7 ms·

Well... in case of Brexit it is because people voted to leave the EU.

by LeonM 8y ago

pmlnr 8y ago
No, they voted for lies.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Ah, so when you disagree, people voted for lies? But when you agree then it’s the will of the people?
  - calcifer 8y ago
    The lies told by the leave campaign has been extensively documented, including by courts. It's all a google search away.
    - antipropaganda 8y ago
      So are the lies of the remain campaign ?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - tasuki 8y ago
      Yes, and it's completely beside the point. The point being that this was how the people voted. Democracy right there.
    - kypro 8y ago
      It would only be worse if the government backed one side of the debate with millions of pounds of public money. Thank god that didn't happen... /sarcasm
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Whether lies were spread on one side or another does not invalidate the fact that people showed up to the polls and cast votes.
  - pmlnr 8y ago
    Oh, come on. Yes, mislead will is also a will. However, the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding, it's now how referendums work in England. The people who wanted Brexit literally said out loud we lied next morning, the resigned and/or disappeared. Sure, it's the will of the people...
    - cr1895 8y ago
      >the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding It wasn't.
    - Chestofdraw 8y ago
      >Brexit vote should never have been legally binding It should have been legally binding, if it had been then it could have been challenged in court and very likely would have been overturned due to the cheating of the leave campaigns.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." N Farage, May 2016.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      You seem to have misinterpreted me. I was not speaking to the finality of the Brexit vote (and I agree that a roughly 50/50 split is not a mandate), but to the tactic of attempting to invalidate your political opponents by claiming that they were duped or hoodwinked into voting the way they did. It's incredibly patronizing (in addition to being illogical).
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        It's not a "tactic". It's a statement of the absurd level of lies and disinformation from the Brexit side from Farage, Gove and Johnson and in interviews and advert all the way down to local campaigns. Subsequently shown to have had illegal levels of spending, criticised by the electoral commission and countless stories about hidden funding, dubious tactics from Cambridge Analytica or whoever, or bullshit facebook ads. Remain came out with some poor predictions, but there weren't, as far as I can tell, any outright lies. A distinct lack of revelations after the event too. Sure, there's always some dubious local leaflets, or a stupid statement or three, in every election. This was quantitatively and qualitatively different by orders of magnitude. By far the most disingenuous campaign I've ever seen for a UK vote. So I do feel duped - I don't think it matters which way one voted - as UK elections have generally done much, much better at presenting issues. The leave campaign promised the moon on a stick in a very US style, which 24hr news happily amplified. Farage burst the bus slogan the morning after the result. Suffice to say both sides ran bloody awful campaigns, and the end result is no-one is happy. The first EU referendum saw a booklet sent to every household discussing and arguing both sides of all the main issues - to allow people a chance to understand before voting. Leave actually had a case back then - in joining the EU we were turning our back on significant and long standing Commonwealth trade arrangements.
        8y ago
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Which is a case in point about the will of the people. Especially in very complicated situations, the people do not necessarily understand the impact of their choices, which is why they select representatives to act in their stead.
  - cbg0 8y ago
    Judging by how things have progressed, it doesn't seem like those elected representatives have a much better understanding of the impact either.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    The choice offered was a 'have cake, unicorns and rainbows with a free puppy' or remain in the EU. How were they expected to understand the real impact of their choice when it was so blatantly missold? "There is no plan for no deal, because we'll easily get a great deal" Boris Johnson. "getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" John Redwood. I'm sorry, but in what universe are the terms for non members going to be better than the terms for members? The banks were expected to compensate for the insurance misselling scandal... https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys
    - Chris2048 8y ago
      This assumes people don't know Boris is a lying, populist shit. It also assumes that no other referendum are based on falsehood, including the original membership referendum. In reality, the people vote for the wrong result, and the leave campaign comes under the microscope EDIT: flagged? because it's pro-brexit? politics are being played around flagging. I wish there was a process for this kind of flag abuse.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Hey, I'm as onside with getting rid of Brexit as anyone, but a democracy is voting for a person or a platform. That person may be a horrible lying bastard, or the platform may be so full of holes you could drain spaghetti on it. That's just the way it works. People vote for the thing that they vote for. Now, if you decided to overturn the vote because the voters made a bad choice... that's pretty much the opposite of democracy, even if it results in a better choice. I think it would be interesting if there was a law that you couldn't say something untrue in an election. That would be incredible. But, of course, then all your politicians would be in jail. As it stands, it falls on the opposition to eloquently communicate the truth in a believable way when someone lies. If they fail, I'm not sure you can blame democracy. To be a bit less pointed, I understand that you are angry, but your anger is not effective. If the Brexit side lied (and I'm inclined to agree with you here), how did Brexit win? How would you improve the situation? If your answers are something like "Because Brexiteers are stupid racists" and "There isn't anything you can do", then you'll never get any farther. You need spend your time learning how to communicate to the people who voted for Brexit and to get your message across in a way that they can understand. Otherwise you just become the angry guy on the internet, which isn't really satisfying for anyone.
- vixen99 8y ago
  Wow, what a succinct powerful argument. You've convinced me!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Well... in case of Brexit it is because people voted to leave the EU.

