I suspect that the majority of voters never wanted to leave in the first place. Results-wise, there was like 1.2% in it. And the leave voters were more likely to actually turn up. The problem is that too many “remainers” didn’t actually vote.
The original Brexit vote should have been at 2/3 majority vote. The fact that it was a simple majority was absolutely bonkers and I’m sure the ones who put it in the ballot knew exactly what they were doing. They all made massive sums of money on Brexit while the morons who voted for it are losing their shirt.
Nowhere is this more evidenced than in this statement from the article.
But once the 18% who say they don’t know are taken out, 52% back EU membership with 48% opposing it - a complete reversal of the 2016 Brexit referendum result.
A full 18% of those polled couldn’t even make up their damned mind about it. And the people who wrote this chose to clip those idiots out of the picture in order to create the narrative they wanted for this clickbait as fuck article. And I will bet you anything the the Brexit framers would make serious bank on any effort to rejoin. [/removes tin hat]
Oh it’s worse than that. It was never even legally binding, it was just a finger-in-the air - only after the fact was it treated like the cast iron democratic will of the people while over in the real world the Electoral Commission would’ve actually declared the whole thing void if it was a legally binding referendum because of illegal overspend by the grifters pushing it in the first place.
The whole thing is maddening to think about, honestly
People need to remember the vote happened immediately after the EU migration crisis. Anti-EU sentiment was at a high all across the union.
I don’t know why people act like being anti-EU was a UK thing, not a shared issue across several members. People should remember that before they shit on the UK too much.
Shit, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, and perhaps others had a similar or higher level of anti-EU sentiment at the time compared to the UK. It’s just that David Cameron was the only one stupid enough to gamble on having a referendum.
The Leave Referendum and what happened during it and afterwards to the Tory party is a great lesson of what happens when a mainstream rightwing party starts adopting policies of the far-right.
(The present day Tory Party is far-right by continental european standards, only headed by posh twats rather than the more traditional rabble rousers).
Should be a lesson for similar parties in the rest of Europe, IMHO.
It was. A lot of right wing loonies in the EU dropped their leave the EU stance because everyone around the EU saw what a stupid and annoying thing it was to leave.
the far right has been gaining recently all over Europe
The farmers who vote and promote them want to get rid of taxes on fuel for their tractors. They still want to sell their crops to European countries. European economies are more overtly connected between mainland European countries than the UK has been.
David Cameron may have gambled on the referendum but he still only had one vote in it. The citizens of the UK as a whole own the results. Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.
Also, anti-EU sentiment is one thing and may be common in various EU countries from time to time. However, voting for separation is quite another.
In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.
Nobody else voted for it because nobody else had the chance to.
My whole point is that it’s extremely likely other countries that also experienced a wave of anti-EU sentiment would’ve voted the same way, had they been given the chance.
I don’t know why you’d think that the UK is unique in its anti-EU streak. It was huge in a handful of places at the time.
While I see your point, I feel like this doesn’t take into account how our voting system can give a party a large majority even if less than half the population votes for them. Just over half the population voted for parties that weren’t pro-hard Brexit, yes the Tories got 56% of the seats on just 42% of the vote. That kind of discrepancy means it’s hard to infer the will of the people based on the composition of the Commons.
There is a pervasive idea on the internet that the popular vote is the “real” vote, compared to constituency-based voting. I don’t find that to be a helpful attitude, especially when applied selectively. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The House of Commons is a constituent assembly, which is a valid and reasonable form of democratic representation. The election system could be changed to better reflect the popular vote, but the popular vote is not automatically more valid than the constituency-based system. There are pros and cons to both, with constiuency-based voting typically giving somewhat more weight to under-populated areas.
The fact is that the UK voted for Brexit, directly and indirectly, multiple times and in multiple ways using its long-established voting system. There is no way to escape responsibility. Indeed, being a democracy, the citizens of the UK are ALSO responsible for their own voting system.
I’m not saying the popular vote is more valid than the constituency-based system. I’m saying there’s more nuance to the situation than “the population wanted Brexit because the Tories got a majority”, which is what I thought you were sayin here:
Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.
…
In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.
I can’t deny the last sentence, but using the election as evidence makes it sound like over half of the country wanted the Conservatives in power, which is demonstrably untrue, that’s the only thing I’m arguing against.
I suspect that the majority of voters never wanted to leave in the first place. Results-wise, there was like 1.2% in it. And the leave voters were more likely to actually turn up. The problem is that too many “remainers” didn’t actually vote.
