In a recent Patreon poll I asked whether or not I should made this video, and I’m very
glad that you voted in favour… because if you didn’t, I would’ve made you revote.
“*hahahahaha* You serious?"
Brexit is an incredibly toxic topic which has split
the United Kingdom in two. Honestly, I have never experienced anything so divisive, and
I’ve unfortunately lost few good friends because of it. Now I voted for Brexit (to
leave the E.U), and if you’d like to know why, then I’ve left a link below in which
I give my reasons, but this video isn’t actually about Brexit. It’s about democracy.
Brexit just so happens to be the theme, and if, for example, Ireland was pushing for a
second abortion referendum, then that would the theme rather than Brexit. Given this,
whether you are for or against Brexit, please join me in doing your best to leave your position
aside as we focus, as strictly as we can, on explicitly the logic of the arguments given
in favour of a second referendum. Now I’ve been warned not to make this video by other
YouTubers and friends, who’re concerned that due to the volatile nature of this topic,
it will negatively impact my channel, no matter how nuanced and respectful I am… but a principle
isn’t a principle until it costs you, and I simply have to follow my heart on this one
– I honestly don’t believe that if the shoe was on the other foot, those currently
calling for a second referendum would accept the logic of their arguments coming from the
other side. What’s more, I sincerely believe that a second referendum, that includes an
option to remain in the E.U, would mean the death of democracy in the U.K., and so this
is a Second Referendum – Debunked.
On the 23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom voted
to leave the European Union by a margin of 1.4 million people. Many of those who voted
to remain took this on the chin and respected the democratic result, but others immediately
petitioned for a second referendum. At first, such disregard for democracy was mocked by
a series of petitions that, for example, demanded a rematch of the Battle of Hastings, and a
redraw of the national lottery, but as time has gone on the prospect of a second referendum
has become all the more likely. Last week, for example, over 6 million people signed
a petition to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU. Now what follows are the five primary
arguments in favour of a second referendum, and why I find each to be flawed. But before
getting into them, I want to once again urge everyone to do their best to ignore the Brexit
component of these arguments. I understand that this isn’t really possible, but please,
as much as you can, focus on the logic: which is to say, ask yourself if you would accept
these arguments if the shoe was on the other foot, or if they were employed by the anti-abortion
Ireland campaign, or the American Democrat party, etc. In no particular order, the first
argument I’ll address is that “The Leave campaign lied.” “We're now doing a policy
based on something decided two and half years ago on a very small majority on a whole load
of false promises and lies told to the British electorate.” The architects of this chaos,
the ones who campaigned for us to leave the European Union in the first place... we in
parliament have been trying to square the fan-- you know, the fantasy, mythical promises
that they were making about voting to leave would mean for the U.K, and it's proven impossible
to deliver." "The Leave campaign, which you are obviously in favour off, lied through
its teeth. It made false promises." "So did the Remain campaign." "I'm sorry they did
not." Yes, the Leave campaign lied, but despite AC Graylings protestations to the contrary,
so did the Remain campaign. I’ll give solid examples in just a moment, but first, I’d
like to address explicitly the logic of this argument. It’s no secret that politicians
lie; they manipulate and skew facts in order to fit their narrative. It happens in EVERY
political matter, and by every side. Trump lied. Clinton lied. The pro-abortion Ireland
party lied. The anti-abortion Ireland party lied. That’s politics, and it isn’t going
to change. Now don’t get me wrong, the fact that politicians lie doesn’t make it right,
but (and this is the point) if lying constituted a revote then we would be literally revoting
on everything, forever. Now to put that shoe on the other foot, if the remain campaign
had won, would it be right to demand a second referendum because they lied when said that
two-thirds of British manufacturing jobs depend on the E.U? Or that the average British family
would immediately be £4,300 worse off? Or that unemployment rates would sky-rocket?
Or that the Government would immediately trigger Article 50? Or that the treasury would need
to significantly increase taxes and slash public spending? Or that the U.K itself would
breakup? No. What’s more, and perhaps most importantly, while the British media keep
insisting that leave voters primarily voted to leave because of such lies, this simply
isn’t true (ironically, the media is lying)... polls show, without a doubt, that the vast
majority of leave voters voted to leave due to concerns about sovereignty and immigration,
and these concerns are indeed factually accurate. The second argument I’ll address is that
“The United Kingdom has since changed its mind.” “It's the British electorate which
has changed its mind in the last two and a half years.” “If the reality is that there
are more people out there, in this country, that no longer want to press on with this
deal, what bit about that democracy do you want to refute?” “Well actually, one of
the polls this morning show that 55% of the people will now vote remain, and 45% leave."
