UNAPOLOGETIC: Richard Dawkins SLAMS The Tories And His Message Will Make All BREXITEERS Boil With Anger

Brexiteers will surely be raging with anger after Richard Dawkins’ latest comments and will likely respond in typical fashion- with insults and foul language but intellectually, they are no match for this brash Oxford academic.

Dawkins continues to slam the Tories and tell them how Brexit is disastrous, was unnecessary and its effects will be felt for generations. This time he is back in the limelight, slamming David Cameron for taking a “ridiculous gamble” by calling a referendum on Brexit and simultaneously blasting the Tories for continuing to live in denial and continuously defending Brexit.

But what will annoy the Brexiteers even more is his argument that “they were not qualified to vote on Brexit and should never have.”

“That’s why we are a parliamentary democracy. Some things have to be debated and voted through the Parliament and not put into the hands of unqualified voters. Brexit should have been voted through Parliament and not through a referendum,” he said.

While Dawkins’ comments may be seen to be controversial by many, his point is that David Cameron made a tactical mistake by placing a referendum in the hands of an electorate that was poorly informed on Brexit and was easily manipulated by the right wing media and right wing campaigners like Nigel Farage.

Had Brexit been put through parliament, it would have been debated by MPs and deliberated on before rushing it. There’s a very big possibility that a whole different result would have been achieved had Brexit been placed through the Parliamentary system.

The right wing media and right wing figures like Nigel Farage simply took advantage of the situation and heavily influenced voters by stoking anti European sentiments and that was the wave that ushered in Brexit.

 

 

 

41 comments

  1. Can’t argue with this article. Their is however a bit of a hypothetical double standard within many expounding his views. We should have another vote or declare the first nul invoid due to all the lies that were told to obtain the leave vote, however even if pretty much the exact arguments can be made for another Scottish independence referendum, they invariably say no ! That’s the trouble with some reasonable sounding Tories. Dig a little deeper and it’s always disappointment !

  2. On the morning the EU referendum result came through the Leave campaigners began admitting their lies. In particular they admitted that the NHS was never going to get an additional £350 million per week.

    They also admitted that they were never going to get immigration down to the levels they had previously claimed. They also admitted that there would be an economic cost due to Brexit – something they denied repeatedly during their campaign.

    They weren’t even embarrassed to be called out for their lies. To them, winning was the only important issue. Regardless of how they achieved it.

    So, given that they lied their way to victory, don’t you think it is only fair and proper that the electorate are given another opportunity to make their voice heard once we know the real effects of Brexit, after the negotiations with the EU?

    Having been lied to relentlessly last time, we should be able to make an properly informed decision, especially as this is a hugely important choice for all of us, including our children.

    To me, this seems only right and proper. What do you think?

  3. “the EU is inefficient and corrupt”
    This is true –
    but not as overwhelmingly true as, “The UK government is inefficient and corrupt”.
    And now we have these much more arrogant and stupid people in the cabinet believing, like 2nd home flipper Gove, that they can twist the truth and threaten to sue anyone who exposes their lies, and go about making the mess that is Brexit far worse…
    Where the EU would at least be able, eventually, to reach a compromise where no idiotic selfish nation can just ruin their people, the continent and the planet – we now have a government committed to doing just that.

    Dawkins has barely begun to predict the moronic mess that will now ensue.

  4. It has, of course, resulted in a pact with the unspeakable DUP, a bunch of antedeluvian bigots and religious fanatics. Dawkins’ views on them would be interesting to read.

