Brexit

[Bofferbrauer2]

fatslob-:O said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

2) The difference between a Swiss referendum and the Brexit vote is that the population first gets fully informed on all the pro and cons and in a neutral manner, something that didn't happen in the UK. At. All.

3) I wouldn't be so sure about that, I'm fairly certain if there would be a second referendum (which most probably won't happen) Remain would win by a good margin - especially since quite a few find a no-deal Brexit even worse while one could still leave the EU orderly at a later date if the UK would remain now.

b) The problem here is that it's too black-or-white, it lacks both nuance and exact definition.

We got the perfect example at school as to why this is very important: First we got a text about Euthanasia (which was a big question in Luxembourg at the time), and got if we would allow to use euthanasia like in the text "on people who according to medical consensus are terminally ill with no hope on improvement". Most of the class said yes at the time, then the teacher dropped the atomic bombshell: The text in question was actually the Euthanasia Law of Nazi Germany, and due to lack of nuance and definition they did use it to kill millions for reasons like, Alzheimer, Tourette syndrome, or simply missing a limb, and explained that technically at the time everybody who had to wear glasses would be eligible (nowadays there's surgery that can heal that) under that law. 

This is why laws are normally several pages long texts, as they have to be defined exactly and include enough nuances to both future-proof a law and for avoiding things falling under being it by circumnavigate the issue. And this is the reason why in Switzerland everybody gets all the information with all the pros and cons mailed to them to make sure they choose really what they want without outside influence overshadowing everything.

2) With all due respect "pros and cons" are totally arbitrary depending on the individuals interpreting them so there is no such thing as being 'neutral' when it comes to voting ... 

3) If you're basing it off by polling then their still within margin of error ... 

b) Both options were absolutely crystal clear in what would happen. Either Britain keeps EU membership (Remain) or it doesn't (Leave) and in fact the electoral commission were testing the question for 12 weeks ... 

As for your example, it isn't all that comparable to Brexit. Brexit is both simplistic and well defined so anything that's NOT EU membership is fine for the British people ... 

2) I should have said all facettes and effects of a Brexit, not pros and cons, as that would have been clearer. I agree that pros and cons may vary from person to person, but not what the different facettes and effects would be. Wrong choice of words, my bad.

b) It's still not clear now. Will it be a no-deal Brexit? Will there be a last minute deal after all? If yes, what would be that deal and it's effects?

The path with remain was clear, as there wouldn't be any change to the status quo. The leave however never precised the details. The only thing that was crystal clear in leave is where the UK would be on March 30 2019, that being outside of the EU. The how, however, was critical yet never addressed. 

In fact, if I would have been David Cameron at the time, I would first have negotiated a potential deal with the EU, and then asked in the referendum: Remain, Leave under that deal, and Leave - no deal. Then, at least, all the roads would have been clear, and it would have been easier to inform everybody on its effects.