please empty your brain below
I hope we people get a chance to vote on whatever the final departure terms are once known.
And then there's that mythical £350 million that was often quoted during the campaign.
I don't think "mess" is the right word. Grade-A C**k-Up is what I'd call it.
However, following the EU referendum of 2016 where the country gave Mr Cameron the 'wrong' answer, it seems highly unlikely there will be another such vote in my lifetime.
And sorry to niggle, but this analysis all reads a bit too much like the work of an expert, and I thought we weren't taking any notice of experts any more. Someone in the government said so, didn't they, so that must be right.
And anyway, isn't now down to those dozen or so nice politicians in Northern Ireland to decide what we do and don't do? Isn't that what they call devolution?
PS Well done DG, by the way, nice incisive post.
But anyway it still strikes me the difference between the EU referendum and the Scottish independence one. For the latter there was huge amount of information that anyone could analyze. Some have argued it lost them the referendum because the problems were clear and visible.
The lack of any such plan or information for 2016 was a woeful - inexcusable - situation.
The referendum in the 1970s was to join the Common Market. What we have now is the European Union, a political organisation with a President and Commissioners who are not voted for by direct election.
The past actions of the EU are why a majority of the UK voted to Leave. The attitude of the EU following the referendum vote makes it very clear that Leave was the right decision.
A lot of headline say Brexit 'could'....not 'will' says it all really.
If we had remained what would have the headlines been like?
Which is all very sad, and a reminder of what a broken society we have in England and Wales.
I would much rather statements like this read:
“The only thing the referendum confirmed is that a majority of voters wanted to leave the European Union.”
It’s similar to use of the phrase ‘the will of the people’. The fact that 48% voted against this gets wholly ignored by the government.
I wish that the major constitutional change required a 66% majority.
I wish that the many people who are affected by any loss of freedom of movement had been asked.
I wish we had a single competant politician.
This mess is because the population of the UK (mostly the English) voted for a brexit with a besoke deal.
The UK is not exceptional, the UK is not special case, the world does not owe you anything.
As Gordon Brown said 'bigoted women'
It just showed the disconnect between the politicians and the people.
When Cameron called the referendum it gave a release for the Gillian Duffy's of this world.
As the 2017 election showed, it may have the same effect on the Tory party that the poll tax had on it in Scotland, with areas that voted remain no longer voting for them.
Then I read the various treaties and learned about the way the EU works (the Wikipedia page on the Institutions of the European Union has an excellent diagram). That was enough to vote to leave; that such a complex structure with so much redundancy - note the single arrow attached to "enfranchised people" which points into the EU structures, and that the weight of the diagram is on the indirectly elected or unelected parts - could have enormous impact on individuals' lives appalled me.
And those points stand more than eighteen months later. The only response from the EU, even during the referendum campaign as the French and German newspapers told me, was and is "ever greater union" rather than real reform.
It allows for no granularity or choices as to your reasons. So many people vote 'out' purely over freedom of movement/immigration and are seemingly prepared to take the hit of not being in the common market just to allow this.
So what if there were options? "NO to freedom of movement", but "YES to staying in the common market". What if people were asked for their granular choices, it turned out that yes - a lot of people voted leave to stop immigration, but everything else was OK? So we could go back to being how it was in 1970 - just part of a common market - and nothing else. Would that solution sit well with a large majority of the population? I suspect it would.
I like RayL's comment above which alludes to this, and is so much better than a ranting "Will of the people! Out means out!" that you so often see. instead, it looks like the basis of reasoned discussion between the two sides to actually find a solution that is best for everyone - or as close as we can get to everyone.
And would be so much better than the doomed path we seem to be taking at the moment.
as illusory - and will become as discredited, derided and cringeworthy - as
"Strong & Stable"
I like the "idea" of the EU. Some parts of it, anyway. But the realities are (or have become) something else - and quite grotesque. The way that rules (e.g. over budgetary deficits) are applied to small countries in the Union, but are conveniently waived the moment France or Germany are in breach of them; the treatment of Greece during its economic crisis, which made clear that "the project" was far more important than the people (or even the governmetns) of the member states; the repeated referendums in several countries; the imposition of the rejected European Constitution (because a referedum rejection in France could not be brushed aside as it could be in other countries that had done likewise) by stealth.
