Brexit – you may have heard of it. For 40 years, since the UK joined the then Common Market, there has been a substantial ‘Eurosceptic’ mood in both main political parties and in the country. This has been influenced by a never-ending stream of misinformation in the tabloids, claiming the EU is responsible for every one of its readers’ many ills – including a few they didn’t even know they were bothered by until the papers told them – and spreading alarm that the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ means that it is becoming a federal Superstate, complete with army, president and anthem. To a proud ‘patriot’, this is anathema.
The rest of us simply don’t see it that way, and regard the visceral reaction to our ongoing membership with puzzlement. We value the notions of common cause and unity in a continent still bearing the deep scars of two World Wars that started here, while the requirement for 28 nations to agree policy, unanimously or by majority according to area of impact, offers some protection from the petty politics of the individual nations, whose negative aspects we are amply demonstrating to the world right now. Most law is made by the individual nations, and that will continue to be the case. The rest is voted on by elected delegates. The idea that the remaining 27 nations are willing parties to surrendering their nation status for fully centralised rule, with Britain alone seeing what is really going on … well, it looks a bit mad. Many people in Scotland want to both leave the UK, and remain in the EU as a separate nation. This would make no sense if the ‘death of nation states’ view of the future held any water. And equally proud nations like France, Germany, Italy, Spain … ? I mean, come on! When someone claims ‘Superstate’ as a reason for exit, I regard them as I might someone grabbing the steering wheel and shouting “ALIEEEEENSSSS!” (permissible, of course, when there really are aliens).
Due – it seems to me – to that relentless anti EU propaganda from billionaire-owned tabloids, the national mood has become increasingly Eurosceptic. A political party, UKIP, started with a sole aim in mind, to exit the EU, garnered a lot of support, particularly from what is still termed the ‘working classes’. Due in part to our peculiar constituency system of election, they were unable to gain any seats in Parliament, but ironically, in the EU Parliament’s Proportional Representation system, they gained several seats in order to harangue those on the EU ‘gravy train’ while collecting a fat paycheck, plus expenses and a £75,000 pension.
This drift of support from Conservative candidates to UKIP was a concern for Conservative leader David Cameron, then in a coalition government, and so in the 2015 manifesto, he offered a commitment to hold a referendum on the matter. Manifesto pledges are not really worth the paper they are written on, being honoured as often in the breach as the observance, but Cameron was true to his word, sadly, and on 23rd June 2016 we were offered a simple choice: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU (a question laughably naive, in hindsight, but adjudged by the independent Electoral Commission as least likely to confuse the plebs). To everyone’s surprise, including their own, Leave won, garnering 17,410,742 votes to Remain’s 16,141,241. Although a not-insignificant 1.3 million difference, the real margin, the number who would have to change their minds to wipe out the win, was just 634,750. We have been arguing ever since about what people meant when they placed their X in the ‘Leave’ column. It may seem obvious, but it isn’t – there are almost as many flavours of Leave as Leavers, from a cocky two fingers to the EU in its entirety, by midnight on referendum day if poss (oh, and can we negotiate a trade deal with you please, this powerful bloc we’ve just told to fuck off), to non-voting but expensive membership such as that enjoyed by Norway who takes all the rules and has no say in them, to full-blown NWO tinfoil-hatters.
Leavers were like the dog that caught the car, unsure what to do next. The great thing about referendums being of course that there is no accountability. You can say what you like, you’re not the one who will have to deliver. Eurosceptics were largely professional sideline snipers.
Cameron resigned immediately – my turd, you clean it up. Within a short period of time all three main parties lost their leaders. For the Tories, Theresa May emerged, eventually getting in unopposed when the other candidates wisely dropped out. In the UK, we do not directly elect our Prime Minister – ironically, given the ‘EU is undemocratic’ trope regularly trotted out. They are elected as MP by their constituency, in her case leafy Maidenhead in Berkshire. You don’t live there, you can’t vote for her. They then become PM by becoming leader of the party, elected by members (if anyone else stands).
For Labour on the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn, an old-school socialist, emerged. He had enthusiastic support, particularly among the young, and they were quite strident in their dismissal of ‘centrists’. “Why not just fuck off and join the Tories?” was a common taunt, which probably won’t be their opening line when they turn up on those same centrists’ doorsteps at campaign time asking for their support. To his supporters, he’s beyond criticism. To his detractors, he’s just a very naughty boy.
