Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Those on the purer ends of the Remain and Leave positions won't agree with her, but I think this piece from Sky's Beth Rigby is insightful. It's worth reading the whole article but this is part of her conclusion.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views...omise-11730565 |
I agree, Andrew. Compromise is, however, a dirty word now. The populist approach which places spin over substance is dominant. So many people, for different reasons, are happy with a Hard Brexit. Most are not questioning how will it impact their personal situation. They are just repeating the dogma sound bites but not asking the really important questions e.g. "Show me exactly why I will not be poorer?"
For a nation that had a global reputation for pragmatism and common sense, we have basically lost it, big style.
---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
After all this time and i’m Concerned that you and others still just don’t get it.
After 3 years, all those that voted Brexit ( and there will be some that have changed their mind, conversely there will also be Remainers that have changed their mind....i’m One) are so annoyed that you can take the piss out of Farage, you can make all the pro-Remain / anti -Brexit points etc, etc. It’s irrelevant, they want the result of the referendum enacted, and will support anyone that can deliver it.
The time for debating the pros and cons of Brexit is over, it’s been done. If you don’t know or understand what it entails now you never will. People have had enough time and positions are now well and truly entrenched.
Any “confirmatory vote” on any deal presented, would only work if the vote was accept the deal or leave with no deal.
Any other 2nd referendum would only invoked to potentially reverse the first. In my opinion I don’t believe that would be correct but if that is the direction that was taken I believe it would only be legitimate if it was on the exact same question as the first.
I’d be happy to run that again, but only if it was decided that to win Remain had to win by a margin of victory was higher than the first.
Otherwise, it wouldn’t settle the argument, that probably wouldn’ Either, but you get where i’m Coming from
|
Your argument, such as it is, is predicated on a basis on certainty and entitlement.
Certainty:
The Leave voters believe, not beyond reasonable doubt but beyond *any* doubt that they have right on their side. History tells us that is a recipe for things that nations tend to regret.
Entitlement:
They believe that an ill judged and ill conceived referendum result gives the Leave side an incontrovertible mandate to impose a national structural & economic change based on a vote that had no minimal turnout and a legal result that could be decided by a single person's vote. They also think they have no need to accommodate the wishes and concerns of 48% of the electorate that voted Remain. The 'Winner Takes All" attitude is why we are in this mess.
On both counts, no surprise here, I think they are wrong. They have every right to believe they are correct and I have every to believe (and articulate) why they are wrong.
I totally "get it" ..