Reply to post: Re: Growing Sense of bereavement..

Osborne on Leave limbo: Travel and trade stay unchanged

DavCrav Silver badge

Re: Growing Sense of bereavement..

"I do find some amusement that the leave campaign was about democracy, and the remain campaign occasionally tried to claim democracy and yet on a democratic vote we have the remain again demanding the end of democracy and leave still pushing it. Interesting."

The vote was not democratic. A referendum is only meaningful if it is a clear question with clear outcomes. Remain is clear: carry on as before. Leave is what exactly? EEA, EFTA, bilateral trade deal, WTO rules? Free movement, EU budget contributions, co-operation on science and policing? What? The Leave option is not well defined, and therefore this isn't a democratic referendum. The Leave side constantly conflated all of those options, promising Common market access without Free Movement, something which is not, has never been, and never will be, allowed. Since the Leave campaign and ideas are built upon lies and misinformation, anyone who had any vision of a non-EU future, mutually incompatible visions, could claim it for themselves, and this was actively encouraged by the Leave campaign. It was even mentioned today by de Pfeffel Johnson.

"Of course ignoring democracy does wonderful things doesnt it? The rise of some of the most notable figures in history. Stalin, Hitler, Kim, etc. And of course the EU looks even more fuzzy and nice if the populace is completely ignored and rode over."

Right, the undemocratic genocidal side are Remain, not the side engaging in hate crime against the foreigners. I think in a Hitler analogy, those jackboots fit better on the Leave side.

"Surely the idea of growing up would be accepting the rules in place at the beginning of a democratic vote no matter how poorly both official campaigns pushed their ridiculous propaganda. Or to move to a country that doesnt have problems like voting."

So, what were the Leave rules in place at the beginning? There were none? Right you are then.

And anyway, I am guessing I know a lot more about constitutional law than you do, since you seem to think that this non-binding, advisory plebiscite is a mandate for change. It can, and should be, ignored, as a 52/48 split is not a sufficient margin to justify years of pain. 70/30 probably, 80/20 definitely, but 52/48? That is a year of old person deaths/young people turning 18 away from 50/50. It's not a clear mandate to do something so fundamental, so economically catastrophic as Brexit.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019