is here is that foreign nations (e.g. Russia) are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as their are impressionable people on the internet that are easily whipped into a frenzy then there will be someone trying to exploit them. The key is here is that foreign nations (e.g. Russia) are doing it.
who do you think is more experienced at manipulating these people, Russia or West themselves?
Re:The all-powerful Russians ... (Score:4, Informative)
Or are you a Russian astroturfer?
Re: (Score:2)
What *didn't* they do?
"Russia is a pretty cool guy. Eh hacks ALL the elections and doesn't afraid of anything." ;)
Apparently they are the unstoppable puppet masters behind everything that ever displeased any of our politicians forever.
Hey Five Eyes! Are you trying to do propaganda against Russia, or FOR them?? :)
If this continues, I have to start learning Russian ... I, for one ...
You need to drink way less Vodka, and work on your English.
Re: (Score:2)