May was emboldened by the polls to try a ‘snap’ general election in 2017, to “strengthen my hand in EU negotiations”. Really, it was an attempt to smash Corbyn. The nation said “no thanks” and returned the Tories (having said “no thanks” to Jeremy too!) with a reduced majority. She had to rely on the Ulster Unionists, a group of 10 hard-line religious fundamentalists representing just 300,000 voters. Northern Ireland, I should mention, voted as a region to Remain (as did Scotland). I hope you’re keeping up; there will be a test. Now, Northern Ireland is an issue no—one had given much thought to. It’s long been a line of ‘Trouble’, but since we were both in the EU, and after long negotiations all parties had signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, a general, if uneasy, peace had returned.
However, the Border will now be a boundary between Britain and the EU. Since we have (maybe; ask me again on Friday) exited both the Single Market and the Customs Union, WTO rules (not EU rules) mean that there will have to be checks – a return of the hated ‘hard border’. There are naturally concerns, and the EU has offered a ‘deal’ that involves an extended Customs arrangement. This requires a far greater say of the EU in our affairs – the very thing Brexiteers were trying to get away from – while simultaneously removing us from a seat at the table that decides these rules. Genius. Eurosceptics hate it and so do Remainers. It is an utterly pointless move, both agree. But whaddyagonnado? The referendum was split close to 50/50, and no-one thought to put in supermajority safeguards, so a compromise that absolutely no-one wants seems the only way to, in the leaden phrase uttered by politician after politician, ‘respect the referendum’.
The ultras are having none of it. They want to crash out without a ‘deal’, a position most people with brain cells regard as absolutely insane, and not one to be inferred from any individual Leave ‘X’ with any confidence. Yet they act as if ‘the 17.4 million’ (another leaden phrase) all wanted, and still want, exactly that. Even the dead ones. Most Remainer MPs meanwhile dare not talk of cancelling Brexit altogether, but talk of something softer but still Brexit-y, with Customs this and Single that, without really coming up with anything concrete. The EU are understandably losing patience. They have been the soul of diplomacy and patience in my view. When Donald Tusk remarked that “there must be a special place in Hell for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan”, Brexiters were furious, missing the nuance that by resenting the slur they own up to having no plan…
“May’s Deal” has been soundly rejected by both sides in two record-breaking defeats in Parliament – and she wants to bring it back a third time! She’s convinced that if she plays chicken, and it’s that deal or ‘no-deal’, then her deal it is. This gives some flavour of the general unpopularity of no-deal, that it can be used as a threat – “if you don’t stop I’m going to turn this car right around!”. But now, the EU are saying if it’s defeated a 3rd time, you either go now or you have a longer extension and take part in European elections (did I mention that the EU is undemocratic?).
We aren’t ready. Not by a long chalk. In my area, IT, I know that it takes yonks (Google it) to put a system in place, and they haven’t even started – because they don’t know what we have to do! But May’s steely determination, with hardliners’ boots on her neck, has brought us to this ill-prepared impasse – a non-choice between two unpopular options that were not even on a ballot paper in 2016, and we HAVE to do it because … ‘it’s the will of the people’. Now where have we heard that before?
There is a febrile atmosphere. A pro-Remain MP, Jo Cox, was murdered in 2016, and all MPs who dare to retain Remain sympathies have received death threats (I am not aware of any such threats being made to Brexiteers). Even a lady who started an online petition to simply abandon the whole thing – more on which shortly – has received multiple death threats. The reasonable Leavers find common cause with racists, thugs and Nazi sympathisers. In this climate the Prime Minister took the extraordinary step on Wednesday of appealing directly to ‘the people’ and blaming MPs for the impasse, something one would imagine happening in some banana republic, not dear old Britain where our quaint system involves people donning ritual wigs and banging on a door with a big ceremonial stick from time to time. Given the recent assassination, she might be more careful how she whips up ‘the people’. The Government is making plans to impose martial law – martial law! – in the event of no-deal disruption. We’re hoping not to have to actually do it, they add, a little unnecessarily.
I have gone on at far greater length than I intended about the background to this; I was merely intending to mention and show a few pictures from the march I attended yesterday in London, where over a million people *** – mostly middle-class, it must be admitted – came from all over Britain to make their voice heard, and demand a vote on the actual options available, which weren’t known in 2016 when the blank-cheque ‘Leave’ option was ticked (or crossed, I should say). Seems reasonable? You’d think so, but this is Britain. No end of Leavers, both in power and out, still insist that the referendum – that 634,750 excess – be ‘respected’, 3 years down the line. Many Remainers agree. But surely that phrase must have a sell-by date? 1.5 million people have died since, a similar number have attained voting age. That demographic shift alone favours Remain, because Leave is most heavily favoured in my g-g-g-g-generation (yes, Roger Daltrey is a Brexiteer).
