Unlike the punditry I have not been fulminating on Britain’s decision to exit the EU, known as “Brexit”, for the following reasons:
- How much of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty to surrender is completely an issue to be decided by Britons.
- They had a referendum. They decided to leave the EU.
- Any movement to keep holding referenda until the desired result (stay) is reached is scurrilous.
- Liberal democratic government means doing what the people want at least some of the time. Even if you think it is stupid or harmful.
- If they want guillotines to start being erected in town squares, elites should just keep doing what they’re doing.
I don’t think there’s anything else to say. It’s not any of my business.
Any MP owes his duty to the people of the UK. Not to supporting the first and only referendum in the past. Furthermore, he represents the current population of the UK, not the people who voted in the last referendum. Third, it’s properto ask every signatory to a referendum whether there’s a right to appeal or re-do. Moreover, no referendum results are valid once new evidence is discovered.
Actually, an MP’s duty is to his local party which selected him to stand, then the voters in his riding.
BTW, you do know that Corbyn is in flavor of Brexit himself.
There were several errors of fact in the comment.
It really recalls the independence of Singapore from Malaysia in the 60’s.
Singapore was itself divided — it thought it couldn’t go it alone. Malaysia didn’t want Singapore out, but Singapore was causing instability to whole Federation. In the end Malaysia kicked Singapore out.
I imagine the EU is going to become exasperated if the Brits stay in; but are in “in name only”.
“Any movement to keep holding referenda until the desired result (stay) is reached is scurrilous.”
How about just one vote?
The position that the Brexit referendum is the source of all troubles and rerunning the referendum with the right result will fix everything is mistaking the trees from the forest.
In metaphoric terms; the U.K. is like someone who married for money (they joined the EU for economic reasons instead of avoiding war like the Germans/French, moving on from civil war like Spain or communism like Poland). The UK then stayed non-committed to marriage (not part of Euro, Schenegen). Finally the UK decided to divorce, but are reluctant because of the money involved.
If you were a marriage counselor, is this marriage salvageable without big changes from both sides? Notice how neither the U.K. or EU has proposed the sort of changes so they can recommit to the marriage.
At this point, I think there will be a second referendum and voters will narrowly vote to stay in the EU. There doesn’t seem to be any other way forward at this point.