‘Twas June 2016 when this ‘ere blog first mooted the idea of Ofpoff (the Office for the Promotion Of Facts and Fairness), which would, among other things, provide a philosophical linesperson to shout fault from the sidelines of all debates and speeches.
There is a tiny groundswell of opinion that all opinions should not be given equal weight, just out of some twisted idea of democratic fairness. That they should all be heard is fine, but that those which can be corrected by reason and demonstration should not go unquestioned in the media is sloppy and downright naughty journalism.
Especially, he ranted, in the case of the mantras, obviously drip fed to us intentionally, being used by those doing Brexit on our self-destructive behalf (and swallowed, if a conversation I overheard recently and any number of ‘liberal’ tweets) — the mantras that insist that going ahead whatever the current state of public opinion is the correct and ‘respectful’ democratic thing to do.
As Alexei Sayle once said, Cack, Bloody Cack, Bloody Cack!
The people have spoken and we must democratically respect and honour that decision.
Are you proposing to disrespect the wishes of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU?
How many times do you rerun the vote until you get the decision you want?
Another referendum would only lead to discord the other way and they’d call for another.
All rhetoric, all utter cack.
As I and many others have said before, the flaw was allowing a simple majority to decide a major constitutional change. To allow such a change on the basis of less than a two thirds majority could only be divisive (note that though the simple majority had been proposed for the 1975 plebiscite which took the UK into the Common Market, the actual vote to join was 67% anyway). But even when stuck with that, a second vote now looks likely to be carried by a sizeable swing (how much greater that could be if reason rather than insult was the dominant form of discourse in subsequent discussions, which only serves to reinforce the jaundiced view of the ‘metropolitan elite’).
If the people now think differently it is utterly undemocratic to ‘respect’ the decision they would now wish to alter.
Would we prefer to disrespect the views of the 16 million who voted to remain plus the millions that polls suggest would now change their vote to that?
If the people still want to leave, it shouldn’t matter how many times you rerun; you’ll get the same result. Unless of course the real reason for this bollocks is a fear that that is not what ‘the people’ now want.
Either way, a repeat of the same result or a huge swing (as in Denmark over Maastricht) to remain would put the question to bed for a generation.
There is no totally satisfactory way out now. But what we have at the moment is a terrifyingly bleak future, at least in the short term. And we’ll still be drowning in that sea of cack — unless someone somewhere installs some Ofpoff on the sidelines.