If you knew then what you know now, would your referendum vote be different?

Updated: Aug 9, 2018

Happy Easter to all those that celebrate it, and happy holidays to everyone else! As an avid Brexit follower, Easter is kind of a hiatus. Nothing much to talk about. The Russian scandal has died down for now, the Chinese are retaliating against Trumps steel tariffs etc. the Chinese space caravan has fallen back to earth .. and so on. Anyway, I was watching The Brexit Panel a BBC documentary program. Its a program that features a specially selected cross-section of voters that was interviewed basically on all topics Brexit.

The first question was write down three words that come to mind when you think of Brexit. Two answers were highlighted. The first was Lies and the second was Uncertainty. One man brought up the subject of the Brexit bus and the £350 mn/wk and the NHS. He pointed to the lie that in fact NET, it was only £180 mn/wk and that the NHS was unlikely to receive it. Then there was the question of immigration. Everybody seemed in favour of some kind of control, but everybody accepted some immigration would be necessary to fill in essential roles in the economy. But one lady pointed out that she believed it was these people that contributed to the stresses on housing and the NHS. The level of ignorance that still exists in the voting public, is to say the least, stunning.

The BBC and the media: guilt by omission

I have long held, that in parliament there should be an independent, fact-checker panel, with on-line access to their databases. They should have the right to interrupt and highlight any significantly wrong information that would in essence undermine the speech any MP was making at the time. In other words they would be the 'fake news' police.

The BBC and media in general are equally guilty of this crime, usually by omission. I believe they have an ethical obligation to at least point out any blatantly wrong information that is being broadcast as a result of the program. To take this point to the extreme, I know that in wildlife programs it is part of their rules not to interfere. In the world of animals, the law of the jungle reigns supreme. While we may cheer the prey that managed to evade the predator, they even on occasion point out that if the predator consistently loses it will simply starve to death; the rule is don't interfere. Kind of like the Prime Directive on Star Trek, about not interfering with lower life forms.

So my question is this. Does the same apply to the world of humans? If a news team comes across children about to be run over, would they simply record the event without interference, whatever the legal point of view is?

I think not. There is and always will be, the ethical and moral factor. But never fear Ms. Laura Kuenssberg, I would be happy to point out some of the greater misconceptions to the Brexit Panel. Don't worry, I will limit the list.

The Misconceptions of the Brexit Panel

  1. To the gentlemen that brought up the subject of lies, I would ask, do you believe in a democracy it is alright to lie if you have no other arguments, in order to achieve your result? For example, if Cambridge Analytica is ever proven to have interfered or there was Russian interference to destabilize the EU democracies would the result still be valid? My point is not that any of this happened, but to point out that their has to be a point where one calls, enough, better to be safe and rerun it properly. Even in budding democracies in Africa, when the observers note that there have been many infringements, they pressure the government into repeating the election fairly.

  2. Did you realize that for all the talk and shouting, nothing has been committed to? The mantra is "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", except included in that is the fact (as stated by Lord Kerr, architect of Brexit Article 50) that the UK can change its mind and not leave in the EU and there would be no cost, except a whole bunch of red faces.

  3. To the lady that brought up immigration. Did you realize that while Net immigration fell by 100.000 or so, in 2017, about 75% of this drop is due to reduced numbers coming from the EU? Do you really blame the immigrants for the lack of investment in the NHS and housing funding? Do you blame them for the large numbers of housing contracts that are delayed by the contractors who are sitting on the land waiting for the price to go up? Do you blame them for the games the contractors play to get councils to reduce their obligation to build affordable housing? Can you really blame these immigrants for the NHS problems given that by far most of those arriving are young, fit, people here to work who probably don't even know where the local hospital is? The UK doesn't need to limit these numbers. They have stopped coming here by themselves.

  4. To all the panel I ask you. Does the fact that there is an increased probability of Scotland leaving the UK, of Ireland facing problems that may or may not spark more trouble in the future, that Gibraltar as a tiny rock in the Mediterranean will face a lot of problems if there is a border between them and Spain have any influence on you in terms of how you vote?

