Weren’t the Remain side informing the people of all that during the campaign leading up to the referendum?
Having invoked Article 50, if they do nothing, Brexit occurs on October 31st. 2019 so far has not led me to be optimistic that a solution will be reached before that date, and I see no likelihood that a further extension will be provided.
I read widely and deeply during the campaign and no, it was not a point that I heard made often at all and that’s not surprising as it wouldn’t have been a popular point to make to the notoriously contrary British public.
Similarly the point was never made that voting for remain was not a neutral vote. it was not a vote for keeping things exactly as they are as it would have been taken a green light by Europe to push on even further and faster. That was a point rarely raised never mind acknowledged.
They didn’t sell a detailed vision. They were very particular in not specifying the post-Brexit future. Mainly because they all had separate visions and knew they’d be at each others’ throats immediately afterwards. They also saw what happened when the SNP presented their detailed vision.
Besides, Remain were busy spewing all sorts of laughable, obviously false nonsense. So they just sat back and let Remain lose the referendum.
Brilliant column from Ian Dunt, editor of politics.co.uk
The rest of the column is here.
What do you mean by “the issue to be solved”?
The issue of leaving or remaining. I’m not quite sure what you are asking.
If there’s a concrete proposal for leaving put before the electorate in a post-legislative referendum, with a default of not leaving, then a majority of even 1 vote will “solve” that issue, in the sense of making a conclusive choice that will be implemented. I don’t see why you would think a majority of more than that might be required.
I thought you might be asking what kind of majority would be needed to “solve” the issue in the sense of establishing a settled national consensus on the best course of action.
That’s part of it, I’m sure, But you also have people like Jeremy Corbyn who keeps calling for no confidence votes to, I assume, become PM himself. Or maybe it will be Boris Johnson.
To keep this short I’ll just say,
- I would think the smartest thing would be to avoid becoming (or attempting to become) PM until either Brexit goes through or Article 50 gets withdrawn.
- I wonder if Corbyn, Johnson, and others like them believe their own press and honestly think that if they were in charge that they could deliver a nearly pain free Brexit that most people would agree to.
That seems like valid criticism. Although, from what I’ve heard, the Ireland, Northern Ireland border issue would be a huge problem regardless.
Because of the possibility that doing so could lead to a no-deal Brexit?
For your country’s sake, I hope Article 50 gets withdrawn. Also, as someone living in a country with a disruptive politician backed up by a disruptive party I speak with experience when I say, don’t do it. All you’ll be doing is making Russia happy.
So, she’s going on June 7th. Two more weeks of the incompetent idiot.
That is what I was asking, seeing as 52-48 wasn’t taken as a settled consensus in 2016.
My contention would be that an overwhelming majority for either side is unlikely and so reaching a settled consensus may well be impossible.
My further point was that taking “remain” to mean the status quo is naive. Once a referendum was called, regardless of the decision, things will continue as they did before and that was certainly not a point admitted to by the remain side.
It’s probably impossible now, but I think there was a real chance to build some kind of consensus in 2016 and 2017, befitting the narrowish result to a fuzzy question. But that would have involved something other than drawing “red lines” on free movement and the customs union, which would have torn the Tories apart (again). Theresa May chose to seek a deal that would unify the Conservative Party instead, using toxic, extreme catchphrases like “Brexit means Brexit” and “no deal is better than a bad deal” to convince people that the public had voted for the very hard right-wing Brexit that she negotiated. And it still wasn’t enough to unify her party, so she spewed all those toxins into the political system and got nothing but failure and humiliation for it.
That is a risk but to be honest the only sensible option once triggering article 50 was to make no deal the default and negotiate from there. Once there were enough people in parliament wanting to take no deal off the table then there was no hope of any deal that could garner consensus.
I would have had an internal process of defining the clear Brexit position, agreed by parliament before ever triggering article 50, regardless of how long that took.
It was political weakness to trigger it too early and weakness again not to establish no deal as the default.
There may be a written record of this on the dope somewhere but my stance throughout has been that Brexit won’t happen and the majority remain MP’s will frustrate any attempt to enact it. The issues will not be solved and Europe ends up with a disgruntled UK bound to an organisation that they are not strongly behind with the E.U. certain to push through even greater federalisation and the likelihood of some degree of covert punishment for the UK. That’s not a healthy position to be in for either party.
Just to be clear, I of course mean that “things will ***not ***continue as they did before”
That is not correct: the question posed in the 2016 referendum was not fuzzy at all. We were given the choice of Leave or Remain. It was crystal clear. Let me refresh your memory.
I know exactly what the ballot paper said. The fuzziness is that not-in-the-EU is not a defined status. There is no way to meaningfully describe the entire set of countries that are not in the EU, which includes Norway and North Korea. There are any number of options that would faithfully execute the directive to “leave the European Union.”
Resigning in tears… as her successor might end up doing, too: Brexit failure forces Theresa May to announce resignation | CNN
So why deny it?
That question was not asked, so your point is irrelevant.