  5. So many things to say but I will limit myself to a couple.
    1. The infamous bus sign. It actually said the money (amount stated was the gross amount not the actual cost after subtracting the annual rebate and subsidies/grants we receive) COULD be used to finance the NHS. The media misrepresented that by telling the masses it WOULD…… blame the media which is biased towards the interests of the top 5%.
    2. Let Parliament decide after much debate. Sounds like the right idea in a Parliamentary Democracy doesn’t it? However, what would have happened, had there not been a referendum, was that there would have been days/weeks of debate on the pros and cons. Then the sitting, at the time, majority government would have put a 3 line whip on voting and the result would mean that all of the debate had been a total waste of time. The fact that a small majority of the country wanted to leave would have been negated by the MPs of a party which only gained about 40% of the votes in the General Election. Real democracy? I don’t think so.
    3. President Macron wants to change the EU from within. Good luck to him. Don’t get me wrong. He is right. The whole thing needs drastic change. There is a majority in a lot of countries that wants change. They, however, don’t want to lose the benefits they receive from membership. The UK, Netherlands and Germany are net payers. The rest get back more than they pay in. It will be hard to get them to give up all that free money. The Commission has said it isn’t going to change course and they are the only ones who are allowed to put forward new policy. We can’t vote the Commission out. Personally, I would like to revert to the position in 1991 prior to the Maastricht agreement. That was when it was still a “Comment Market”, a trade agreement.
    4. The EU has never had an annual audit, despite it being a requirement in EU Law. Why not? Quite simply, billions of Euro go missing each and every year. They have no idea where the money goes and they don’t want the masses to know that….
    5. The EU is inefficient. It is also corrupt. The UK says no to things it doesn’t like and yes to things it does. The rest say yes to everything to keep the peace but go on to do what the hell they like.
    6. The Law that gives a single country the power to veto new rules or amendments to old ones is stifling change in the EU. One example, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). French farmers love it. When there were butter and beef mountains and milk lakes, the CAP was introduced to control production. Farmers were paid to NOT produce. French farmers took to the idea and they get massive amounts to do nothing. Any attempt to amend the CAP would be met with a huge NON from the French government. What should happen, IMO, is that the CAP should be changed. Starting on the day the changes are implemented, the farmers on subsidies should be given a 5 or a 10 year long subsidy, maybe even increase the size of the subsidy to invest in change. They then have that 5 or 10 years to create a new use of their land. If they choose to sit back and do nothing, after 5 or 10 years, the subsidy will stop. Great idea in my opinion but it will never happen because the French will veto it.

    Me? I am a UK citizen who has been a resident of the Netherlands since the mid 80s.

    • “The fact that a small majority of the country wanted to leave would have been negated by the MPs of a party which only gained about 40% of the votes” This is not true. All of the parties represented in Parliament were in favour of remaining in the EU. In other words, close to 100% of the peoples’ representatives (i.e. excluding Sinn Fein and maybe a few right-wing Tories) would have voted to remain.

    • ‘The infamous bus sign.’

      Ah, the small print defence. It was presented by the Leave campaign as a promise. If the media did exaggerate what it meant, it was with the complicity of the Leave campaign who at no point tried to correct any ‘error’.

      ‘The fact that a small majority of the country wanted to leave’

      That is not a fact at all. There was no great clamour outside of the small, noisy UKIP support to leave. The referendum was a fop to the far right of the Tory party and, in the end, a minority of the country voted to leave. Barely a quarter of the country and not much over a third of the electorate.

      ‘The EU is inefficient. It is also corrupt.’ And the UK isn’t? A UK in which Theresa May recently bribed a pro-creationist, pre-terrorist party to prop up her own government? A UK in which the Tories voted to keep the public sector pay cap, then days later some of the small MP’s who voted for it mouthing off about how bad it is, just to look good in front of the cameras? That UK?

  6. He’s absolutely correct. 52% of those who voted are dumber than a box of rocks and should never have been entrusted with that much responsibility.

    • What arrogance from you, the rest of the anti democrats below and Dawkins. And what a flawed argument. Those people who are “dumber than a box of rocks” are the same people who voted in the Members of Parliament who made up the Government! So it would appear that you are all suggesting that it’s okay for dumb people (your words Mr Campbell not mine) to vote so long as they vote for a system of governance that the ruling elite want. Perhaps a “non dumbness test” to qualify for voting would satisfy all of you. The only problem with that, apart from it being wholly undemocratic, is that there would never be a Conservative Government again. It is after all working class idiots, who vote contrary to their own political and economic interests, that enable the rich and powerful to remain in power. I agree more people need political education but I firmly believe that this would strengthen the leave vote not deplete it. If people were aware of the power of the non elected bodies making decisions in the EU, the waste of money in the EU and the lack of accountability the vote to leave would far greater. I was thrilled that so many voted to leave, in spite of the onslaught of propaganda in the media suggesting that leavers were anti immigrant and backward thinking. I am on the left and voted leave. I look forward to taking back what little democracy we have and hopefully if we get a true Labour Government in the future extending democracy and making politics part of mainstream education.

