The investigation is not going to show it affected the results of the General Election, as that is not what the investigation is for.
Why do you think the only people that actually care about this are Channel 4, who discovered it, and the Guardian, who hate the Tories? Labour do not particularly care, which they would if it meant the election result gets overturned.
Miliband did not declare his Moses Tablets, nobody cared other than to use it to laugh at him some more.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
The first video:
Clip 1 shows a woman correcting her mistake, there is nothing in that to show she placed Yes votes in the No pile.
Clip 2 is from Sky and is supposed to be the clincher but it is not post-count votes on that table, they are pre-count, i.e. the votes are piled up on a table in bundles and then sorted out into Yes and No piles afterwards. That particular shot was taken at half-past-midnight, the count in that region did not come in until three-and-a-half hours later.
Clip 3 has no context. How can you tell what he is filling in, let alone that he is ticking the No box?
The second video:
What is it even supposed to show?
The votes were counted more than once, by different people, under the close scrutiny of independent observers as well as representatives from the Yes & No camps. Nobody in the Yes camps noticed any vote rigging, nor did the independent observers, nobody noticed apart from people using a few fuzzy video clips that show no context and a clip from Sky taken completely out of context.
And here is the kicker...who is supposed to have fixed the votes? The SNP are the only viable candidate to have done so, as Holyrood organised it and not Westminster, yet the SNP were the ones pushing for independence, so you are suggesting they fixed the ballot in order to lose it.
If you want to show vote rigging in the UK, then you do not use examples of other nations that have different systems, because that is stupid.If it happens in America it doesn't mean it can't happen elsewhere.
There are unlikely to be any serious outcomes for the Tories as a party:
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-gree...e-allegations/
Non.
de Gaulle's primary motivation was propping up France's economic interests, primarily agriculture. He dressed it up as concerns over foreign policy. Actually, it was just bullshit. His real motivation was protectionism. 50+ years on - what's changed? Fuck all. LOL @ France and their blessed CAP: inefficient, wasteful and unfair.
And the irony is that if ever there was a nationalist, de Gaulle is the epitome of it. "Vive le Canada français!" If he were alive he'd be a most vociferous anti-EU spokesman, as much so as Le Pen.
"He famously remarked that treaties, alliances, and international organizations are like “ Young Girls and Roses. They last while they last but the nation-state endures”.
Shows where his interests lay.
Last edited by Nigel Tufnel; 2016-06-20 at 10:36 PM.
You can't really dust for vomit.
No, France concerns were that you were going to be the puppet of the US, something only partially true.
Their other concerns were that you were only interested in trade, and where completely uninterested, even opposed to, the grander plan with the EU.
and here they were completely correct, the UK have done nothing but be obstructionists the last 40 years.
No - it's the exact opposite. de Gaulle himself was not an advocate of supranationalism. He was solely concerned with the importance of trade and its function in ensuring that France and Germany never went to war again. He would not have been a supporter of a federal Europe.
You can't really dust for vomit.
Well looks like the polls are still basically neck and neck (slight lead for Brexit)...
http://order-order.com/2016/06/20/le...s-ahead-yougov
http://order-order.com/section/euro-guido
I think we Brexiteers are going to win, but it'll be close all the same.
= + =
One other thing I will say about this... I think that if Remain wins, it will only prolong things: give it a few years, and assuming the EU doesn't collapse anyway, there'll be another referendum to get the UK out. I won't comment on whether this is a good or bad thing, or fair or unfair, only that I think it likely given the level of opposition to the EU in the UK.
However, if Leave wins, then that will be it. I can't see the UK ever re-joining the EU after it leaves (heck, I can easily see some in the EU vetoing it :P ), and I expect that the post-EU situation will become the norm.
Leave won't win, at least not based on current results.
Surveys can never take into account Undecideds + voter turnout (both of which are huge). Since this always favor the status quo in any referendum, it means Leave need to be consistently winning AND by a large margin, at least 5-6 points to even equalize based on just half of the Undecideds alone.