![\"The](\"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Common-Things-People-Say-About-Brexit.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
On the 23rd<\/sup> of June 2016 the United Kingdom had a referendum to decide whether to stay in the European Union or not.<\/p>\n On the 24th<\/sup> of June 2016 at 07:20 BST the final results were announced. 52% of the votes cast (17.4 million people) were to leave while 48% of the votes cast (16.2 million people) were to remain.<\/p>\n The Brexit debate had raged in earnest for months before the referendum and the main pre referendum arguments for leave had been sovereignty, control of immigration and not having to listen to stupid EU regulations (even if they were eventually repealed) such as discarding bananas that are too bendy or cucumbers that are too straight and prohibiting producers of bottled water to claim that water is hydrating after a three year investigation found there was no evidence to prove it.<\/p>\n The main pre referendum arguments for remain had been that it would destroy the economy and that we\u2019re all stronger as part of the EU.<\/p>\n I, having a brain, recognised that the likelihood of the economy tanking as badly as predicted by some was slim, because the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. There would almost certainly be some<\/em> downturn but that was not likely to last for too long and would be a small price to pay for the return of sovereignty and democracy. Additionally, if we can\u2019t control our borders then the uncontrolled influx of immigrants would cause an economic disaster anyway.<\/p>\n But these were pre referendum arguments which became (almost) obsolete the moment the results were announced. Brexit had been won and there was no use pointing out to Leavers how much financially worse off they would be or how xenophobic they were. A democratic referendum had been held, people had voted, the results had been announced and Parliament were legally bound to carry out the will of the people. There was nothing Remainers could do.<\/p>\n Or was there?<\/p>\n Well actually \u2026 there was. We\u2019ve seen plenty of Remainer shenanigans since that day, but they\u2019re all based on one argument that for some fathomable reason, was only mentioned or even thought of on the 24th<\/sup> of June 2016 7.21 BST.<\/p>\n First let\u2019s admire the manoeuvre.<\/p>\n Remainers are not attempting to directly challenge the results of a free and fair referendum. That wouldn\u2019t be appropriate, or without using British understatement, would be completely and utterly undemocratic. Instead they\u2019re trying to undermine the results by suggesting there was a fundamental flaw in the process which invalidates the results and opens the door to a second referendum which does not have that fundamental flaw, because everyone now knows they\u2019re supposed to vote Remain.<\/p>\n Sneaky. On its own it\u2019s not an undemocratic manoeuvre. If there is<\/em> a flaw in a voting process, then the results are<\/em> indeed invalid. The problem is, I have a suspicion that some Remainers only think there was a flaw in the voting process because the results were not what they wanted \u2013 which is what makes this manoeuvre undemocratic after all.<\/p>\n And the flaw in the voting process: Well, the people didn\u2019t know what they were voting for.<\/p>\n There are three things that Remainers claim the voters didn\u2019t know.<\/p>\n The first is what the word \u2018leave\u2019 meant. Which at first sounds silly, because everyone has a basic understanding of what the word \u2018leave\u2019 means. What is meant by this is that the voters didn\u2019t know what the word \u2018leave\u2019 referred<\/strong> to – yes, I know, that\u2019s a much clearer way of putting it, which proves I should be in charge of everything. As well as being a political union, the EU is a single market and a customs union. Did \u2018leave\u2019 mean leave everything or leave the political union but remain in the single market or the customs union? Did it mean leave the single market or customs union but remain in the political union. Perhaps \u2018leave\u2019 meant remaining in the political union, single market and customs union but being unhappy about it.<\/p>\n The second thing that Remainers claim voters didn\u2019t know is how difficult it would be to get a trade deal. The Leave Campaign guaranteed us that securing a great trade deal with the EU would be easy but after years of negotiations it has proven to be anything but. Not only that, but failed negotiations mean the possibility of a no deal and surely a guarantee of a good deal means a guarantee of no no deal. Therefore, the voters also didn\u2019t know that we might end up with no deal.<\/p>\n The third thing that Remainers claim voters didn\u2019t know, was that the evil Leave Campaign was lying to them about almost everything. This more or less boils down to the difficulties already mentioned and the all-important NHS lie. The Leave campaign said the UK would save \u00a3350 million a week to spend on the NHS and the truth is it\u2019s only \u00a3137 million a week. Damn it! And who says it will definitely go to the NHS? Maybe some of it will be spent on education god forbid!<\/p>\n I\u2019ve even heard some Remainer politicians smugly ask, \u201cWhere\u2019s the \u00a3350 million for the NHS they promised we\u2019d get when we leave the EU?\u201d apparently unaware that we haven\u2019t actually left yet. But no one\u2019s said politicians were our best and brightest, although plenty have said they weren\u2019t.<\/p>\n As mentioned above, if there\u2019s a fundamental flaw in a voting process it invalidates the results. The \u2018people not knowing what they were voting for\u2019 is the fundamental flaw being used to stop Brexit.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s how each of the three things Remainers claim the voters didn\u2019t know are being used to stop Brexit.<\/p>\n Some argue that voters not knowing what \u2018leave\u2019 referred to is enough to invalidate the results of the referendum. But this is a problematic argument because it\u2019s very difficult to suggest that most voters had absolutely no idea what they were voting for. They may not have understood everything, they may not have understood exactly<\/em> what \u2018leave\u2019 meant, but they certainly understood that the referendum had something<\/em> to do with leaving the EU. Therefore, a more mainstream Remain position is that there can be some type of leaving \u2013 this much the voters did understand and vote for \u2013 but since the full extent of the voters understanding of what \u2018leave\u2019 referred to is unknown, it\u2019s not clear that there\u2019s a requirement to do any more than the minimum amount of leaving.