Bay 12 Games Forum

Citation please Frump, when did Boris Johnson go on the record to say young people are naive and stupid, so we must have another referendum to get out of the EU if we lose?

Credit to johnson, he actually did say the referendum would stick*... after apparently being in favor of cumming's (who seems to have been one of the major proponents for a second referendum strategy? Campaign director of Vote Leave? Hell if I really know, I'm catching up with all this mess) plan until pressed on it, though it seems like he was fairly quiet about it beforehand. Y'can look up the news and whatnot noting it yourself... I've got bugger all idea what you'd consider acceptable sources among UK media, and it's been a pain in the ass just to piece together that much with all the more recent news clogging everything up.

Said bugger all about naivety or whatever, though, just like you didn't in the post I quoted. Just that a fair few came out in support of a second referendum in the case of a loss, that there was indeed support from the leave campaign for saying the first was "wrong", just as there's support in the remain side now.

Already more excuses.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dealing with an entity that accepts referendums when they agree with them, and denies them when they don't, it is sickening.

You... do realize that graph kinda' undermines your point, right? Twice as often as they ran a second referendum, they accepted the anti-EU results, if those dots are anything approaching complete or accurate (it's kinda' hard to tell, but *shrugs*). And as far as I know, voters changing their mind a year or so later is... not exactly unusual, or some kind of sign of malice. S'really why you kinda' do stuff like that, because people do, and with major issues it's oft better to make sure they're not going to before settling on a decision, especially when there's not a major advantage to one choice or another (and you'll note with all of those, the eventual yes vote was a notably larger margin -- 57 vs 51, 63 vs 54, 67 vs 53... well, assuming the other rest of the 100% was nos, anyway. It'd be even worse if it was just yes vs yes instead of for/against EU, too.). That thing really kinda' looks like they were doing the right thing in those cases, if perhaps not in others -- that a second referendum actually was called for.

... actually, nice treaty, the second was on a changed amendment. Lisbon, yes vote came after renegotiations. Denmark's only came after exceptions were granted. So, uh. It wasn't the EU accepting referendums only after they agreed with it, or something like that. It was the second referendum being in the face of changed circumstances, generally addressing the population's concerns, and then said population changing their mind.

Why?

... well, there's at least three different things why could be directed at in there, so the answer in order... the why to the longer wait is to let things shake out more, to have people be able to decide looking at longer term effects instead of the immediate fallout. The why it's looking like there's fair odds A50 isn't going to be invoked is because one of the apparent major components of the leave campaign was an immediate invocation, and instead we're seeing a great deal of feet dragging, backpeddling, and "woah, hold on now" responses from y'all's politicians (the latter of which is also why it's non-negligible that if something doesn't happen now, it won't for a while -- a lot of your politicians got a taste of what could be involved with the exit, and don't seem to like it). The why to making it binding and whatnot is to make sure it actually gets bloody done -- as noted, it's looking a fair bit like your politicians are going to try to brush the results off to one extent or another.

*E: Well, he said "Out is Out", at least. Didn't notice him explicitly saying there'd be no attempts at a second go if leave didn't manage it.

Yeah, sorry, democratic politics isn't a game where you get to quickload over and over until the RNG gives you the outcome you want.

Hey man, trying again was exactly what the leave campaign intended to do if they lost. Goose and gander et al. Kinda' hard to say it's fair to cry foul when you're on record saying you'd do the same thing.

... also democratic politics is totally a game where you quickload over and over until the RNG gives you what you want. Continuing to push an agenda over a long period is... really basic stuff? Normal and necessary to a functioning democracy? So on and so forth. You don't poll once and then call it forever binding, heh. Plus revotes are a normal thing, yeah. Usually over more mechanical issues, but still. A second referendum, even in fairly short order, wouldn't exactly be some kind of trampling of democracy people seem to be trying to frame it as.

