View Single Post
Old 08-29-2019, 05:24 PM
Novelty Bobble is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,011
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
On the grounds that it is a terrible idea which will do short-, medium- and long-term damage to the country,
speculative, especially the "long-term". no-one has done this before nor even anything like it.

and that the people democratically elected to represent the majority sometimes have more time to devote to these questions and access to better information, and thus a better idea of how things might pan out than the electorate en masse—which is why said electorate delegates governance in the first place.
on this question they don't though, the projections are all worst-case that rely upon no-one taking mitigating actions (which won't happen). How it pans-out it unknown, anyone who tells you otherwise with certainty is lying. Beyond short-term upheaval, no-one knows. These are the same experts who saw nothing and said nothing in the run-up to the 2008 crash.

On the grounds that this is a whopping great decision to be made by a tiny majority of those who even bothered to vote on the question,
history is made by those that turn up
in a referendum that was meant to be advisory in the first place,
the pledge that went along with the referendum, that was re-inforced by both major parties at the subsequent GE, was that the result was going to be respected and enacted.
and whose campaigns involved disinformation.
show me a political campaign that doesn't or an electorate gullible enough to think eveything they are promised will come to pass, they don't do so in a GE and there is no reason to think they did so to any greater degree in the referendum. Given that a promise was made to enact.......are the electorate guaranteed to believe promises or not?
On the grounds that EU citizens resident in the UK didn't get to vote in the referendum [I'd have to double-check that point: going from memory] and perhaps should have been allowed to.
They were allowed to.

look, I deal with pretty high-level people in major coprporations. A really good rule of thumb for major executive decisions is that if you aren't prepared to to accept the answer you don't ask the question in the first place. Once you do it is a major issue if you don't implement and not to be taken lightly. All the points you make have merit but even were any of them used as justification for revocation you would still have to deal with the fallout from a large group of people clearly denied their freely-taken, explicitily promised, democratically expressed wish. By all means say "whoopsy, my bad" but the aftermath may be even uglier that what you think you are avoiding.
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way