People who don’t go to elections (laziness, confidence to win anyway, boycott) accept the election’s outcome.
True, but we are speaking about what people want, not how they voted.
The original Brexit vote should have been at 2/3 majority vote. The fact that it was a simple majority was absolutely bonkers and I’m sure the ones who put it in the ballot knew exactly what they were doing. They all made massive sums of money on Brexit while the morons who voted for it are losing their shirt.
Nowhere is this more evidenced than in this statement from the article.
A full 18% of those polled couldn’t even make up their damned mind about it. And the people who wrote this chose to clip those idiots out of the picture in order to create the narrative they wanted for this clickbait as fuck article. And I will bet you anything the the Brexit framers would make serious bank on any effort to rejoin. [/removes tin hat]
Oh it’s worse than that. It was never even legally binding, it was just a finger-in-the air - only after the fact was it treated like the cast iron democratic will of the people while over in the real world the Electoral Commission would’ve actually declared the whole thing void if it was a legally binding referendum because of illegal overspend by the grifters pushing it in the first place.
The whole thing is maddening to think about, honestly
People need to remember the vote happened immediately after the EU migration crisis. Anti-EU sentiment was at a high all across the union.
I don’t know why people act like being anti-EU was a UK thing, not a shared issue across several members. People should remember that before they shit on the UK too much.
Shit, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, and perhaps others had a similar or higher level of anti-EU sentiment at the time compared to the UK. It’s just that David Cameron was the only one stupid enough to gamble on having a referendum.
Anti EU was a UK thing. Barely anybody in mainland EU wanted to leave the union. It was and still is a topic of the far right, not centrist parties.
The Leave Referendum and what happened during it and afterwards to the Tory party is a great lesson of what happens when a mainstream rightwing party starts adopting policies of the far-right.
(The present day Tory Party is far-right by continental european standards, only headed by posh twats rather than the more traditional rabble rousers).
Should be a lesson for similar parties in the rest of Europe, IMHO.
It was. A lot of right wing loonies in the EU dropped their leave the EU stance because everyone around the EU saw what a stupid and annoying thing it was to leave.
While what you are saying is true, the far right has been gaining recently all over Europe. And they have been more vocal about what they want.
The farmers who vote and promote them want to get rid of taxes on fuel for their tractors. They still want to sell their crops to European countries. European economies are more overtly connected between mainland European countries than the UK has been.
That is not true. Several countries had a similar or higher level of anti-EU sentiment.
It was only after seeing Brexit struggles, as well as moving on from the 2015 refugee crisis, that anti-EU sentiment dropped.
David Cameron may have gambled on the referendum but he still only had one vote in it. The citizens of the UK as a whole own the results. Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.
Also, anti-EU sentiment is one thing and may be common in various EU countries from time to time. However, voting for separation is quite another.
In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.
Nobody else voted for it because nobody else had the chance to.
My whole point is that it’s extremely likely other countries that also experienced a wave of anti-EU sentiment would’ve voted the same way, had they been given the chance.
I don’t know why you’d think that the UK is unique in its anti-EU streak. It was huge in a handful of places at the time.
While I see your point, I feel like this doesn’t take into account how our voting system can give a party a large majority even if less than half the population votes for them. Just over half the population voted for parties that weren’t pro-hard Brexit, yes the Tories got 56% of the seats on just 42% of the vote. That kind of discrepancy means it’s hard to infer the will of the people based on the composition of the Commons.
There is a pervasive idea on the internet that the popular vote is the “real” vote, compared to constituency-based voting. I don’t find that to be a helpful attitude, especially when applied selectively. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The House of Commons is a constituent assembly, which is a valid and reasonable form of democratic representation. The election system could be changed to better reflect the popular vote, but the popular vote is not automatically more valid than the constituency-based system. There are pros and cons to both, with constiuency-based voting typically giving somewhat more weight to under-populated areas.
The fact is that the UK voted for Brexit, directly and indirectly, multiple times and in multiple ways using its long-established voting system. There is no way to escape responsibility. Indeed, being a democracy, the citizens of the UK are ALSO responsible for their own voting system.
I’m not saying the popular vote is more valid than the constituency-based system. I’m saying there’s more nuance to the situation than “the population wanted Brexit because the Tories got a majority”, which is what I thought you were sayin here:
I can’t deny the last sentence, but using the election as evidence makes it sound like over half of the country wanted the Conservatives in power, which is demonstrably untrue, that’s the only thing I’m arguing against.