Unless the EU and those who support it choose to learn something from the Brexit, for example why 52% of the voters in one of the largest member states chose to leave the union, then I predict that more countries will vote to leave.
There is a democracy deficiency in the EU, but I think it is sort of a result of our national parliaments being elitist. As we vote elite or non-representative to our national parliaments, EU is also logically an elite - of an elite.
No European national parliament is close to 50-50 in terms of gender equality. Women are under-represented.
In Finnish parliament, I am proud we have at least two (or 1%) second-generation non-EU migrant representatives in our parliament. Non EU foreigners are under-represented.
I was not surprised but a little stuck when I read about statistical analyses cross the most recent sample of actual and would be-parliamentary members for Finland. Even would-be members were more wealthy than average Finns. The ones elected tended to be even better off, financially.
@Montresor_SP - you can tell me which national parliament is yours, if you wish. But it does not matter-
I wager women are not 50% of it, the second generation non-EU citizens are relatively under-represented, plus the earnings and wealth of your MPs is better than national average.
When our national parliaments are painfully elitist (IMO) - I think blaming EU is just a little too easy. Plus it lets your national political executive body conveniently off the hook.
I don't suppose it's occurred to the youths who are moaning about the "selfish old bastards" that maybe, just maybe, the reason they are free to moan openly and criticise politicians is because those selfish bastards loved their country and paid with blood for their children's freedom of thought and expression.
There are hardly any living World War 2 vets left on this Earth at this point, much less voting in this referendum. And there damn sure hasn't been a war legitimately fought for "freedom" since....
Unless you know something I don't, both my parents and my aunt are still alive...
Every living World War 2 veteran is at least in their 90s by now, and more than 500 are dying each day. So yes, statistically, there are hardly any WW2 veterans left. And when it comes to Brexit, we are talking about their children being the major voting bloc that voted to leave.
You don't need to have been on active service to have been bombed. Living in Liverpool through the war is enough for that.
Unless the EU and those who support it choose to learn something from the Brexit, for example why 52% of the voters in one of the largest member states chose to leave the union, then I predict that more countries will vote to leave.
There is a democracy deficiency in the EU, but I think it is sort of a result of our national parliaments being elitist. As we vote elite or non-representative to our national parliaments, EU is also logically an elite - of an elite.
That would be true if the EU was run by people appointed by national parliaments, but only a small proportion of the executive is appointed that way. It is actually a self-perpetuating oligarchy, no a democracy at all. The so called "House of Lords" in the UK is somewhat similar.
As for the directly elected representatives in the parliament they have little real power and no local accountability. My local MP may be an elitist, but I can, and do, go and see him directly and make my point known. He travels on the same trains, uses the same shops, and contends with the same traffic congestion that I do.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather have seen the EU fixed, with a larger, stronger, parliament, the executive arm abolished, a US senate, and a directly elected president, rather than leave.
In Finnish parliament, I am proud we have at least two (or 1%) second-generation non-EU migrant representatives in our parliament. Non EU foreigners are under-represented.
I think the UK parliament has a considerably higher number than that, something like 10% I think.
But I guess you have to leave room for moomintrolls.
There is a democracy deficiency in the EU, but I think it is sort of a result of our national parliaments being elitist. As we vote elite or non-representative to our national parliaments, EU is also logically an elite - of an elite.
That would be true if the EU was run by people appointed by national parliaments, but only a small proportion of the executive is appointed that way. It is actually a self-perpetuating oligarchy, not a democracy at all. The so called "House of Lords" in the UK is somewhat similar.
As for the directly elected representatives in the parliament they have little real power and no local accountability. My local MP may be an elitist, but I can, and do, go and see him directly and make my point known. He travels on the same trains, uses the same shops, and contends with the same traffic congestion that I do.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather have seen the EU fixed, with a larger, stronger, parliament, the executive arm abolished, a US style senate, and a directly elected president, rather than leave.
You don't need to have been on active service to have been bombed. Living in Liverpool through the war is enough for that.
