And yet just because the establishment failed, that doesn’t mean the demos have won. Not fully, anyway. We must stay vigilant. For there will now be a concerted effort to thwart our democratic statement, to weaken it by calling into question its legitimacy. This is already happening. Apparently the demos behaved rashly. We ‘voted emotionally rather than considering the facts’, says Labour MP Keith Vaz. We were in the grip of fear, say others. Or we were making a xenophobic statement, they claim, overlooking the irony of their pontificating about prejudice while suggesting that the 17.5million people who said No to the EU, this vast swathe of people, is a tabloid-poisoned blob given to disliking foreign people. Demagogues ‘injected poison into the nation’s bloodstream’, commentators are already saying, the implication being that we were brainwashed, made mad by evil men. We know not what we do. We’re children.
The efforts to rebrand this vote as a kneejerk thing, an emotional thing, a racist thing, are already underway. And others will no doubt argue that because the vote was very close, perhaps we shouldn’t take drastic measures; perhaps we should reform our ties with the EU rather than sever them. We must stand against all this, and insist that the people have spoken, and the people are sovereign, or ought to be. Indeed, that is fundamentally what the referendum was about: do you think Brussels or the parliament in London should be sovereign? The people voted for themselves.
This was a polite revolt for sure. But it was also backed strongly by an angry working class. If they truly try to overturn this, there will be violence. I’ll be one of the people throwing molotov cocktails, no fucking kidding. I do hope it doesn’t come to that, but LEAVE isn’t optional any more. We’re going to LEAVE, its just down to how painless they want it to be.
The lack of democratic accountability within the EU was my main reason for voting leave. That the pro-EU people are now behaving as they are makes my case for me. These people don’t get the idea that, in a democracy, you have to take it with good grace if you lose, that is how it works. What arrogance to think that people who disagree with you are simply wrong by definition.
We agreed the basis of the referendum and were prepared, even resigned to losing it. If it had gone to “Remain” I would have shaken hands with my opponents and thanked them for a good fight.
There were lies, errors and exaggerations on both sides.
The fundamental rules of our democracy are first-past-the-post, that the side which wins by even a single vote more than its opponent wins everything and the loser gains nothing. It is harsh, brutal even, but that is the rule by which we have agreed to abide.
If the Remainders even seriously attempt to ignore, deny or overturn this result then there will be bloodshed and I for one will not stand idly by while others die for the very thing that I have believed for so long.
A bloody revolution is hard to start and hard to end, but if that is what they want then the lines are drawn. The Remainders need to think very carefully before they proceed down a path that can only lead to bloodshed.
there will be violence
The nasty people, the ones who readily riot if they don’t get what they want, were most probably in the Remain camp, so unfortunately this will happen anyway.
Just to think, for over 40 years there has been a silent groundswell of people wanting out, who have had to put up with the EU diktats all this time, who have watched the Euro gravy train pass them by and see their hard earned cash frittered away on vanity projects proposed by underpaid unelected elites, and they could do nothing about it, and they have been ignored by everyone, and now this rabble are upset about something, just because they wanted to continue to ignore the majority wishes of 17 million people?
I’m still trying to think where the “racist” element comes in. The EU free movement policy applies mainly to (white) Europeans, now they’ll be equal to the rest of the (non-white) world. The immigration debate is about making the UK the same as nearly every other (non-EU) country in the world, so are they all racists as well?
Runcie – “underpaid”?
It remains essential to those who wish to dismantle the EU to empower UKIP to hold not only the Tories but to some extent the entire British political establishment accountable to carry out the will of the people to legally withdraw from the EU. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty must be activated.
Remember history:
The Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 but were forced to vote again until they gave the right answer.
The Irish were forced to vote again on the Treaty of Nice after first rejecting it.
The French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution in 2005 but got it in through back door anyway.
oops, too many un-s
If there is any attempt to walk back on Brexit, UKIP will win the next election in a landslide. Even people who voted Remain, will be outraged enough to vote UKIP.
I fear the leave vote was a hollow victory. Even if we withdraw from the EU I fully expect the so-called negotiators to hold us to a treaty that will make the Remain camp lies come true.
Shlomo: the Danes did give the “right” answer when they voted again, but they did get an important concession; namely, an opt-out on the euro. (which, at the time, i thought was the wrong concession to ask, but i turned out to be wrong.)
As for the French, Dutch, and Irish referendums: i don’t want to excuse the French, Dutch, and Irish ruling classes, but the fact is, there were loopholes that the EU ruling class exploited. I don’t think that any loophole can be found in a straight Leave vote.
