Baldseagull
Well-known member
Give it a rest , it's one sided guff you keep telling yourself. What of every major remain politician saying they'd honour the result and spending 3 years doing everything in cahoots with a corrupt speaker to overturn it?
What of George Osbourne's targeted messaging that every family would be 4k a year worse off just if we vote to leave? That the economy would nosedive and unemployment rise just if we vote to leave?
Yes the 350million a week for the NHS (whilst possible in theory) was a blatant electioneering stunt by those who had no authority at that time to promise or deliver it.
If you want to talk money, vote remain was funded by large investment banks like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, who had huge vested interests in staying in the EU because they can comply with the complex and high cost red tape regulations they themselves lobbied for, to monopolise their own positions as others cannot meet the complexity or cost of EU regulatory compliance.
I'm not arguing against any side who used blantant electioneering in 2016, because they both did,nor where vote remain was funded from and why, nor vote leave and why. 2 competing sets of interests trying to win.
People who voted Labour in 2017 did so based on targeted lies that the referendum result would be honoured. People who voted for them in 2019 did so on a lot of pledges that could never be paid for (a false prospectus)
It's all very well to select the bits you're against whilst ignoring the plethora of exactly the same on your side of the argument.
Some might call that hypocrisy
Does any of what you have posted look like a good advert for democracy working well? The referendum is not an isolated case of misinformation and money winning the vote, but it did include a new angle of stolen data being used to target individuals on social media, through which they were able to mobilise a large number of generally politically naive, never voted before members of the public, and only one side had that particular dirty trick, so no, it was not exactly the same on my side of the argument.