Posted: Friday, 4 January 2019 @ 13:43
I have a Scottish friend who observed at the time of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 the whole atmosphere of the country deteriorated and effectively individuals were put under pressure by others to express their view and if conflicted with the person who was talking to you, woe betide you.
With this in mind I was struck a piece by Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph who observes "The choice between the revolutionary and evolutionary approach to Brexit has yet to be determined. But in the meantime, attitudes on both sides of the argument show no sign of softening. Indeed, they are becoming further entrenched. Whichever way the chips fall, that cannot be good, because it suggests a kind of civil war which is almost religious in nature."
Thus we have a situation where it is increasingly difficult to determine the pros and cons of say a revolutionary or evolutionary approach and engage in meaningful and genuine debate.
With use of social media which encourages an entrenched approach, can we determine -
Some questions:
- How damaging will a no-deal Brexit be?
- If it so bad so does it justify overturning the vote or is this constitutionally impossible and morally wrong?
- What legal justification do those who seek to overturn the previous vote have?
- How honest is the Government when it says if you do not embrace the Chequers plan then Brexit is at risk?
- What is more important to the Labour opposition? Respecting the previous vote or using every manoeuvre to get into power?
However perhaps if you do express your opinions is it really worth the hassle given the fact that increasingly you will get unnecessarily attacked or subject to a Twitter storm.