See I'd prefer to read a range of opinions with a critical eye and arrive at a considered view. Particularly on such important issues. The writer of that article used to be a speechwriter for David Cameron, admittedly a pro-remainer but certainly not a typical Guardian columnist
I think as I said at the time the most grown up debate was on here. That said I always had an issue with some of the people who were claiming their vote was due to a deep held belief in democracy when they were happy to support most of the undemocratic elements of the British system. You not being one of them I would add.
If you believe the polls, the Brexit vote is typically older, lower income people. The younger and more-educated end of the spectrum is more towards Remain, so much as a vote now ended in a surprise win for Brexit, that situation could reverse markedly over the next few years - particularly now people are starting to realize exactly what they voted for... Given that 48% of the country voted to stay, and another 2-3 million EU citizens living here were not given a vote (but Brits abroad were), there is probably already a majority of the country that do not vote to leave and just as anti-EU feelings are strong in the Brexit camp, so are pro-EU feelings in the Remain camp. As for the MPs, as I argued in a different thread, we voted for them to represent our best interests. And for our area - at least economically it is not difficult to argue that Brexit will be somewhere between disastrous and catastrophic for the next 20-30 years - our best interests might not be the same as what the people actually want. It is a difficult position for all concerned. Particularly with the legal and political delays, we could be facing an election between Article 50 and the 2 year limit on negotiations, where we could find ourselves with an elected government with a Remain mandate having to finish the negotiations off...
Oh don't get me wrong, there are some horrible f.ckers wanting Brexit. But then Blair, Campbell & Mandelson wanted remain.... The nuances (on both sides) get lost in the noise - which disappointingly comes from politicians and the media as much as anything.
I think the key quote was from Farage (when he expected to lose) that a close result would not shut down the debate. Although I'm sure had it been the other way Remainers would be as bullish, but there has to be some acknowledgement that Brexit is forever, whereas remain doesn't have that same finality.
It's completely impractical to ask Parliament to agree to it. You'll either end up doing it purely for ceremony or you completely hinder all negotiating strategies & options. I was a remainer but the only way to get a deal is to do it in private.
The only saving grace of Brexit is that we haven't got Farage jumping up and down at every opportunity like the political equivalent of a toddler having a tantrum until he got his own way. Self-serving hypocrite that he is. BTW Nigel, when you stand up in front of other MEPs and spout about them not having done a real job.. CURRENCY TRADING IS NOT A REAL JOB, IT IS GAMBLING IN A SUIT!!!
My feeling is a 'remain' vote would have given the EU (and the political establishment in the UK) carte blanche to move to a Federal European State with zero hope of leaving/opting out of what we didn't like. We couldn't get concessions (if we really tried) with the threat of an exit vote, so once we'd committed it would have been full steam ahead. I appreciate that's an ideology argument rather than hard factual, but everything I've ever researched about the driving forces behind the EU tells me that's what its aim is.
Perhaps so, just meaning that if public feeling was strong enough we could always have revisited the issue. Article 50 is triggered and it's all over, regardless of whether we get a good outcome or not from any negotiations. Someone on here likened it to a divorce but that's a false analogy to me. People often might start divorce proceedings and when the realities (kids, houses, money etc) bite revisit their decision and give things another go. In fact some people who are divorced get back together. In this case you pull the trigger without having a clue what you'll end up with but there's not going back. Hopefully we will get a good deal. But then I suppose my (and your) idea of a good deal would be abhorrent to many who voted Brexit. Not that I blame any of that on Brexiters, more so the process and the ill thought out approach to the referendum from the Tories
I agree the whole process shows up the abilities of those who govern us - or their arrogance in believing that their argument was so strong they had no need to address concerns of the exit camp, but just carry on with a 'we know best' attitude - on the flip side 'Vote Leave' was equally as abysmal and has just given a free reign to anyone wishing to mock brexit voters - £350m and all that. BUT - Vote Leave wasn't a political party and has no political power - something the media fail to grasp - it was merely the official vehicle for the leave campaign - it wasn't a good vehicle but there you go - and the cynic in me wonders if it was chosen for that very reason - paranoid, moi ? Glass half full - we genuinely (eventually) get to a proper political democracy where we can hold our representatives to account without them having 'it's all Europe's fault' as a get out clause. The spotlight is on them to step up - currently I'm not hopeful as all May did was appeal to the Tory conference than the UK/world - hence market turmoil over 'hard' Brexit (which I don't think will happen anyway)
My concern is when whoever in power turns round and points out that we do need high levels of economic migration regardless of EU membership that distrust in political democracy will be eroded further. At least we already have a mainstream political voice that isn't demonising immigrants whilst putting forward policies t mitigate the impacts of migration. But I do agree it will be good to see what happens when everything isn't blamed on Europe. I just hope we choose to keep the best principles off Europe instead of disappearing down the toilet of being even more in thrall to big business to encourage them to be based here
As you say it could be difficult , if remain minded MP's do appear to be using the debate issue as a blocking tactic to the point where May calls an election , the biggest loser could well be the Labour Party. When you look at the areas like ours , Labour seats , where 67 / 68% voted to leave , if that strong feeling is carried over to the point of voting for a candidate endorsing Leave , it could well spell electoral carnage in Labour heartlands . MP's in the Remain voting areas will be probably be safe unless their own particular seat is a marginal which could be tricky . I haven't done the maths but a very large number could be seriously threatened .