One of these things alone would have been enough to raise eyebrows about the general direction of the EU, but combined (to which we can add the preposterous and trivial proposals served up to Cameron when he sought to renegotiate our membership, and the general aggressive behaviour and general refusal to negotiate - or even acknowledge that, in fact, the UK Government has presented something close to a coherent case for our future relations wit hthe EU) - they make clear that it is a body that has no association with democratic or accountable government (not even to go into the question of the so-called "European Parliament" and its allegedly bicameral nature, but that too is a joke) - and indeed is expresssly opposed to the notion of people in power being accountable to their electorate. In short, it is a dictatorship in the making.
And where is the accountability? One of the delights (really) of the UK is that we have a nosy, intrusive, disrespectful press. Our politicans are kept, by international standards, relatively uncorrupt, in part because of the way our media operates and thinks. When was anyone - anyone - in the Brussels (and Strasbourg. And to be frank, Berlin. Even Paris. The French press is pretty good in many ways, but it is sycophantic to the national leadership.) offices of power ever held to such account or scrutiny? It's inconceivable.
I'm sure Brexit will be difficult. I'd far rather the EU had reformed. (Or perhaps that we had reduced our participation in it at the time of the Maastricht treaty). But it hasn't, won't, and, as far as I can tell, can't.
I'd rather we didn't have to leave. But I do think it is necessary, and, when it comes down to it, the right thing. And I am also arrogant enough to think that in the long term ,teh more sensible parts of continental Europe will thank us for what we are doing. Both in showing that the emperor has no clothes (and is a bully boy, not a benevolent ruler), and in setting an example that other countries, in time, can and hopefully will follow.
If we had had other politicians in charge post EU referendum there could well have been more change. Many in the EU may have welcomed it. But May's government never have them a reason to even go there. She went in an opposite direction. The EU of the future will very likely have a different shape without us. And one it wouldn't have had had we had the vote, or had approached the post vote period differently.
My greatest gripe is well summed up by DG's phrase 'twenty months of vacillating indecision', to which I would add specifically the failure of the government to clearly identify which reason for leaving is paramount to voters so trade offs with the EU could be made on supposedly lesser issues. The 'have our cake and eat it' approach for 20 months can have done nothing but wind up Barnier and his mates. I remember clearly all PMs from Churchill on (51/55 version) and May is quite simply the most useless one by a mile, a hundred times worse that even Eden, Home and Heath. Although a natural Tory, I almost hope to see Jezza in #10, certainly in preference to those Old Etonian buffoons Johnson and Rees-Mogg, who amazingly are the top 2 preferences of Tory party members. God help us all.
I also think of the people living in Gibraltar who will suffer a great deal if the land border with Spain closes or becomes restricted.
I voted against joining the Common Market. although I wasn't really that bothered either way. Once we were in, then I saw that it was probably a good thing.
However, over later years, I have got more and more disillusioned by what the EC was becoming and how the UK seemed to be having less and less control. Whilst there are plenty of good things that being in the EC has, the bad far outweigh the good. I voted to leave.
It seemed that not long after the referendum result, the cries for a new referendum were already starting and have got louder and louder ever since. This is wrong. A result (however narrow) was democratically arrived at and as far as I'm concerned that's that.
I've generally supported Liberals / Lib Dems in elections as being the least worse of the three parties. The Lib Dems decided to go against the result of the referendum, want another etc. and so, at the last general elections, for the first time since about 1980 I didn't vote Liberal (or for any of the other two main parties). It is unlikely that I will ever vote for them any more. They just cannot be trusted. Perhaps I should try the Green Party.
In my town, from what is normally a fairly close election, the Lib Dems at 26% ended up with about half the conservative (winner at 51%) votes. This was not that far in front of labour (20%) who normally get around 10%. Whilst there may be different reasons for other normally Lib Dem voters to vote for another party, I'm sure that the LDs attitude to the referendum must have affected the number of votes they received.
In any case, Brexit is itself a big game and no doubt the EU leaders want to make it as messy as possible so as to punish the British citizens. The people should have taken control of the process themselves (can it be, anyways?)
