Wednesday, December 12, 2018

About Brexit

Climate scientist James Annan has hated Brexit from the start, and has written a lengthy complaint about (amongst other things) how the media has taken a ridiculously soft role in challenging politicians on the issue.  

I still don't understand how it is so hard to convince politicians that it should be the subject of second referendum.   There are now things that are obvious about the situation before the first referendum:  

a.  the pro-Brexit side made completely false and misleading claims about the alleged benefits;
b.  the public was completely unaware of the complexities of Brexit;
c.  the public had no idea of the costs and consequences.  

A second referendum would, I think, obviously need to be done because the first vote held was held in something like an information vacuum.   

So why are politicians acting as if holding a second one is some betrayal of democracy?   A single exercise of democracy made in the clear absence of proper information as to what their vote means is not worth defending.

3 comments:

not trampis said...

gimme a break. Have referendums until the right results is gained. People have to owm up to stupid decisions as we are seeing the USA.

The clowns in the UK do not even understand what a hard brexit means.

Steve said...

So, you don't care how informed consent is, homer?

The difference between public understanding of what brexit involves now compared to then must be enormous.

not trampis said...

morons are allowed to vote