No they don't. Copyright is simply private property rights for creative works, and private property rights are the foundation of capitalism.

Which British political parties are talking about kicking out Italians who have been here a decade? Because I'm pretty sure there are none: they've all said anyone already here can stay indefinitely. Your "fear" isn't justified by anything real, which rather proves Cederic's point.

As for the extremist overlords, you realise it's the EU itself that insists on a two year exit period during which partial de-integration is completely disallowed? And that it's the EU that has been responsible for the total lack of progress so far? If you're so scared of de-integration why not go protest in Brussels and get them to be allow a staged process? Maybe you suspect they won't care about what you think.

Why should they take any responsibility for a mess? They didn't cause these problems.

Indeed, the idea that the EU is so unreasonable and hard to deal with that we must leave is exactly what Brexiteers have been arguing for years, and they were repeatedly ignored. Instead ever more power was given to Brussels by pro-EU politicians, powers the EU now isn't hesitating to use to create as many problems as possible for the UK.

As far as I can tell, if the Brexiteers had been more influential, if they had been able to throw the brakes on EU integration or partially reverse it without the EU forcing a full exit as a consequence, things would be a lot more peaceful and a lot more reasonable. They had the option when Cameron tried to renegotiate. However, the EU only recognises one option as being legitimate - total and complete submission ("integration") to the will of Brussels. Any attempt to negotiate a partial integration or partial collaboration simply makes them start shitting about cherries.

I'm talking about the Treasury models that predicted a recession that would destroy 500,000 jobs in the best case and 800,000 in the worst case. Those models have never been released.

The Remain campaigners lied repeatedly, aggressively and in a coordinated way, far more so than the Leave campaign did. It was partly the sight of the relentless lying that caused me to study the arguments for Leave more closely and eventually conclude Leave was right. They are still right.

Here are a few lies told by the government alone in the course of the Remain campaign, let alone other campaigners:

If you vote Leave we (Osbourne and Cameron) will punish you by passing a massive 'emergency tax'. Literally, vote wrong and we'll take all your money. A big deal for pensioners and poorer people who were more inclined to vote out. But no emergency tax happened.

This lie wouldn't have been credible without another lie - that Cameron would stay on if he lost the vote. Cameron insisted he wouldn't resign and therefore that Osbourne and his emergency tax were guaranteed. He was lying the whole time - he resigned hours after losing.

The tax lie was itself justified by another lie - the supposedly guaranteed recession that voting leave would trigger, due to the "uncertainty" created by the two year negotiation period. The Treasury knew they were lying, that's why they refused to show its models or how it measured "uncertainty". We know this was a lie because two years after the vote the economy is booming. There was no "uncertainty hit" at all.

The recession lie was supported by yet another lie - the supposed cast iron consensus amongst economists that Brexit = Insta-Recession. No such consensus existed: before the vote economists like Patrick Minford were highlighting how absurd the claims where and immediately after the vote, the Bank of England's chief economist stated that the reputation of economics was in tatters. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman stated the idea of an uncertainty triggered employment bloodbath was "motivated reasoning" and Mervyn King (former head of the BoE) said the government had been talking nonsense.

Notice a pattern here - the Remain campaign built a tower of lies that all supported each other and which have all been disproven in the years since. I'm not even getting into all the other stupid claims they made and are still making today. Just the basics were enough to seriously tilt things in their favour.

Finally, your own post is itself a lie. The Leave campaigners haven't "admitted they'd been lying all along".

We should distrust it completely, as the paper gives no examples of any of the tweets or accounts they classified as being "bots". None whatsoever. Lots and lots of stats about their model and many implausible claims of it being perfect, but nothing that could be used to actually verify their claims.

Indeed their claims are completely implausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and they provide none.

Look at Churchill's speeches or FDR's fireside chats. Now look at Donald Trump's twitter stream

Please. Any historian will tell you that Churchill and Trump had quite some things in common. Your perception is merely coloured by the emphasis of historical retellings, which focus you on very specific parts of Churchill's life and views and ignore all the rest. Trump is in the here and now so you see it all.

Churchill was an incorrigible racist who lost the very first election after the Allied victory, largely because he was seen as an incapable peacetime leader who was obsessed by Empire. He wasn't a popular pick even when he became Prime Minister, due to the perception of incompetence.

If Churchill had a Twitter stream today it'd whip up the mob of the always-offended far faster than anything Trump has done. Here are some Churchill quotes. Imagine them in the Twitter stream of a 21st century politician using contemporary English, who never won a war, and see if it changes anything:

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population"

"A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." (sounds a lot like "WINNING" doesn't it)

"In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."

"It may be said, therefore, that the military opinion of the world is opposed to those people who cry 'Democratize the army!' and it must be remembered that an army is not a field upon which persons with Utopian ideas may exercise their political theories, but a weapon for the defence of the State." (don't think he'd like women in the army)

"I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum."

Churchill is rightly remembered as a great man - in war, you need someone who enjoys war and is good at it to defend a nation and only a great man could have beaten Hitler. But let's not pretend he was some sort of ultra-intellectual anti Trump. Put Churchill quotes on Twitter under a pseudonym and he'd be banned within hours.

No, News Corp has been doing this for years. The reason is Murdoch thinks Google and Google News specifically is killing the news industry, and that the iPad will save it (or at least he thought that a few years ago). It's pure inter-corporate warfare being played out through manipulation of public opinion. The WSJ in particular are experts at it.

No. Concluding on the basis of experience is just one counterexample.

CC.

Software development can be a high skilled job but entry level skills can be obtained in months, which is not coincidentally, how much training time seems to be involved with learning to be a long haul truck driver in the USA (I see quotes of about two months of full time study for the formal exam around the internet so maybe call that three months when employer training time is included). Three months of full time study isn't going to make you a well paid programmer but that's plenty of time to learn basic web development skills, and another two or three after that with a good course will get someone writing basic CRUD business web apps if they want to. Of course, it's the start of the journey, but now think how many clueless developers you've encountered who are earning good money.

Can the software development world absorb millions of new developers? Sure, it has done in the past, think dotcom boom. Trucking won't disappear over night, nor will taxi drivers, if only because of limited capacity to upgrade vehicle fleets even assuming the technology becomes perfect (which it isn't), and not all drivers will become software developers.

Can you give some specific examples?

Well, Ataturk tried to forcibly reform Turkey into a western style country through a dictatorship. He was always in favour of democracy ... in the future, knowing full well that he hadn't built any real support amongst the people for his plan but betting that over time the culture would change. Seems like he lost that bet.

EU law was written by the EU. Article 50 is a mess, there was an interview with the guy who wrote it where he said he didn't bother doing it properly because he thought it'd never be used.

In other news, Google has decided to display hardcore pornography on its homepage when users modify their hosts file and point google.com to pornhub's IP addresses.

Unbelievable.