Whether that plan would have been exacted, we will never know, but at least it was something to go on. Contrast this with 'Vote Leave' and co., who left things ambiguous, almost certainly deliberately.
Unfortunately, no such ideas are being put forward - presumably because our ruling Tory-DUP-Brexiter coalition cannot agree on any.
From what I have read, punishment is not on the cards from the EU. They just simply point out that there are rules and you can't have all the benefits without playing by the rules. Most of the EU would be quite happy if Brexit was suddenly cancelled.
Might be worth reading this (Daily Telegraph, March 2016) re sovereignty.
Martin Schulz of Germany's Social Democrats has openly declared that he wants a 'United States Of Europe'. Already, we in the UK do not have the opportunity to vote for the President of the EU and his Commissioners. In today's world there are many, mamy examples where giving politicians unfettered power leads to corruption and dictatorship (think China, North Korea, Russia, parts of Africa, etc).
It's not a question of "politicians can't be trusted". Human beings can't be trusted. Our civilised society depends on checks and balances, on the rule of law, on not giving people unfettered power. Politicians have gradually converted the Common Market into a political tool where the electorates of individual countries have less and less control over the decisions made centrally. A majority in the UK have been sensible enough to say that they don't like this and have done something about it.
@shirokazan
We didn't vote to join the EU, We only voted to join a common Market.
Unfortunately there is no other suitable club for the UK to join which would give comparable benefits (in spite of vague notions of empire mark 2). So there was really only one sensible way of dealing with any dissatisfaction - to work at reform from inside. However, we have (in obedience to Murdoch) decided not to be sensible.
And there is no "president of the EU" to vote for. There are three each of which are selected in different ways. Two are elected by national governments and one by the European Parliament. Which would you like to vote for?
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/presidents_en
(Worth remembering on democracy that in the UK we have an unelected House of Lords and certainly don't vote for our prime minister. We are hardly bastions of democracy ourselves.)
"We didn't vote to join the EU, We only voted to join a common Market."
You didn't vote only to join a common market, whether you were aware of it or not. That opinion piece from the Telegraph would suggest otherwise: it was known back in the early 70s that sovereignty would no longer be what it was.
Nor was it intended to be just a club for trading of goods and services. Edward Heath's Conservative conference speech at Blackpool in 1973: "..I do not know anyone in the Community who believes that it has reached its final form, or indeed its perfect form. The whole nature of the Community is that it should constantly change and develop according to the changing needs of its peoples."
You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong.
But I am right. Here is why I am right.
(etc etc)
I refer you to http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/talking-point.html :-)
I voted out as the EU is an undemocratic mess. A niche reason but valid none the less.
This seems a bold statement to make. Is there an authorative support for this?
But why do politicians everywhere in the world feel the need to reduce everything to slogans and parallel structures instead of finding good solutions?
There are many reasons for keeping referendum questions simple. The real issue is whether they are simple yes/no answers to vague questions like the Brexit vote, or to detailed proposals like any referendum in places where referendums have a binding effect. If it's vague, then you have this situation where parliament needs to work out what to actually do with the results and everyone argues about what the result means. On the flip side, if the details are worked out in advance, the chances of the referendum getting a yes vote are lower.
You'll be telling us next that people subjected to genocide or repression should also "just suck it up". After all it's for the "greater good". (vomit)
The fact that a slim majority has granted a government consisting of useless idiots the right to destroy this country and its prospects for generations is not something to keep quiet about. The loons in the Tory right wing and their media friends have not "sucked it up" for the 30+ years they've been trying to get their way so why should anyone else, of differing opinion, keep quiet? Regrettably there are plenty of people of Tory right wing loon persuasion who have, and have had, a long term plan to foist their ludicrous view of the world on the rest of us and to nicely further their own interests at the same time.
I really do wonder what the poor souls who blindly voted to leave will think when they can't get treated in hospital, when food prices double or treble, when the prospects for their kids are trashed due to huge shortages of teachers and they lose jobs and income. I guess they'll blame the government rather than looking to their own actions.
All the arguments and discussions we are having now should have been had before the referendum, and consequently the mess we’re in now was entirely predictable. To those leavers saying 'I didn't vote for this', I'm very sorry to tell you: you've got exactly what you voted for.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy