Sure but ultimately… I remember voting. So he at least offered the choice which was more than any other politician was prepared to do, the reasons why he offered the choice don’t matter to me. I don’t know about you, but I have this thing about democracy and actually being able to express my views on any given topic.
While allowing one side to outright lie about what them winning means.
Is not democracy its corruprion.
So yes likely exactly how he earned a lordhood.
To offer a democratic choice. You need an informed votership. And allowing all the opposing claims of no loss with all benifits. That the brexit side claimed. Was simply curruption. His or the party right. All equates to the same thing.
And given he used exaxly the same tricks in the AV ref.
He knew full well such a ref was open to lies and tricks to sell a side.
And was the only person with the power to ensure voters had the ability to clearly state what they wanted. No legal reason a ref need to be yes or no.
He could have easaly formated it as 2 question.
Leave stay.
If leave should we try to keep eea like membership.
This would have allowed simple maths to say. X % of leavers feel we should keep single market.
Heck as the questions are on the same paper.
He could have given a list of benifits and losses for people to select yes or no to.
At least then during debate with the EU. There would be a clear democratic path of what was wanted by the people. Broken down by leave and remain voters.
Making any negotiation in parliment and with the EU easier to debate.
“One side” both sides outright lied. So have to disagree on at least that point.
As I keep being told the UK is a ‘representative democracy’, it is generally your MP who decides the specifics, as the voting electorate it’s your job to decide which strategy should be followed. This is why manifestos are presented and that they are not complete covering every policy. The EU also made it abundantly clear (as they threw their toys out of the pram) that the UK could not ‘cherry pick’ parts of the EU, they were either in or out. There was no option of remaining part of the single market so it would be silly to offer that to the public.
Yes or No, was a legally non-binding way to advise government. What the government did with that information was their own effort. The referendum was sound. That someone lied should not preclude us from voting on things, because all politicians lie… except perhaps in wales where it might actually be a criminal offense for politicians to lie soon™…
There actually was a deal with the EU, several of them, however, the public then elected Boris Johnson deciding by electoral mandate that they wanted out and leave meant leave, not half in half out, just fuck 'em. It’s rather sweet to pretend that there wasn’t a general election before we actually left. There was a chance for the public to opt towards trying to remain in the single market, whether via Theresa May’s deal or by electing Labour.
He didn’t give the public a referendum; he braided the right wing of his party with a referendum.
Sure but ultimately… I remember voting. So he at least offered the choice which was more than any other politician was prepared to do, the reasons why he offered the choice don’t matter to me. I don’t know about you, but I have this thing about democracy and actually being able to express my views on any given topic.
We should have many more referendums.
Offering the public a choice.
While allowing one side to outright lie about what them winning means.
Is not democracy its corruprion.
So yes likely exactly how he earned a lordhood.
To offer a democratic choice. You need an informed votership. And allowing all the opposing claims of no loss with all benifits. That the brexit side claimed. Was simply curruption. His or the party right. All equates to the same thing.
And given he used exaxly the same tricks in the AV ref.
He knew full well such a ref was open to lies and tricks to sell a side.
And was the only person with the power to ensure voters had the ability to clearly state what they wanted. No legal reason a ref need to be yes or no.
He could have easaly formated it as 2 question.
Leave stay.
If leave should we try to keep eea like membership.
This would have allowed simple maths to say. X % of leavers feel we should keep single market.
Heck as the questions are on the same paper.
He could have given a list of benifits and losses for people to select yes or no to.
At least then during debate with the EU. There would be a clear democratic path of what was wanted by the people. Broken down by leave and remain voters.
Making any negotiation in parliment and with the EU easier to debate.
“One side” both sides outright lied. So have to disagree on at least that point.
As I keep being told the UK is a ‘representative democracy’, it is generally your MP who decides the specifics, as the voting electorate it’s your job to decide which strategy should be followed. This is why manifestos are presented and that they are not complete covering every policy. The EU also made it abundantly clear (as they threw their toys out of the pram) that the UK could not ‘cherry pick’ parts of the EU, they were either in or out. There was no option of remaining part of the single market so it would be silly to offer that to the public.
Yes or No, was a legally non-binding way to advise government. What the government did with that information was their own effort. The referendum was sound. That someone lied should not preclude us from voting on things, because all politicians lie… except perhaps in wales where it might actually be a criminal offense for politicians to lie soon™…
There actually was a deal with the EU, several of them, however, the public then elected Boris Johnson deciding by electoral mandate that they wanted out and leave meant leave, not half in half out, just fuck 'em. It’s rather sweet to pretend that there wasn’t a general election before we actually left. There was a chance for the public to opt towards trying to remain in the single market, whether via Theresa May’s deal or by electing Labour.