/ Russia Report Blocked by No.10

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
MonkeyPuzzle 04 Nov 2019
neilh 04 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Is this not normal procedure when electioneering has started?

Basically any govt goes into a holding situation until the next govt is elected. 

Report
Harry Jarvis 04 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Is this not normal procedure when electioneering has started?

> Basically any govt goes into a holding situation until the next govt is elected. 

Parliament is still sitting, and will be doing to for at least another week, if not longer. With-holding this report is preventing the House from holding the Government to account. This is, no doubt, what the Government intends. 

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 04 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

The govt has ten days to sign off for publication but they're lying and saying they need six weeks. You'd think it was in everyone's interests to know, before the imminent election, to know what level of electoral interference we have recently suffered. Unless...

Report
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

We’re on our way to full Trump, aren’t we? Has Johnson started tweeting yet?

jcm

Report
neilh 04 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Parliament has until tomorrow . It will have to wait along with numerous other reports which could be embarrassing.

Report
wercat 04 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

perhaps you think the ex aattorney general involved knows less about it than you?

Report
captain paranoia 04 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So much fuss about a purely advisory referendum...

...oh, wait...

Report
fred99 04 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Parliament has until tomorrow . It will have to wait along with numerous other reports which could be embarrassing.


Quite.

Most probably the Report states that Russia was heavily into aiding the Leave side.

Report
wercat 05 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

It is just what I'd expect from Boris and his gang

Report
krikoman 05 Nov 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Quite.

> Most probably the Report states that Russia was heavily into aiding the Leave side.


The point being,if it was published, we'd all know if they were involved or not, and what side they were influencing. Not publishing doesn't give us that opportunity.

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Does anyone seriously believe that publication wouldn't have been rushed through by now were the report to have found in the government's favour? Ergo...

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

The real issue is how quickly you act on the recommendations. 

It is fine publishing a report but then you have to follow it up. There is simply no time left to  debate it etc, bring in new laws and so on. 

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

So you think it's okay for Number 10 to suppress publication of a report which may show evidence of Russian interference in our democratic processes? Can I ask why you should support such a notion? 

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Well its obvious and well recognised, after all the report is going to say something which we know.

Its what you do with it that counts and I doubt the laws etc on the voting system etc can be changed in 6 weeks for a looming election.

So in reality its a waste of time publishing it.As apart from the outcry it does not help.

And it you know anyone in the Civil Service, the CS has in effect already gone on lockdown or purdue.Its feet up on your desks time.

Post edited at 10:44
Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Well its obvious and well recognised, after all the report is going to say something which we know.

How do you know that? 

> Its what you do with it that counts and I doubt the laws etc on the voting system etc can be changed in 6 weeks for a looming election.

Is anyone suggesting that is what is needed? How can you tell what recommendations, if any, might result from the publication of the report?

> So in reality its a waste of time publishing it.As apart from the outcry it does not help.

Whether it helps or not is impossible to say for as long as remains unpublished. Only when it is published could a determination be made as to its value. 

Report
fred99 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Does anyone seriously believe that publication wouldn't have been rushed through by now were the report to have found in the government's favour? Ergo...


Precisely. It's long been Putin's intention to destabilise NATO and the EU. He dealt with the first by setting his digital spooks to aid Trump, he dealt with the second by instructing them to aid Leave. The only question remains; Just how much knowledge did either of these groups have of their "assistance".

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

There will be a stack of govt reports that should be released ranging from the NHS, social funding etc etc.

All will now be held up on publishing.All potentially damaging or favourable to the govt or just the running of the country.

This is one of them. Happens every election on either side of the political debate.

Its neither right or wrong, but practise as govt and Parlaiment are in effect on hold whilst electioneering goes on.

Report
fred99 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> The real issue is how quickly you act on the recommendations. 

> It is fine publishing a report but then you have to follow it up. There is simply no time left to  debate it etc, bring in new laws and so on. 


There is no need to have enough time to follow it up before it is published, never been a problem before. The time scale is a lie, officials have confirmed this. Johnson is just covering up something - almost certainly something which would embarrass him and his election chances. Maybe it's the same as Trump's "arrangements" with the Russians ??

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> This is one of them. Happens every election on either side of the political debate.

Really? Every election there is a suppressed report regarding foreign interference in our democratic processes? I rather think not. The idea that this report be treated the same as other official materials withheld during the election period is risible nonsense.

> Its neither right or wrong, but practise as govt and Parlaiment are in effect on hold whilst electioneering goes on.