  7. The referendum was rushed and a kind of frenzy was whipped up by people, like Nigel Farage & (the famous NHS ‘bus sign), which was nonsense. I feel the electorate were not made aware of the extent of problems, which would be caused by leaving the EU, after decades of membership. Many countries work at changing the EU from within and generally have success, if they persist.

  8. Richard Dawkins is absolutely right – the general public is uniquely unsuitable to take a major complex socio-economic-political decision like the continued membership of the EU. Would any rational human allow a major scientific development – like the genetic model or the theory of relativity or even heart surgery – be decided by a referendum? Now right wing xenophobic racists have deceived the public to vote for ‘Leave’ and the illiterate public and their descendants will suffer harsh economic consequences for generations. (After the referendum, more than a million people in the UK ‘Google’ searched to find out what is ‘EU’ – after they have voted to leave the EU!). What a farce!

  9. I’ve got an idea for improving our oldest democratic institution, the jury in the criminal justice system. The jury system as we have it now costs far too much and takes too long. Why don’t we simply ask the first 12 passers by to pop in and have a vote on guilt or innocence? If they like they can ask someone connected with the case anything they wish or perhaps a newspaper editor might be better informed. A simple majority of any of the 12 who can be bothered to vote by, say, 4.00 pm will do the trick, and all get home for tea. Except perhaps the defendant. Utter twaddle of course, but pretty much what parliament did to itself.

  10. Richard Dawkins was totally correct in what he says and I and many others said the same at the time of the referendum. The British public had a right to be better informed before being expected to vote – but then, when the Politicians are clueless and the Academics are silenced, what possible chance is there of an informed outcome!!

  11. No wonder wr continue to suffer austerity and cuts and the backdoor decimation of the NHS – thick people just ranting about issues they have no knowledge of and spout off rubbish. The rest of Europe has a cheap and efficient nationalised transport system. Nothing revolutionary

    • The rest of Europe has a cheap and efficient nationalised transport system?
      I live in the Netherlands, our transport system is in private hands.

      Thick people just ranting about issues they have no knowledge of and spout off rubbish?
      You said it………

  12. I can’t disagree with Richard Dawkins on the referendum being badly thought through,however the European Union was and still is dysfunctional. Had the decision on Europe been discussed in parliament a referendum (in or out) could have been avoided and a strategy to make the EU fit for purpose from within could have been discussed in the European parliament ,of which we will no longer be able to do.

    • With you 100% there Roger Wheatley. There may still be a chance that this could happen – the UK is not the only dissatisfied member state. Msr Macron has also said that he wants big changes as do other states.

    • Corbin is a class traitor. His agenda, like that of all trots is to impoverish the working classes and blame it on the capitalists, thus fermenting violent revolution which will allow the Trotskyites to seize power. Thus he is opposed to the single market because it makes working people better off.

      • why are you attacking Jeremy Corbyn, he didn’t call the referendum, he’s not part of the negotiating team. Nor as far as I’m aware, been asked his opinion. You’re just a trouble maker.

        • But Corbyn is enabling Brexit. The third option in the Rederendum should have been “Stay in EU but negotiate hard for change”.
          Dawkins is right on Cameron’s disastrous decision, we are all the poorer for it. Except the millionaires of course. They want out before the EU Tax Directive comes into force after March 2019.

        • But Corbyn is enabling Brexit. The third option in the Rederendum should have been “Stay in EU but negotiate hard for change”.
          Dawkins is right on Cameron’s disastrous decision, we are all the poorer for it. Except the millionaires of course. They want out before the EU Tax Directive comes into force after March 2019.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *