Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Brexit all over?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1613
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 377 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215089

Postby GoSeigen » April 15th, 2019, 8:44 am

richfool wrote:
SteMiS wrote:You are mistaking what you'd like to be true with what is. MPs are representatives not delegates. The only thing they are elected to do is use their judgement. You may think what they do is wrong (which is your right) but it doesn't make it undemocratic.

I am referring to the MP's who first of all voted for us to have a referendum, who then before and after the referendum stated that they would honour the result, and as Wizard says above, then stood and were elected in a General Election on manifestos supporting and honouring Brexit. They have abused democracy and insulted the electorate, and I trust will pay the price at the next elections.


This is speaking for others and not owning one's own opinions and feelings. The poster seems to be upset because he feels MPs have abused him and insulted him. He cannot speak for people like me. I am also "the electorate" and I am quite satisfied that MPs have neither abused democracy nor insulted me.

MPs are simply exercising the powers they have always had. This maybe is evidence of a progressive shift of power back towards parliament and away from the Prime Minister and Cabinet, reversing a trend dating to the Blair years and before. If that means we are becoming more a parliamentary democracy and less a sort of elected dictatorship I don't have a problem with that.

GS

EDIT: A bit later richfool says "I don't call that democracy, nor do a great many others.", confirming the above. It is just opinion. And not held by all the electorate but by a "great many"...
So let us pit the opinion of the "great many" against that of the "other many" in a democratic referendum and see who prevails...

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 169
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215091

Postby djbenedict » April 15th, 2019, 8:59 am

richfool wrote:
SteMiS wrote:You are mistaking what you'd like to be true with what is. MPs are representatives not delegates. The only thing they are elected to do is use their judgement. You may think what they do is wrong (which is your right) but it doesn't make it undemocratic.

I am referring to the MP's who first of all voted for us to have a referendum, who then before and after the referendum stated that they would honour the result, and as Wizard says above, then stood and were elected in a General Election on manifestos supporting and honouring Brexit. They have abused democracy and insulted the electorate, and I trust will pay the price at the next elections.


The thing is, they are required to continually apply their judgement, not apply it once and then take their hands off the wheel. So it is not at all inconsistent with democracy for them to now support revocation of Article 50 and an attempt, when in a hole, to stop digging. Clearly, you don't approve. I do, though, so it seems like it balances out between us two, at least. This really isn't a failure of democracy, and saying that it is just gives oxygen to extremism in my view.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1614
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215100

Postby SteMiS » April 15th, 2019, 9:32 am

richfool wrote:
SteMiS wrote:That, of course, will be a decision for their constituents and not you or I. They were democratically elected and they will be democratically accountable.

Note of course that their constituents include you and I , assuming you are a UK resident/voter.

The constituents that live in each MPs seat. Each MP is accountable to the electorate that are registered to vote in the constituency that they represent, not to you or I (except for the MP that lives in the seat where we are registered to vote). That's how representative democracy works.

richfool wrote:I repeat my comment:
I am referring to the MP's who first of all voted for us to have a referendum, who then before and after the referendum stated that they would honour the result, and as Wizard says above, then stood and were elected in a General Election on manifestos supporting and honouring Brexit. They have abused democracy and insulted the electorate....

.... and who voted for them effectively under false pretences.

I don't call that democracy, nor do a great many others.

Repeating it doesn't make it any truer than the first time you said it. MPs are representatives not delegates.

richfool wrote:The ERG did vote for Brexit and wanted it to take place. They didn't try and reverse it.

You can't try and reverse something that hasn't happened yet. At the moment the ERG have simply voted to stop Brexit. They did it because they want a different type of Brexit (although the referendum didn't specify what type of Brexit should occur). Strangely you don't rage against them though. That's because you also want a different type of Brexit. So you're happy that the ERG 'abuse democracy' because you support their aspirations but not those who want a confirmatory referendum because you don't. You are happy to put the decision in the hands of the people when you need them to make the decision to leave, but not when there's a risk that, seeing what leave is actually possible (as opposed to the unicorn they were sold) they may decide they don't want to leave anymore.