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s why you\u2019ve all heard the phrase soft Brexit.<\/p>\n A soft Brexit means a partial Brexit, a minimum Brexit and not a maximum Brexit, because the maximum we can conclusively infer from the 17.4 million leave votes is a minimum Brexit.<\/p>\n This by the way, is why all the calls for compromising are utterly disingenuous. The proposed compromise is between the hard-line Brexiteers that want a complete break with Europe and the Remainers who want to remain in the EU with some sort of soft Brexit serving as the compromise and isn\u2019t a compromise the grown-up thing to do even if emotional manipulation is not. But as explained, since the UK voted to leave the EU 52% – 48% and even the Remainer\u2019s can\u2019t really justify not leaving at all and are forced to admit voters knew some leaving would be involved so the referendum results require the minimum of a soft Brexit, any compromise should be somewhere in between soft and hard Brexit – say a firm but yielding Brexit. Proposing a compromise from the position you want (Remain) but not the position you have to accept (soft Brexit) which then, by happy coincidence, lands at the position you\u2019ve already accepted is merely a way of looking like you\u2019ve made a concession to force the other side to make a real concession or risk looking like they\u2019re unwilling to compromise.<\/p>\n This is how Remainers are using the \u2018people didn\u2019t know what leave meant\u2019 argument to stop Brexit. By magnanimously agreeing to a pretend Brexit.<\/p>\n They\u2019re also trying to stop Brexit by using the \u2018people didn\u2019t know how difficult it would be to get a trade deal\u2019 argument.<\/p>\n The Leave Campaign promised a great trade deal with the EU and people voted to leave on that basis. They didn\u2019t know they might have to leave with the \u201cfinancial disaster\u201d that\u2019s a bad deal, or even worse with the \u201ceconomic catastrophe\u201d (please read in an even more hysterical tone than \u201cfinancial disaster\u201d) that\u2019s a no deal scenario. They didn\u2019t know that the EU who want us to remain in the EU and the politicians who want us to remain in the EU wouldn\u2019t be able to negotiate a Brexit deal to leave<\/em> the EU, between them.<\/p>\n Since the only way leave voters expected to leave was with a good deal and without bringing about the financial ruin that would occur with a bad or no deal, that\u2019s the only way the UK can<\/em> leave, anything else would not be what leave voters voted for. And if a good deal doesn\u2019t materialise, since we can\u2019t leave with a bad deal and we can\u2019t leave with no deal \u2026 well, we\u2019ll have no option but to remain in the EU. We tried our best to carry out the will of the people \u2026 honest \u2026 we even agreed to a soft Brexit. But since even a soft Brexit can only be carried out with a good deal that has yet to materialise \u2013 which is not all that surprising given we\u2019ve defined a good deal as one that guarantees zero negative financial consequences and the only way to achieve that is by remaining in the EU – we\u2019ll just have to call the whole thing off.<\/p>\n As for the argument that the Leave Campaign was lying about almost everything including the MONEY FOR THE NHS, that is used to convince those people who argue that the \u2018people not knowing what they were voting for\u2019 as a fundamental flaw for invalidating the referendum, has a fundamental flaw. Namely, that voters are well aware for at least eighteen years before they\u2019re allowed to vote, that whenever there\u2019s a vote the people don\u2019t know what they\u2019re voting for. Everyone knows that politicians lie or massage the facts or present things in a deceiving way, and that unless you give up your job and do years of full-time research there will be many things you won\u2019t know.<\/p>\n In fact, if there\u2019s one thing all voters know with absolute clarity about any vote, it\u2019s that they don\u2019t really know what they\u2019re voting for.<\/p>\n Which is why Remainers have to point to all the things the voters didn\u2019t know, so the cumulative effect would convince even those who expected not to know some things, that this time there were enough things they didn\u2019t know, that it would<\/em> be a flaw in the voting process, invalidating the results of the referendum and stopping Brexit.<\/p>\n The main post referendum argument for stopping Brexit is that the people didn\u2019t know what they were voting for. Everything else Remainers say hinges on that.<\/p>\n There is, however, one teeny tiny flaw with this argument.<\/p>\n And that is \u2026 it\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n You see, it was only after the results were announced that Remainers suddenly became concerned that no one knew what \u2018leave\u2019 meant and I wondered why this was only being thought about now. David Cameron had announced the referendum on the 20th<\/sup> February 2016 and the referendum had taken place on the 23rd of June 2016 so why during the intervening four months had not a single politician or media outlet asked the most important question of all, \u201cWhat does \u2018leave\u2019 actually mean?\u201d. Why did we not have four months of incessant analysis highlighting the fact that no one knew what \u2018leave\u2019 meant and demanding the government clarify a matter that was fundamental to the entire process of the referendum?<\/p>\n The answer is simple. There was no need to ask what \u2018leave\u2019 meant as the meaning of leave formed almost the entire argument against leaving with Remainers repeatedly warning everyone that leaving would mean the undesirable consequence of leaving the single market!<\/p>\nThe Main Post Referendum Argument for Stopping Brexit: The People Didn\u2019t Know What They Were Voting For<\/h2>\n
How Each of the Three Things Remainers Claim the Voters Didn\u2019t Know Are Being Used to Stop Brexit<\/h2>\n
Why the \u2018People Didn\u2019t Know What They Were Voting for\u2019 Argument for Stopping Brexit Is Wrong<\/h2>\n