Longer wait would be a better thing, make no doubt about that, but there's a lot of signs a longer wait would get nothing for anyone involved with this (and the EU itself has serious and entirely reasonable reasons a long wait is not something they want to see; it's got 27 other countries to worry about while the UK unfucks itself in one direction or the other). It's already looking a fair amount like article 50 just won't get invoked, and I could see the UK not really getting a second chance any time soon if they don't kick their politicians in the ass even harder. A second go, a more clear mandate that the public wants it, and some kind of legal guarantee that a leave win would mean an immediate A50 invocation instead of this dithering around bullshit, sounds like it'd be kinda' nice. Do it again and make that shit binding this time, with a clear period of time (or major event of some sort) before the next one's allowed. Don't give the folks they've managed to elect any room to wiggle out of it, because we're already seeing they're trying to on both sides of the proverbial aisle.

But yeeeaaah, as an american I'd definitely be supporting a supermajority for a decision like the UK's looking at. Simple majority's fine for electing people, 'cause they're only going to be there for a few years, but stuff that'll be on the books or have seriously long term and far reaching effects, you go for more consensus, both for the initial institution (and the UK did vote ~67% in favor to stay in what would become the EU the first time around, for what it's worth) and for any major changes (such as dissolution of the whatever). You want to be fucking over as small amount of your population as you can, not, y'know, around half of it. Something more along the lines of the original referendum to stay would be nice, yeah?

S'like... c'mon, folks. Even florida needs 60% support for a constitutional amendment these days, and the scale of that is way smaller. Know this thing wasn't binding and it's basically a glorified poll, but people're calling something a political mandate that heat addled druggies would balk at, which is a little weird t'me living among heat addled druggies.

Who wants to be the man who tells all of those people their opinion doesn't matter, and that they need to think again and vote for the right option - the one they selected?

Well, many (most?) of the major leave politicians did until a few days ago 

Now they want to tell all those other people that their opinion doesn't matter, and they don't get the second (third, Nth) chance leave was intending to go for, of course.

Also wat
"gli inglesi hanno violato le regole. Non è la filosofia UE che la folla possa decidere del suo destino"
"the British have violated the rules . It is not the EU 's philosophy that the crowd will decide his fate "
TOO SMUG

Hey, that again. Anyone know if folks ever found out when schulz was supposed to have said that? Closest someone seemed to come to a source was this, which apparently translates (at least partially) out to something more along the lines of "the fate of the EU should not be decided by decisions of the mob", but still wasn't attributed to a specific date or somethin'. _{google translate spits out madness that disagrees with both the reported translation and that second one from a native german speaker :V}

Maybe helg could get in on this? Pretty sure it's either him or sheb (or both) that speak german, so they could at least confirm the meaning if not identify the actual source.

There's some youtube vids up under the older name (starwright). No clue how representative of the current build that'd make 'em, but they're there.

... it's not? The exact opposite, actually. TD1's from NI, if my memory's not going completely haywire, and stated they were a leave voter right there. I'd consider them a person, but apparently the thread's creator doesn't :V

Coulda' pointed to Owl popping in too, I guess, at the least. That one's more got less room to quibble on the britain aspect, I think? They didn't vote leave, though _{well, at least from the EU, ahaha.}

Like setting a tire fire, and then burning down your house by mistake?

Yeah, more or less.

And yeah, @Neo, the money going out was apparently a pretty major drumming point. S'just, y'know. There was money going in, too, and far as I know even though that basic UK->EU->UK transfer was a net loss (though it was benefiting a number of leave voting areas pretty heavily, (morbidly) amusingly enough), the knock on effects (ease of trade, et al, mostly) were bringing in several times more than was going out. By all even vaguely coherent accounts I've seen the UK was profiting pretty substantially off the EU membership. Not always in ways that a lot of the UK's populace saw (which was a big issue with the less urban voters, I do believe), but... yeah.

What do the more level headed Leavers want with a free UK?

Less EU interference, more domestic controls and whatnot. Stuff like that, mostly boiled down to greater independence. Whether or not they were actually aware of how much independence the UK already had and what their government was doing with it... *shrugs*

Was also some belief that the UK could manage to navigate into a better economic situation without being directly attached to the EU, I think? It's... probably best not to think too hard on that one.

Something like 70% of leave voters didn't expect to win, iirc. Basically no UK politician wanted a leave results. Intent regarding an actual leave was never really there, at all. This was basically political grandstanding that went right in the worst way possible for everyone indulging in it.