By the time it happened, it would be very clear what the final options are. Most likely leave with no deal, or stay in, but perhaps with a third option of the remnants of May's Chequers proposal. It would have to be a final decision, whatever the margin.
I know its well-trodden ground, Strolls, but the idea of the referendum was to enable Joe Public to make a choice. That choice was narrowly in favour of leaving the European Union. Yes, there is a huge question around what exactly leaving the EU means. There are certainly many forms of leaving. On balance, I favour the Norway model, which is far from perfect as far as many Brexiteers are concerned, but I think it offers the best possible compromise. I don't think its right to have another referendum, but neither do I think it right to completely ignore the narrow margin that carried the day. The result was too narrow to seek too extreme a Brexit despite what I (and others) may secretly wish for. The problem for me is the many now seeking to change the rules. I don't recall a crescendo of calls prior to the referendum for a Brexit to only be triggered in the event of (say) a greater than 90% electoral turnout (the actual was 72%), or for the younger vote to carry a heavier weight than the older vote, or for at least (say) a 60% vote in favour of leaving. With hindsight, perhaps we could also have banned the thickos and anybody living outside of Islington from voting. Rather curiously, according to the FT (link below) people with a degree tended to vote 'Remain' whilst those living in regions most economically dependent upon the EU tended to vote 'Leave'. Also, those not holding a passport (and so less likely to have been abroad recently) tended to vote 'Leave'. To me, the campaign for a second referendum looks more and more a case of the liberal intelligentsia despising the blue collar worker. It would seem to me that Labour's traditional working class heartlands are more in favour of leaving the EU, whereas the champagne metropolitan socialists are more for remaining. But, we have seen that this is an issue that transcends typical party political silos. https://www.ft.com/content/1ce1a720-ce94-3c32-a689-8d2356388a1f Shall we all agree that none of us will get exactly what we thought we voted for?
Certainly no one will get what they thought they voted for. I knew that even as I cast my vote - I was confident that we would vote remain (shows how much I know) but I wanted us to remain as a committed, full and energetic member of the EU, driving forward reform, rather than as a reluctant ‘what’s in it for me’ voice, and I knew that wasn’t going to happen. The more we analyse who voted for what and create little sub blocks of society based on that (and even those sub blocks are divided, even if it’s 90-10 one way or the other) the more we entrench the divisions and strengthen the ‘us and them’ mentality, which is founded on stuff much deeper than the EU. But as we seem to have an industry founded on doing just that, it’s going to go on and on and on. One of least edifying elements of the whole fiasco is the joy that the media is taking in the whole thing. As we lurch from crisis to crisis Laura Kuenssberg and her ilk are obviously loving ramping up the sense of fear and doom, because it makes them feel important and at the centre of events rather than just being even bigger parasites than the politicians. Increasingly I have a powerful urge to smash their smug, self important faces in when they loom up from the screen or boom out from the wireless as I scream ‘you are part of the problem, cretin’. Here’s my prediction. Whatever happens with deals etc, this country is going to be bitterly, loudly and oppressively divided over this issue for much longer than the rest of my life. I am literally never going to hear the end of it. The only things that can prevent that are it being overtaken by international cataclysms of huge scale (and even some of these will be linked to the EU by some) or the EU being dissolved (which would create a huge cataclysm in which we would suffer greatly, even after a complete hard Brexit). And it would have been the same had we voted Remain. Cameron inflicted a wound and we are going to pick at the scab until gangrene sets in. None of us, or at least none of us who are daft enough to waste their energy thinking about this stuff, are sleeping well Uber. We need medication. Sorry for this rather negative start to the day. In my defence I have a heavy cold and have just come back from holiday, which always makes me pine for being on holiday permanently. Still the retirement countdown now stands at two years, ten months and five days, so there is light at the end of the tunnel. I just hope that the light is a place I will like and can afford to live in.
I don’t have an issue with a Brexit happening. It is the “will of the people” after all albeit it was a textbook example for the rest of the world in the flaws of referendums. I do have an issue with these right wing noddies interpreting it to mean it has to be their version of Brexit. If these fuds compromised a bit with other Brexiteers and those who voted to Remain, we’d have a relatively palatable Norway model. I don’t know why some people are so determined to cause chaos for the sake of there being fewer Romanians when we have 4% unemployment. It’s mental.
Two thirds of the grass and moorlands fires that our firefighters are spending so much of their time on are started deliberately. Can we have a referendum on capital punishment please?
