My book about Brexit is out!

[Siusaidh]

Well Scotland seems to have been completely ignored in all this.

You are talking about an English phenomenon. An English problem, foisted on Scotland.

But go ahead. Scotland is a nation. We are European inclined. 62% to 38%.

I'm not being biased in this rather querulous discussion. I was a floating voter. I couldn't make up my mind. I could see good and bad points for both choices.

But all this kerfuffle puts the Union under a lot of pressure. No offence. It just all seems to be about England.

 

[RobM]

That was the oil companies like when they made this video to get people to burn more oil. Glad you didn't fall for it though.

No I totally believed them. 6th form teachers don't lie or get it wrong. However then, like now, I didn't really care that much

 

[dee]

Well Scotland seems to have been completely ignored in all this.

It's an issue for the UK, not just England and to be fair, no has mentioned England over the UK in this whole thread.

 

[Trauiner]

Absolutely, a few years ago our teacher in 6th form warned us of something called "agreeable deniers". People that agree with climate change but say it will only rise 2c by the end of the century. Anyone that doesn't agree it will rise by 4c by 2100 is just as bad as those that say it won't rise at all. Infact, they are probably worse.

It's also important to not mix up predictions and facts.

What you discuss are predictions and not facts but you're talking about them as if they are facts.

Nobody is 'bad' for not agreeing with certain predictions. It's very easy before the fact, to call out people for their thoughts and opinions.

 

[stitchbob]

I think regardless of the side of the fence you're on, the actual process of implementing Brexit has been an absolute shambles which has consisted of nothing more than successive "leaders" playing Xbox until the night before their homework is due and then calling in sick to avoid having to actually deal with the issue.

If the reasoning behind Brexit was to "take back control" of our own government, the last three years has shown us exactly why they shouldn't be in control of anything.

 

[LCHappy]

If the reasoning behind Brexit was to "take back control" of our own government, the last three years has shown us exactly why they shouldn't be in control of anything.

and people voted for these MPs, that's the scary thing. No matter what side we are on, we can all point to MPs that shouldn't be running a kebab shop. Is there an EU version of Dianne Abbott? Exactly!

That's why the EU works, it's almost unelected, thick people can't send thick people to rule because they say nice things to make them feel wanted. If the EU is anti democratic, then it shows that democracy doesn't work. Maybe voting should be linked to taxation, the more tax you pay, the more votes you get. Whatever it is, democracy as it stands is killing the UK.

 

[Siusaidh]

democracy as it stands is killing the UK

Democracy is only as good as the objective information sources that enable the voter to give their 'informed consent'.

There are very few objective sources of information.

 

[Edwin]

I think regardless of the side of the fence you're on, the actual process of implementing Brexit has been an absolute shambles which has consisted of nothing more than successive "leaders" playing Xbox until the night before their homework is due and then calling in sick to avoid having to actually deal with the issue.

If the reasoning behind Brexit was to "take back control" of our own government, the last three years has shown us exactly why they shouldn't be in control of anything.

That was one of the messages in my book. Regardless of how people voted on Brexit, the last three years have been pretty toxic. And there's no real prospect of it improving any time soon, unfortunately.

 

[ian]

All Brexit has proven is how embarrassing it is to be British right now. The country is run by a bunch of pretension good for nothing idiots who's only agenda is point scoring against one another.

 

[Siusaidh]

Regardless of how people voted on Brexit, the last three years have been pretty toxic.

Indeed Edwin.

But I think a big part of the reason for the toxicity is that the original Referendum itself was pushed through as an internal Conservative Party tactic by David Cameron, with insufficient attention to detailed possible options.

No-one knew if they were voting for a remain, a Norway-style deal, a Customs Union, or a complete No Deal. These distinctions were hardly explained or discussed at the time of the Referendum, and neither were the relative economic consequences of those distinctions.

I was a floating voter in 2016. For years I have favoured leaving the EU on a sovereignty issue, but as the vote got nearer I was less and less sure that would actually be good for people with no financial cushions in any consequent economic downturn. I can see arguments both ways.

Nevertheless, I don't buy the idea that an ill-informed vote in 2016 takes precedence over a more fully-informed confirmatory vote in 2019. The more recent measuring of public opinion, both because of more info, and because it is now not then, seems to me to be more democratic. People sometimes change their minds.

That said, it is entirely possible that the result would remain about the same. But at least then, if options of 'no deal', an 'actual deal', and 'remain' were put to the public, we'd know... on the basis of everything we've now gone into in more detail... what the public actually want, right now.

That would be democracy in itself. If people still want a version of 'leave'... fine. If people now want to remain... fine. We should not be afraid of the democratic will of the people changing (if it has). Otherwise, why do we have regular General Elections - and different governments - if not because we recognise that people change their minds in the light of events and new information.

Personally I think if there is a second referendum, people will still vote to 'leave', just to get it all over with. However, what id far more significant then, is what kind of leave they want. THAT was what was never defined in David Cameron's casual referendum three years ago.

That sloppiness was the root cause of why everything turned toxic. Then he just buggered off.

 

[domainseller200]

Voting for anything in the UK with the impression you have an element of control, is just an illusion that every voter falls for.

 

[Edwin]

Indeed Edwin.

But I think a big part of the reason for the toxicity is that the original Referendum itself was pushed through as an internal Conservative Party tactic by David Cameron, with insufficient attention to detailed possible options.

Not going to quote the whole of your excellent analysis for space. But I made an almost identical point in the book, where I outlined 7 possible ways to structure a theoretical second referendum if one ended up being organised. (Confirmatory vote on a deal, 2-stage question, 3-way shootout etc., with the pros and cons of each.)

And I also agreed with your conclusion. In the book, I wrote: "Remainers should also approach a second referendum with open minds. Assuming that the question is well-defined and the conduct of the referendum fair, they should abide by the outcome even if it goes against them. That’s not to suggest they should abandon their internationalist outlook. Nothing stops them mounting a campaign to rejoin the EU as soon as we are out. But if the British people’s verdict is Leave again, then leave we must, even if it is with supreme reluctance."

 

[LCHappy]

Voting for anything in the UK with the impression you have an element of control, is just an illusion that every voter falls for.

Next you'll be telling us that Nominet's elections are pointless and just an illusion.

 

[Siusaidh]

Next you'll be telling us that Nominet's elections are pointless and just an illusion.

I am, oh wow, so truly shocked and horrified

My friend, you must surely be mistaken...

 

[Trauiner]

At this stage I think you have to be pretty self absorbed not to see with your own eyes that climate change is evidently real. Go and take a look at the Arctic. I know a photographer who went 15 years ago and has recently been back and the first time he went he took a photo of a hugeeeee glacier. When he went back you could stand on solid ground where the glacier used to be. 100 metres of ice has gone.... can you comprehend that?

EDIT: That's 100 metres thick by the way...

That doesn't prove global warming. Just because massive glaziers are disappearing doesn't make global warming a fact and real. It's just another thing, to go along with lots of other things, that point to it being real.

Way back when, humans thought the sun lowered into the ground and just disappeared for half the day, into the earth core. They couldn't comprehend that what they saw and thought was happening, wasn't actually happening. A little bit different I know as they didn't have some science behind what they saw, but still, the general overall point of what you see and think and what may actually be happening, can be different.

Just to note, I'm not personally saying global warming isn't a thing. I believe it extremely likely is. All the evidence currently points to it, but not even scientists can call it a fact.

What I'm saying is people need to be careful of pushing agendas and thoughts as facts when they're not. Especially when it comes to Brexit. There's still a lot of unknowns, ifs, buts and maybes. People seem to be going around though stating things as facts before they've even happened.

 

[websaway]

Not going to quote the whole of your excellent analysis for space. But I made an almost identical point in the book, where I outlined 7 possible ways to structure a theoretical second referendum if one ended up being organised. (Confirmatory vote on a deal, 2-stage question, 3-way shootout etc., with the pros and cons of each.)

And I also agreed with your conclusion. In the book, I wrote: "Remainers should also approach a second referendum with open minds. Assuming that the question is well-defined and the conduct of the referendum fair, they should abide by the outcome even if it goes against them. That’s not to suggest they should abandon their internationalist outlook. Nothing stops them mounting a campaign to rejoin the EU as soon as we are out. But if the British people’s verdict is Leave again, then leave we must, even if it is with supreme reluctance."

 

[websaway]

I'm sure all your remainer followers will love your attitude to solving the problem caused by our lack of implementing a democratic decision. Not so sure 17.4 million people who may well turn to the Brexit party to reinstate democracy would think of your academic approach to undermining democracy.

 

[Gill]

Saying we didn’t know what we voted for is wrong, the government spent millions on a leaflet that went to every home and it was very clear.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uropean-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

We also had David Cameron tell us we would leave on WTO rules if no agreement could be reached.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In that same debate, 28 times he says that we leave the single market.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

We didn’t know what we voted for is a lie used by remain voters to justify the thwarting of democracy.

 

[websaway]

Next you'll be telling us that Nominet's elections are pointless and just an illusion.

Are you saying they operate on a similar basis to the EU. It worked in the USSR and China, so

 

[websaway]

Saying we didn’t know what we voted for is wrong, the government spent millions on a leaflet that went to every home and it was very clear.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uropean-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

We also had Davis Cameron tell us we would leave on WTO rules if no agreement could be reached.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In that same debate he tells us 28 times that we leave the single market 28 times.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

We didn’t know what we voted for is a lie used by remain voters to justify the thwarting of democracy.