If that is the case then why is one of the key whistle-blowers a staunch Leaver? What’s his motivation to undermine the vote when the vote went in the direction he wanted it to?
You don’t consider a 48.11%/51.89% split close?
At the time it certainly felt like the leave propaganda machine was bigger than the remain one. Whether that was enough to change 600,000 votes I’m not sure. I’d lean towards no since we’ve had years of EU bashing from the likes of Farage and nobody really standing up for it with any kind of conviction until they had to.
I don’t consider 1.3m close in a vote where you only need one single vote more than the opposing side to win.
As opposed to the leavers supported by the Billionaire Media Barons who brainwashed the public against the EU for decades
Well it is razor thin, if you get another 1.5% of the population out to the polling stations to vote remain, remain would win.
A 635k swing is not much in a two choices vote considering the voting population was 33.5m. (1.9%)
It is much more important in parliamentary elections due to marginal seats and multiple choice of parties.
I don’t agree it’s razor thin and it’s really a bit pointless talking about if more people had voted.
That is what coatmaker said but Jules initially just said close, which isn’t as strong a statement. I would tend to agree that it was close as a swing of roughly 600k votes is all that it would have taken to change the result, that seems pretty close to me.
This needs to be investigated, but it seems wishful thinking that this was decisive in the outcome of the vote. I think there needs to be a non-partisan debate surrounding the issue of spending and donations during campaigns.
The reason a lot of people voted for Brexit was was because of the scare mongering and lies told by Farage and Johnson.
Those voters that were duped by them, that would have not voted for them if they had known the truth, would easily swing it back to the remain side.
So, ironically, the liars of Brexit, who used scare tactics to win, means that they are now running scared because of the possibility of another referendum, which they know would go the other way.
I responded to that too.
It’s just my opinion at the end of the day but changing the mind of 600k people to me when the question is simply yes/no seems a monumental task to me.
Brexit is an over complicated farce and a waste of time. Here’s to hoping it gets binned.
Somehow I missed that reply haha.
You frame it as “changing their mind” but that implies that everyone had a staunch position in the first place. If someone hasn’t decided yet then you aren’t changing their mind tbh, you’re influencing them to pick side, which is an entirely different proposition and far easier.
It can also be a question of stirring people up and getting them out to vote when they otherwise might not have done, by convincing them that it is of monumental importance. If you frame it as being a matter of grave importance, a question of the very independence of this country or the fabric of our democracy, you can mobilise people who might not have bothered otherwise. I’d suggest this is evidenced by the fact that turnout was a shade over 72%, I’m not sure how far back you’d have to go to find a turnout as high as that for a general election, but the 2016 election had a turnout of 56%.
So I don’t think it is simply a question of changing people’s minds basically.
I can agree with this.
But i definitely didn’t imply everyone had a staunch position. I’m talking about the referendum in the context of actual votes cast and for it to have turned out differently those 650K+ people would, for some reason, have to have had their minds changed prior to casting that ballot.
As you rightly outline a large number of people are disinclined to vote anyway but the matter of national importance thing goes both ways in this issue so it’s not like that would only have been used by one side. There are much more complex local issues that stop people voting in a UK general election too compared to this where it’s a yes/no question.
You overrate the public and the effect of those politicians tbh. This was pretty much all immigration and everyone further complicating the reasons is overestimating how much the average person cares about economics and the political debates on TV.
I agree, most of it was to do with immigration but any floating voters were swayed by the lies about the billions saved being spent on public services.
The great voting public are only interested in what is best for them, and their greed and ignorance is exactly what people like Farage, Johnson and even Trump targeted, and it worked.
I’m not going to pretend to know his motivations tbh.
Whether he’s right or wrong is irrelevant. The amount allegedly illegally spent is unlikely to have made the difference in the final vote count considering Leave fought to gain a much bigger margin.
I really do hate to admit it but Leave ran the better and smarter campaign especially considering Remain spent millions more. In not in the public interest at all to do a second vote at this stage.
They had an easier task at hand. Explaining trade deals, WTO terms, budget contribution, workforce supply and demand is not really a walk in the park when you have to target the working class. (or any other to be fair)
Also it’s easier to sell change, especially if it’s exaggerated/false.
The most interesting thing is that Cameron could not even campaign at 100% as that would imply blaming the government for not doing its job (asserting influence over the EU, using the immigration laws that were available to them even in the EU, lack of planing of social resources etc.) and Corbyn would have just looked as political point scoring rather than selling the EU cause.
I think smart is doing Farage and Johnson a favour.
Lying, is more appropriate.
They appealed to the lowest common denominator and, like in the American election, came up Trumps.