by LeonM 8y ago

Well... in case of Brexit it is because people voted to leave the EU.

pmlnr 8y ago

No, they voted for lies.

toasterlovin 8y ago
Ah, so when you disagree, people voted for lies? But when you agree then it’s the will of the people?
- calcifer 8y ago
  The lies told by the leave campaign has been extensively documented, including by courts. It's all a google search away.
  - antipropaganda 8y ago
    So are the lies of the remain campaign ?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - tasuki 8y ago
    Yes, and it's completely beside the point. The point being that this was how the people voted. Democracy right there.
  - kypro 8y ago
    It would only be worse if the government backed one side of the debate with millions of pounds of public money. Thank god that didn't happen... /sarcasm
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Whether lies were spread on one side or another does not invalidate the fact that people showed up to the polls and cast votes.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  Oh, come on. Yes, mislead will is also a will. However, the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding, it's now how referendums work in England. The people who wanted Brexit literally said out loud we lied next morning, the resigned and/or disappeared. Sure, it's the will of the people...
  - cr1895 8y ago
    >the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding It wasn't.
  - Chestofdraw 8y ago
    >Brexit vote should never have been legally binding It should have been legally binding, if it had been then it could have been challenged in court and very likely would have been overturned due to the cheating of the leave campaigns.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." N Farage, May 2016.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    You seem to have misinterpreted me. I was not speaking to the finality of the Brexit vote (and I agree that a roughly 50/50 split is not a mandate), but to the tactic of attempting to invalidate your political opponents by claiming that they were duped or hoodwinked into voting the way they did. It's incredibly patronizing (in addition to being illogical).
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      It's not a "tactic". It's a statement of the absurd level of lies and disinformation from the Brexit side from Farage, Gove and Johnson and in interviews and advert all the way down to local campaigns. Subsequently shown to have had illegal levels of spending, criticised by the electoral commission and countless stories about hidden funding, dubious tactics from Cambridge Analytica or whoever, or bullshit facebook ads. Remain came out with some poor predictions, but there weren't, as far as I can tell, any outright lies. A distinct lack of revelations after the event too. Sure, there's always some dubious local leaflets, or a stupid statement or three, in every election. This was quantitatively and qualitatively different by orders of magnitude. By far the most disingenuous campaign I've ever seen for a UK vote. So I do feel duped - I don't think it matters which way one voted - as UK elections have generally done much, much better at presenting issues. The leave campaign promised the moon on a stick in a very US style, which 24hr news happily amplified. Farage burst the bus slogan the morning after the result. Suffice to say both sides ran bloody awful campaigns, and the end result is no-one is happy. The first EU referendum saw a booklet sent to every household discussing and arguing both sides of all the main issues - to allow people a chance to understand before voting. Leave actually had a case back then - in joining the EU we were turning our back on significant and long standing Commonwealth trade arrangements.
      - 8y ago
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Which is a case in point about the will of the people. Especially in very complicated situations, the people do not necessarily understand the impact of their choices, which is why they select representatives to act in their stead.
- cbg0 8y ago
  Judging by how things have progressed, it doesn't seem like those elected representatives have a much better understanding of the impact either.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  The choice offered was a 'have cake, unicorns and rainbows with a free puppy' or remain in the EU. How were they expected to understand the real impact of their choice when it was so blatantly missold? "There is no plan for no deal, because we'll easily get a great deal" Boris Johnson. "getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" John Redwood. I'm sorry, but in what universe are the terms for non members going to be better than the terms for members? The banks were expected to compensate for the insurance misselling scandal... https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys
  - Chris2048 8y ago
    This assumes people don't know Boris is a lying, populist shit. It also assumes that no other referendum are based on falsehood, including the original membership referendum. In reality, the people vote for the wrong result, and the leave campaign comes under the microscope EDIT: flagged? because it's pro-brexit? politics are being played around flagging. I wish there was a process for this kind of flag abuse.
mikekchar 8y ago
Hey, I'm as onside with getting rid of Brexit as anyone, but a democracy is voting for a person or a platform. That person may be a horrible lying bastard, or the platform may be so full of holes you could drain spaghetti on it. That's just the way it works. People vote for the thing that they vote for. Now, if you decided to overturn the vote because the voters made a bad choice... that's pretty much the opposite of democracy, even if it results in a better choice. I think it would be interesting if there was a law that you couldn't say something untrue in an election. That would be incredible. But, of course, then all your politicians would be in jail. As it stands, it falls on the opposition to eloquently communicate the truth in a believable way when someone lies. If they fail, I'm not sure you can blame democracy. To be a bit less pointed, I understand that you are angry, but your anger is not effective. If the Brexit side lied (and I'm inclined to agree with you here), how did Brexit win? How would you improve the situation? If your answers are something like "Because Brexiteers are stupid racists" and "There isn't anything you can do", then you'll never get any farther. You need spend your time learning how to communicate to the people who voted for Brexit and to get your message across in a way that they can understand. Otherwise you just become the angry guy on the internet, which isn't really satisfying for anyone.
vixen99 8y ago
Wow, what a succinct powerful argument. You've convinced me!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]