Democracy just seems a tool for you to get what you want. I'm pretty sure that's not how it works...

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1271
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215102

Postby richfool » April 15th, 2019, 9:40 am

Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Remainers can split hairs and wriggle all they want, and even mock, but that is the fact of the matter. All in all a very sad day for democracy in this country and for our reputation throughout the world.

anticrank
Lemon Slice
Posts: 703
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215103

Postby anticrank » April 15th, 2019, 9:43 am

richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Remainers can split hairs and wriggle all they want, and even mock, but that is the fact of the matter. All in all a very sad day for democracy in this country and for our reputation throughout the world.


Parliament gave no such undertaking. You must be thinking of some shyster.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1614
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215108

Postby SteMiS » April 15th, 2019, 9:56 am

richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

If only those self serving 'democracy usurpers' in the ERG would stop trying to thwart the outcome of the referendum* and instead vote to leave, eh...

[* Obviously as a Remain supporter I'm happy they do, but they must be very frustrating for you as a Leaver I guess...]

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1755
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215129

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » April 15th, 2019, 10:48 am

I think the best solution is revocation of A50, without a following 2nd referendum. It's not *undemocratic* it's just not an aspect of direct democracy. And ours is one of representative democracy.

The question poised in 2016 was far too complex and easily twisted and spun to be presented to the electorate.

People who scream out "sad day for democracy" should maybe answer on what other questions we should be asking the whole country for help on, e.g.

1. Ownership of a vacant second home
2. The % rate of high rate tax
3. The maximum salary for top execs

So why does asking the population for their views on EU membership make anymore sense?

Matt

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4262
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215138

Postby BobbyD » April 15th, 2019, 11:40 am

richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Remainers can split hairs and wriggle all they want, and even mock, but that is the fact of the matter. All in all a very sad day for democracy in this country and for our reputation throughout the world.


119. All these statutes stipulated what should happen in response to the
referendum result, and what changes in the law were to follow, and how they were
to be effected. The same is true of the provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act. By
contrast, neither the 1975 Act nor the 2015 Act, which authorised referendums about
membership of the European Community or European Union, made provision for
any consequences of either possible outcome. They provided only that the
referendum should be held, and they did so in substantially identical terms. The way
in which the proposed referendum was described in public statements by ministers,
however, differed in the two cases. The 1975 referendum was described by ministers
as advisory, whereas the 2016 referendum was described as advisory by some
ministers and as decisive by others, but nothing hangs on that for present purposes.
Whether or not they are clear and consistent, such public observations, wherever
they are made, are not law: they are statements of political intention. Further, such
statements are, at least normally, made by ministers on behalf of the UK
government, not on behalf of Parliament.

120. It was suggested on behalf of the Secretary of State that, having referred the
question whether to leave or remain to the electorate, Parliament cannot have
intended that, upon the electorate voting to leave, the same question would be
referred straight back to it. There are two problems with this argument. The first is
that it assumes what it seeks to prove, namely that the referendum was intended by
Parliament to have a legal effect as well as a political effect. The second problem is
that the notion that Parliament would not envisage both a referendum and legislation
being required to approve the same step is falsified by sections 2, 3 and 6 of the 2011
Act, which, as the Explanatory Notes (quoted in para 111 above) acknowledge,
required just that - albeit in the more elegant way of stipulating for legislation whose
effectiveness was conditional upon a concurring vote in a referendum.

121. Where, as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a
change in the law of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change
in the law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits,
namely through Parliamentary legislation.


- https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1755
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215150

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » April 15th, 2019, 12:34 pm

No insult to you Bobby, but this

BobbyD wrote:
120. It was suggested on behalf of the Secretary of State that, having referred the
question whether to leave or remain to the electorate, Parliament cannot have
intended that, upon the electorate voting to leave, the same question would be
referred straight back to it. There are two problems with this argument. The first is
that it assumes what it seeks to prove, namely that the referendum was intended by
Parliament to have a legal effect as well as a political effect. The second problem is
that the notion that Parliament would not envisage both a referendum and legislation
being required to approve the same step is falsified by sections 2, 3 and 6 of the 2011
Act, which, as the Explanatory Notes (quoted in para 111 above) acknowledge,
required just that - albeit in the more elegant way of stipulating for legislation whose
effectiveness was conditional upon a concurring vote in a referendum.

is as clear as mud.