The report in question was cleared by the security services for publication, Number 10 received the report on October 17, and the protocols require that the PM give reasons for withholding publication within 10 days of receipt. This has not been done, and so the PM is clearly in breach of his duties, quite likely for party political reasons. 

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

You seem to be (wilfully?) ignoring the fact that this particular report is no ordinary report. It has potential to undermine the existence of genuine democratic support for the single overriding policy upon which the forthcoming election will be fought.

Many people's continued justification for supporting, or even accepting, Brexit is that it's the "will-o-the-people". Surely if this report casts serious doubt on the validity of this people's will, the electorate should have a right to know about it before choosing a government intent on its implementation regardless of cost or damage?

Report
kevin stephens 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Neil, it's not about embarrassing the Government.  It's about undermining the whole democratic basis of the current election!

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Kevin , there have been embarrassing reports withheld in previous elections on things like the NHS.I have no doubt that BJ is withholding the report deliberately.

Its not as though nothing has changed on this subject since the last election. Witness Facebook taking down the taxpayers first post this morning due to rules on politcial funding being made clear.

And where does it actually lead us. Those remainers who fervently believe the vote was rigged will cry out. Those leavers who deny that intereference influenced their votes will ignore it.

The report should be published when action can be taken on it so the democratic rules can be fixed, otherwise it is a waste of time.

Post edited at 12:18
Report
Stuart (aka brt) 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> The report should be published when action can be taken on it so the democratic rules can be fixed, otherwise it is a waste of time.

Or maybe the report should be published so that those engaging in a legitimate democratic process e.g. a general election (that is about far, far more than just which colour party is in power), can vote knowing that the rules aren't being gamed or fixed. Because a rigged election would be far worse than a waste of time.

Post edited at 13:04
Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> The report should be published when action can be taken on it so the democratic rules can be fixed, otherwise it is a waste of time.

But action CAN be taken on it. By the electorate!

Report
JLS 05 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

There's no way Russia is involved in spreading propaganda with bots to unduly influence UK politics.
syntacs error %^$%&%*.gov.ru/bot s %^$%&%*
syntacs error %^$%&%*.gov.ru/bot s %^$%&%*
syntacs error %^$%&%*.gov.ru/bot s %^$%&%*
syntacs error %^$%&%*.gov.ru/bot s %^$%&%*
syntacs error %^$%&%*.gov.ru/bot s %^$%&%*

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

It is hardly a new issue this after the last farce with Cambridge Analytical ( which suggests that the issue is more influential when it is home grown than say with Russia).

Personnally I  am more bothered by Chinese influence which given the HK issue and economic influence is far more of a concern.

One report is not going to make the issue go away, it will be an ongoing battlle for years and years.You only have to listen to GCHQ talk about it and what they are doing to understand this.

I have started my own mini campaign on FB with commenting on friends who repost obvious political tweets asking if its true/troll/who is it funded by.

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> It is hardly a new issue this after the last farce with Cambridge Analytical ( which suggests that the issue is more influential when it is home grown than say with Russia).

> Personnally I  am more bothered by Chinese influence which given the HK issue and economic influence is far more of a concern.

It's good to know that you can speak for the whole electorate. They're the ones who may well have been unfairly influenced in 2016. They're the ones who should have access to as much relevant information as possible now in 2019, so they can make up their own minds without Johnson, you or anyone else helping to keep important information secret until after the election.

Report
krikoman 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Does anyone seriously believe that publication wouldn't have been rushed through by now were the report to have found in the government's favour? Ergo...


That wasn't the point I was trying to make, but you're probably right.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

We will be faced with the same issues on outside interference with the next election and the one after that and to infinity.I can almost bet you that there will be a different new form of interference this time round.

And each time it will be a battle to get it back under control. 

It now goes with the territory of an election. 

Report
Sir Chasm 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

It's good that you know all this without seeing the report. But even though you think it would be a waste of time to publish it some of us might like to see it for ourselves. 

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

I honestly cannot understand how you can be so blasé about an issue this immediate, relevant and of long term consequence. Words fail me.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well if you have only twigged that this is an ongoing issue, then words also fail me.

Try reading up on intereference in the 80's, 70's and so on.

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> We will be faced with the same issues on outside interference with the next election and the one after that and to infinity.I can almost bet you that there will be a different new form of interference this time round.

> And each time it will be a battle to get it back under control. 

> It now goes with the territory of an election. 

You're saying there are and always will be difficulties around the area of outside influence in elections. Fair enough.