It also seems a matter of basic fairness that Leavers should give their final assent to the preferred method of leaving, given they weren’t asked and the options differ markedly. If Remain happens to rank above any given Leave option available, they should be able to say so. Yet many – including our own Prime Minister – have explicitly stated that such a vote would be ‘undemocratic’. The irony of this was not lost on the crowd yesterday, many placards making mention of May’s three attempts to get her deal ratified while denying ‘the People’ any further say. Indeed, the placards and the general mood of the march made one swell with pride at the crazy Britishness of the whole thing. We stood in a 2-mile queue for an hour, then shuffled good-naturedly along, smiling apologies when feet got trodden on, with barely a policeman in sight (apart from Downing Street, where numerous officers stood in front of the gates, another 8 more behind brandishing submachine guns. “We only want to talk to her”, we might say, like an estranged husband trying to get past his ex’s mum).
A particularly clever brand of trolling has been invented by a group know as ‘Led By Donkeys’. This started as a chat in a pub by 3 mates. They decided to mock up a tweet of some genuine Leave-leader words, get it printed as a full-size billboard, and then stick it up guerilla-style in the dead of night. Subsequently they crowdsourced a bit of funding, rented legitimate space and hired a professional to do the pasting. When they got a bit more cash, they hired an ad van – ironically the same van used by UKIP founder Nigel Farage during referendum campaigning – and used it to follow Nigel about. The van was at the march yesterday, rotating some of their greatest hits – “If this is 52/48 Remain it’s unfinished business by a long way” (N. Farage); “It might make sense to have two referendums actually … ” (J Rees-Mogg); or the classic “A democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy” (D. Davis). The latter was also printed up on a sheet 100 yards across and held up for the news helicopters to film, a stroke of genius.
Contrast this with the behaviour at many Leaver events. The committed are really angry, without apparent dilution by the self-deprecating, ironic streak of the average Remainer. Many point to civil unrest as a reason to cave in – some violence is a virtual certainty, but one that should not faze a bulldog nation that stood up to Hitler, the IRA and ISIS, as patriots never stop reminding us.
In parallel with all this, the previously mentioned petition, on an official government website, suddenly blew up on Wednesday – moments after May had delivered her ‘you, the people’ speech. ‘I’m on your side’. she said. It got under everyone’s skin. Within a short period the petition was being shared far and wide, as people sought the only means available to distance themselves from the “hive-mind with but a single thought” this obsessive woman tries to portray us as. 1,000 signatures a minute, it crashed the site several times. 2 million a day at peak (Thu/Fri), and presently sitting around the 5.3 million mark and rising. That’s 5 million people who just want to say “Stop” – not even “put it to the people”; Stop. Leavers are falling over themselves to try and discredit it, one site with terrible journalistic standards but a seat on a BBC panel trying to make something of the fact that many signatures were from ‘foreign places’. The fact that citizens are still allowed out of the country from time to time may help to explain this sinister pattern! Or you’ll hear it’s bots, or it’s people with 10,000 email addresses each and a lot of time on their hands … I jokingly commented that most of the people on the march yesterday were robots or foreigners, plus a bunch running from end to end like a kid in a panoramic school photo to bulk the numbers. It was almost Trumpian in scale!
Now, will any of this make a difference? Perhaps not. As I write, we leave on Friday, with no deal. Please send blankets.
*** Intellectual honesty demands that I dial this figure down. Crowd experts say about half that figure. Fair enough. Nonetheless, my Facebook post saying I was going picked up 27 ‘likes’, none of whom went. I’ll assume their support, and multiply it. I’ll discount the one Brexiteer who was possibly confused which march I was talking about!
In politics, deliberation time means milking division for votes and contributions until the lights are turned off and the eviction notice is tacked to the door.
Then something, anything gets done.
walto,
Well yes, granted it’s a bad idea and there are better ways. But if you’re going to do it, and only do it once, you need safeguards against what we are seeing now. The niceties of political theory are lost on many Brexiters, who treat 50% plus a bit as eternally conclusive, and absolutely will not countenance a confirmatory vote on real options – because they’re all about the democracy, of course.
