Discussion:
If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?
(too old to reply)
Incubus
2019-10-22 14:03:16 UTC
Permalink
A fairly good opinion piece from Breitbart.

Some good comments as well.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/10/21/brexit-elephant-in-the-room-if-politicians-shouldnt-answer-questions-twice-why-should-voters/
MM
2019-10-22 14:28:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?

Because a second referendum would not be putting the same question.

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-10-22 15:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Re: If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?
Because a second referendum would not be putting the same question.
The consequences of the result would be exactly the same. In both cases, we would be either leaving or remaining. In both cases too we would still have no idea no idea what Brexit would be like.


What if the result of the second referendum were exactly the same or indeed the reverse of the first? Do we go along to a third? It's a gamble either way. We can a hardly reject anything that has never been tried particularly when it has been backed by the biggest democratic exercise that this country has ever seen.

Why exactly should we abandon Brexit? If EU membership waw such a fine thing, why, after 44 years should we be even considering Brexit? What exactly has 44 years of experience taught us?

Barnier (or was it Junker) has already said that they would hope that eventually the UK would be welcomed back into the fold. If this is so then what exactly have we to lose?
Ian Jackson
2019-10-22 15:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Re: If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?
Because a second referendum would not be putting the same question.
The consequences of the result would be exactly the same. In both
cases, we would be either leaving or remaining. In both cases too we
would still have no idea no idea what Brexit would be like.
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
--
Ian
Roger
2019-10-22 16:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
Some Nuffield study findings:

1) Extra funding for the NHS was irrelevant to the vote.

2) Brexit voters understood why Remainers wanted to remain.

3) Remainers had failed to grasp the reasons leavers voted leave.


Three years down the line they are still none the wiser.
James Hammerton
2019-10-22 18:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Ian Jackson
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
1) Extra funding for the NHS was irrelevant to the vote.
2) Brexit voters understood why Remainers wanted to remain.
3) Remainers had failed to grasp the reasons leavers voted leave.
Three years down the line they are still none the wiser.
Can you point me to where I might find this study?

Regards,


James
Ian Jackson
2019-10-22 19:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Ian Jackson
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
1) Extra funding for the NHS was irrelevant to the vote.
I've certainly heard quite a lot of in-phoners say that they were
generally undecided, but it was the £350M that swung their decision. But
yes - others have indeed said "Of course I knew it was a total lie, so I
disregarded it" (and usually found another reason to justify their
decision).
Post by Roger
2) Brexit voters understood why Remainers wanted to remain.
Oh come on! Some didn't even understand why THEY voted to leave!
Post by Roger
3) Remainers had failed to grasp the reasons leavers voted leave.
Partly true. Those advocating Remain failed to realise how badly
informed many Leavers were, and consequently failed to counter what was
largely false information fed to them by the Leave propagandists.
Post by Roger
Three years down the line they are still none the wiser.
Not so. I must have heard it all in the various radio phone-in
programmes. I'm still hearing totally fatuous and spurious reasons for
leaving - reasons that have little or no connection with EU membership.
--
Ian
MM
2019-10-23 10:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Ian Jackson
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
1) Extra funding for the NHS was irrelevant to the vote.
2) Brexit voters understood why Remainers wanted to remain.
3) Remainers had failed to grasp the reasons leavers voted leave.
On point 3, yes, I fail to see what impact the EU has had on
immigration, since the bulk of it has been from countries that are
OUTSIDE the EU. And I refuse to be persuaded by the racist arguments
that leavers so often expound.
Post by Roger
Three years down the line they are still none the wiser.
Yep. I still don't understand what makes the far right tick, sorry.

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-23 10:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Post by Ian Jackson
But we probably know a lot more about what it won't be like. There won't
be £350M pw extra for the NHS, and neither there will be and unicorns.
1) Extra funding for the NHS was irrelevant to the vote.
2) Brexit voters understood why Remainers wanted to remain.
3) Remainers had failed to grasp the reasons leavers voted leave.
On point 3, yes, I fail to see what impact the EU has had on
immigration, since the bulk of it has been from countries that are
OUTSIDE the EU. And I refuse to be persuaded by the racist arguments
that leavers so often expound.
Post by Roger
Three years down the line they are still none the wiser.
Yep. I still don't understand what makes the far right tick, sorry.
MM
Even Merkel gets it now.

Merkel says German multicultural society has failed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451
Roger
2019-10-23 12:18:34 UTC
Permalink
I don't understand the the far right either, or the far left come to that. But they only count for a few percent. 52% of the UK are not the far right.

If you want an easy way to understand the Brexit vote you need look no further than normal economic parameters; people in areas or sectors that have enjoyed economic growth in the last 30 years voted remain. People who have been subject to decline voted leave.

It's not rocket science.

I remember one of Alister Cooks comments....but not who he was quoting:

"People reply to opinion polls with their opinions, but when they vote they use their wallet".
Incubus
2019-10-23 12:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
I don't understand the the far right either, or the far left come to that. But they only count for a few percent. 52% of the UK are not the far right.
Referring to people who voted to leave as "far right" is a deliberate shift of
the Overton Window.
Post by Roger
If you want an easy way to understand the Brexit vote you need look no further than normal economic parameters; people in areas or sectors that have enjoyed economic growth in the last 30 years voted remain. People who have been subject to decline voted leave.
It's not rocket science.
I don't think it's as simple as economic growth versus decline. Remainers like
that argument because it frames a vote to leave as a "punishment" vote and
detracts from the real issues. The real economic decline that Leavers
understand is having more competition for jobs, more competition for housing,
lower wages, higher cost of living and local amenities being vastly
oversubscribed.

Roger
2019-10-22 16:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Re: If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?
Because a second referendum would not be putting the same question.
MM
Well certainly if Labour have their way; they want a referendum were you can choose between remaining in the EU without representation or remaining in the EU with representation.

And presumably believe that nobody would notice :D
Joe
2019-10-22 18:24:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Roger
Post by MM
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:03:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Re: If MPs shouldn't vote on Brexit twice, why should voters?
Because a second referendum would not be putting the same question.
MM
Well certainly if Labour have their way; they want a referendum were
you can choose between remaining in the EU without representation or
remaining in the EU with representation.
And presumably believe that nobody would notice :D
But the EU doesn't allow (new) nationalisation. Doesn't the Labour
Party realise that?
--
Joe
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-22 15:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
A fairly good opinion piece from Breitbart.
Some good comments as well.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/10/21/brexit-elephant-in-the-room-if-politicians-shouldnt-answer-questions-twice-why-should-voters/
Ah. Yes. But. That's different. :-)
Loading...