Your contention is “If you make a decision, you must see it through.” Therefore, any example fits. If you agree the person in the example should be allowed to reverse their decision, you agree that Brexit should be reversed. It’s a logic thing.
Try another example:
You: “I would like to sell my house.”
Me: “I will buy your house.”
You: “I will sell my house to you.”
Me: “Fantastic, here’s 50p.”
You: “I don’t want to sell my house for 50p.”
Me: “You decided you would act. You’re bound to travel along your chosen path. And that’s now selling your house to me for 50p.”
Not at all. Because surely an individual would not just cast a vote without truly knowing and exploring possible outcomes. If the individual asks the right questions and continues to ask, eventually they will be in a position to cast a vote based on an informed decision making process.
If you asked me about my house you would realise that it is not mine to sell, you would have made me 50p richer
You have taken all thought and rationality out of the initial conversation.
People voted to punch themselves in the face, if they didn’t want to punch themselves in the face they should have ignored the scaremongering, the propoganda, the corruption the millions and millions of (overspent) marketing telling them they’re not punching themselves in the face and instead redirecting finger pointing at the latest scapegoat the EU (not teenage pregnancy, people on benefits, homeless or refugees this week).
Now it’s fairly clear they’re punching themselves in the face and it’s so weird, people wont admit they’re punching themselves in the face and then continue carrying on punching in broad daylight.
The main 2016 campaign for Britain Stronger In Europe clearly stated:
Our government would have to negotiate new trade relationships with the EU and many other countries worldwide. European leaders have confirmed that they would not give the UK any special treatment on access to trade in the EU single market. British firms would have to pay tariffs to trade, a new cost for them that would mean less trade, fewer businesses and fewer jobs for you and your family.
After two years, the UK would automatically lose access to all arrangements with the EU, including trade deals, EU funding and rights to free travel, unless all EU states agree to extend talks.
In the EU Single Market, over 1 million UK businesses trade without export or import charges, or paperwork, to 500 million customers in the EU (Sources: HMRC and Treasury).
If we left, businesses would be hit by new charges to trade goods or services in the EU, leading to job cuts, higher prices, lower wages and fewer opportunities for you and your family.
The leaflet sent by the governemnt to every household in the UK stated:
The EU is by far the UK’s biggest trading partner. EU countries buy 44% of everything we sell abroad, from cars to insurance. Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.
Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.
David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, stated many times:
What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.
George Osbourne, the then Chancellor, stated many times:
We would be out of the single market.
Seems clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the Single Market. You have to remember, the government was pro-Remain back then. They would definitely say leaving the Single Market as a reason not to leave the EU as it is an ace card for them. It just didn’t work.
Leave campaigners absolutely said you could stay in the single market, repeatedly:
5 Likes
Anarchist
(Press ‘Help’ search ‘Contact us’ or email help@monzo.com or call 0800 802 1281)
576
And this is the exact issue with referendums.
In elections, political parties issue manifestos setting out what they intend to do over the next 5 years, and ask people to vote for it and will be judged on how well they did.
In a referendum, lobby groups can make make exaggerated and contradictory promises, safe in the knowledge that they won’t be held to account for the implementation of those promises.
This means that those lobby groups, if the end result turns out out to be a crock of poo, can wring their hands and say that the principle of what they said was sound, the problems have been caused by ineffective implementation.
A bit like religion. If it doesn’t work for you, it’s because you’re not doing it right.
