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.
True enough, but it also isn't supposed to be run on a list of lies both blatant and immediately backpedalled on, nor is it really supposed to be run by people so incompetent, nobody has an idea what to do. Not the ruling clowns or the clowns
who literally got exactly what they wanted.
Next to that, like I said, it would be very explicit there would not be a revote if it's for leave, and clear guidelines to prevent neverendum.
There are no credible doubts except where Remain sees them; just keep making referendums until your opponents are not able to keep up with your funding is a surefire way to keep a healthy democracy and erase "doubts" right? No, it is quite a mockery. Remain had state support, state funds, EU funds, most all celebrity endorsements, charity endorsements, Uni endorsements, all the high office posts, near all the economists, and a good portion of the City of London - still lost. Osborne went on TV saying if OAPs voted Brexit he'd cut pensions, Cameron started a media campaign that outspent the entire Leave campaign using state funds in one day - still lost. Cameron had an advantage in that Tory MPs could not even begin campaigning for Brexit until he concluded negotiations, still lost. Our Remain MPs unilaterally changed the voting registration deadline to coincide with a 2 day media blitz to get the most Remain voters registered, having decided such an illegal action was legal because - still lost.
But again, if you are sure that leave would win again because it is truly what the people want, a revote will confirm it, right? So then the UK could actually leave in a reasonable fashion, lessening the damage the UK will have to endure (uncertainty over what will actually happen is damaging on its own) and going about it with more competent leadership and an actual plan. It would also give the people in charge a chance to make it clear to whatever minority that's currently actively harassing people that, no, a leave vote is not about giving you popular mandate to be racist pricks.
To me, it seems the conmen have reared their ugly heads and shown their colours. When Remain broke the law to mobilize Remain voters, that was democratic, and to oppose it was counter-democratic. Yet to say that the referendum should be overturned because old people voted for it, that is not counter-democratic, that is pro-democratic.
Hell, do you know what response I got when I criticized the Remain campaign's inequity?
"Misleading voters is a tradition and an expectation."
If 2 million more of your voters still doesn't win after you control the legal playing field and you control the state media and you still lose?
And in the event of a revote, the rules can be made clear and irrevocable, anyone breaking them gets sued their pants of. I'm assuming that, at least, separation of powers is still a thing and the entire legal body hasn't been compromised?
Small question, when the remain campaign broke the law, did the leave campaign sue them? Honestly don't know. If yes, what came of that, if not, why not?
Good thing this vote was had, so what other people see as best for the British does not override what the British want.
Sure, if it's what they want, it's what they should get regardless of what others think. But I
am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, right? I am expressing why I think it could be a good idea, but apart from that I don't have an influence on what'll happen. It's not like I'm commanding anyone what they have to do, I have zero power here, just why I think they should consider it.
Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, in which case, care to explain?
In the course of a day I have gone from being eurosceptic to wanting the utter destruction of the European Union, its total disintegration as a matter of guarantee. Ordinary Europeans have looked upon this situation and not seen an opportunity to prove the European Union's worth by showing why it is valuable, but rather by showing how if you attempt to leave you will be destroyed, made to suffer. I do not think ordinary Europeans harbour hatred for the UK, some harbour suspicion, but few hatred. Yet even so, ordinary Europeans who cheer the EU feel compelled to destroy the UK out of fear that its success would inspire too many, out of a desire to protect an Empire that has not brought its people prosperity. All the whilst Eurosceptics cheer the UK, and wave our flag in support. Thus the European Union must die, before it continues to make others suffer in order to preserve its own ambitions.
That's not what I have been seeing, in my environment at least. I've seen sympathy for the common Brits, even though I've hardly seen anyone think it was actually a good idea. Then again, echo chambers and all that.
As for the EU 'punishing', I think it's more that they're determined to drive a hard bargain and also try to get the outcome that they see as most beneficial for the countries and people of the EU. And not giving in on fundamental values they say they support, such as no access to the common market without free travel of people and having to abide by EU regulations.
Finally, I think that the EU, flawed as it is, does give tangible benefits above the purely economic partnership it started as. But, y'know, that's just me.
The last part of your post, I find agreeable, bar the notion of more referendums of course.
Glad to see we found some common ground. But isn't it kinda useless to say that a referendum should be run competently after the previous one was run badly, and a new one being run better and fairer is not on the table?
Another option I've seen would be to call for a new general election. Automatically, leaving or remaining would be the major issue, so that could be another way to see how to go forward with clarity and an actual plan.
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 182543 times)