It absolutely won't.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, along with being rude, or genuinely don't understand.

Of course all the people have been trusted, as they should. That's the way our democracy works.

My point was about populism generally and not about the referendum in particular. It might have escaped your notice that the way we get our information these days is markedly different to the way we did even 10 years ago. You might think "so what", but it actually changes everything, as I pointed out and won't repeat.

It's the primary reason why I don't believe in holding any referendums. I want us to choose who represents us and then let them do it. We make up our minds based on broad principles and general directions, so the impact of populism is somewhat more diluted in a GE though still very evident these days.

As for myself I am conflicted I don't like the deal and would rather leave without one however like most I just want it done.

Edited by Badger11 (18 Oct 2019 8.37am)

Neither should because you are wrong about both.

The "deal" wasn't half decent. It is, I suspect, a "wolf in sheep's clothing". The devil is always in the detail and no-one has yet seen that, but from that which I can see this is a typically sly Johnson (Cummings) construct in which the banner headlines look good but the reality is far from that. The headlines are all about Northern Ireland and replacing the "backstop", which actually still exists but just wrapped up differently and would be unwrapped by someone else in 4 years. The detail is all about our future relationship and it's here that the real changes have been made. The intention for regulatory alignment seems to be gone. This looks as though Johnson intends for us to align with the USA and open the door to them. I for one don't want that at all and I hope our MPs have this pointed out to them in time.

I can see only one good thing that would result from this deal being passed tomorrow. It would signal the end of Corbyn.

As you can now see you were wrong about the second claim too. Not for the first time you either misunderstood or misrepresented my comment.

I think it might be you who is being deliberately obtuse.
People were as informed for the referendum as they are for any election. Information technology was used in the main to convince people to Remain and yet the still voted leave.
The bottom line is that Parliament approved a referendum by the process that you hold so dear and then didn't like the result.

You can't have it both ways.

Our own security services advised the PM that there had been Russian interference in the referendum campaign, just as there had been in Trump's election campaign. It was reported that it was thought to be sufficiently influential as to have swung the balance in favour of leave and that, as a consequence, they recommended the result be discarded as unreliable. The government considered this but concluded that any rerun in those circumstances would likely yield the same result, along with public disquiet. Article 50 was triggered and Parliament took charge, as it must.

That's the world we now live in, until the social media platforms are required to introduce more effective truth checking controls. It is what is driving populism, with Trump communicating his lies directly to the people, via Twitter.

So the people were not as informed for the referendum as for any other election. They were probably more informed but that information wasn't objective and truthful. Much of it was based on half truths and some of it was constructed and circulated by people outside the UK whose purpose is to sow discontent within our country, break up the EU and the western alliance. They are the only ones to have won in all of this because they have succeeded on all fronts.

Of course Parliament approved the referendum. They also triggered Article 50, thus honouring their commitments. Since then their work has not been about leaving but about how we leave, which is something not covered at all by a simple, yes or no question.

I don't want anything both ways. I just want this done the right way.

the people were not as informed for the referendum as for any other election. They were probably more informed but that information wasn't objective and truthful. Much of it was based on half truths and some of it was constructed and circulated by people outside the UK

Our own security services advised the PM that there had been Russian interference in the referendum campaign, just as there had been in Trump's election campaign. It was reported that it was thought to be sufficiently influential as to have swung the balance in favour of leave and that, as a consequence, they recommended the result be discarded as unreliable. The government considered this but concluded that any rerun in those circumstances would likely yield the same result, along with public disquiet. Article 50 was triggered and Parliament took charge, as it must.

That's the world we now live in, until the social media platforms are required to introduce more effective truth checking controls. It is what is driving populism, with Trump communicating his lies directly to the people, via Twitter.

So the people were not as informed for the referendum as for any other election. They were probably more informed but that information wasn't objective and truthful. Much of it was based on half truths and some of it was constructed and circulated by people outside the UK whose purpose is to sow discontent within our country, break up the EU and the western alliance. They are the only ones to have won in all of this because they have succeeded on all fronts.

Of course Parliament approved the referendum. They also triggered Article 50, thus honouring their commitments. Since then their work has not been about leaving but about how we leave, which is something not covered at all by a simple, yes or no question.

I don't want anything both ways. I just want this done the right way.

Not so says the darling face of the left.
[Link]
I admire your perseverance though.