Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.
Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
These are religious statements.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same?
I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
At its core, Brexit is about clamping down on the free flow of people and capital.
At its core, the EU is about unhindered flow of people and capital.
The things the people don't like about Eu are the things that lie at the core of the EU project.
They're not getting "reformed". Literally, doing so would defeat the purpose and objective of the EU.
Direct democracy and especially referendums are fraught with problems.
Switzerland does OK.
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
The only place this reasoning leads is perpetual elections.
Look at it another way - ~16 million people voted to remain. ~4 million signed this petition. So only about a quarter of those who voted remain could be bothered to "confirm" their choice.
"You'll vote, and you'll keep voting until you get the right answer" isn't democratic.
I've noticed this in my country, employers who once used to run apprenticeships and training schemes up until the late 1990s decided that they no longer needed to bother because they had access to a labour market from 26 other EU countries so they could find applicants already trained up. That's all well and good at first but the pool of people available for skilled jobs fully trained up with several years of experience who can just "drop into" a position are limited and without training people up the pool dries up.
My employer after 20 years has just restarted its apprenticeship scheme because its finally realised that the situation cannot exist forever.
Cloud providers have vastly more redundancy requiring much more raw space.
I'd be interested to see any real numbers if anyone has them, but my guess is it's a wash.
You're talking about a scenario without property rights, Government, and laws. What relevance has "consensus" ?
No, it's control over the resource that makes a monopoly possible.
All you need to maintain that is bigger sticks than anyone who would try to take it from you.
Whether you wield the sticks or someone else wields them on your behalf is semantics.
This same logic makes authoritarian dictatorships A-OK, so long as the majority of people are unaffected by their harmful actions.
"I may kid around about drugs, but really, I take them seriously." - Doctor Graper