Post AShgi6hmIoUm8NLLiy by ottocrat@eupolicy.social
(DIR) More posts by ottocrat@eupolicy.social
(DIR) Post #AShOGGYUHupTOtZYMC by ottocrat@eupolicy.social
2023-02-15T08:22:02Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Sorry to be that guy but it’s not true that “a little over half the population were really into #Brexit for a while” (Ahir on #OGWN) - at its peak, around a third tops of the population flirted with the notion for a variety of reasons, often nothing to do with the EU & everything to do with giving Cameron a kicking. Let’s bust this pernicious myth.
(DIR) Post #AShP613x8M8UPSxyme by afouxenidis@mastodon.world
2023-02-15T08:52:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ottocrat If I recall 'brexit' got nearly 52% at the time with about 72% of registered voters. So, can we not deduce from that, that the population at that particular moment was split on that topic?
(DIR) Post #AShP61cL4Vdq873RNg by johnelalamo@mcr.wtf
2023-02-15T09:15:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@afouxenidis @ottocrat No we can deduce from that that less than 50% of the population entitled to vote wished to make a profound constitutional change.
(DIR) Post #AShgi3VGCthSCgSoIS by fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk
2023-02-15T10:12:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@afouxenidis @ottocrat "72% of registered voters" is what percentage of the population, though?28% of registered voters, plus the rest of the population of voting age who weren't registered, are most likely the people who either didn't have a strong opinion or didn't give a damn. I don't know how big that is. But it's not no-one. Those people weren't "split".
(DIR) Post #AShgi4LN59NqoIqQWO by afouxenidis@mastodon.world
2023-02-15T10:13:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fishidwardrobe @ottocrat I never said that. I just mentioned the actual result which is indicative of the political mood at that particular time.
(DIR) Post #AShgi5AQ1MDVMcjC5Y by fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk
2023-02-15T10:17:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@afouxenidis @ottocrat You said: "So, can we not deduce from that, that the population at that particular moment was split on that topic?"I believe that the answer to your question may be "no".
(DIR) Post #AShgi5fy83SCwTUOGW by afouxenidis@mastodon.world
2023-02-15T10:18:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fishidwardrobe @ottocrat 'no' they were not split, as in there was a clear majority for?
(DIR) Post #AShgi6HXsLVmp14Ops by fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk
2023-02-15T10:21:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@afouxenidis @ottocrat no they were not split, as in, it's not true that the majority were either strongly for or strongly against.
(DIR) Post #AShgi6hmIoUm8NLLiy by ottocrat@eupolicy.social
2023-02-15T12:30:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@fishidwardrobe @afouxenidis Nonsense. The vote ‘for’ was soft and motivated by a crazy range of issues, from “let’s have a laugh” to “we hate foreigners” to everything in between. Ruthlessly instrumentalised by an extremist clique to deliver a result that barely anyone wanted and which they had solemnly promised wouldn’t happen. Brexit is a crime scene.
(DIR) Post #AShrPkpE0mgYYfHHpQ by H4Heights@mstdn.social
2023-02-15T13:28:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@ottocrat Never forget that had the referendum been mandatory it would have been annulled because of electoral fraud. Our political elite treated it as mandatory, but exploited the loophole of it being advisory. Mafia lawyers exploit legal loopholes, democratic governments must not. (Nick Reeves)