You're also saying there's little value in worrying about it or trying to inform the electorate as best as possible for them to make up their own minds. Couldn't be more wrong.

Report
Sir Chasm 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Well if you have only twigged that this is an ongoing issue, then words also fail me.

> Try reading up on intereference in the 80's, 70's and so on.

Could you link a couple of reports of foreign interference in UK elections, just so we're all looking at the same thing?

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> It's good that you know all this without seeing the report. But even though you think it would be a waste of time to publish it some of us might like to see it for ourselves. 

I do hope you're not suggesting that there are some parts of the electorate who might want to know about foreign efforts to undermine our democratic processes. The electorate will take what they're given and be grateful for it!

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Try reading up on intereference in the 80's, 70's and so on.

It's unlikely that there was similar widespread interference in elections in the 70s and 80s, for fairly obvious reasons. When was Facebook launched? 

Report
Sir Chasm 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Nothing to see here, move along.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Read Ben Mcintyres book on the M16 spy Oleg Gordievsky which gives you a good overview of KGB's operations.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

You do know that life existed before Facebook?

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

As a 72 year old, yes, I'm aware of that. Age also allows a little perspective, and it seems to me that our democratic processes are under threat in ways that they have never been in the past 50 years. There is little to suggest that Gordievsky meddled in elections in the ways that internet players are able to game the systems as they do now. 

Report
Sir Chasm 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Especially as he was working for us.

Report
The New NickB 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Gordievsky is a famously unreliable witness, so you might have to support your claim a little stronger than that. Also, “go read a book” isn’t really entering in to the spirit of the debate.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Well its a pretty detailed book with references.

He probably is now considered unreliable because his stuff is out of date and not current.

There does seem a strikingly head in the sand approach to recognising that Russian attempted or actual interference in elections or our political system is nothing new. I am amazed.

You do know that until about 15 years we had considerable expertise in analysing and studying what Russia was upto ( some outpost of the Foreigh office with Russian anlaysts and speakers)and then for the reason we now longer considered them a threat we closed it all down . Pity really. Could have been useful now.

This all seems to miss the point I am making.Interefence is not new, its ongoing. Holding back on one report is not a whitewash, it will still be there and there will be more of this and new techniques will be in place.

Next thing JC elected- with the help of Russian influence!You read it here.

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> There does seem a strikingly head in the sand approach to recognising that Russian attempted or actual interference in elections or our political system is nothing new. I am amazed.

And yet you're happy that a report detailing just that is being suppressed. It's quite hard to keep up with your lines of argument sometimes. The fact that it may have been going on for years does not legitimise current efforts to withhold such information from the electorate. 

Report
Sir Chasm 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

So you don't think the report should be published because it would be a waste of time, because nothing could be done about it before an election (apart from informing people, obvs). And as the Russians have always meddled in our elections (citation needed) it doesn't matter anyway. But if ig doesn't matter anyway there wouldn't seem to be any bar to publishing the report. 

I think I've got that straight.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Read my posts. I said earlier it should be published when it can be discussed and actioned. Parliament can do sweet FA about it now before the election. It cannot introduce new laws.

Report
The New NickB 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Gordievski is considered unreliable, because he has a provable history of making things up and contradicting himself.

Report
Harry Jarvis 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Read my posts. I said earlier it should be published when it can be discussed and actioned. Parliament can do sweet FA about it now before the election. It cannot introduce new laws.

Is Parliament the only environment in which such reports can be discussed? Is it not allowed for the general public to be informed of potential foreign interference? Might the upcoming election debates not be an illuminating venue for discussions of such issues? 

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

More pertinently, why are you being an apologist for those who would seek to influence the outcome of the election by the deliberate withholding from the public of potentially key information?

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

What’s the net result.

remainers will complain bitterly. Leavers will ignore it .

it is flogging a dead horse which has moved on. Fight the next battle, not the old one .

Dominic Grieve is yesterday’s man, unfortunately. 

Post edited at 18:19
Report
L Philb1950 05 Nov 2019
In reply to fred99:

You hope? And it,s not a report solely about the referendum, it,s all potential Russian involvement in UK affairs. Murder on the streets, all elections etc. It might show that bots have been supporting and influencing on behalf of J.C. as a useful idiot.

Report
The New NickB 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> What’s the net result.

> remainers will complain bitterly. Leavers will ignore it .

> it is flogging a dead horse which has moved on. Fight the next battle, not the old one .

