Only 41% want to brexit now, time to vote again asap

[Idreamofalandrover]

www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1EA0Q6

Biggest swing towards remain now people are smelling the coffee

Would you have considered it a debacle if the vote had gone the other way?

Would you have considered it a debacle if the vote had gone the other way?

It wouldn't be the same as we would have voted to keep the status quo. One of the many problems with the Leave campaign is that they had no plan. How could it be anything except a debacle?

I voted to leave.

I'd be pissed at a re vote!

*I voted to leave.

I'd be pissed at a re vote!*

But you couldn't complain if parliament chose to not take a deal and remain in the EU. Cos sovereignty

Of course I'd complain it's meant to be a democracy what's done is done!

allegretto But it's constantly changing. You don't know - had we voted to stay - whether things would be 'status quo' or by this time next year the Union would have changed. Anyway, it doesn't really matter now, does it, we've had the referendum and it's over, thank god.

Of course I'd complain it's meant to be a democracy what's done is done!

For the nth time. THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS

We have a representative democracy not a direct democracy. MPs having the option to vote to overturn an advisory straw poll for the greater good of the country is the whole point.

That's the sovereignty you were all so desperate for.

MissionItsPossible - yes, things change in the EU but not at the speed and complexity level that things change when, after decades of membership, you leave an institution which touches on just about all aspects of everyday life WITH NO PLAN. Please explain how that cannot be a debacle.

the Union would have changed.

Also, I really don't understand this insistence by Leavers on these threads of the EU being described as something that just happens or which happens to us. We had a voice, we also decided what happened!

I didn't say it wasn't a debacle. I asked the other poster if the vote had gone the other way would they consider it a debacle so I don't know why you're asking me to explain something I didn't even say allegretto!

A 2 year exit plan after 40 years of membership isn't going to be easy. Rejecting a referendum result on the basis that it's too difficult to leave isn't a credible alternative IMO.

And please, if you're going to quote me, at least quote the whole thing rather than making it look like I said something I didn't i.e:

the Union would have changed looks a lot different in its entirety: You don't know - had we voted to stay - whether things would be 'status quo' or by this time next year the Union would have changed.

whether things would be 'status quo' or by this time next year the Union would have changed.

Just to pick up on this point, the union of course is not a static body. But what we've pissed down the river in leaving is any say in how it changes and especially how those changes will affect us.

The UK, believe it or not was very instrumental in drafting many EU rules and regulations. Also, the EU in 2018 will not be remarkably different from the EU in 2017.
EU decision-making is a very long drawn out, consultative process. It's quite astonishing that anyone would think unpicking 40-odd years of membership within 2 years would be anything less than a debacle. Whatever the alternative is, it's certainly better than that.

I have reached the conclusion that the problem with democracy is not its process, but that it assumes too much of citizens.

In this case I agree. The level on knowledge and research needed to make a properly informed decision on this is much to heavy a burden to expect the average voter to take on, we've got jobs to go to and stuff to do, we can't devote 40 hours a week studying this. We were asked to cast a vote on something 98% of us know fuck all about despite being well read and reasonably well informed about the world. This isn't some sort of insult to the electorate either, I must have read for hundreds of hours on this and didn't even scratch the surface and could not by any stretch claim to be knowledgeable about the EU. Why would the average person on the street think they are?

@MissionItsPossible

if you're going to quote me, at least quote the whole thing rather than making it look like I said something I didn't

That's what they do.

They project something onto you (phrases you didn't use, actions you would never take, attitudes you've never expressed) then attack you for these.

They create these metaphorical Straw Men, then boldly attack them, like our own little Kim Jong Uns.

So far the straw man arguments have been used on this thread alone:

Vote leavers are all racists
We all said we wanted sovereignty but we didn't really
We are all implicated in death and rape threats to Gina Miller

(that last one was an absolute beauty and came out of absolutely nowhere)

So good luck on trying to have a sensible, honest exchange of opinions.

I take my hat off to you.

I must admit I gave up.

One of them claims to be a senior civil servant who advised the government on Brexit. If true, that's the most worrying aspect of this thread. Can you imagine them giving any constructive helpful support to ministers?

I've found other parts of this site to be very pleasant, but this is the thread of the doomed. Don't stay too long or your heart will turn to stone and you will wander forever in the shadow of darkness.

Ah one of THOSE. Who decries how awful a thread is yet thinks we're all agog for their next instalment

That's what they do

Go on. Enlighten me. Who is "they"?

Computer, if you're going to quote me then at least quote me accurately. I said I WAS a civil servant who advised the government on EU law and on Brexit. I didn't say I was senior - you made that part up yourself. I was neither senior nor junior. And I am not one any more.

The only reason I mentioned it was because you said "Forgive me if I'm wrong but you're not a high ranking civil servant or a brain surgeon are you? You're a poster on Mumsnet."

Mumsnet is a broad church and you never know if you are indeed speaking to a civil servant or someone else who actually knows far more about the subject under discussion than you do. And maybe some posters on here are brain surgeons too.

These are just more things to add to the list of things you don't know. (I imagine it is a long list.)

they project something onto you (phrases you didn't use, actions you would never take, attitudes you've never expressed)

Well that's exactly what you did to me earlier in the thread...

Let's face it, Rufus. That entire post at 12:49 was one long straw man argument.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one. Sense of irony or self-awareness? Not so much.

The Leave wish of restoring sovereignty was about parliament after we leave the EU, not using it as an excuse for handing some or all of our sovereignty back to the EU.

@rufusTherenegade Rain Dearie

I am truly sorry for that. I hold you in the highest regard.

It was an honest mistake though, not an Aunt Sally argument

But the leave argument for restoring sovereignty failed to acknowledge that there would be a downside, which is what we are seeing now.

We can have sovereignty, but the expense of the economy.

Any deal we agree to which protects the economy and jobs will necessarily involve ceding a certain amount of sovereignty back to the EU and will arguably leave us less sovereign than we were before because we will no longer have a seat at the table.

Any outcome which prioritises sovereignty is going to make us economically worse off.

Boris lied. We can't have our cake and eat it.

We can have sovereignty, but the expense of the economy

If that is true then we need to build a sovereign country that is also economically self reliant. People voted to leave the EU because we want to stand on our own two feet, we do not need some EU superstate running our country, controlling our finances and telling us what we get. We are not children.

I dont care that the bars of the cage are gold, I do not want to live in a cage.

It's not about self-reliance, it's about the rules of international trade.

If you're going to trade internationally (which all countries except maybe North Korea do) then you trade on terms you agree with other countries. If you are a small country with a small market and you want to trade with a larger country with a larger market then you invariably do so on their terms because they have a stronger negotiating position.

All European countries are small compared to countries like the US and China. That is one of the reasons why the EU was created. Together we are one of the biggest and richest and most powerful trading blocs in the world. Separately we are always going to be on the back foot.

It is not about being self-reliant. We are and have always been as self-reliant as it is possible to be in a globalised economy.

Ironically, what will happen BECAUSE of Brexit is that we will end up having to do whatever the EU, China or the USA tells us to do.

It is painfully frustrating that so many people STILL do not understand this.

we do not need some EU superstate running our country,

We were running our country before. The EU INCLUDED us. Why is this so hard to grasp? Before we had a real say in trade deals, but we voted to give away the advantage we had.