Or even better, Dresden! The bombs don't care for the political views of who sent them and who they land on, so the experience is bound to be pretty similar. Now of course, if you see ninety-something germans saying they fought for your freedom back in the days, you might do a double take. But really, the american bombs weren't any nicer than their german counterparts so they have as much of a point as you would.
That would be true if the EU was run by people appointed by national parliaments, but only a small proportion of the executive is appointed that way. It is actually a self-perpetuating oligarchy, no a democracy at all. The so called "House of Lords" in the UK is somewhat similar.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather have seen the EU fixed, with a larger, stronger, parliament, the executive arm abolished, a US senate, and a directly elected president, rather than leave.
Well, I know Montesquieu is old news but I fundamentally believe that legislative, executive and judiciary powers should be separated.
Legislative arm is the most powerful because it determines the constitution, from which principles and boundaries of law making are derived.
The executive and judiciary powers are process driven and should in my view not be subject to "democracy" - because they do not determine policies or content of laws, but should ensure its stable and transparent enablement.
However: the transparency of due process and monitoring of legality are important to be in place to ensure this actually happens. That is why courts are open and citizens have wide right to ask for documentation. That is why there normally is a high official to whom citizens' can raise legality complaints.
I did post earlier that I believe UK's first past the post voting system probably contributed to UK leaving the EU because it causes relatively greater democratic deficiency.
However, also the unelected House of the Lords is a UK speciality. In Finland, we do not have upper chamber at all, and I do not believe it is necessary, unless a country is federal one like Germany or in fact UK.
I'd suggest reading about "Bundesrat" - that is the German Second camber that represents the federal "Länder" and validates the law making of national parliament to ensure federal and devolved powers are respected, and constitutional. The federal parliaments (directly locally elected) appoint its representatives.
I think UK would have benefitted from something like this - not an unelected and privileged body that essentially is there to keep electorate in check in case they get "reckless" and there is a big swing due to this "first past the post" system that tends to result in two-party system, and absolute majorities.
@Tstael your post was missing a blockquote (made the formatting all messed up). I corrected it just so that it doesn't cause more formatting issues for other people quoting you down the line.
I think the UK parliament has a considerably higher number than that, something like 10% I think.
But I guess you have to leave room for moomintrolls.
Nääh, because the Swedes shall have nabbed them! Finland simply is not as cosmopolitan as the UK, even if we are not set aside from the world. And EU citizens will obviously keep voting for their home parliaments.
However, not quite wanting to do zacgoldsmiths in terms of profiling - lest someone comes and nabs my jewels, lol - but I just quickly glanced through the names of the sitting MPs and I suspect you might be just a little bit optimistic as to diversity of the UK parliament. I mean - that's why certain MPs are such Question Time regulars because the "diversity check list" is so restricted. (just IMO)
Bundesrat is actually also a pretty good analogy for EU commission, which is appointed by nationally voted governments.
I do know that for anyone whom treats Brussels with great suspicion I seem to live in a lala-land, but from my perspective most of EU legislation is simply commercial-technocratic, and not constitutionally very significant.
The only fundamentally important "moral" principle that EU has is that anyone whom wishes to join cannot have death penalty.
Obviously, EU does represent our continent for many important international negotiations, such as e.g. reducing carbon emissions, but I do believe it is more beneficial than harmful. I am totally against secret-court practice for TTIP, but I do believe that has been kicked to the long grass because European citizens hate the idea vehemently.
@Tstael your post was missing a blockquote (made the formatting all messed up). I corrected it just so that it doesn't cause more formatting issues for other people quoting you down the line.
Yer super-nice elmister - thx! I was trying to edit that post like an idiot and just could not get it right...
Very interesting comment from the Guardian comments section:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Very interesting comment from the Guardian comments section:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Excellent summation. Very rarely do politicians who back destructive policies have to own them. The best thing Cameron ever did was announce his resignation. The point of the comment being, the Brexit leaders were all sizzle and no steak, willing to take the UK off the financial cliff, but not at all interested in being held responsible. Is there any doubt they'll be as hated as Cameron or worse after just a few months of this??