I'm still struggling with the way many people come to a decision about how they're going to vote, or what side they're going to pick. Making an emotional choice based on misinformation is understandable, but when it becomes clear that it's not possible to be delivered, the rational response should not be "Let's just leave without a deal" - the "jumping off a cliff" approach. Since when did jumping off a cliff resolve anything? We have rejected the EU28 club. We should expect them to look after themselves. If we're angry with them, why wouldn't they be angry with us? If they feel a "no deal" departure would hurt them a bit and hurt us more, they'll just be angry at us for not working harder to find something that doesn't do that. Yes, they want us to have enough money to trade and buy from them. Yes, they want to keep costs down on the things they buy from us. Yes, they'd like us to stay and contribute to the club, as we have been doing to. But if we want to leave, why do some people in the UK think the EU27 should do all the work and make all the compromises? It's not realistic. They don't have to do anything if they're prepared for the consequences. Leaving the EU28 isn't about beating the EU27. It should be about looking after the ordinary people in this country. If we cannot find a solution that does that, we should stop the process (if we can). Saying "we've changed our mind" is a step the egos of most of the people in this country won't accept at an emotional level. So that won't happen. Saying "No Deal" will cripple us economically and be dreadful for ordinary people. That shouldn't be allowed to happen - but... if lots of us look like we'd accept that and just get angry at the EU rather than at our own politicians (1984, anyone?) then some of our politicians will continue to push for it, so their own careers don't suffer. Leaving should have the lowest negative economic impact possible and the most political separation possible. That's the solution we need to find and the EU27 should not be expected to do anything that is negative to their own club. Why would they? Except as neighbours and customers, they have no responsibility towards us once we're out. What that means is we'll have to get used to the idea we can't get everything we want, because the two aspects (economics vs political separation) are often in conflict with each other. What wouldn't hurt would be for us to spend more time pondering what unites us rather than arguing about what divides us.
It probably would be, but at least it’s a simple enough issue to theoretically capture in one question on a ballot.
I'd largely agree with this. A soft Brexit strategy is the best and worst of both worlds but honours the result. A second referendum makes a supposition that a new campaign by either side can be run more honourably or informatively (I can barely imagine what rubbish would spew forth from either leave or remain campaign now - same lies but with accusatory bitching). I would say that unlawful election campaigning (interference, overspending etc) should force a second referendum but the powers that be don't seem too worried which suggests that dirty tricks are commonplace and further investigation would be further humiliation all round. That in itself is a bitter indication of the situation we're in. Remain had their chance to win a vote and a (mostly leave) government had the chance to convince the country that it was competent enough to start all trading arrangements from scratch, to make a country prosper from a harder Brexit and have failed to instill any confidence of anything other than a desire for self serving personal gain. They had a chance to convince us of their credentials to lead this country and make our sovereignty count for something special. They failed in that sales pitch that would have bought more unity to this divided country. A soft Brexit seems like closer to the will of 34.5 million people.
Let’s not forget that c. 28% of the electorate couldn’t be arsed to vote, so are presumably indifferent to any potential outcome. Within that 28% (as I understand it) was a higher proportion of the younger vote, who a little over two years ago were chasing imaginary Pokemon.
Interesting factoids... I've just completed an Electoral Register update. I did it online and they asked if I'd take a survey afterwards, so I did. The main thrust was trying to find out my views on two things... 1: What would it take for me to accept online voting rather than visiting the polling station (My answer, no - just like I'm against postal voting for families living next door to the polling stations. It permits enforced voting of the entire family by a dominant family member.I used to live in Tower Hamlets.). 2: What did I think of people being forced to vote by law and fined if they do not. (My answer, no. Failing to turn up is a comment on the election in it's own right.) Just sharing...
Re, your second point, I’d like to see a “none of the above” option on the ballot paper so that people that care about politics and who should govern the country can officially declare their lack of excitement about the choice of candidates available. Maybe it’ll help stop these pillocks declaring that they’ve received a mandate from the people? It would be interesting to see how many people are sufficiently animated to vote in this way.
A Norway-like solution would probably most closely represent the 'will of the people', and, if that was where we were heading, I personally would readily accept the outcome and I doubt that we would have the calls for a further referendum that we are now hearing. The problem we have, as Windsor points out, is that it's the Brexiteers who can't agree amongst themselves, because they each feel entitled to their own personal vision of Brexit. The Moggites won't allow a soft Brexit, and we are heading for a no-deal, cliff-edge Brexit, which most agree would be disastrous for the economy. Very few people voted for that in 2016.
German journalist on Sky this morning, laying down the law and expressing the view that the UK will have to "capitulate" further to get any deal from the EU. Adam Boulton explained that people in this country may not appreciate a German telling them to capitulate further. This was met with a "whatever".
An excellent post, Uber. I vary from you only in that I don't think there's anything to fear from WTO rules (which are the rules most countries trade under) so long as the government prepares properly. We currently trade with some large economies on WTO rules including the United States, Australia, NZ, HK, Brazil, China, Russia and various African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries
