How shockingly ignorant Remain supporters are.

[ScreamingLadySutch]

Sorry, guys, but you are.

In the past week I have been told we must Remain because BJ is a dictator by one, and by another because it is easier to travel .

There seems to be no knowledge of our history and institutions, legal, political, sovereign and economic considerations, the history etc of Europe and what is really going on.

Labour and the trade unions were wholly against entry, and the Conservatives pushed it through by stealth and deceit. That crusty old socialist Tony Benn was prophetic on his remarks about what it meant. Now, today, that is reversed. Fascinating, really.

For a good grounding on the roots of the issue (Maastricht was going to result in Brexit it was completely inevitable), this documentary is quite useful:

the question really did mean leave with no deal

On the face of it, it is ambiguous so it could have done - same as it could have meant any one of innumerable outcomes so that during the referendum leave could sell Brexit as being all things to all people.

However it was very clear during the referendum campaign that Leave were not campaigning on the basis of no deal, and told people we would be able to get a deal (even saying that suggestions we wouldn’t were “project fear”).

The only way you can row back from that is by saying that what was said during the referendum is not relevant, in which case the referendum was advisory (legally it was, but we were clearly told the govt would
Implement the outcome) and we don’t have to follow it.

My take is the “advisory” point is bullshit, but that’s because we cannot ignore what was and was not said during the campaign. We were told it would be honoured, but we were also told we would negotiate a deal.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - on no reasonable construction could the referendum have been predicated on a no deal Brexit.

Oh silly me. Concern about a return to 400 years of blood stained history is a wheeze and a spanner in the works. Well that’s me told OP.

Did you know that as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson didn’t visit the border area. He has no real interest in the views of the ordinary people who lived through the troubles.

We set a precedent for votes to be overturned if government does not like the outcome

Aren't you confusing Government with representative democracy? It's Parliament that is debating how we should leave.

The current Government is made up of many people who voted AGAINST the current withdrawal agreement - when we could easily have left.

OP. You still have not given a single example of an EU policy you would change. So please enlighten us:

• would you like to reduce animal welfare standards to Chinese and US ones?
• would you like to allow chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef?
• would you like to remove driving time regulations so that lorry drivers can do longer shifts?

Perhaps you would like to reduce holiday and maternity to US levels? That would make us more competitive.

Maybe you want to catch more fish so the oceans empty faster

Or have dirtier beaches? Or worse air quality? Or less environmentally efficient products?

Please be specific.

Again, I am unsure as to what the benefits of leaving the EU are?

Our farms are funded by around 75% by the EU ( well it said this on a documentary I was watching) where are we going to get the money for this?

As for the people who no longer wanted to take immigrants in, it’s clearly not going to be the case we will still have to do this.

As for the NHS I daren't comment I just hope it withstands this

Remoaners and these handwringing liberals are the ones I find most intolerant of any view other than their own. And every one else's view is stupid, ignorant, wrong etc.

This.

At its root is a hubris, an arrogance that they (the Establishment, big business, parliament, sections of the media, academics) know better than the 'proles', ie the 17.4 million. Because those proles are thick, racist, uneducated etc. Therefore it's OK to dismiss their vote and to reverse the result. Or get another referendum until the vote is 'correct'.

But the staggering shortsightedness of this - the damage it will do to democracy - terrifies me.

We should remain because we will be economically and socially better off by doing so.

Mr Johnson's behaviour is wrong in so many ways, especially his attitude towards women, and to try to involve the Queen in the way he did is just another reason why is he unfit to be Prime Minister and the worst probably since Lord North, of not ever.

But the staggering shortsightedness of this - the damage it will do to democracy - terrifies me

The damage done to democracy of telling the people they cannot change their mind, regardless of literally anything, is far more concerning to me. Politics, opinions - all fluid. It is not democratic to tell people they are stuck with something.

What I think Leave voters generally don’t appreciate is democracy is a nuanced concept, it isn’t black and white. We are a parliamentary democracy with various strands to our democracy. The suggestion that a referendum overrides absolutely everything even when genuine efforts have been made to implement it and it hasn’t proved possible has no basis.

Therefore it's OK to dismiss their vote and to reverse the result

I think it's ok to ask people who voted Leave what their opinion was of the border situation and the ramifications for NI if we left...

And if they said "I don't know or I don't care", then you can ask if that vote was taken in full knowledge of all the facts.

Because it matters.

At its root is a hubris, an arrogance that they (the Establishment, big business, parliament, sections of the media, academics) know better than the 'proles', ie the 17.4 million. Because those proles are thick, racist, uneducated etc. Therefore it's OK to dismiss their vote and to reverse the result. Or get another referendum until the vote is 'correct'.

Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle voted remain. Are scousers, geordies etc generally considered to be part of the "establishment?".

@ScreamingLadySutch

Did you see my question about the billion pounds we could put to better use? Which billion pounds is this?

Is it this billion pounds? fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Go on, humour me and give me an answer!

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude if I wasn't feeling so reassured by the OP's response to my first post in which I asked 3 questions about the GFA I might have been left thinking she gives not one, er...tinker's wink about the people in Ireland but I know now I'm wrong about that.

Therefore it's OK to dismiss their vote and to reverse the result

Not one Leave voter who I personally know was even aware of the NI border issue and the implications for the GFA.

Now they are.

I think people are much more aware of issues now than before.

Yeah, yeah. Nice try 🙄

The referendum was a binary question. Probably it shouldn't have been a binary question for a complex issue, but the question really did mean leave with no deal.
Nope, huge falsehood.