"Yeah, let's see what tomorrow's one says." "But we know-- we know-- we know that polls
are volatile thing.” During the time of the referendum the media and bookies were
overwhelmingly convinced that Remain would win. Of 168 polls fewer than 55 predicted
a leave outcome, and Ladbrokes offered odds of 4/1 in favour of remain… but they were
all catastrophically wrong. Why? Because there was (and still is) a silent majority. The
average leave voter is a working-class person, who’s not especially tech-savvy, and consequently
their views are not all that prominent on social media, and they seldom vote on pseudo
polls published by predominately left-leaning media outlets. Add to this the fact that many
leave voters wouldn’t, and still won’t, express their real opinion in public due to
fears of being accused of racism and fascism, and you have your reason as to why the establishment
got it so damn wrong. But make no mistake about it… the silent majority exist, and
they will vote again should the U.K force another referendum upon them. The media was
wrong before, and it’s almost certainly wrong again now. But most importantly, let’s
say that we somehow knew that the U.K had really changed its mind – would this justify
a second referendum? No, it wouldn’t. It would justify a vote to REJOIN the E.U AFTER
leaving, but it wouldn’t justify revoking a previous democratic decision. Yes, I appreciate
that this would prove inconvenient and turbulent, but as I said in the intro, “A principle
isn’t a principle until it costs you.” If you REALLY value democracy, you simply
have respect Brexit. The third argument, and one closely related to the second, is that
“The U.K’s voting demographic has changed.” “Not only are there more young people who
can vote now, a lot of the older leave voters have actually died.” “We've got 2 million
young people who are now able to vote that weren't--" "Oh really, so we're now going
to have a referendum every month?” Yes, it’s true that in the event of a second
referendum many young people who couldn’t vote now could, and many who did vote now
can’t (because they’re dead), but even if EVERY SINGLE new voter wanted the U.K to
remain in the E.U, this wouldn’t justify a second referendum. The vote happened, and
it must be respected – and the fact that it’s not yet been delivered doesn’t change
this. The U.K voted to leave the E.U, and therefore the U.K must leave the E.U. Period.
However, to reiterate the point that I just made in relation to the previous argument,
upon a time AFTER the U.K has left the E.U, I see no issue in having a new referendum
in which we ask the public if they’d like to rejoin. That would be an act of democracy,
but what isn’t an act of democracy is overturning the referendum because the demographics have
since changed and some SUSPECT that a revote would produce an alternative conclusion. That
is not democracy, people. Furthermore, I simply have to defend the dead here… those who
make this argument are spitting on the graves of our ancestors… you know, the ones who
voted FOR us to join the E.U in the first place, but since changed their mind. To be
blunt: have some bloody respect. So the next two arguments are not strictly for a second
referendum, but they aim to achieve the same result – that being, the U.K staying within
the E.U. The first argument is that the “Referendum was merely advisory.” "This was an explicitly
advisory referendum. 30%--" Now this is true: under U.K law referendums are not legally
binding. However, when issuing the Brexit referendum the Government explicitly promised
to enact the result… but for the sake of argument, let’s put this fact aside. Referendums
are advisory, and so the Government can ignore them… yes, but at STAGGERING cost. If the
Government ignored one of its biggest referendum results in history, then its relationship
with its people would be absolutely obliterated. It would send the crystal clear message that
“You’re free to vote for whatever you want so long as you vote according to our
preferences ”, and that isn’t democracy. That’s a sham. I know MANY people who voted
to remain, who, because of this, would vote leave should a second referendum be forced
upon them. And to those people I say thank you. “A principle isn’t a principle until
it costs you”, and if you voted for Remain but would vote for leave in the case of a
second referendum, then you do indeed hold the principle of democracy, and you have my
respect. And the final argument I’ll address, and one that’s endorsed by one of my heroes,
Richard Dawkins, is that “The rules on such decisions should be changed.” “Constitutional
amendments are, or should be, hard to achieve […] If ever a decision needed at least a
two-third majority, it was Brexit. "Charlie do you think that 16 and 17 years old should've
been able to vote, for instance, in the Brexit referendum?" "Yeah, I do actually. And I think
that, obviously, Brexit-- Brexit was a really interesting case because you had such a devide
between what the older generation wanted compared to what the younger generation wanted.”
So first off, while I wouldn’t say this about Charlie, it’s really quite obvious
that MANY of those now calling for such systemic change are doing so because they’re convinced
that if their proposals were implemented, and a second vote was to occur (perhaps even
because of such changes), then the result would be in their favour. To once again put
that shoe on the other foot, if the remain campaign had won, and the leave campaign was
now arguing to increase the voting age, and to exclude U.K citizens that are living outside
of the U.K, then their motive would be just as obvious. More importantly, however, let’s
say that we did implement such changes… would that justify a second referendum? No.
We can change the rules for the future, but that doesn’t justify ignoring the results
of the past. Increasing the voting age wouldn’t justify a second abortion referendum, just
as decreasing the voting age wouldn’t justify a second Brexit referendum. Anyhow, I appreciate
that there are many more arguments given, but those just covered are indeed the most
popular… and I HOPE that no matter whether you’re for Brexit or against it (and there
are many great arguments on both sides), you can see why a second referendum (that includes
an option to remain in the E.U) would be an affront to democracy. Democracy is a cornerstone
of Western civilisation – but like most great principles, it comes at a price. You
won’t always get your own way. Trump won, and that's that. Vote again in 4 years. Brexit
won, and that's that - it must be delivered, and failing to do so would mean the death
of the United Kingdom’s democracy. "I'm a remainer. I voted remain, I would do again.
But I think democracy dictates that we actually enact the will of the people to leave […] The
leaflet said whatever you vote we will put into place." "Absolutely, yeah." "And if you
make a promise like that, then you--" "David Cameron said once only... once only, once
in a lifetime vote. He didn't say we'll have another one, before we even try to enact the
result of the first one! My point is: you voted to leave this country. We have to try
it. If it fails, you can have another referendum and you can try and go another way, right?
But you have to try it." "In your opinion... in your opinion" "No. In the opinion of democracy.
It's called democracy. That's what it is, actually.” s always, thank you kindly for
the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve
supported the channel via merchandise and PayPal. Thank you for supporting me, and especially
so if you disagree with me on this one. Until next time my fellow apes, until next time.