Originally Posted by
Omegstrat6
Your last sentence exactly! I'm far from qualified in politics but am interested enough to read around various aspects of it.
The thing that really p issed me off about the whole Brexit debate was that-there was no debate. Well, certainly no proper debate just gain saying, scare-mongering, unfounded claims and counter claims and outright lies from both sides. It must have been obvious to anyone that bothered to look deeper that the complexities of Brexit threw up so many concerns-exactly how long would the multitude of new trade agreements take to get done, the Irish border issue, what was real the likelihood of negotiating favourable new deals with Australia, the US etc, what would the impact be of losing so many EU workers on key sectors or how would the EU's reaction impact on the economy. Yet none of these got properly addressed and the right wing press, stirred by the populism of Farage, got it over the line.
That the EU was/is far from perfect is inarguably and certainly not all those who voted for Brexit were un-thoughtful in their choice by any means nor were they ignorant racists whose xenophobia lumped all immigrants together but I think Al is right in thinking that it was the latter that got Brexit done.
What really then angered me was that once some of the issues started to be talked about and more started to have second thoughts and called for a second referendum, the leading Brexiteers like Nige shouted them down saying that the "country had spoken" and that a Second vote would be "undemocratic".
Think about that for a moment. The country has just voted on quite a momentous issue. That vote was democratic and legitimate. But wait, new (or rather old) information has come to light that should make for a more informed decision. It's not too late, so why not have further discussion and a second vote? The outcome could still go either way. Surely, with such an important matter it would be worth a small delay to get a more informed outcome? But no. For me this simply smacked of those leaders of Brexit simply being fearful of it being overturned.
I know it's an extreme but using the analogy of a 50s murder trial a jury has decided an individual is guilty and he is scheduled to hang. If subsequent information came to light that might have him proven innocent would you have a re-trial or ignore it and go ahead and hang him?
Cameron never wanted to actually leave the EU, but he was weak. Too weak to get concessions from the EU and too weak not to appease the right wing "Cornerstone" element of his party that included such luminaries as John Redwood, Nadine Dorries and Steve Baker (later to be known as the "hard man of Brexit").
