Iestyn ap Robert

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@FraserNelson Hmm, "investigate" is doing some very heavy lifting.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@floboflo Jail journalists for committing crimes. I'd vote for that.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@TenembaumMookie Esto demuestra que «Malvinas argentinas» es una religión, una ideología, posiblemente incluso una enfermedad mental nacional, completamente desconectada de la realidad.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@PhilibertLeslie The point is, if they are relatively higher in the EU than the UK, then how can that be a downside to Brexit. I would have thought that was obvious?

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@LizWebsterSBF Are they higher or lower than 5 years ago in the EU?

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@andrewhesselden You must be of independent means, and in some kind of bubble, if you think the average Brit has 90 days spare to spend swanning about the EU.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@damekatydenise_ That's the least of her problems. There will be no chairs.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@BH1918AR @Tedii69 Yeah, right. Only the soldiers are smiling. Sinister...

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@51TJK Where does the 6% come from? Can you evidence that?

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@andrewhesselden Your second point has been answered by the EU already. Surely you should be selling the Euro, not defending it? You lot didn't do a very good job of selling Remain, and when backed into a corner with facts chose Project Fear, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@AndNum26 That's nonsense. The first UK settlement there was before Spain. Argentina did not succeed to any Spanish rights. Spain did not even recognise Argentina for nearly half a century.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@Seba_IndArg @EFritjofsson The UK aoccupied the Falklands before Spain, and perfected title. The treaty refers to adjacent islands, and it is between Spain and the UK. Argentina was not party to the agreement so cannot benefit from it.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@BlokeOnWheels Can the EU Parliament initiate legislation?

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@Suewilson91 You have to have a job or find one within 3 months under FoM rules. If you don't, you must return to your member state. You seem to think we were allowed to swan about wherever we wanted to in the EU before Brexit.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@andrewhesselden It would be more visible if there was much genuine support.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@Spokeman_Waku @Seba_IndArg @EFritjofsson The signed document does not cover the Falklands, as they are not adjacent to the South American coast, and Argentina was not a party to the agreement. Those of the facts. You can deny the facts all you want, but it won't change them. The Falklands have never been Argentine.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@Spokeman_Waku @Seba_IndArg @EFritjofsson The UK did no such thing, the Falklands are not adjacent and the UK never repudiated it's title over the Falklands. Argentina did not succeed to any Spanish rights. Spain did not even recognise Argentina for nearly half a century. You are making shit up.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@BladeoftheS Proof that there is no need to be an EU member state to trade with EU companies and get the best value for British taxpayers. Given your content I doubt you'rve had to bother yourself with PAYE or an SA tax return, and no doubt know the benefits system inside out.

[Iestyn ap Robert @Iestynaprobert]

@Spokeman_Waku @Seba_IndArg @EFritjofsson Your opinion does notatch the facts. Nootka did not extinguish British title in the Falklands, as Nootka was not relevant to the Falklands. It was a treaty with Spain, anyway, so Argentina cannot bemefit. The UK never repudiated it's title. Argentina never perfected title. Simple

[ƈǟȶօ ʍɨռɨʍʊֆ @greenflowaccess]

You havn't seen angry yet. Trust me.

This is pure, unadulterated elitist contempt dressed up as concern. Typical of the lanyard class, you treat a substantial minority of your own constituents (Ealing Southall was roughly 39% Leave) as gullible children who were “bombarded by lies” rather than adults exercising democratic agency. It is classic Remain-era gaslighting: the referendum result was illegitimate because the wrong people were allowed to hear the wrong arguments.

All your specific claims collapse under scrutiny.

You cite the “mythical £350 million a week for the NHS” and the “lie that immigration will come down when it actually trebled.” The £350m figure was the gross UK contribution, not net, and it was campaign rhetoric highlighting the scale of the transfer, not a binding pledge of exact weekly NHS cheques. NHS funding rose in cash terms afterwards; the claim’s real force was about opportunity cost and accountability, not literal arithmetic.

On immigration, the Leave campaign’s core promise was control; ending free movement so the UK could set its own numbers and priorities. Free movement did end. EU net migration later turned negative. The post-Brexit surge that roughly tripled net migration from pre-referendum averages of ~200–300k to peaks near 900k was driven by deliberate policy choices under subsequent Conservative governments (AKA the Boris Wave): expanded care worker visas, post-study work routes, student dependents and humanitarian schemes. That was not a Leave campaign “lie” that somehow brainwashed voters; it was Westminster choosing high non-EU inflows after taking back control. Your framing contemptuously erases voter intent and successive governments’ failures.

People voted Leave for sovereignty, democratic accountability, trade policy, and immigration control after years of high net migration under free movement. Pretending they were merely duped by a slogan on the side of a bus is patronising rubbish that has been endlessly recycled since 2016.

The National Centre for Information Defence is the predictable next step. Of course it is.

You explicitly link the “lies” narrative to Andy Burnham’s National Centre for Information Defence, framed as protecting democracy from “foreign state influence” as the UK considers its EU relationship again. This is the standard move: redefine a democratic outcome as the product of foreign or domestic “disinformation,” then create a state body to detect, attribute, and disrupt the "wrong" narratives.

Previous counter-disinformation units (including during COVID) monitored MPs, journalists, and academics who criticised government policy. Critics including Nigel Farage and others have already labelled this a Ministry of Truth. Even if the initial remit is pitched at hostile states (Russia’s information operations are real), the track record of these bodies is mission creep: elastic definitions of “disinformation,” preference for official narratives, and pressure on platforms. A Whitehall source has already said it will “expose rather than disrupt” and will not get new powers, but the announcement language and political context make the direction of travel obvious.

Anyone who has watched governments of every stripe use “misinformation” as a cudgel against inconvenient facts on migration, COVID origins, energy or election integrity recognises the pattern. The Centre will not neutrally referee truth; it will privilege the Regime’s preferred story about Brexit, migration and European integration, while pathologising dissent as foreign-backed or low-information. That is not defence of democracy. It is an apparatus for coercing consent.

Your impotent anger is not that your constituents were lied to. It is that enough of them rejected the Remain consensus despite the full weight of establishment messaging. Your speech is a transparent attempt to re-litigate a referendum by delegitimising the voters who got it “wrong", then arming the state to police the information environment for the next round.

That is anti-democratic to its very core.