The EU Referendum Act not only required the government to hold the referendum but also required the government to publish a report detailing possible models of the UK's future relationship with the EU, based on the relationships of existing non-member states.

That report was called 'Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union'. Sadly it seems few people bothered to take the time to educate themselves by reading it.

It makes clear that a no-deal brexit was a worst-case scenario and the priority, in the event Leave won, was getting as good a deal with the EU as possible.

And we all know the Leave campaign was centred on the amazing and easy deal we would get.

No Deal barely had a passing mention until after the referendum. It's basically a negotiating soundbite that's taken on a life of its own.

PierreBezukov, the greatest example of hubris we have in this whole debacle is Boris Johnson. His repeated insistence that the Uk will be leaving the EU on 31 October regardless of the impact is based solely on his own foolish pride and not wanting to be seen to back down. Hubris personified.

I think the OP and many other Brexiteers have not got a clue about what the EU does for us. Really, not a clue.

Have a look at what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/home this website.

A million here, £9M there, hundreds of thousands of pounds to local initiatives, projects for those disadvantaged by disability, farmers, growth partnerships.

Brexiteers are so keen to knock how much we pay to the EU. We get a hell of a lot out of it too.

Just for instance...
'Helping to support unemployed people in the local area, the European Social Fund allocated a total of £16.92 million to Swindon and the surrounding area, investing around £9.07 million in programmes such as Links to Work, that aims to provide local unemployed people with the support and skills they need to get into paid work, for example in vital support roles with the National Health Service.'

All this will be gone and not funded by the Government.

What I think Leave voters generally don’t appreciate is democracy is a nuanced concept, it isn’t black and white.

Start blurring the lines and you'll open the door tl authoritarianism creeping in. Democracy is based on majority rule. It is simple. Elections are held with the understanding that the majority vote wins and will be respected.

If you don't like the result you have to accept it. To argue that people were mislead and lied to and naive etc and didn't understand what they were voting for is just a way to undermine the democratic processes. Lies were told on both sides. Voters are more sensible and intelligent than given credit for. If we don't trust the electorate, then we can't have a democracy.

Personally I was shocked and disappointed at the Trump victory. But to argue that because the 'deplorables' (Hilary Clinton's words) who voted for him were ignorant and uneducated and misled, and therefore the result should be disregarded and ignored, would be to attack democracy. But that is essentially what is happening in the UK among diehard Remainers.

At its root is a hubris, an arrogance that they (the Establishment, big business, parliament, sections of the media, academics) know better than the 'proles', ie the 17.4 million. Because those proles are thick, racist, uneducated etc. Therefore it's OK to dismiss their vote and to reverse the result. Or get another referendum until the vote is 'correct'.

Such a weak argument: tantamount to painting the 48% of remain voters as 'elites'. No wonder the debate hasn't moved on when people continue to spout the same old drivel.

" "I care about being a member of the EU, it has benefited mine and my family’s lives immeasurably."

Why does this have to involve being subsumed into a larger political body rather than straightforward trade deals?"

It's not about trade deals, it's about movement. Two-way migration is a great thing culturally and economically.

We also have the number of social and arts projects that are financially supported by the EU. I, quite frankly, don't trust the Tories to maintain such levels of spending on social mobility, creative arts etc. You only have to look at the poor condition of our country's education system to see that.

I may not understand the incredulous amount of political detail behind these two sides but I do understand that we cannot sustain our current standard of living without the EU. If we thought things were bad now, they will undoubtedly only get worse post-Brexit.

People's Vote.

PierreBezukov, the greatest example of hubris we have in this whole debacle is Boris Johnson

I don't deny that. But that's an ad hominem argument. Of course he's an arrogant prat. But that doesn't mean Bercow and his cronies aren't.

Eyewhisker, I heard an interview during the EU elections where the proposed Brexit party candidate for Peterborough, a certain millionaire businessman, Mike Green was asked a similar question regarding which bits of EU legislation, admin or bureaucracy was stopping the UK from specifically addressing problems in education and child poverty, which Mr Green claimed we were unable to resolve because we didn’t have control over our own policy on these issues.

The question was met with a spluttering ‘I.......I haven’t gone into the detail of legal specific laws but what I do know is that we’re more hampered by laws that are being put in place by people who aren’t elected, you know, I don’t see how the EU are helping.’

MR Green lost to the Labour Party candidate, but honestly.......... I actually wrote the interview down I was so gobsmacked at his response.

tantamount to painting the 48% of remain voters as 'elites'.

Not at all. But it is an elite group of Remainers who are trying to frustrate, if not cancel Brexit, and these are the arguments they are using.

Any argument can be misconstrued as 'weak' if it's misrepresented.

So the OPs genius solution to Ireland is.....??

pierre

No it isn’t blurring the lines. Democracy isn’t straightforward.

For example, there could be tension between a referendum and a parliamentary vote. Both are democratic based on majority rule - the referendum result, and the fact that the MPs taking part in the vote were democratically elected.

To take another example, a democratic government relies on the separation of powers. That means that the government cannot act unlawfully regardless of the result of any referendum - or indeed election.

A basic tenet of democracy is that people can change their minds with a vote if they don’t like a government. It is not anti-democratic to say the people should have the opportunity to say whether or not they want to change their minds about Brexit.

I don’t think that 3 years and countless time energy and money anyone could sensible argue the referendum was ignored whatever happens next but either way, democracy is so much more than majority rules.