@Mr2150 It is a pyrrhic victory to Johnson to say the least, but still I find that Cameron was superbly irresponsible for sake of intra-party appeasement.
Maybe the next Tory leader will have to call for a general election to extricate themselves from this situation; maybe there really will be a Brexit. Or maybe someone will sacrifice themselves to say: "Oh, btw, we did not think this through."
The reason why I am very negative towards Cameron's gamble is the fact that even if Britain backs out of Bexit, there has been already some actual and quite damaging consequences in my opinion. To state a few:
- The referendum campaigners have said some quite unkind things that I think will not be so quickly forgotten; both domestically and about EU - To plunge the whole continent to a period of uncertainty to fight out intra-party power struggles is in my view really, really unneighbourly - If referendum result is not respected there will be an extreme sense of betrayal and disenfranchisement, but also implementing it will leave half a the population feeling rather badly about it - I also fear that the outright lies or inaccuracies have not been a victory for democracy overall - Already this has been on opening volley of division and nationalism - Scotland, Ireland, Gibraltar... - Immediate and severe market turmoil - some poor British tourists have not been able to exchange sterling, for example.
Even if Tory party now "trolls" everyone by backing out of Brexit, the above damage has already been inflicted.
Even if Cameron's move can be viewed as clever or only realistic choice, I would not exactly praise him for this whole thing.
I very obviously respect Britain's choice to leave, even if it saddens me, but the division that has been caused is quite terrible, I think. Referenda tend to work this way when result hangs on a very thin balance, and there are significant regional differences in desired result.
@mr2150 - BTW: thanks for the interesting post, but I'm forced to mark it as "insightful" because the content is too painful for me to like!
I want to reiterate that Britain should leave if it no longer wants to remain a member, it's not about that. It's just feeling a bit sad and anxious about it. Plus the cynicism of some power-hungry politicians is quite chilling, really.
I think I must have some genuine emotional attachment this continent, plus I admire the ideals of EU, even if I lament some aspects of its implementation.
I really did not imagine anything distracting me from Euro-footie, but I really felt somewhat disengaged from today's matches - fancy that! What amusing coincidence that it should be England playing my strongly supported neighbour, Iceland! That should bring me back on, I think. Now, that would be a Brexit I'd be happy with, lol.
In addition to all of this, the irony of half the population of a country that has historically tried to colonize about 75% of the Earth whining about "independence" is really quite a sight to behold....
In addition to all of this, the irony of half the population of a country that has historically tried to colonize about 75% of the Earth whining about "independence" is really quite a sight to behold....
I hear that sentiment expressed a lot... and I mean no offense by this, but the one word that renders it utterly invalid is "historically." Saying it's ironic for a British person to be pro-independence is like saying it's ironic for a German to be anti-Nazi--as if we were not living in an entirely new world. Or that it's ironic for an American to be anti-slavery, just because dead people with the same name disagreed. Or a Chinese to be anti-footbinding, or a Japanese to be pacifist, or a man to be a feminist.
Or, in a nutshell, for one man to like chocolate, and his grandson to like vanilla.
Well,i can only say, if this Brexit will truly happen, it will cause much pain in the UK, and has the potential to break the whole EU. And mostly those who voted for it will feel it the most.
Yes - it is my belief that the Leave campaign lied. Is a vote based on lies still valid? God, I hope not. The ramifications of this will be going on for months and years. I am glad I voted to remain.
What's more disturbing is the outbreak of racism and xenophobia across the country. Frankly, I am ashamed to call myself British right now.
As someone here said before, not all leavers are racist, but all racists are leavers. And many of those racists feel that the vote has given them a carte blanche to do whatever they want. I'm happy to share a link to some examples (someone has collected reports of over 100 incidents since Friday morning) via private message to prove this but I won't share it in the forum because frankly it is too upsetting.
Well,i can only say, if this Brexit will truly happen, it will cause much pain in the UK, and has the potential to break the whole EU. And mostly those who voted for it will feel it the most.