BobbyD wrote:
121. Where, as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a
change in the law of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change
in the law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits,
namely through Parliamentary legislation.

So does the emboldened phrase really translate as meaning that "the referendum 2016 result should only really be considered by being advisory?" Since the electorate on the day in June 2016 were not privy as to the exact implementation of what they ticked "Yes" for?

Matt

bungeejumper
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2923
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 611 times
Been thanked: 858 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215155

Postby bungeejumper » April 15th, 2019, 12:44 pm

richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Let us also not forget that a certain N. Farage declared, before the 2016 referendum, that it the vote went 52-48 against the Brexit proposal, he'd be right back on the campaign trail to demand another vote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, that ends it.""


Awkward stuff, democracy, isn't it?

BJ

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2197
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215168

Postby Nimrod103 » April 15th, 2019, 1:34 pm

bungeejumper wrote:
richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Let us also not forget that a certain N. Farage declared, before the 2016 referendum, that it the vote went 52-48 against the Brexit proposal, he'd be right back on the campaign trail to demand another vote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, that ends it.""


Awkward stuff, democracy, isn't it?

BJ


I have no problem with that. Once the result of the first EU referendum is put into effect, you can campaign to rejoin (as long as it is fair i.e. no undue Govt or media propaganda). That is what Mr Farage was advocating, wasn't it?

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4262
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215178

Postby BobbyD » April 15th, 2019, 2:03 pm

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:No insult to you Bobby, but this

BobbyD wrote:
120. It was suggested on behalf of the Secretary of State that, having referred the
question whether to leave or remain to the electorate, Parliament cannot have
intended that, upon the electorate voting to leave, the same question would be
referred straight back to it. There are two problems with this argument. The first is
that it assumes what it seeks to prove, namely that the referendum was intended by
Parliament to have a legal effect as well as a political effect. The second problem is
that the notion that Parliament would not envisage both a referendum and legislation
being required to approve the same step is falsified by sections 2, 3 and 6 of the 2011
Act, which, as the Explanatory Notes (quoted in para 111 above) acknowledge,
required just that - albeit in the more elegant way of stipulating for legislation whose
effectiveness was conditional upon a concurring vote in a referendum.

is as clear as mud.

BobbyD wrote:
121. Where, as in this case, implementation of a referendum result requires a
change in the law of the land, and statute has not provided for that change, the change
in the law must be made in the only way in which the UK constitution permits,
namely through Parliamentary legislation.

So does the emboldened phrase really translate as meaning that "the referendum 2016 result should only really be considered by being advisory?" Since the electorate on the day in June 2016 were not privy as to the exact implementation of what they ticked "Yes" for?

Matt


It's perfectly clear. The referendum was advisory because all that the Referendum Act required was that a referendum be held. A referendum was held, so the requirements of the Referendum Act have been satisfied.

For comparison look at the AV Referendum Act, where the actions to be taken in the event of a given outcome were laid out in the legislation. Assuming it wasn't repealed or amended that would have binding.
Last edited by BobbyD on April 15th, 2019, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1614
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215179

Postby SteMiS » April 15th, 2019, 2:03 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
bungeejumper wrote:
richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Let us also not forget that a certain N. Farage declared, before the 2016 referendum, that it the vote went 52-48 against the Brexit proposal, he'd be right back on the campaign trail to demand another vote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, that ends it.""


Awkward stuff, democracy, isn't it?

BJ


I have no problem with that. Once the result of the first EU referendum is put into effect, you can campaign to rejoin (as long as it is fair i.e. no undue Govt or media propaganda). That is what Mr Farage was advocating, wasn't it?

