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

[World's End Stella]

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.

That depends on the volatility of the potential outcome. In the case of Brexit, the options are considerable and many of them vastly different, so it is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

It doesn't invalidate the outcome of the vote, however. Not in my view, anyway.

[Ash]

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

There was no plan because they were too arrogant to think they might lose. I suspect they are only too happy to be seen flapping about without one as it increases the likelihood of the decision somehow being reversed. Chances are the EU will actually collapse under its own failings before the British Government manages to implement the decision of the voters. Or most other countries vote to leave anyway.

[Sir C]

But what level of pre-vote planning did you realistically imagine there could have been, given leaving would inevitably result in a new PM and cabinet? Surely you factored this into your decision-making, and if not, was this not naive?

I don't suppose anyone expected that Mssrs Cameron and Osborn were sitting up late into the night with their abaci and thinking caps, determining what to do in the unlikely event. One rather imagined that a roomfull of civil servants, chaps with big brains and self-propeling pencils and thick spectacles, would have been tasked to come up with some options for the politicos to choose from.

[Brentwood]

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.

This just isn't true. A lot of people were convinced that we would SAVE 350m a week by leaving, without taking into account the fact that this sum includes subsidies coming back that we'll have to cover, EU investment in deprived areas, and the fact that not being in the EU brings with it new costs for us. There were interviews with people who said they'd be disgusted if it turns out the NHS won't be getting this 350m, when we all know they'll be getting less

There is still so much contradiction about what Brexit looks like coming from govt appointed ministers, that people still don't know what it looks like.

[Sir C]

This just isn't true. A lot of people were convinced that we would SAVE 350m a week by leaving, without taking into account the fact that this sum includes subsidies coming back that we'll have to cover, EU investment in deprived areas, and the fact that not being in the EU brings with it new costs for us. There were interviews with people who said they'd be disgusted if it turns out the NHS won't be getting this 350m, when we all know they'll be getting less

There is still so much contradiction about what Brexit looks like coming from govt appointed ministers, that people still don't know what it looks like.

Come on b, no sane, sentient adult human being took any notice of the £350m bus, did they? I mean. Really.

[Brentwood]

Come on b, no sane, sentient adult human being took any notice of the £350m bus, did they? I mean. Really.

Oh definitely. It was the main crux of their argument, from what I could tell. This idea that we are a cash cow for the EU, sending all of our money to countries like Poland, money used by the EU to make laws we have to adhere to against our will, was very powerful. It worked very effectively

[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.

[Burney]

Oh definitely. It was the main crux of their argument, from what I could tell. This idea that we are a cash cow for the EU, sending all of our money to countries like Poland, money used by the EU to make laws we have to adhere to against our will, was very powerful. It worked very effectively

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?

[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