Are you suggesting that nobody who voted for Brexit cares about Russian interference? Sad state of affairs if that is true, I strongly suspect it isn’t the case.

More to the point. It is important for democracy and how we engage with democracy in the future.

Report
neilh 05 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Do you really think it’s going to help the remain argument now and in this election?

Even JC is keeping quiet on it. Liberals are not screaming over it. 

They have got the message. Yesterday’s news. 

Tackle it afterwards 

Report
The New NickB 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Its about the foundations of democracy, it’s far more important that party politics, leave or remain. 

Report
john arran 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

I must say I'm gobsmacked at how readily someone as intelligent as you is willing to dismiss something so potentially massive as this, apparently simply because it helps your 'side' to win. And yes, I am aware that you have many times in the past claimed to be a Remainer but your stated opinions have rarely if ever supported that claim.

If the electorate having knowledge of wrongdoing is not useful right before being able to act on that knowledge at the ballot box, what exactly is the point of ever telling them? Is the electorate henceforth to be seen as an inconvenient impediment to achieving your side's goals?

Report
John Stainforth 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Well I'm a liberal, and I am screaming, and screaming all the louder after each one of your responses.

Report
HansStuttgart 05 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Its about the foundations of democracy, it’s far more important that party politics, leave or remain. 

If you worry about that, better first do something about the two party system and Dacre/Murdoch/etc. 

Report
kevin stephens 05 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Do you really think it’s going to help the remain argument now and in this election?

> Even JC is keeping quiet on it. Liberals are not screaming over it. 

I’m loathe to quote the Daily Express but 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1200321/brexit-news-camilla-tominey-russian-report-ed-davey-liberal-democrats/amp

Report
The New NickB 05 Nov 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> If you worry about that, better first do something about the two party system and Dacre/Murdoch/etc. 

I'm not sure we actually have a two Party system, certainly the polls don't suggest that at the moment, however I have long advocated for a more proportional system. As for Dacre, Murdoch, etc. Happy to expose their meddling as well.

Report
HansStuttgart 06 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I'm not sure we actually have a two Party system, certainly the polls don't suggest that at the moment, however I have long advocated for a more proportional system. As for Dacre, Murdoch, etc. Happy to expose their meddling as well.

There are of course constituencies that are better described by a one-party system! 

But is there also one where 3 or 4 parties have a reasonable chance of getting representation in the HoC?

Report
Doug 06 Nov 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

My  constituency when I was still able to vote in UK elections (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) was often described as a 4 way marginal back in the 90s & in recent elections has been Labour, then LibDem & is now SNP (with the Tories 2nd in 2017). But I think that's fairly exceptional.

Report
wercat 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

I knew about the dangers of cigarette smoking far before anything was "actioned" (1960s), because information was disseminated so we could take personal action

given the self perpetuating disinformation that is possible via social media (Lie Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Rumour) like this  about the Lib Dems https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-50160148

I'd suggest we really need this stuff seeing the light of day before we vote.

that story definitely lased

Post edited at 08:58
Report
HansStuttgart 06 Nov 2019
In reply to Doug:

thanks!

Report
captain paranoia 06 Nov 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> and Dacre/Murdoch/etc

The partisan popular press certainly have had a huge impact on British politics in general, and Brexit in particular.

Report
wercat 06 Nov 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

It struck me last night.  How many UKC posters/politicians intersect two groups

i) mocking conspiracy theory believers (implicitly admitting people have been influenced by things they have heard)

and

ii) alleging that people were not influenced by any of the Brexit deceits during the 2016 campaign? 

That would be having and eating several cakes.

Would be an interesting thing to know.

Post edited at 12:58
Report
DR 06 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Read my posts. I said earlier it should be published when it can be discussed and actioned. Parliament can do sweet FA about it now before the election. It cannot introduce new laws.


You seem to have massively missed the point in all your posts to defend the indefensible. It has been discussed and actioned by the relevant cross-party Select Committee. They commissioned the report something like 18 months ago and when the report came back, had six weeks to review it and (although I'm not sure on this point) and amend it before publication. It was then sent to No. 10 and the Prime Minister has 10 days to review and publish. If he/ she decides not to publish it has to be on the grounds of public security. These time frames are set out in select committee protocols.

In this case the report was sent to No. 10 more than 10 days ago and Boris has just sat on it without giving any reason. Dominic Grieve raised it as an issue as far as I am aware, not because the 10 day deadline was looming, but because that deadline had long gone and with parliament about to be dissolved, there would be no avenue open for it to be published until after the election.