Ah, so we can have any choice we want as long as it's Leave. Sounds a bit like the November 1933 German parliamentary elections...(courtesy of David Lammy...lol)

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1271
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215181

Postby richfool » April 15th, 2019, 2:05 pm

bungeejumper wrote:
richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Let us also not forget that a certain N. Farage declared, before the 2016 referendum, that it the vote went 52-48 against the Brexit proposal, he'd be right back on the campaign trail to demand another vote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, that ends it.""


Awkward stuff, democracy, isn't it?

BJ

Let's not be selective with our quotes, and quote the whole piece (from your BBC link). I refer to Prime Minister Cameron's comment following on from Farage's:
Mr Farage said he believed the Leave campaign were on course for victory.

But he said there would be resentment, particularly in the Conservative Party, if not, with claims the referendum will not have been a fair contest.

Number 10 said Mr Farage's comments showed he was losing the argument and was no longer confident of winning.

And Prime Minister David Cameron said it was a "once in a generation, once in a lifetime" decision, saying the UK had "referendums not Neverendums".


And the Prime Minster was in Government, not N Farage, and Cameron was very clear about what voting leave meant, despite several posters here suggesting it was unclear.

For those who have forgotten:

https://youtu.be/Eu6PIUT8M-A

Sundance13
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2179
Joined: March 15th, 2017, 1:02 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215186

Postby Sundance13 » April 15th, 2019, 2:24 pm

richfool wrote:
bungeejumper wrote:
richfool wrote:Let us also not forget that Parliament first voted to give the people the vote in the referendum, and said they would honour the outcome. The people voted and gave their answer.

Let us also not forget that a certain N. Farage declared, before the 2016 referendum, that it the vote went 52-48 against the Brexit proposal, he'd be right back on the campaign trail to demand another vote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, that ends it.""


Awkward stuff, democracy, isn't it?

BJ

Let's not be selective with our quotes, and quote the whole piece (from your BBC link). I refer to Prime Minister Cameron's comment following on from Farage's:
Mr Farage said he believed the Leave campaign were on course for victory.

But he said there would be resentment, particularly in the Conservative Party, if not, with claims the referendum will not have been a fair contest.

Number 10 said Mr Farage's comments showed he was losing the argument and was no longer confident of winning.

And Prime Minister David Cameron said it was a "once in a generation, once in a lifetime" decision, saying the UK had "referendums not Neverendums".


And the Prime Minster was in Government, not N Farage, and Cameron was very clear about what voting leave meant, despite several posters here suggesting it was unclear.

For those who have forgotten:

https://youtu.be/Eu6PIUT8M-A



He was very clear that he wouldn’t resign if he lost as well, doesn’t appear promises mean much to him, so why put so much value in this particular one?

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1755
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215193

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » April 15th, 2019, 2:50 pm

BobbyD wrote:It's perfectly clear. The referendum was advisory because all that the Referendum Act required was that a referendum be held. A referendum was held, so the requirements of the Referendum....

Bobby, it was the legalese you quoted that I (and presumably millions of others) find unclear, not the implied content.

Once again, underlining my frequently stated and ignored point :lol: that intellectuals are somewhat out of touch, in assuming direct democracy (referenda) to be a great idea in solving complex issues such as EU membership.

Matt

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4262
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215201

Postby BobbyD » April 15th, 2019, 3:32 pm

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:
BobbyD wrote:It's perfectly clear. The referendum was advisory because all that the Referendum Act required was that a referendum be held. A referendum was held, so the requirements of the Referendum....

Bobby, it was the legalese you quoted that I (and presumably millions of others) find unclear, not the implied content.

Once again, underlining my frequently stated and ignored point :lol: that intellectuals are somewhat out of touch, in assuming direct democracy (referenda) to be a great idea in solving complex issues such as EU membership.

Matt


It's the judgement of the Supreme Court, although there is nothing specifically legalistic or complex about the choice or use of language. It is a touch more approachable if you break it down in to sentence sized chunks, a format more familiar to web-dwellers, but the precise language and clear line of argument should leave no doubt that there is nothing implied in the contents, the contents are literally the Law.

