The Globe Kept Spinning after 2016

Did the rotation of Earth stop after the 2016 referendum? Did you learn something since then?

Best BREXIT sign yet! From the march today

— Catherine Butler (@ButlerDineen) March 23, 2019

Sufficiently intelligent people check from time to time whether the paradigms for their decisions have changed. An update after three years of learning is due. Another public vote on Brexit is not against democracy, it’s against dumbness.

JRM Admits That Brexit Lost Majority

Jacob Rees-Mogg just said we can't have another referendum now that people know more about Brexit, because we'd vote to stop it.@Femi_Sorry was *almost* speechless…

— Our Future, Our Choice (@OFOCBrexit) September 2, 2019

See also:

Now that people know more about piranhas, they would vote to stop the job.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) September 2, 2019

Strong Brexiteer Thinks Again

I argue, as a Brexiteer, that we need to take a long deep breath. We need to swallow our pride, and think again. My new piece for Open Democracy makes the case for a long Brexit pause for reflection:

— Peter Oborne (@OborneTweets) April 7, 2019


There's a lot in this article that I disagree with, and there's a lot that many Brexiters will also disagree with. And (perhaps for that very reason) I think it's the first truly balanced and comprehensive analysis of Brexit I've ever read. Thank you.

— Nadia Nomad (@nadialanomade) April 7, 2019

What Kind of Second Referendum?

Labour’s move on second EU referendum seems, on face of it, v positive. But instinct says we should wait for detail. A referendum with no remain option would be ludicrous – so hopefully that’s not the proposal.

— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) February 25, 2019

Please take care that a 2nd referendum is used to apply to the Brexit decision making process.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 25, 2019

Let’s get some OODA loop in there too

— Chris Young (@worldofchris) February 25, 2019


"According to Owen Smith, Corbyn was asked 23 times if in a future referendum he would want Remain to be an option on the ballot paper. Corbyn declined to answer." Short version, it's a con. See @katyballs

— Sarah Baxter (@SarahbaxterSTM) February 25, 2019


Dear conservatives, please don't be stupid. Applying to the Brexit decision making process of course does not betray the will of the British people. In contrary, it helps the British people to come to reason. Seemingly you are afraid of that.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 25, 2019

You Thought It’s Avocado? Eat up Your Wasabi!

@MPGeorgeEustice shows what is driving the Brexit: To the British (mostly English) political "elite" the Brexit provides the means to exert tighter control over UK citizens without interference from Europe. These citizens will have to learn again to follow their own elite only.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 23, 2019

Ian, Eustine wrote his letter in a way which invites misunderstanding. However, to read it in a different way doesn't improve his letter. He uses eristic rhetoric patterns against a 2nd referendum.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 23, 2019

[…] The second thing we need to do is vanquish those who want to ignore the referendum result and force people to vote again until they learn to do what the political elites demand. There is no point at all having a second referendum if parliament lacks the integrity to honour the result of the first. A decision to ignore the 2016 referendum result would be deeply damaging to our country and must not be allowed. []

  • 2nd Referendum: The point to have a second referendum is that such a referendum honours the will of intelligent and mature people (I assume that British voters are intelligent and mature) to adapt their decision to changes of the paradigms on which that decision was based. Eustine is dishonest when asking to “vanquish” those who want to “ignore the referendum result” and “force” people to vote again until they make a decision demanded by the “political elites”. That’s utter nonsense and knowingly distorts the intentions of those who ask for a 2nd referendum. It is quite unintelligent to thoughtlessly honour a 2016 referendum which was based on much less information than what is available in 2019. We need to vanquish those who want to ignore changed paradigms and unrealistic promises.
  • PCDA: Implying that a 2nd referendum would be lack of integrity shows lack of integrity on Eustine’s side. Eustine knows that good governance requires to Plan–Do–Check–Adjust decisions and their implementations. To do that e.g. by means of a 2nd referendum is more democracy, not less. One of changed paradigms justifying the application of PCDS to the 2016 decision could be explained in bold yellow letters on big red busses driven through the Kingdom: “A Brexit will lead to higher taxes required to rescue the NHS.”
  • Patronizing the People: Eustine’s “… until they [the people] learn to do what the political elites demand …” should help his constituency to easily understand what kind of lesson they will have to teach to patronizers like Eustine. To be fair, Eustine wanted to say that he is against repeating voting until voters “learn” to agree to what the political elite demands. However, Eustine’s rhetoric patterns are dishonestly eristic nevertheless (and boring, because they are being used ad nauseam by many other politicians too who are against a 2nd referendum), for it is Eustine who patronizes the voters by not letting them apply PDCA to their decision. He forces them to stick to their decision like bad parents who force their child to eat up the full wasabi serving which the poor kid chose assuming that it was avocado. Eustine is the patronizer, not those who want to offer a 2nd referendum to the people.
GDPR Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner