3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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.