  5. To the gentleman that thought being outside the EU was just a question of packing your bags and saying good bye , I would say this. The reason it isn't so easy is because the UK still needs many things from the EU, and I don't mean just security. Take for example the European Medical Agency and the European Chemical Agency. If there is to be any trade deal at all, there needs to be harmony between Europe and Britain. Not only are agencies now moving from London to the continent, Britain doesn't even have the equivalent and it will cost billions to set up its own independent agencies. Its just not worth it.

  6. To the person who brought up the fisheries, I would ask, exactly how do you expect Brexit to help the fishermen? Did you know that of the 700.000 tonnes or so landed by the UK fleets in 2016, about 440.000 went to the the continent. By contrast, 53% of the fish industry in the UK is imported fish. What does that say about the problem? Unless everybody is totally insane, it means that the type of fish and shellfish that the UK fleets catch is not the ones preferred in Britain. The problem is poor negotiators who didn't fight for a better quota deal. How exactly is being outside the EU and not even having a seat at the negotiating table going to improve the quota if the EU decides it doesn't want to buy the catch from the UK?

People, feel free to check my facts with any sane person. You have been lied to, and leaving the EU is a decision that will not easily be undone. Those who are in favour of it are generally older and soon will not be of this world. The younger generation is overwhelmingly in favour of it. But whatever you choose, once you have learned the truth I would ask ...

If you knew then what you know now, would you have voted the same as you did before?




Since you are here, perhaps you would consider signing the petition to return the final vote on Brexit to the people. We need a lot of votes, so if you agree help pass the message around. Whatever side of the Brexit fence your on, it can't hurt. We now know that nobody can negotiate a decent Brexit! It is an impossibility ... and so what I am suggesting is to put the question back to the people in the form of a final vote on the Brexit deal. Not a necessarily a referendum, because many believe that is a binary tool (actually they are wrong) and this is a non-binary problem. What I am proposing is a vote. To be held in Early November latest, with a three-way question.

  1. Accept whatever deal is being proposed and leave in an orderly manner

  2. Reject the deal and simply leave, opting for the NO DEAL option

  3. Accepting that any Brexit is too detrimental, therefore choosing cancelling Brexit

Consider what could happen. If the vote shows a 50% majority for anybody then the question is settled. If you believe in British democracy, just take the winner, but if you are a true democrat then opt for a second round, just like the rest of the civilized world. Likely it would not and then, just like the elections in many countries, it goes to a second round, with only the top two options going forward.

If the two winning options don't include staying in the EU, then the choice will simply be between hard or soft Brexit (or whatever is your preferred nomenclature for the options.) Most likely, the result will include staying in the EU and one other. If the other is a hard Brexit, then those who voted 'soft' will be obliged to decide in the second round, either 'stay' in the EU or accept crashing out (a 'hard' Brexit).

If on the other hand it is the hard Brexiteers that lose out on the first round they will either have to accept an orderly 'soft' Brexit or 'stay' in the EU. In this way nobody can say this is undemocratic or that they don't have a chance at a Brexit of their choice. All those who still insist the people have already spoken are doing nothing but risking the entire future of the United Kingdom, from Ireland to Scotland and Gibraltar, from Tory to Labour.


The man in the photo is Lord Kerr. He wrote the Article 50, never once thinking it was his own team that would invoke it. Lord Kerr, a former UK ambassador to the E.U; said Brexiteers in May’s cabinet were suggesting Brexit was irreversible and thereby misleading the public.

This former diplomat says the UK could opt to reverse Brexit up to the moment it leaves, even if a date for the country’s departure from European Union were added to the withdrawal bill, as Theresa May plans.

This is the only way to truly know what the people want and to unite the country again. Everybody, knowing the consequences, takes an informed decision.

Here are the options, this is the price! - DECIDE -.

Ask yourselves, do you really trust a politician, some of whom take donations from the Russians, to take what is almost certainly the most important decision of your and YOUR CHILDREN'S lives for you? Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your fellow students. This sale is only on until March 29th, 2019. (Actually, if a transition period is negotiated it could be longer but I wouldn't risk it). Before Mar 29th 2019, even the EU can't stop a reversal. After that who knows) Vote the way you think and then its in the lap of the gods!

Sign Petition: https://t.co/Wo8DgvjjYN

15 views0 comments

© 2018 by The Brexit Lemon Grove. Proudly created with Wix.com