The reason there was no supermajority in this case is that it was advisory. But it has been treated by representatives as anything but – someone has pulled a fast one. They can’t afford to piss off half their electorate, a difficult intersection, as petrushka noted earlier, of popular and representative democracy.
Rather hard to distil into a few short phrases …
I’ve been chewing over faded_glory’s arguments. While I can accept there might be a pragmatic case to be made, there is not a sound logical one.
Here’s the question: would you like A or B? B subdivides into numerous possible options B1, B2, B3 … Many people choose B on a whim, or for reasons that the A/B choice has no bearing on (straight bananas, send home the Asians, stick it to the Rothschilds). But they were asked the question they were asked, and they gave the answer they gave.
A few years down the line, and it turns out the only options actually available are B1 and B2. People enter and leave the voting pool, gain information as interminable debates rumble on. So we come to the crunch: what now?
Fg’s argument would have it that we must choose a B. The ‘decision’ not to choose A has already been made, simply by virtue of the way the ballot was framed – even though most would concede that was deeply flawed. But what if a B2 would rather A than B1, or vice versa? How do we find out?
Your reply illustrates the problem: both sides want their position to prevail 100%. The Brexiters want to be fully out of the EU and the Remainers want to be fully in the EU. Obviously you can’t have both.
A solution where the UK would be remain in the EEA, either as member of EFTA or via a separate arrangement, would be a middle ground. Brexiters often complain that the UK originally joined a Common Market, not a political Union. The EEA is exactly that, a Single Market without the politics of a common currency, an EU Parliament, a common foreign policy, a CAP, a potential EU army. Remainers complain that leaving the EU would cause economic damage because trade barriers would emerge – as a Single Market, the EEA minimises trade barriers to the point of insignificance and even Freedom of Movement would continue.
In this way an EEA solution would give both sides quite a lot of what they want, without nobody getting anything. A classical compromise and, in my mind a win-win as far as such a thing is possible in the current dire circumstances.
Allan Miller,
I have no problem with your logic, and I don’t actually accept the Leavers argument that another Referendum with remain as an option, or even another referendum full stop, would be undemocratic. If one referendum is democratic, than why would another one not be? Their argument then goes to say that you can’t have another referendum before the results of the previous one have been implemented. Again, I think that is spurious – most consumer contracts these days have cool-off periods during which one party can change its mind before the contract becomes effective, and, why can’t a democracy not change its mind?
Lack of logic or democracy is not my counter argument. My position is a practical one, born from real concerns about the future and the state of British politics and indeed society. The 2016 referendum has elevated the EU question from a relative niche issue to the biggest challenge facing the British nation since the second world war. It has turned from a background debate within the Tory party to a mass mob fight on the streets – not literally yet, thank goodness, but not to far from that either. It consumes huge amounts of the nation’s energy, time and money and in the meantime the real issues are left unattended.
If there had been no referendum but just parliamentary debates, things would not have deteriorated nearly as much. The politicians decided to duck the issue and give it to the public (in my view this is largely caused by the FPTP system but that is a different discussion), and in doing so handed the nation a lit fuse over which to argue. A very, very, very bad idea at a time when there is already so much discontent generated by austerity, inequality and populist reactions.
I really fear that another referendum on top of that would be the straw to break the camels back. Things have gone too far down the pan for that now to be a solution, and it could get quite ugly quite fast. If you think Mrs. May is terrible, wait to see who will take over if there would be another referendum. Do you want Nigel Farage as PM? If not him, it would certainly be Boris Johnson, or even Mr. Rees-Mogg. These are people who make Trump look sane!
Finally, speaking as an EU citizen, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the EU would now be better off without the UK in its current mood. The country is now so unruly that it has to sit on the naughty step for a while to sort out what it really wants with its relation with its nearest neighbours. It it were to remain an EEA member it would at least not diverge too much in terms of economy, rules and regulations, and a future re-accession might well be doable once some form of consensus has re-emerged. Right now, just staying in as if nothing has happened is a fairy tale. Just imagine the upcoming EP elections – the EU could really do without a massive UKIP contingent stirring up shit at every moment, and without Council members who at every decision would constantly look over their shoulders to see how to please their rabid anti-EU electorate. Sorry but no, thank you very much.
This introduction is useful.
Well, I agree that it’s conclusive–but only for the (specious) present. And with something that’s as important as whether or not stay in the E.U…..
A bunch of studies–from both the left and the right–have seemed to show that logrolling is valuable. The milking for contributions is also claimed to be in the interest of minorities, which can do better in such environments than they can in referenda-type arrangements. But, of course, those are only the minorities with cash on hand.
The referendum was expected to go the other way. I’m wondering if we would be having this discussion about the adequacy of processes if the vote had gone the other way.
Quick sanity test. Can anyone name an issue where the vote went your way, but you think the process was flawed? Did you think so at the time? Did you write about it at the time?
It was already being argued about. Brexiteers were already suggesting a supermajority or a second referendum when polls were predicting a close result. In fact a previous petition demanding a second referendum if there was a close result was started by a Brexiteer. It got four million signatures (not from Brexiteers) and short shrift from UK gov’t!
I’ll record my stance in advance. If there is another referendum, fairly conducted, with remain in th EU as one option and that is defeated, I will not utter a word of complaint.
I think every vote in the U.S. is flawed. See my OP on AV.
But what did you write, for the record, before the referendum that actually took place? As I recall, it was expected to affirm the remain position, and was called for the purpose of affirming the remain position.
What I am asking is, has anyone gone on record challenging the process when the vote was expected to go their way?
faded_Glory,
The problem is, EEA is not available. And indeed some nations have indicated that we would not be welcome. We are quite obviously trouble.
It is Remain, No Deal or the WA. You might urge me to compromise by going for WA, but the ERG aren’t (or rather weren’t; Rees Mogg has just blinked now he sees the whites of Remainers’ eyes).
I don’t think an eventual Remain is accurately characterised as one side ‘getting all its way’, as if it was always a choice between two equivalent future options, rather than a present arrangement and several unknown future ones – my variant ‘Bs’. The status quo takes precedence in most situations; there has to be a clear will to change it. In 2016, we didn’t know what we were changing to, other than that it would be great, and easy. Continuing to bang on about 3 year old stats is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Things have moved on, but the argument hasn’t.
All I can say is, when they said on the radio a ref. was being held, I spluttered “you fucking what? Why? What’s happened?”. Silencing Euroskeptics has never been high on my list of priorities, and from the Remain side it was completely unneccesary, all about party politics. It never had my support or assent, and I never committed to ‘respecting’ it. I can’t say this was caught on tape though.
Obviously, political types want most of all to WIN, but academics have been pushing various alternative voting schemes for centuries. When, e.g., Lewis Carroll (AKA Rev. Charles L. Dodgson) wrote in favor of proportional representation, he wasn’t “up to something”.*
*Of course, what Carroll might have been “up to” at the time was taking naughty pictures of Alice Liddell, but that’s a story for another day.
I think that counts.
And a false one!
Really? What’s the latest view on that matter?
There’s an additional option! Deliberative democracy. The revocation of article 50 doesn’t mean the end. It could be the beginning of an informed debate. The Irish have this kind of thing sorted.
The couple of photos kicking around on the internet are pretty obvious fakes.
Allan Miller,
As an ex-pat I have only occasional conversations re UK politics, but I remember my brother’s take on holding a referendum. “David Cameron, the spineless little shit” and “that clown Boris fucking Johnson” stick in the memory.
So I think it’s fair to say that he was against the process before it went pear-shaped.
This is far too categorical, and moreover you are conflating the WA with the future relation. These are very distinct things. The WA is just the divorce settlement, tidying up loose ends so to speak. The money was pledged and will be handed over one way or another, the citizens rights will be respected whatever the future brings. The only real issue is Ireland, and the backstop is there because of the UK’s red lines. The accompanying PD is non binding and can be negotiated to prety much anything that would fit the red lines from both sides.
The EU has presented a chart (Mr. Barnier’s waterfall chart) showing the choices available to the UK for the future relation, and ‘Norway’ is on there. It has never been discussed at any length because of Mrs. May’s arbitrary red lines. Once in transition, if the WA gets signed, there is nothing stopping ‘Norway’ getting back up the agenda. All it takes is a UK Government willing to change the May approach. Since her days are numbered there is definitely an opportunity to steer the future this way.
Some people in some EFTA countries have mooted some objections, but others have said differrent things. Since the idea has not been officially discussed anywhere, nothing has been ruled out and it really is quite premature to say that it cannot happen.
