3 ms·

There's a big difference between expressing support for a campaign and secretly providing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of donated services to a foreign

There's a big difference between expressing support for a campaign and secretly providing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of donated services to a foreign political campaign, and the campaign not declaring the donation as required by law.

coldtea 10y ago
Whereas Bremain supporters and politicians didn't get such covert donations? Not to mention that they had the full cooperation and support of the state, that was supposed to be neutral. Plus thinly veiled (or open) threats from all kinds of businesses, heads of foreign states, etc against a Brexit.
- rbg246 10y ago
  There has been no evidence of any secret donations but who knows there could have been but they probably didn't need the resources as much as the leave campaign so less likely. Giving advice as a foreign leader to other countries is what politicians do and besides it usually has the opposite intended effect which was why every European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during the campaign with a few minor slips from memory. Finally, the state was against brexit, that was their stated position they were never neutral except they promised to keep quiet during the official campaign as per normal election rules Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it regarding exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >which was why every European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during the campaign On the contrary. To the point that, if I was British, I would be gravely insulted, whether I was for brexit or bremain. >Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it regarding exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job. They oversold their version of the "facts". And the sky hasn't fall, and is not really likely to fall after the process is completed either. On the contrary, the Euro experiment hasn't been going that well, not just the monetary part, but even its more basic starting premise (as openly stated by the politicians that kickstarted the European union process in the 50s: to keep Germany from getting power over Europe again).
    - rbg246 10y ago
      Ai take your points both are arguable which I guess I'd the nature of politics. I think you take my second point as saying whether are right or wrong merely i was saying that it was fairly well indicated that the state apparatus' advice was stay in. And the effects? Well it was only ever going to be a couple point difference in GDP compounded over thirty years. Not the sky falling in. But that adds up to serious difference in gdp. The thing with these binary decisions is the road forks at that moment and we will never see where the other road goes. Although I am surprised with the resiliency of the economy this far, could it be that it takes time to move capital out without panic, I am not sure I'm not an expert. As is probably clear I would have preferred staying in, without going into details I think being together with Europe has a lot of benefits which counterweigh the negatives.
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      > And the sky hasn't fall, and is not really likely to fall after the process is completed either. Right, I'll be sure to tell that to my suppliers when they tell me my inputs are 20% more expensive than they were last year.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
smsm42 10y ago
How much Gate's or Soros' time costs in pounds? I bet this way you could also calculate it in thousands. Or explicit support of the very US President? How much is that in money? If you count it thst way yiy can easily get gigantic numbers.
- ascorbic 10y ago
  Doesn't matter. Expressing support doesn't count as payment in kind under UK election law. Just as well really, otherwise anyone who spoke in favour of a campaign would need to declare it.

coldtea 10y ago

Whereas Bremain supporters and politicians didn't get such covert donations? Not to mention that they had the full cooperation and support of the state, that was supposed to be neutral. Plus thinly veiled (or open) threats from all kinds of businesses, heads of foreign states, etc against a Brexit.

rbg246 10y ago
There has been no evidence of any secret donations but who knows there could have been but they probably didn't need the resources as much as the leave campaign so less likely. Giving advice as a foreign leader to other countries is what politicians do and besides it usually has the opposite intended effect which was why every European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during the campaign with a few minor slips from memory. Finally, the state was against brexit, that was their stated position they were never neutral except they promised to keep quiet during the official campaign as per normal election rules Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it regarding exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >which was why every European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during the campaign On the contrary. To the point that, if I was British, I would be gravely insulted, whether I was for brexit or bremain. >Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it regarding exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job. They oversold their version of the "facts". And the sky hasn't fall, and is not really likely to fall after the process is completed either. On the contrary, the Euro experiment hasn't been going that well, not just the monetary part, but even its more basic starting premise (as openly stated by the politicians that kickstarted the European union process in the 50s: to keep Germany from getting power over Europe again).
  - rbg246 10y ago
    Ai take your points both are arguable which I guess I'd the nature of politics. I think you take my second point as saying whether are right or wrong merely i was saying that it was fairly well indicated that the state apparatus' advice was stay in. And the effects? Well it was only ever going to be a couple point difference in GDP compounded over thirty years. Not the sky falling in. But that adds up to serious difference in gdp. The thing with these binary decisions is the road forks at that moment and we will never see where the other road goes. Although I am surprised with the resiliency of the economy this far, could it be that it takes time to move capital out without panic, I am not sure I'm not an expert. As is probably clear I would have preferred staying in, without going into details I think being together with Europe has a lot of benefits which counterweigh the negatives.
  - ascorbic 10y ago
    > And the sky hasn't fall, and is not really likely to fall after the process is completed either. Right, I'll be sure to tell that to my suppliers when they tell me my inputs are 20% more expensive than they were last year.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

smsm42 10y ago

How much Gate's or Soros' time costs in pounds? I bet this way you could also calculate it in thousands. Or explicit support of the very US President? How much is that in money? If you count it thst way yiy can easily get gigantic numbers.

ascorbic 10y ago
Doesn't matter. Expressing support doesn't count as payment in kind under UK election law. Just as well really, otherwise anyone who spoke in favour of a campaign would need to declare it.