Point is, citing the overspending by Leave as some massive deal looks a bit rich when virtually the entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain.
Always amuses me to see "the Establishment" cited as firmly in the Remain box. Who is Dulwich educated, commodities trader and decades-long politician Nigel Farage if he's not a part of the establishment? Or Jacob Rees bloody Mogg and Boris Johnson! Quite the anti-establishment rebels they are, eh? As for the media, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Express all pushed Leave viewpoints. Leave was always strongly supported by the establishment because they're going to make out like thieves once it happens, it was just sold as "the people's revolt" to a willing audience.
Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.
You honestly think the Leave side was equivalently establishment backed as Remain? Leave had the BBC, PM, EU, banks, even the most powerful man in the world all lined up on its side.
I think the Leave side was considerably more backed than the conventional narrative portrays. And received additional illegal, undisclosed funding, hence the reason for this post in the first place.
And I still don't understand what you think should have happened. People across the world should have conferred to make sure that representation for both sides was exactly 50/50?
The United States had the view that the UK staying in the EU was in their favour, so their President expressed that view. What's actually wrong with that? Surely it's up to voters to decide whether they think America's opinion is important or not when deciding how they should vote? Business leaders were in favour of Remain because they knew that leaving the EU would be financially perilous. How is that not relevant information for voters?
Should or should not is something you've introduced yourself. I was saying it was never a fair fight to start with and given this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite has an air of pathos about it.
What is a fair fight in this context? If there was a referendum to decide whether the country believes in evolution would you make sure the balance of scientists vs cranks in the public sphere was exactly 50:50? The vast majority of people with knowledge in the area knew that Brexit was a terrible idea, so they said so. And reality has proven them right. Or is this a prelude to complaining that the EU isn't being "fair" because it won't give the UK what it wants?
> this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite
Remain was obviously not the favourite because it lost. That the winning side continues to paint itself as a victimised minority speaks volumes.
It's kind of like Goliath saying to David 'why couldn't we have a fair fight!', conveniently ignoring his massive advantage.
You've lost me entirely with your last comments. Opinion polls showed a narrow Remain victory - that's a matter of fact - and that's the very definition of favourite. To say the result changes the favourite after the fact is frankly bonkers.
And portraying themselves as a victimized minority? I think you got that from the Guardian the other day didn't you? Anyway given that the powers that be keep trying their hardest to subvert the democratic will of the people, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.