This is entirely correct. Indeed, as the majority of Tory MPs supported REMAIN, take a look at how many of them have constituencies that voted LEAVE. It is the overwhelming majority.
So what does that mean? It means if they try to finesse the LEAVE result, UKIP has a very real chance of moving into the void and quite literally destroying the Tory party. They can and should wipe it out. And I concur that there will indeed be violence if there is an attempt to overrule the democratic vote.
I agree. Any attempt to overrule the vote by the majority of the establishment will be a de facto internal constitutional coup d’etat. But there are enough establishment figures who backed LEAVE (Hannan, Gove, Boris etc. etc.) that it would actually tear the country apart in a fairly direct and non-figurative way. We would be entering 1642 territory, and no one who is not insane wants to go there. That is why I just cannot see it happening. The nightmare scenario is not that hard to see, so it would be madness to provoke it. I will only believe it is a very real possibility if someone shoots Farage.
Stonyground, I couldn’t have put it any better. Well said.
Strongly agree about UKIP. It has never been more essential. At the last general election, I couldn’t stomach voting for the UKIP candidate, because he really did present himself as a xenophobe. But if there is any backsliding by our rulers about actually Brexiting, then I will vote UKIP in a blink. I’ll bloody canvass for them, actually.
Luckily, if we don’t leave EUrope now, the rulers of EUrope, just as I said in an earlier comment on one of our many other Brexit postings here (no idea which one), are now kicking us out anyway. We The (British) People have terminally disappointed them. We’ve been pissing them off for decades with our dislike of a single EUropean superstate, half of us hating it and the other half lying about it even being the plan, both of which assertions hugely annoy the EUro-rulers. This referendum result is the last bloody straw, as far as they are concerned. Perry de Havilland described our election as us saying “Fuck You”. I sense that EUrope’s rulers are now reciprocating. Fine by me.
What Europe (as opposed to EUrope, which a lot of Europe now is) is making of this, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
Equally, the vote was ‘remain’ or ‘leave’ and silent on what ‘leave’ would actually constitute. I think it would be reasonable to acknowledge the concerns about ‘remain’ voters about the economy, and choose a ‘soft landing’ form of leaving, such as the EEA route, as set out in Flexcit (available on eureferendum.com).
And especially, the various statements from Vote Leave about what ‘Leave’ would constitute, are of no importance.
Except that, in this case, the Monarchy is likely to be on the side of the constitution; and the armed forces have sworn fealty to the Queen. If and when the monarch is Charles III, i would be less confident.
And what what does the constitution actually say on a situation like this I wonder? It is by no means obvious.
I have just been informed by the BBC news that “Britain’s influence in Brussels is waning”.
Depends how you look at it, I suppose. I don’t see Britain’s influence in Europe waning. Quite the reverse.
We The (British) People have terminally disappointed them.
Witness the astounding chutzpah of a small band of elitists telling us what to do, after it has just been made clear in no uncertain terms that Britain does not like being told what to do by a small band of elitists.
Perry.
Do you really trust the sanity of a politician who sees himself loosing power?
Indeed, the UK constitution is a somewhat fuzzy concept; which is why i do not use an upper-case C.
Still, most people (including the Queen) will probably agree that the UK constitution says that you cannot postpone elections beyond 5 years, just because UKIP is likely to win!
If I was a Tory MP who backed REMAIN whose constituency just voted LEAVE, if I did not want to lose power, then I would do what politicians do all the time: abruptly change direction and sail in the direction the wind was blowing.
Otherwise they will feel the hot breath of UKIP on the back of their necks and this time there will be nowhere to hide, no tribal loyalties to protect them. Indeed this is the GOLDEN opportunity for the Tory party to be rid of UKIP once and for all, all they have to do is get behind the LEAVE result that has been dropped in their lap.
Perry de Havilland (London) said:
For several years federalists in the EU have been meandering around an idea of a two tier EU. The centre would be the integrated Eurozone. The outer shell would be a looser arrangement called Associate Membership or similar. It was intended to pull in the EFTA nations. I don’t think David Cameron would have wanted us to be an AM but I am sure there are many politicians who would. Hannan in particular has been quick out of the blocks saying the negotiating for Leave shouldn’t forget the 48% who voted Remain. I don’t think it would satisfy the UKIP contingent though.
PeterT said:
The vote for Remain was also silent on what ‘remain’ looks like. We are overdue for a new treaty. Perhaps Cameron thought we would vote Remain and could then fiddle us out of a vote on the next treaty.