Your comments about DG being yesterday's man nail your colours firmly to the mast. You would rather support the actions of a liar and obfuscator as PM than due parliamentary process. I'm pleased for you.

Davie

Report
Tringa 06 Nov 2019
In reply to DR:

This definitely should be published now.

If publishing it did nothing more than making people think a little bit more critically about what they see/read on social media then it would be more than worth doing.

Dave

Report
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received cash from 9 Russian donors named in a suppressed intelligence report:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-report-naming-tory-donors-linked-to-kremlin-2019-11

Oh dear...

Report
neilh 09:25 Mon
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

It is old news. Frankly I suspect any intelligence report is going to go after large sections of the political establishment who have been hopelessly naive about cash and Russians. Some of us will recall Alex Salmond being a presenter on  Russia Today for example.

But the political climate on this has changed post Skripal. Abromovich has effectively been turfed out of the UK.( now in Israel).You may recall about a year or so ago his rights to have a UK visa were held back and under review.The law has been tightened considerably on the issue of " unexplained wealth".

The Uk's dalliance with wealthy Russians is over, not before time.

Next it will be the Chinese.Witness their move on British Steel ( or should I say Chinese Steel now), which will play out with enhanced political influence.

The world moves on.

Report
john arran 09:41 Mon
In reply to neilh:

In other words: Move along. Nothing to see here. Continue voting as before.

You seem to be missing out the single pertinent point of the whole story, which is that we have no real idea whether it's old news or something much more damaging, precisely because Johnson has actively impeded its publication. If it really amounted to nothing more than old news, why would he risk a political shitstorm by refusing to release it, if it's not that the political shitstorm would be worse if he did?

Report
Harry Jarvis 11:06 Mon
In reply to neilh:

> The Uk's dalliance with wealthy Russians is over, not before time.

How do you know? 

Report
wercat 11:23 Mon
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

it's all fine.  we must just go on and vote, and leave the EU knowing that that was always going to be a win for Putin's strategies, because there was a vote, however flawed, badly executed and skewed, and however evenly divided it showed those who bothered to vote (as opposed to the full electorate).  Will of the Volk and all that.

They'll just tough it out and we will have to suck up the vomit of people who have taken back control of society winning the election.

MEANWHILE we see the results of what has been done - my son in in his second year of A levels in a school that has been so degraded by budget cuts that they send out a begging letter for donations, had only One Physics teacher in the school, One chemistry teacher, and currently NONE of either type as both are off sick.  Unbelievable for A level and GCSE students in exam years.

What hope for his cohort does Boris' party give with what they have done?  The school was chosen by us because it was good a few years back and had an excellent local reputation.

We need to put a bazooka up the arse of the Self Servative Liars and consign them to history

Come on some tory poster and Leave supporter and tell me how Fuxit will fix this?

I'm minded to send the email the school sent to the Lib Dems as I think it needs to be known what these barstewards have achieved

apologies for my anger

Post edited at 11:29
Report
neilh 16:43 Mon
In reply to john arran:

Those who voted leave will 100% refuse to acknowledge that they were influenced by Russia.Try speaking to them.It is an utter waste of time and  breath.It is not going to change the result.

Better to tackle the issue through GCHQ ( who are now on board with this issue) and things like " unexplained wealth " rules" which are now in place. The goalposts have already moved... on all sides.

Report
john arran 19:34 Mon
In reply to neilh:

> Those who voted leave will 100% refuse to acknowledge that they were influenced by Russia.Try speaking to them.It is an utter waste of time and  breath.It is not going to change the result.

You seem to be forgetting that there is an election about to happen that could change the course of the UK's standing in the world for decades if not forever. And it's a very long way from being anything like a foregone conclusion.

The kind of resigned inevitability you appear to be trying to promote is not only unhelpful to the cause you so often have claimed (unconvincingly) to espouse, it is actively promoting the continuance of the lie which is that there ever was, and still is, an authentic majority for a hugely damaging Leave outcome. The polls and common sense both indicate that there isn't.

If I didn't know better I would be thinking you were actually trying to encourage such a result. But since you've repeatedly reassured me otherwise, surely I'd be foolish to continue in such a misapprehension.

Report
kevin stephens 20:09 Mon
In reply to neilh:

> Those who voted leave will 100% refuse to acknowledge that they were influenced by Russia.Try speaking to them.It is an utter waste of time and  breath.It is not going to change the result.

It's not about how people voted previously in the referendum.  It's about people deciding how they wil vote in the current electction

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.