We'll see how much those opposing globalisation and looking after the individual match up to their rhetoric. ...
I did see/hear the other day that a disparately large number of the Leave voters are those that typically do not engage in normal elections and do not vote. So there is a chance that a party with Remain as one of its policies could get a vote swing as well... As soon as the country overwhelmingly voted for "Boaty McBoatface", the government should have realised that most of the country don't have a clue and cancelled any plans to let them vote on anything more meaningful than the winner of Big Brother or the X-Factor.
I'm not sure of the figures , but I think that may cut both ways...wasn't there a big push to register young voters who had never voted before ? Whilst they may have been enthused enough to turn out and vote remain ( if it is true )...will they feel enthused enough to turn out again in a General Election ?...on the other side of the coin refusal to trigger A50 will anger a huge amount of people ....I think they may well be more motivated.
Whatever happens, roughly half the country are going to be very angry and seeing as the politicians that are meant to lead by example aren't helping the country is probably in for a whole load of trouble. It really doesn't help when you have Tory councilors wanting to try people with Treason for arguing against hard brexit.
Orsen , I have to say I am confused by all this. The EU have no real means of a country exiting the EU except for a hastily drafted paragraph- Article 50 -with no detail. Combine this with the intransigence of Junckers and Tusk stating Out is Out and NO negotiations without triggering the said Article 50 and you have a Catch 22 situation. This suggests once in, like Hotel California you can never leave and the EH operate like the Mafia. What confuses me (and it has already been pointed out) is if the Opposition/Parliament in general wants to be informed about our negotiating position on all the issues that, presumably will become public knowledge either through televised debate, statements to the House or leaks from disgruntled opposition MPs on both sides of the chamber, presumably the fine details of our requirements would have to be debated before the vote to proceed and, again would become public knowledge. That would clearly destroy any chance of any acceptable negotiated settlement for the UK as the EU negotiators on their side would know in advance what our position was before we even sat down. So presumably would that have to be completed BEFORE triggering article 50 because, as my first paragraph states, once we trigger it there is no way to withdraw it apparently? But TM states we would be triggering Article 50 around March so that is no where near long enough to complete all that and have a detailed list of requirements. In any case negotiations would be that - some give and some take. Does that mean legal challenges every time we give ground or are offered acceptable alternatives to those on our requirements list? All this seems to be playing into the hands of the EU and so I am unclear as to what those pushing for this really want. If we were in an actual war then the Cabinet would not be sharing important details of military strategy with the rest of their own party never mind the whole of Parliament. Whilst this is not a 'war' situation the impact on the future of the nation is surely at risk if we go down this path. Perhaps I have got this all wrong.
Right, Tekktyke. I'm a remainer as you know, but my interest in this is even more so from a legal/constitutional point of view. That said, it can't be doubted that the litigants who brought the case are seeking a back door way to prevent Brexit. No use pretending otherwise. However, it is also important in respecting the sovereignty of parliament/the rule of law/the constitution. We were taken in to the common market/EU by the European Communities Act 1972, the passing of which conferred on citizens certain rights (which have since been added to by dint of our membership). Royal prerogative cannot supercede an act of parliament, and so an act of parliament will be required to repeal the 1972 Act and to take us out. Triggering Article 50 before that pre-empts any parliamentary decision and thus compromises the sovereignty of parliament. If the MP's were content, they could provide that the 1972 Act "shall be repealed on a date to be appointed by the secretary of state" - a common legislative device. They could also provide that the repeal may be consequent upon the outcome of any negotiation the s of s thinks fit. If they want more control, then they might more closely specify what they require (hard brexit/soft brexit, etc?). They could also of course refuse! Royal prerogative cannot trump parliamentary sovereignty - in my view. Perhaps the High Court will agree!