I'm curious, what the voters think? Did Farage lie? Is a voting based on lies still valid?
Both sides told very little but lies. No one believed anything they where told by anyone, they turned off their TVs and voted on their own experience and opinions.
It was actually Cameron who stated the dishonesty by releasing an "official government document" backing Remain. This was both a violation of election rules limiting the money that could be spent by either side on campaigning, and served to put everyone's backs up by spending tax money on something EVERYONE put directly in the bin without reading. I'm certain that if the official government position had been neutral, Remain would have won by a sizeable majority.
Remain lost because of reverse psychology.
As for Farage, everyone hates him. Had he not been around Leave would have won by an even larger majority. People like to point fingers at him, but he didn't lead the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson did. He lied too, but far more convincingly. He makes Palpatine look like a political amateur.
Another day, another crisis to add to the list....
50% of the shadow cabinet are predicted to resign because Jeremy Corbyn didn't do enough to encourage labour voters to remain.
First we blamed immigrants, then we blamed the EU, then we blamed the Tories, and then we blamed Jeremy Corbyn. I wonder who will be next...
Right now, we have no leadership, no opposition, no plan, a spiralling economy, and the key Leavers - Gove and Johnson - are strangely quiet... not looking good at all.
Meanwhile, Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed that under UK law the Scottish Parliament can veto the Brexit decision.
Both sides told very little but lies. No one believed anything they where told by anyone, they turned off their TVs and voted on their own experience and opinions.
A huge amount of the population DID believe what they were told, especially by the national newspapers which were mainly endorsing the Brexit agenda. Many people didn't actually do any further research on the topic and simply based their opinion on the common undercurrent of whatever the newspapers/news outlets were peddling over the course of the last few months.
Another main reason people voted to leave was over immigration, however that promise has also now been revised as it appears that free movement of labour will still be allowed - the difference being that there will be some benefit restrictions on immigrants. This is a far cry from what many people were expecting as many leave voters seems to be expecting that all immigration is going to stop and in fact a significant deluded minority seems to be expecting deportations to be taking place...
Liam Fox, another key leaver, said that Article 50 might not be invoked.
“A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again and that [invoking article 50] is one of them,” said the Conservative MP.
I'm interested to see how it plays out in Scotland. When they had their independance referendum a couple of years back I wanted them to stay. Now I fully feel they have the justification to leave the UK and support them in doing so.
It also helps that Scotland's proposed open immigration policy means that if they do leave the UK then I can apply for citizenship as my father and his descendants for X generations are Scottish
In addition to all of this, the irony of half the population of a country that has historically tried to colonize about 75% of the Earth whining about "independence" is really quite a sight to behold....
I hear that sentiment expressed a lot... and I mean no offense by this, but the one word that renders it utterly invalid is "historically." Saying it's ironic for a British person to be pro-independence is like saying it's ironic for a German to be anti-Nazi--as if we were not living in an entirely new world. Or that it's ironic for an American to be anti-slavery, just because dead people with the same name disagreed. Or a Chinese to be anti-footbinding, or a Japanese to be pacifist, or a man to be a feminist.
Or, in a nutshell, for one man to like chocolate, and his grandson to like vanilla.
The ramifications of such actions don't disappear over the course of decades, or even centuries. In the US, our country was built upon the genocide of the native population and the slave labor of African-Americans. It's at the foundation of everything that came after. When the population of the country refuses to come to grips with that fact, and, in many cases, seems to think that it was so long ago that the black population couldn't possibly still be affected by it's ramifications, it remains a huge problem.
Comments
No European national parliament is close to 50-50 in terms of gender equality. Women are under-represented.
In Finnish parliament, I am proud we have at least two (or 1%) second-generation non-EU migrant representatives in our parliament. Non EU foreigners are under-represented.
I was not surprised but a little stuck when I read about statistical analyses cross the most recent sample of actual and would be-parliamentary members for Finland. Even would-be members were more wealthy than average Finns. The ones elected tended to be even better off, financially.
