Why in the argument that “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for” not being

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brentwood

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

---

But this disregards the many voters who were aware they were being sold a "vague, unrealistic dream" (economically) and still voted out in good conscience, because for them more important issues were at stake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brentwood

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

---

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand in the hands of laymen is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

At best political sloganeering tends to tap into and validate people's pre-existing feelings. It rarely if ever changes minds. People don't actually believe politicians or their promises (not that this was a promise, of course). After all, if they did and if people are really so easily led, how come the rampant and demonstrably mendacious scaremongering of the Remain side didn't work?

---

These pre-existing feelings were seeded years ago because of slogans just like these. Boris admitted that he made up stories about barmy bendy banana laws in the Telegraph because people lapped it up and started believing it.

Take a look closer to home. Facts and common sense tell you that Arsenal had to cut their spending for 10+ years in order to pay off the stadium loan. During that time, we have had swathes of people convinced by loudmouths on social media, Arsenal Fan TV that the money is all going to Kroenke, or Wenger is arogant, tight and personally profitting, or that Wenger isn't tactically astute enough to realise that selling our best players and replacing them with teenage seedlings is a bad idea. The momentum continues following every defeat to the extent that he gets booed at games and people hold up placards begging him to spend. No amount of sane, reasoned arguments could stop this sentiment from spreading. It would be just as reckless to ask the fans in the stadium to vote on how our finances should be managed.

There was some silly scaremongering going on, but a lot of the other stuff labelled as scaremongering is still vert likely in my eyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I said nothing of validity and wonder why you have introduced this idea to my argument.

---

You said that not having a clear idea of the outcome made voting leave impossible. I am merely pointing out that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brentwood

These pre-existing feelings were seeded years ago because of slogans just like these. Boris admitted that he made up stories about barmy bendy banana laws in the Telegraph because people lapped it up and started believing it.

Take a look closer to home. Facts and common sense tell you that Arsenal had to cut their spending for 10+ years in order to pay off the stadium loan. During that time, we have had swathes of people convinced by loudmouths on social media, Arsenal Fan TV that the money is all going to Kroenke, or Wenger is arogant, tight and personally profitting, or that Wenger isn't tactically astute enough to realise that selling our best players and replacing them with teenage seedlings is a bad idea. The momentum continues following every defeat to the extent that he gets booed at games and people hold up placards begging him to spend. No amount of sane, reasoned arguments could stop this sentiment from spreading. It would be just as reckless to ask the fans in the stadium to vote on how our finances should be managed.

There was some silly scaremongering going on, but a lot of the other stuff labelled as scaremongering is still vert likely in my eyes

---

Everyone is subject to confirmation bias - everyone.
Those who instinctively disliked the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU were inclined to believe the stuff about bendy bananas, just as you are inclined to believe the prophets of doom because disaster would validate your beliefs. The idea that one side was any more mendacious than the other is simply silly.
The UK has never embraced the European project in the same way as other European nations for obvious historical reasons. As a consequence, we have always been rather sceptical of it. Our readiness to believe stories about bendy bananas is a symptom of an innate Euroscepticism, not the cause of it. The idea that British Euroscepticism was created out of whole cloth by Boris (or anyone else for that matter) is a fantasy.

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

---

Ah, there you are! Did you fall down a hole or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

---

Exactly. We voted for Irexit in 1917 or something didn't we sw? And we just got on with it. Bloody whinging Brits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

---

There were people like that Professor of EU Law, working for the University of Liverpool who was said to have had a vested interest, because his uni got some EU grant somewhere. Compare his modest University salary to the money he could make advising the UK Govt on how best to establish a post-Brexit UK, and he probably voted against his personal interests. Manufacturers telling us that they wouldn't manufacture in the UK if they had to pay tariffs on incoming materials and be charged tariffs for the suff they produce, only had vested interests, in the sense that it is obviously a high risk to their UK business operations which needed spelling out to people (which was dismissed anyway).

The way we usually make major decisions is in the HoCs after following due process, extensive cross examining, publishing detailed white papers, issuing bills and laws and generally ensuring that we actually know what we are signing up for. We don't ask the public to directly vote about whether we should invade a country, without telling them what the country is, who we're up against , who our allies may be etc. Our elected politicians debate it in parliament, consider all the facts and make the decision on our behalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Ah, there you are! Did you fall down a hole or something?

---

Work ****, you know the score.

I won, naturally.