Doesn't help but it still is an accurate description.
It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. Add some reasons.
TBH, I don't think you can reason with people like that. If that's your cup of tea, please do. Maybe you will make the world a better place. In the meantime, I'll be definitely making my world better, by avoiding brexiters, antivaxers, flat-earthers and other crazies.
>Rather than hurling abuse
Technically, I don't think that that matters, as I am not going and I am not insulting anybody specifically (if somebody takes an offence about such a general statement on the internet, it's kinda their problem). But if anybody would ask me to support their stance on pro-brexit, I would gladly call them (brexiters) an idiot.
It really takes audacity to defend such a "move" where everybody loses.
It's not an accurate description. Far from it.
I consider myself to be smart. I sought out as much data as I could before deciding to vote leave and I am sure I was not the only one.
The EU pact was originally trade-related. It wasn't about governance.
That's all I want.
Edit: To the person or people that downvoted me, any chance of an explanation?
But I'm curious - did you think that was what you were voting for when you voted to leave? Vote Leave's campaign was so nebulous that it felt really hard to understand what they were actually campaigning for.
Also, political realities aside, would you (like Jacob Rees-Mogg did before the referendum) be interested in the results of a second referendum now that we know what the actual terms of the deal are?
Edit: the downvote didn't come from me.
I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?).
My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability.
We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more.
The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country.
It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least.
In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine.
The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!).
If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo.
And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in.
There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway!
Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician.
Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please
If the leave campaign had been explicitly about moving to a Norway-style arrangement, for example, I'd have had much more sympathy for it, despite not wanting it personally. There's a reasoned argument that the main benefit of the EU is trade, although I would add that this view is complicated by the link between things like free movement of goods and free movement of people.
I would arge that, while there would indeed be lies and bullshit in another referendum, they wouldn't be the same ones because they'd at least have to be largely based on the concrete reality of the deal.
The person I really blame in all of this is that intellectual lightweight David Cameron. The referendum was mainly called to stop infighting in his party. It was done with no clear terms - i.e. what did Leave really mean? - which meant that people were able to argue past each other rather than engage on substantive points. His pantomime "renegotiation" before the referendum was utter crap, and the threats of "third world war" were completely overdone. (Although I do think it's worth remembering the role of the EU in the longest period of peace in Europe in history).
I think the really sad thing in all of this is the culture war that it has provoked, which in my view is all to do with the nebulous idea of what "leave" meant. This leads to stupidities like a "Festival of Brexit", which celebrates something that almost half of voters explicitly voted against, and which will only deepen those fractures.
I'm English, but have studied and lived in Scotland for a number of years at different points, and it has a big place in my heart. I would have voted no in the independence referendum too, and I can't help but think there's only one way that is going to go now, sooner or later.
There is a 20% budget deficit on day one of independence: 8% from the "danger" of Brexit (SNP's own slides!) and 12% approximately from the Barnett formula.
I asked a panel of SNP MSP's what they were going to do about the deficit since we'll technically be worse off than Greece on day one of independence and they wouldn't commit to an answer as they were waiting for George Osborne (the chancellor at the time) to provide them with exact figures... this was in a room full of Entrepreneurs in Ayrshire in 2016 (might have been 2017, can't quite remember the date). They got heckled for that answer.
I maintain that if they can come up with something plausible to answer the question of what we do on day one when we are bankrupt, I will look at the rest of the evidence. Until then, there's no point. I will vote no.
So the money angle is perfectly valid in the case of independence.
It was always going to bring out the xenophobes as they now had a somewhat legit platform for their views.
It's something I see up here in Scotland around the independence debate: It's a "them and us" thing.
Although the SNP would never come out and say it themselves, they are happily stoking the anti-English fires knowing that people will vote (or not) based solely on that.
Pisses me off to be honest since it means we can't get an actual debate going about the massive issues that independence will cause... it's basically all about "Fk the English" and that's all people see.
The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
David Starky actually does some really good lectures about it. It is part of the Zeitgeist of this country.