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.
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.
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 192889 times)