Having said that, I accept that right now there are not many MP’s, if any, who really understand this option. For instance they keep including a Customs Union which isn’t possible, because EFTA already have their own CU and you logically can’t be member of two different ones. In any case I think that it would be much better to have a separate category in EEA for the UK rather than join EFTA. Negotiating this won’t be quick but because it makes economically sense, I think ways will be found to make it happen.
The Irish backstop will always remain an EU demand because much trust has been lost by the UK shenanigans of the last 2 years. An EEA solution with dedicated customs arrangements would reduce the need for border cheks to such a low level that the backstop would effectively become moot.
The only real drawback I can see is that the UK would lose its seat at the top table for EU decisions. Well, you can thank the majority of your fellow countrymen who voted Leave for that.
Academics have pushed political theories for centuries, with mixed results. I don’t view “academic” as a sure positive.
My own political view, that hasn’t changed for 50 years, is to imagine any new law being enforced by my enemies. It’s a variation of the pie sharing problem.
Just reading the Guardian (my go-to on-line source for UK politics) and this article just encapsulates how British backward (and forward) thinking poisons our relationship with Europe.
European parliament votes to scrap daylight saving time from 2021
I blame atheists! Jesus said “Love your enemies” and “share the pie equally”.
Following that link, I see “Member states would be able to choose whether to remain on “permanent summer” or “permanent winter” time under the draft directive, which passed by 410 votes to 192.”
I would prefer permanent summer time. Actually, I would prefer permanent UTC everywhere, but local places can make their own decision about opening times of schools, businesses, etc.
I think Europe kind of poisoned its relationship with England. I watch a lot of British TV, and they are still fighting the world wars. It seems that even the harry Potter series has massive parallels to WWII. USA still cranks out an occasional war movie, but it’s not a staple.
Interesting, considering the monarchy is German, and hasn’t been Anglo in ages.
Not sure that remark is dispositive. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/
Those also count.
I didn’t suggest it was a positive, sure or otherwise. The point was not whether they were right, but whether it’s possible for anybody not to be biased when pushing a procedure because of a particular election they’d like to win.
I will repeat my stance. Any election procedure that is not corrupt (fraudulent or tainted by intimidation) will be gamed. The various factions will, after a few cycles, learn to maximize their gains. Polling and focus groups provide the tools for massaging the medium. It isn’t simply who has the most money. It’s who strikes the lucky balance of ingredients.
And of course, the consumers eventually learn that it is just a game, and that promises won’t be kept anyway. So they eventually learn to vote for whoever doles out the most goodies for them as individuals.
The problem is not in the voting process. If there is a serious problem, it is that politicians acquire the power to buy votes by rewarding voters.
walto,
Smoking gun smokes. Innuendo isn’t evidence.
Well, there’s no doubt the attempt will be made. Some are easier to game than others.
I think a third time will likely be necessary.
Alan Fox:
Neither is this remark.
Yes it is. There may be other issues but voting is possibly not the best way to establish consensus. Soviets, citizen’s assemblies, kibbutzim?
I don’t think the point of voting is to establish consensus.
Well, there are a couple of photos, maybe more, kicking around on the internet which are obvious fakes. There aren’t photos kicking around on the internet that have provenance that show Dodgson was a paedophile.
OK.
I mean, do you?
faded_Glory,
Oh yeah, the future relationship. Ten more years of wrangling by the two sides of the Tory and Labour parties, and us and the EU. I can hardly wait.
And you can bet the ‘swivel-eyed loons’ (not my phrase) will be pushing every step of the way to ensure that it’s their ‘hard Brexit’ that holds sway when the dust finally settles – my reward for concession. I am even more determined to oppose this, on that consideration. To assent to the WA, even as a first step, is to concede that a tiny majority from 3 years back is eternally conclusive, that the racists are further emboldened, that cheating in campaigns is OK, that Rothschild-hating loons can hold the balance of power …
You’re right, let’s lance the boil now. Let the chips fall where they may.
In all circumstances? It might be a useful outcome, along with World Peace.
Allan Miller,
Allan
Can you not say how you really feel? 🙂
But I mean I don’t think consensus is even a goal of elections.
I’m feeling we’re not communicating well. Elections are inanimate. People are social animals and living in a community is more amenable when people feel they belong, feel they are respected, feel they have a stake. How that might be achieved is a goal.
@ walto
Libertarianism is possibly the most stupid political dogma ever invented in the course of human history, BTW!
I went to a college where all administrative decisions required consensus. It was gamed.
Nobody’s perfect. 🙂
Sure, but it’s not why we have elections.