@Montresor_SP - you can tell me which national parliament is yours, if you wish. But it does not matter-
I wager women are not 50% of it, the second generation non-EU citizens are relatively under-represented, plus the earnings and wealth of your MPs is better than national average.
When our national parliaments are painfully elitist (IMO) - I think blaming EU is just a little too easy. Plus it lets your national political executive body conveniently off the hook.
That would be true if the EU was run by people appointed by national parliaments, but only a small proportion of the executive is appointed that way. It is actually a self-perpetuating oligarchy, no a democracy at all. The so called "House of Lords" in the UK is somewhat similar.
As for the directly elected representatives in the parliament they have little real power and no local accountability. My local MP may be an elitist, but I can, and do, go and see him directly and make my point known. He travels on the same trains, uses the same shops, and contends with the same traffic congestion that I do.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather have seen the EU fixed, with a larger, stronger, parliament, the executive arm abolished, a US senate, and a directly elected president, rather than leave.
But I guess you have to leave room for moomintrolls.
That would be true if the EU was run by people appointed by national parliaments, but only a small proportion of the executive is appointed that way. It is actually a self-perpetuating oligarchy, not a democracy at all. The so called "House of Lords" in the UK is somewhat similar.
As for the directly elected representatives in the parliament they have little real power and no local accountability. My local MP may be an elitist, but I can, and do, go and see him directly and make my point known. He travels on the same trains, uses the same shops, and contends with the same traffic congestion that I do.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather have seen the EU fixed, with a larger, stronger, parliament, the executive arm abolished, a US style senate, and a directly elected president, rather than leave.
Legislative arm is the most powerful because it determines the constitution, from which principles and boundaries of law making are derived.
The executive and judiciary powers are process driven and should in my view not be subject to "democracy" - because they do not determine policies or content of laws, but should ensure its stable and transparent enablement.
However: the transparency of due process and monitoring of legality are important to be in place to ensure this actually happens. That is why courts are open and citizens have wide right to ask for documentation. That is why there normally is a high official to whom citizens' can raise legality complaints.
I did post earlier that I believe UK's first past the post voting system probably contributed to UK leaving the EU because it causes relatively greater democratic deficiency.
However, also the unelected House of the Lords is a UK speciality. In Finland, we do not have upper chamber at all, and I do not believe it is necessary, unless a country is federal one like Germany or in fact UK.
I'd suggest reading about "Bundesrat" - that is the German Second camber that represents the federal "Länder" and validates the law making of national parliament to ensure federal and devolved powers are respected, and constitutional. The federal parliaments (directly locally elected) appoint its representatives.
I think UK would have benefitted from something like this - not an unelected and privileged body that essentially is there to keep electorate in check in case they get "reckless" and there is a big swing due to this "first past the post" system that tends to result in two-party system, and absolute majorities.
However, not quite wanting to do zacgoldsmiths in terms of profiling - lest someone comes and nabs my jewels, lol - but I just quickly glanced through the names of the sitting MPs and I suspect you might be just a little bit optimistic as to diversity of the UK parliament. I mean - that's why certain MPs are such Question Time regulars because the "diversity check list" is so restricted. (just IMO)
Bundesrat is actually also a pretty good analogy for EU commission, which is appointed by nationally voted governments.
I do know that for anyone whom treats Brussels with great suspicion I seem to live in a lala-land, but from my perspective most of EU legislation is simply commercial-technocratic, and not constitutionally very significant.
The only fundamentally important "moral" principle that EU has is that anyone whom wishes to join cannot have death penalty.
Obviously, EU does represent our continent for many important international negotiations, such as e.g. reducing carbon emissions, but I do believe it is more beneficial than harmful. I am totally against secret-court practice for TTIP, but I do believe that has been kicked to the long grass because European citizens hate the idea vehemently.
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Maybe the next Tory leader will have to call for a general election to extricate themselves from this situation; maybe there really will be a Brexit. Or maybe someone will sacrifice themselves to say: "Oh, btw, we did not think this through."
