Really ? No two people could describe it the same at the time. None of the descriptions resembled what is now being proposed.
Reminds me of this...... In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!" That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle. So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II. DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”
I don't think that really answers the question? What is it that has changed that makes you think we should have another vote? The whole idea of that to me is undemocratic and just plain wrong. I don't like the idea of we vote as a nation, but then try to do it again when one group doesn't get the vote they want. I think we have to be very careful with that. We knew the EU position on the single market, we knew their position on Ireland. Indeed we knew the EU position on any number of things.We knew about the uncertainty. I knew when I came to vote that full detail was not known. I also knew what the politicians on both sides were promising was unlikely to be the reality - I can't imagine anyone was naive enough or stupid enough to be sucked in by our politicians! I knew that leaving carried a good deal of risk, I also knew that voting to remain also had a good deal of uncertainty as the EU is an ever changing animal. It will continue to evolve and not all of the evolution will sit well with me. I voted to remain for selfish business reasons. I also believed (rightly or wrongly) that quite a few voting to leave did so because of a control of borders issue. I thought this throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak. To be clear, we have undoubtedly got a huge immigration issue already, with further challenges ahead. My personal belief on that front was non EU immigrants nearly always double the amount of EU immigrants. And that is already in the governments full control but they do nothing - they couldn't even tell you who or how many are in this country which is an appalling situation. Also EU rules state if you can’t support yourself in a country then you can only stay there 3 months. It just so happens that in order to gain benefits in a country you have to be there over 3 months. We don't enforce this and because of the lack of any formal registration system (like say Belgium) then they'd be pissing in the wind trying. Our government choosing not to do anything to enforce the rules is the bigger issue from what I can see. I understand though that immigration was not the sole issue for some, and the bureaucracy issue for instance has for some been a long standing issue i.e. having EU rules/regs imposed on us and sitting above our own system. I sympathise with that view at times, but I just think we will end up with a british version of the same thing. I went through the various leading issues and decided that, coupled with my business needs, I wasn't convinced. Others were. I accepted it and moved on. I feel if those in the remain campaign (politicians) had accepted the vote and spent the time planning for all eventualities (deal or no deal), we'd be a whole lot better position. We all knew the risks, we voted as we did, now deal with the aftermath in the most constructive way. What I have witnessed instead is a refusal to accept the vote, and a constant moan/effort to have an undemocratic re-vote to get what they wanted originally. Pure ****wittery basically.
Think we have just about done this to death, but briefly: - A lot of nonsense was said (on both sides, to be fair) - One thing that was said repeatedly was that we would be able to have full access to the single market and keep control of our borders - Some people will have believed that and voted Leave because they thought this was possible - It isn't possible - Some people would, therefore, probably not have voted leave if they had known what it would actually mean - Other people voted leave so as to have no relations at all with Europe. This also is probably not going to happen - These people as well may not have voted Leave if they knew what it would actually mean - To people like me who think that it is important that people actually know what the options are before being asked to choose between those options, it seems sensible to see if the majority actually want to leave on the terms that are available, rather than on the basis of the incorrect predictions that were being bandied about at the time they voted - I don't actually understand how anyone could object to this except: a. because they think it isn't worth the bother; or b. because they are worried that most people will not in fact vote to Leave when they know what it means
I think the issue is that in a public vote (such as general elections for example), the electorate rarely all understand what they are voting on. These votes are accepted time and again. I don't see any reason this would be different. We can't pick and choose when to accept a public vote for me personally. To be honest I have a further issue in that I also happen to think if the vote was done again, it would be the same result (perhaps even hardening the leave position to be honest). Therefore I not only think a re-vote is wrong, its a waste of time and money.
The point about general elections is that they are always re-done. It's built into the system. For some reason, though, the referendum has to be once and for all and never re-visited. As for the possibility that the result may be the same, no one knows. It might be. It might not be. As this is the biggest political decision for the last 40 years, it is worth the trouble to find out.
I don't think being never re-visited is the problem. Re-visiting it before we've actually carried out the public wishes and left is the problem If in 5 years time we discover we've made a mistake and re-joining was an option, then yes I can understand a re-vote. We don't have to like the way the way the vote was conducted with both campaigns spouting a load of bollocks and scaremongering, we don't even have to like the result going a way we didn't want. I just believe in a democracy we should respect the will of the people. Britain voted to leave and that is what we should do.
With our political figures, if there is one thing that is guaranteed, its misleading information being given to the public. On the flipside all the British people are able to factor this into their voting criteria as it is given.
Don't forget the NHS benefits, funny how that's rarely mentioned even on this thread when I mentioned it yesterday, .
I think you're wrong. A lot of people just didn't bother voting because they didn't believe we'd vote to leave.