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1755
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215208

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » April 15th, 2019, 3:46 pm

I challenge anyone in favour of using a public referendum's result to settle the question of our EU membership, to watch/listen to four and half minutes of this

Brexit: Sunderland voters describe why the Leave vote there was resounding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRQ8DryTWQ

and then explain to me why.

With the exception of a few seconds (from 3:25, about some disquiet over pounds and ounces from 16 years ago), the distilled wisdom from these folk, is that they primarily voted Leave as a protest vote against London, and politicians, and the bank/investment sectors. They clearly have nothing to add about the £££ pluses and minuses to them (or the rest of us) regards of our membership to the World's largest trading bloc or otherwise.

Democracy or the mob rules?

Matt

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3585
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215230

Postby XFool » April 15th, 2019, 5:15 pm

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:I challenge anyone in favour of using a public referendum's result to settle the question of our EU membership, to watch/listen to four and half minutes of this

Brexit: Sunderland voters describe why the Leave vote there was resounding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRQ8DryTWQ

Very interesting watching, but very frustrating as well. I just wanted to know a whole lot MORE about what was going on and what the people were really thinking. Are their comments realistic? What do they actually expect Brexit to do for THEM? Do they care? If not why not? etc. etc.

Then you check out Sunderland on the web and see this from April 2018: Sunderland is now the UK's sixth fastest growing economy, report claims

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/busines ... t-14537431

And this: Tall Ships and airshow boosted Sunderland economy by £19.3m

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-46461714

I've heard interviews on the radio with people in Sunderland before. In some cases the only apparently reasonable explanation seems to be that some are indeed from some barmy army. The whole thing is perplexing. "Ordinary people" vs "People in London on £66,000 pa". OK, I know some in London are on £66,000 and much more. But when I worked in London I never earned anything like that, me and many (most) others... Perhaps I am being too literal. People are clearly angry about something - and that C4 News piece said it wasn't immigration - so what is really going on?

In other words - is this about real material, possibly long term, grievances or (incredibly?) some kind of imaginary grievances. A bizarre, grievance culture?

Honestly, I don't know. Anyone here live in Sunderland who can add insight?

tikunetih
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 136
Joined: December 14th, 2018, 10:30 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#215232

Postby tikunetih » April 15th, 2019, 5:19 pm

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Democracy or the mob rules?


Bit harsh.

"Sunderland", like many other places, have arguably been failed by successive Governments, whether Blue or Red, for decade after decade. It's not much mattered who's formed the Govt, many regions have not particularly prospered. Their votes in general elections haven't really got them anywhere, and the status quo that has let them down continues.

So, when an opportunity came along to send, as they saw it, a massive protest vote against the status quo and a big F.You to the main political parties, it's not hard to see why they might take that opportunity...

And they did.

But it's not EU membership that caused their problems, it's the policy failures of successive UK Governments. Indeed, EU membership has probably helped ameliorate their problems, not added to them, and leaving the EU will simply make their problems worse - possibly much worse, as they'll come to see if the penny hasn't already dropped.

Lashing out in an emotional manner is rarely a good plan, and that's the case here. But you can see how it's come about.

Assuming Brexit goes ahead, then the only hope for left-behind regions is that it triggers a complete reorientation of UK politics that leads to better governance that in time helps to fix some of the deep-seated problems the UK suffers from. There is as yet no sign of that, only chaos, but it's not impossible that it could happen.

But the odds favour simply a worsening of governance, and worse outcomes for many places and the people who live there: less opportunity, less prosperity, unhappier lives. That's likely to be the reality of Brexit, because people voted to throw out the wrong thing.

They're throwing out the thing that at worst played no part in the plight of their region, and at best marginally helped improve things there. Simultaneously, they've exposed themselves even more so to the incompetence of UK Government who've failed them for decades...

It's a cruel tragedy that they've voted, albeit unwittingly, to materially worsen their own and their children's futures.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Calcarius, Google [Bot], seagles, tea42 and 7 guests