Brexit

[Mike T]

Phew, where to start?
The problem DM is it depends who you ask. Just as in any group there will be mixture of people and opinions ranging from swivel-eyed loonies to rational, thoughtful types. Its much more difficult to concisely say why something should change instead of staying put with the status quo. And if life teaches you anything, it is that people are naturally risk averse. Gurus make a very good living out of teaching change management.
So, I could, if inclined, go over once more why I made what was, to me, a rational thoughtful choice when I put my vote on that bit of paper. But it probably would be pretty meaningless to you because your viewpoint/environment/personal persuasions may be very different to mine.
So, in the end, individuals batting their own personal viewpoints around doesn't really help anyone. Its only when you take a significant overview like, say, a referendum that you can get an averaged opinion. The averaged opinion for this question was out...but by a tiny majority. In my view that majority is too small to be relevant. But the people asking the question did not think to set a meaningful majority!

.... nor to ask a specific enough question. As to the general ignorance on the issue - this applies to the public and the politicians - and all the lies that were told - but the general feeling seems to be it is too late to start again. Yet it is the only real answer to the potential problems we face. This constant " the public just wants us to get on with it ...." - how do you know - have you asked them? Sure, the public is sick to death of it, but that might mean they want it stopped altogether rather than proceeded with.

[Muddy Retriever]

This constant " the public just wants us to get on with it ...." - how do you know - have you asked them? Sure, the public is sick to death of it, but that might mean they want it stopped altogether rather than proceeded with.

You mentioned all the “lies” told Mike and that’s certainly true of the utterances of those who advocate a “people’s vote”. What could be undemocratic about asking the people to give their final say right?

Unfortunately both Jo Swinson and Caroline Lucas have rather given the game away. When both were asked whether they would accept a leave vote if another referendum was indeed held neither could. Says it all doesn’t it? Democracy is fine as long as the “plebs” vote the right way.

[Mike T]

You mentioned all the “lies” told Mike and that’s certainly true of the utterances of those who advocate a “people’s vote”. What could be undemocratic about asking the people to give their final say right?

Unfortunately both Jo Swinson and Caroline Lucas have rather given the game away. When both were asked whether they would accept a leave vote if another referendum was indeed held neither could. Says it all doesn’t it? Democracy is fine as long as the “plebs” vote the right way.

Now that we know so much more, I would be willing to accept the result of a second referendum, even if it was "only" 48:52. The opposition parties have certainly done themselves no favours - they care more about themselves than the country. But that is politics, and, it would seem, the majority of politicians.

[Muddy Retriever]

Now that we know so much more, I would be willing to accept the result of a second referendum, even if it was "only" 48:52. The opposition parties have certainly done themselves no favours - they care more about themselves than the country. But that is politics, and, it would seem, the majority of politicians.

But the passage of time always means you know more now than you did in the past. It would have been the same had we voted to stay in the EU. I rather doubt that you'd now be asking for another referendum if Remain had won.

What do we actually know? For my part I know that the EU wants to punish us for having the temerity to leave by imposing harsh terms - Barnier has said as much. We also know that Remain politicians here have been encouraging them to do so and doing all they can to frustrate the referendum result. Neither of these is a reason to have another vote as far as I can see.

In reality we will only know if Brexit was the right decision after it actually happens. So why not give it chance and if in say five or so years there is a groundswell of opinion wanting a referendum to rejoin have one then?

[noel]

In reality we will only know if Brexit was the right decision after it actually happens. So why not give it chance and if in say five or so years there is a groundswell of opinion wanting a referendum to rejoin have one then?

Wise words MR. But we never have a counterfactual. If we leave, those who didn't want to will then blame everything from the trains running late to their football team not winning on that decision. If we don't the same will happen from the other side.

I'd also suggest that 5 years is too short a time. I think some of those who voted to leave were thinking more along the lines of "yes, it will be painful in the short term, but in the longer term it will have benefits". Maybe 15 years? It will take time for the economy, trade links etc. to adjust to the new market environment.

[Muddy Retriever]

Wise words MR. But we never have a counterfactual. If we leave, those who didn't want to will then blame everything from the trains running late to their football team not winning on that decision. If we don't the same will happen from the other side.

I'd also suggest that 5 years is too short a time. I think some of those who voted to leave were thinking more along the lines of "yes, it will be painful in the short term, but in the longer term it will have benefits". Maybe 15 years? It will take time for the economy, trade links etc. to adjust to the new market environment.

You're probably right that some people would never be reconciled to leaving (or remaining). That's why I mentioned that there should be a groundswell of general public opinion in favour of another referendum.

On reflection I agree that five years is probably too soon.

[Mike T]

But the passage of time always means you know more now than you did in the past. It would have been the same had we voted to stay in the EU. I rather doubt that you'd now be asking for another referendum if Remain had won.

What do we actually know? For my part I know that the EU wants to punish us for having the temerity to leave by imposing harsh terms - Barnier has said as much. We also know that Remain politicians here have been encouraging them to do so and doing all they can to frustrate the referendum result. Neither of these is a reason to have another vote as far as I can see.

In reality we will only know if Brexit was the right decision after it actually happens. So why not give it chance and if in say five or so years there is a groundswell of opinion wanting a referendum to rejoin have one then?

Yes, knowledge usually increases with time, and often this means we change our minds there and then - otherwise we would not change our minds in time, and the gap between knowledge and reaction would be too long to be useful.
The main new knowledge re Brexit is how little we know - we are starting to know what we don't know.
So some want to re ask the question now, some don't - who is in the majority? We just ask.

[MattPo]

Bollox to Brexit!