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

[Monty92]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that leaving would lead to risk and uncertainty is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

[Burney]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that there were risks is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

There's plenty. You just won't hear it on the BBC. Ever.
More interesting to me is the fact that Remain campaigners apparently cannot imagine that anyone would ever vote for something other than financial self-interest. The idea that people believe that there is an economic price worth paying to get out of the EU never seems to occur.

[Monty92]

There's plenty. You just won't hear it on the BBC. Ever.
More interesting to me is the fact that Remain campaigners apparently cannot imagine that anyone would ever vote for something other than financial self-interest. The idea that people believe that there is an economic price worth paying to get out of the EU never seems to occur.

Indeed. The same way that immigration is only ever talked about by progressives in terms of net economic impact, rather than social cohesion (on which the studies are far less favourable).

[Sir C]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that leaving would lead to risk and uncertainty is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for.

[Monty92]

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for.

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

[Sir C]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous.

No, 'risk and uncertainty' would have resulted if we'd been told that the plan was to rapidly negotiate a trade deal with Commonwealth countries before settling in to the long job of negotiating such deals with the rest of the world. That would have represented risk and uncertainty. You could have made an informed decision there, even you could have rubbed your two braincells together and decided whether such a plan was worth the risk. What we voted for was... nothing. Nada. No plan. No idea. Nihilistic nonsense.

The fact that I voted Leave makes no difference to my argument.

[Burney]

No, 'risk and uncertainty' would have resulted if we'd been told that the plan was to rapidly negotiate a trade deal with Commonwealth countries before settling in to the long job of negotiating such deals with the rest of the world. That would have represented risk and uncertainty. You could have made an informed decision there, even you could have rubbed your two braincells together and decided whether such a plan was worth the risk. What we voted for was... nothing. Nada. No plan. No idea. Nihilistic nonsense.

The fact that I voted Leave makes no difference to my argument.

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

[Sir C]

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

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

[Brentwood]

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

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

[PSRB]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

Surely that is rather the point of voting for MP's.....I vote for them so that I don't have make decisions that I don't really understand

I voted out but I was rather under the impression there was a plan.....I feel a little let down on that front