Gareth:
I had thought that the UK would be offered some sort of associate EU status, which Cameron could have sold to the British people. Something along the lines of access to the single market, but with controls on immigration. He could have won a vote on that.
Instead, the EU panjandrums treated Cameron like the shit on their shoe, and now seem amazed that the British people voted to leave their failing empire. They must be the most stupid people ever to have drawn breath.
Thank God the British people have retained their historic contempt for tyrants!
This is why I said I wanted Cameron to invoke Article 50 immediately.
But even the EU want it invoked now. They know this battle is lost, they don’t want to drag it out any more, and to suffer more embarrassment. They want to move on to more fertile field.
The Queen, as is proper in a crass democracy, is silent on virtually all UK political issues. Indeed, the Crown’s considerable credibility partly derives from maintaining the Queen’s position above the fray of politics.
Given that Brexit is, at its heart, about the UK’s precious SOVEREIGNTY, which is what the Queen represents and even embodies, I can think of few more proper instances for the Queen to take a public and firm position on a political issue than one in favor of prompt activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty IF the British political establishment fails to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
There are good reasons to suspect that the Queen is pleased with the Brexit result (one example – The Sun’s reporting).
If the British political establishment fails to activate Article 50 then a public alliance between UKIP and the Crown ought to be considered by both parties.
Seeing the Crown rescue the British people from their elected political leaders and thereby restore British sovereignty to the United Kingdom would be absolutely MAJESTIC..
Just playing the cynic for a bit:
The people have spoken, but it seems that Parliament must also speak before Leave can actually be accomplished.
So, if you elect leaders and not representatives, isn’t it true that you’re only halfway there? Cannot your Parliament simply not follow through, or even vote to Remain after all?
Granted, that would be problematic for their future electability, but could Parliament avoid Leaving while sacrificing many members’ seats?
And what of these things I keep hearing about Ireland and Scotland having veto power over Leave? (One such waft of rumor from here.)
As I said before the vote was fully counted, there won’t be any Brexit.
I don’t know this Mark Blyth guy, but this short YouTube snippet of his does seem to be well-aimed.
If the government doesn’t trust the people, why can’t it dissolve them and elect another people?
Things to do today:
1. Refute opponents
2. Expose their fallacies
3. Read the lamentations of their intellectuals
We were told Brexit would be a greater disaster than world war 1.
The remainers appear to have bought that- so they were the ones voting out of fear.
@ Bobby b
Parliament can ignore this yes, if the members don’t care about future electability. Scottish and Irish MPs may vote against Brexit, but other than that there is no Scottish or Irish veto.
JohnK, agree completely. The EU had the power to nip this in the bud and instead they poured fuel on it.
I voted leave. If these scumbags in parliament try to take this away I will be one of the army that marches on parliament and chucks these people out.
1. Refute opponents
2. Expose their fallacies
3. Read the lamentations of their intellectuals
That’s a thread-winning comment if ever I saw one.
The 52-48% outcome clearly indicates that some compromise is needed.
Close economic ties between the EU and the UK are clearly beneficial to both sides. So some compromise needs to be worked out, this is clear.
So, I say, cool down, let the time pass. Cameron’s decision not to invoke article 50 but to leave it to the next government was wise.
As the EU want us to have a quick exit, we should refuse and set up the correct way to use Article 50 before executing it. That way we know just what we are going to do. After all, it is laid out in black white in Flexcit, so follow the plot. One extra benefit of that is that apart from the detail of leaving it also in Part 6 tells us how to regain Sovereignty back for the People, where it should lie in any case.
We should take our time before invoking article 50. Once we do, we have only two years to complete all the negotiations, so it would be a good idea to have a negotiating team ready and to have our position on the various policy options worked out. Otherwise it’s like starting a football match before our team has arrived.
If the EU ‘leaders’ want to start immediately then it’s probably because they are ready, we aren’t.
I see that Ms Sturgeon has announced that the Scottish parliament ‘could’ block Brexit by vetoing it.
All I can say is bring it on.
Re: Bobby B, that Mark Blyth video is excellent, but skips one important point – immigration. On top of the dislocation he describes add in mass demographic change to your communities and the reasons for Brexit are pretty obvious.
It is essential to get this right as where Britain leads, others will eventually follow.
There is a balance to be found between rushing with unseemly haste (and thereby weakening our negotiating position) and dragging out the confusion and turmoil.
