4 ms·

> Most of the support for Brexit came from tabloid newspapers owned by the ultra-rich. Aren't most newspapers owned by the ultra-rich? Couldn't you just make t

> Most of the support for Brexit came from tabloid newspapers owned by the ultra-rich. Aren't most newspapers owned by the ultra-rich? Couldn't you just make the exact same arguments you leveled against your political opponents (that they were hoodwinked by "the media") against your own position? At the end of the day, people showed up and voted for something. Twice (basically). That means something.

pavlov 7y ago
"At the end of the day, people showed up and voted for something. Twice (basically). That means something." "Voted for something and it means something" is the portrait of Brexit. A question was posed to the public but it was never explained properly, and so nobody knows what it means. Did people want a border in Ireland? A third-party status for UK products imported to EU? A separation from European scientific collaboration? These are just a few of the hundreds of open questions. The UK government hasn't figured it out in three years. Yet the vote definitely means "something", so "something" should happen.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  You're changing the topic. The post I responded to was attempting to make the case that consent was manufactured and, thus (presumably), invalid. Do you accept my argument that this is not a reasonable approach to arguing about the validity of the Brexit vote?
  - pavlov 7y ago
    What exactly are you arguing? That we shouldn’t examine the evidence of how Brexit became public issue #1 when it barely registered in polls a few years earlier? The validity of the vote is simple: it means exactly what Parliament decides it means at any time. Referendums don’t become law automatically, and Britain doesn’t have a constitution that could force it (unlike some countries like Switzerland).
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      I am arguing that pointing to the fact that the owners of right wing publications are very wealthy is not evidence that somehow consent was manufactured for Brexit, since the owners of left wing publications are also very wealthy. Owners of large businesses are usually very wealthy. Doubly so with publishing businesses, which are often unprofitable, and, thus, require a wealthy benefactor to keep operating. And pointing to fact that Brexit was a non-issue a few years before hand is also irrelevant. There are a myriad of political issues being hashed out now that weren't on anybody's radar a few years ago. This is a normal part of how media and popular culture work.

pavlov 7y ago

"At the end of the day, people showed up and voted for something. Twice (basically). That means something." "Voted for something and it means something" is the portrait of Brexit. A question was posed to the public but it was never explained properly, and so nobody knows what it means. Did people want a border in Ireland? A third-party status for UK products imported to EU? A separation from European scientific collaboration? These are just a few of the hundreds of open questions. The UK government hasn't figured it out in three years. Yet the vote definitely means "something", so "something" should happen.

toasterlovin 7y ago
You're changing the topic. The post I responded to was attempting to make the case that consent was manufactured and, thus (presumably), invalid. Do you accept my argument that this is not a reasonable approach to arguing about the validity of the Brexit vote?
- pavlov 7y ago
  What exactly are you arguing? That we shouldn’t examine the evidence of how Brexit became public issue #1 when it barely registered in polls a few years earlier? The validity of the vote is simple: it means exactly what Parliament decides it means at any time. Referendums don’t become law automatically, and Britain doesn’t have a constitution that could force it (unlike some countries like Switzerland).
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    I am arguing that pointing to the fact that the owners of right wing publications are very wealthy is not evidence that somehow consent was manufactured for Brexit, since the owners of left wing publications are also very wealthy. Owners of large businesses are usually very wealthy. Doubly so with publishing businesses, which are often unprofitable, and, thus, require a wealthy benefactor to keep operating. And pointing to fact that Brexit was a non-issue a few years before hand is also irrelevant. There are a myriad of political issues being hashed out now that weren't on anybody's radar a few years ago. This is a normal part of how media and popular culture work.