Of course I do, but that’s nothing to do with my comment.
What I said was...
They’re similar to supporters of Trump, who insist the outcome of the recent US election should be ignored and the Republicans should remain in govt even though a majority voted for something else.
Let me put it this way. What is incorrect about saying ...
...hard remainers, who insist the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum should be ignored and the UK should remain a member even though a majority voted for something else.
What I am saying is there is a general disrespect of others and of democracy that is common among hard remainers and Trump supporters. It’s not a nice truth, I’m glad I’m not in either group.
There is nothing wrong with saying that. It doesn't matter if you call such people "hard remainers" or something else. The fact is that they exist and they are a significant political bloc - significant enough to jeopardise any anti-Conservative coalition in 2024, should rejoining the EU become a salient issue in the next election. If I were a Conservative Party strategist, I would be planning astroturf Rejoin campaigns right now. The vast majority of Remain voters I know moved on years ago, and see people still arguing the toss about the referendum result as "crackers". To be fair, they would say the same about my political obsessions.
Your mistake was comparing them to Trump supporters, which gave your opponents here opportunities to deflect from your main point by (rightly, in my view) pointing out some of the many differences. Sometimes less is more.
A couple of substantive points... Firstly, the idea that soft-Brexit was never on the table is contentious at best. A motion to support a customs union narrowly failed because Lib-Dem and Change UK MPs did not vote for it (the vast majority of Labour MPs did). It was an indicative vote but, in a volatile parliament, who knows where the momentum would have gone if that vote had succeeded.
Secondly, there is a confluence of political interest between the likes of Farage, Banks, Trump and Bannon (they're all fascists, basically), but the idea that there was a dark conspiracy to rig the EU referendum is essentially nonsense. There was some misuse of personal data by various parts of the Leave campaign, and the ICO duly issued fines. Other ICO prosecutions were successfully appealed (e.g. Darren Grimes' Be.Leave campaign). The single biggest fine issued by the ICO was £500K against Facebook but the vast majority of the personal data involved belonged (I think) to US voters. Anyway, here's the ICO's latest (final) statement:
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-wev...2_ico-o-ed-l-rtl-0181_to-julian-knight-mp.pdf
which refers to this earlier report:
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-wev...ics-in-political-campaigns-final-20181105.pdf
Note specifically the conclusion that Cambridge Analytica were
not involved in the EU referendum campaign.
Conclusion: some naughtinness, cynicism even but not a uniquely vast and sinister plot to undermine democracy. Use of social media to target voters does raise novel and concerning issues about democracy but those are best addressed separately, not being unique to the EU referendum. Maybe some hard Remainers could have a word with their old mate Nick Clegg, who is now paid a small fortune to shill for Facebook?