[untog]

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?

[growlist]

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.

[untog]

>it was never a fair fight to start with

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.

[growlist]

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.

[untog]

Wait, two posts ago you were the one complaining about the lack of fair fight, and now you're using it in an analogy where the losing side is complaining about it despite their advantage. It's no wonder I don't know what you're talking about, you very clearly don't either.

I have no idea what Guardian piece you're referring to. I'd certainly never claim to be the only person capable of formulating such an obvious conclusion from the evidence in front of me. Won the referendum, have no idea how to actually follow through on the promise, so blame anyone but themselves. That's where Leave is today.

And please, save the "democratic will of the people" guff. A 52/48 vote when people didn't even know what they were voting for. For example, Leave campaigners said we'd stay in the single market, and get £350m for the NHS, yet here we are on the precipice of leaving the single market and NHS budget freefall. You can try to deflect the blame for that all you want, but the reality is that the Leave side didn't think they'd win, made a pile of fanciful promises anyone with their head screwed on knew would never come to fruition, and then sat there and shat themselves for months on end while they were supposed to be negotiating an exit. No one voted for this.

55% of people would prefer to remain in the EU than crash out with a no deal Brexit, so presumably you'd be fine with that "will of the people" too. Or are opinion polls bad when they don't say what you want?

[growlist]

Please could you try to be more civil? I haven't attacked you personally. I note you are also switching around whereas I am staying on topic i.e. my original post.

Here's what I said originally:

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.

So Remain are Goliath, complaining that David used a catapult (overspend) when David should have just taken his punishment from Goliath's big clunking fists (coordinated conspiracy from powers that be to scare the public into voting Remain). All clear now? It's Remain that are playing the victim which as I said, given Remain's overwhelming advantages in the campaign and apparent incompetence in convincing the public despite that advantage, attracts ridicule. This is all I said. I'm not sure how I can be any plainer.