The reason why I am very negative towards Cameron's gamble is the fact that even if Britain backs out of Bexit, there has been already some actual and quite damaging consequences in my opinion. To state a few:
- The referendum campaigners have said some quite unkind things that I think will not be so quickly forgotten; both domestically and about EU
- To plunge the whole continent to a period of uncertainty to fight out intra-party power struggles is in my view really, really unneighbourly
- If referendum result is not respected there will be an extreme sense of betrayal and disenfranchisement, but also implementing it will leave half a the population feeling rather badly about it
- I also fear that the outright lies or inaccuracies have not been a victory for democracy overall
- Already this has been on opening volley of division and nationalism - Scotland, Ireland, Gibraltar...
- Immediate and severe market turmoil - some poor British tourists have not been able to exchange sterling, for example.
Even if Tory party now "trolls" everyone by backing out of Brexit, the above damage has already been inflicted.
Even if Cameron's move can be viewed as clever or only realistic choice, I would not exactly praise him for this whole thing.
I very obviously respect Britain's choice to leave, even if it saddens me, but the division that has been caused is quite terrible, I think. Referenda tend to work this way when result hangs on a very thin balance, and there are significant regional differences in desired result.
I want to reiterate that Britain should leave if it no longer wants to remain a member, it's not about that. It's just feeling a bit sad and anxious about it. Plus the cynicism of some power-hungry politicians is quite chilling, really.
I think I must have some genuine emotional attachment this continent, plus I admire the ideals of EU, even if I lament some aspects of its implementation.
I really did not imagine anything distracting me from Euro-footie, but I really felt somewhat disengaged from today's matches - fancy that!
Or, in a nutshell, for one man to like chocolate, and his grandson to like vanilla.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html
I'm curious, what the voters think? Did Farage lie? Is a voting based on lies still valid?
What's more disturbing is the outbreak of racism and xenophobia across the country. Frankly, I am ashamed to call myself British right now.
As someone here said before, not all leavers are racist, but all racists are leavers. And many of those racists feel that the vote has given them a carte blanche to do whatever they want. I'm happy to share a link to some examples (someone has collected reports of over 100 incidents since Friday morning) via private message to prove this but I won't share it in the forum because frankly it is too upsetting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
It was actually Cameron who stated the dishonesty by releasing an "official government document" backing Remain. This was both a violation of election rules limiting the money that could be spent by either side on campaigning, and served to put everyone's backs up by spending tax money on something EVERYONE put directly in the bin without reading. I'm certain that if the official government position had been neutral, Remain would have won by a sizeable majority.
Remain lost because of reverse psychology.
As for Farage, everyone hates him. Had he not been around Leave would have won by an even larger majority. People like to point fingers at him, but he didn't lead the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson did. He lied too, but far more convincingly. He makes Palpatine look like a political amateur.
50% of the shadow cabinet are predicted to resign because Jeremy Corbyn didn't do enough to encourage labour voters to remain.
First we blamed immigrants, then we blamed the EU, then we blamed the Tories, and then we blamed Jeremy Corbyn. I wonder who will be next...
Right now, we have no leadership, no opposition, no plan, a spiralling economy, and the key Leavers - Gove and Johnson - are strangely quiet... not looking good at all.
Meanwhile, Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed that under UK law the Scottish Parliament can veto the Brexit decision.
Another main reason people voted to leave was over immigration, however that promise has also now been revised as it appears that free movement of labour will still be allowed - the difference being that there will be some benefit restrictions on immigrants. This is a far cry from what many people were expecting as many leave voters seems to be expecting that all immigration is going to stop and in fact a significant deluded minority seems to be expecting deportations to be taking place...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/evan-davis-newsnight-bbc-daniel-hannan-mep-eu-referendum-brexit_uk_576e2967e4b08d2c56393241
It also helps that Scotland's proposed open immigration policy means that if they do leave the UK then I can apply for citizenship as my father and his descendants for X generations are Scottish
And before anyone asks, yes, there are plenty of tits in labour and the tories...
I'm just waiting for someone to swoop in on a huge dragon ... And I'm thinking that person may well be Nicola Sturgeon.
They **** you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were ****ed up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.