Thread by @ajcdeane

I have been rebutting the case for a so-called “People’s Vote” on Twitter for some time and thought it might be useful to draw the points together in a single thread.
#PeoplesVote

First, the name. It’s dumb. What they really mean is, a second vote because we lost the first one. We had a people’s vote already. Who do they think voted last time, fridge magnets?

https://twitter.com/uk_rants/status/1061088262347988992

Anyway… the so-called People’s Vote campaign doesn’t really want another vote - it wants another answer. It is entirely about seeking to stop Brexit.
ft.com/content/bad4d6…

It is unpleasant to see people pretending to be defenders of democracy whilst they try to stymie the result of the biggest vote about anything in our country. The so-called People’s Vote campaign is simply a device to get their way having lost the vote, which they can’t accept.

“No really, it’s all absolutely about my newly aroused passion for defending the democratic process”, says the continuity remainer.
“The fact that I desperately want to stop Brexit and this would potentially have that result is pretty much a coincidence…”

If they’re honest, campaigners for a so-called People’s Vote couldn’t care less about democracy. It’s about getting a different result. If they could just stop Brexit by pressing a button they’d press it. As I say, 2nd vote just device to get their way despite having lost

The obvious parallel is Gina Miller’s legal case, which wasn’t to do with Brexit & was just about seeing that Parliament had due process, until she lost and Parliament had said due process and Brexit continued, at which point her campaign predictably WAS about Brexit after all

The talk of democracy is just a pretext. As is the “now we have more facts” line. They’ll run any of them: give them another pretext to mask the fact that the so-called People’s Vote is about getting their way despite losing the referendum, & they’ll take that new one too.

Anyway, what on earth would actually happen?

Imagine we had 2nd vote.
Imagine Remain won.
Imagine that 2 years after the vote people argued “yes, remain won, I respect that, but it wasn’t clear remaining was going to be like this. Yes pay billions but not THIS many. EU army. Frankly we were lied to. We need a People’s Vote”

Obviously this never ending parade of votes would be absurd but the only people who really *couldn’t* deny the legitimacy of that next vote on remaining would be those campaigning for a so-called People’s Vote now. Or perhaps they’d dismiss such calls as the EU won 2nd time round

Really it just goes to show that the so called People’s Vote is simply a device to facilitate an environment in which those who could never accept that their side lost the referendum have their views prevail, whilst still getting to pretend to believe in democracy.

““You’re afraid of the result! You’re frit!” [Remainers love using a Scottish word Thatcher liked]
Well, I’m “frit” it wdn’t be final when you lose again. We were told, when you thought you’d win, that the last vote was binding and final: why would anyone believe that 2nd wd be?

“No, seriously -“ says the so-called People’s Vote campaigner - “seriously, the second referendum will be totally binding. We will absolutely respect that decision. Even if we lose. It’s totally different to the last referendum, you see, because - because -“

Moreover, I’m “frit” of the principle we'd set: in which we have 2nd vote because you didn’t get your way. That we don’t even implement results of something before voting on it if the right people oppose it, militate against it, get luvvies & former PMs to band together & so on

In sum, the Continuity Remain campaign position now is
- referendums are a terrible way to decide things, I now realise
- the Brexit vote was too complicated for us to decide anyway
- despite these points we should have another vote. That one will be binding, no really it will

What do they say to justify this - on the face of it - absurd idea?

“The result was narrow”

We accept narrow results as decisive in our country – ask those with the Welsh Assembly. Moreover, it was a margin of more than a million in the largest vote we’ve ever had on anything. It wasn’t narrow.

“You wouldn’t have accepted the result the other way around”

I led the leave campaign that lost to Vote Leave when the Electoral Commission designated an official campaign. Yes, I’d have accepted the result.

“We didn’t know what Brexit meant”
How patronising. Moreover, did we know what “remain” meant? Consider the speed of change in the EU particularly given the Euro. There is no status quo.

And now we hit the dregs.

“Half of the Leave majority are dead”

Hang on. What did you say?

These are people you’re talking about.
Whether you voted Leave or Remain - people.
Someone’s gran, someone’s grandad.

A generation we might think has contributed hugely to our country and, if they did indeed lean so strongly towards Leave, perhaps we might think that they did it for their children and grandchildren.

Not only is “they’re dead, hurrah” unutterably crass, YouGov research claimed to support this:
-predicated on ppl turning out who didn’t before: as I’ve discussed w John Curtice

https://twitter.com/NatCen/status/1037273904010682368

-uses same research tools that said Remain would win day before referendum

BUT THE BUS!