Mr. Cameron has chosen to remain as interim prime minister until a new one is elected in September, that seems a reasonable approach provided that in the meantime the civil service are putting together the necessary options for BRExit negotiations similar to that outlined in the Flexcit document.
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
This shouldn’t be “The Norway Option” by fait accompli, but a consideration of all the options including the “Australia” option.
I’m rather surprised to see some evidence of backsliding here: calls for “taking your time” and “compromise”; the suggestion that two years isn’t long enough to work out the terms of exit. Do I detect a touch of buyer’s remorse setting in? You’re all-in now, chaps; the die is cast. Trying turn back now would be disastrous. Delay would only extend the period of uncertainty and make the process worse.
The fact is, the two year period after invoking Article 50* isn’t an absolute deadline for leaving, it’s merely the waiting period before you’re permitted to leave. At its end, if negotiations are going well (and both sides agree) you can still stay in a while longer while the last details are wrapped up. And if they’re going poorly you can then pull the plug. But the longer you delay invoking Article 50 the longer you’ll be stuck.
At the moment you’re in limbo: not yet out, but no longer truly in, either. The idea that the UK can influence EU decisions and affairs from its position as a quasi-member is delusional: you didn’t really before, and there’s certainly not one person in a position of power on the other side of the Channel who will support you now. So you’ll have the worst of both worlds: still subject to every diktat issued by a bureaucracy Brussels bent on vengeance, yet powerless to do anything about it.
Waiting to invoke Article 50 until the new government takes over in October might make sense from a purely political perspective; waiting any longer than that does not. It is generally not wise to continue to share the same bed after you’ve filed for divorce.
* I wonder how many people had even heard about Article 50 three months ago?
@Laird – I agree and had Cameron not decided to take his ball and walk home we would not have had to delay until September / October, but it is what it is.
Since we do have some time before a new Tory Party leader is elected, we should make the most of that time to prepare our options and strengthen our negotiating position.
I do agree though that the first act of a new PM must be to formally exercise Article 50.
Knowing the arrogance of the EU, they will probably decide that some action on our part has already triggered Article 50 anyway, so this is probably moot.
NO.
If one believes in individual liberty
there can be no external “Sovereignty,” which is unbound authority.
That remains true whether such authority is held by a single magistrate, a “popularly elected” parliament; or exercised by any great “wave” (which is usually some dominant minority) of the populace (“Mass Man, e.g.).
Individuals may, for their own motives, choose constraints, and side constraints, on personal conduct. But, to submerge individualities in an amorphous “The People” is to lose individual liberty and sink into another form of tyranny.
We have the evidence of that in our times.
Whilst we may be agreed on the current results for Britain to regain control, domestically, of the constraints imposed upon the members of its society, we should not lose sight of the individual liberty reasons for limitations on those constraints.
@RRS: I agree, but I also live in the real world.
I exercise my own individual sovereignty as much as I possibly can, but at the end of the day I am a single individual. Only the power of the demos itself can move the necessary political mountains. I could not have done this on my own, no matter how strongly I believed in my individual sovereignty.
An army of volunteers is far greater than an army of conscripts and that is exactly the difference between Vote “Leave” and the “Remainders”.
In the end the country followed Vote “Leave” and that has nothing to do with my individual sovereignty, it was the power of voluntary association coming together to achieve a shared goal.
@John Galt:
Wherein are we incongruous?
You write:
We differ. To the extent that leaving the EU ends the continuing exercise of sovereignty (whether by passive consent or not) over British individuals by an external organization outside their power of determinations, it absolutely does have everything to do with your “individual sovereignty” – individual liberty.
You have now to deal only with your own legislators, with those directly exposed to such powers as you have (in association with others)to affect the management and managers of your society.
As I wrote:
Since I was 17, some 75 years ago, I too have lived and live in the “real” world, which in the past 40 years, has been on a path to passive acceptance of forms of “universalism” that always have become ultimately totalitarian. The EU and the Federal Administrative State in the U S have taken those trends, which the “English” have shown can be broken – if not without costs.
We can only hope for more – and less passivity.
The chains of political enslavement are broken and I am prepared to pay the cost of that freedom, but I will not do so simply to sign up to a form of slavery with slightly modified terms and conditions.
The collectives have always baulked at the word “No.”
As I said in the run-up.
Strong vote REMAIN. We stay.
Slim vote REMAIN. We stay.
Slim vote OUT. We stay. A fudge will be organised by TBTB.
Strong vote OUT. We leave.
The Referendum was not legally binding. The process of the fudge has begun.
And all because we voted against the additional layer of government that is the E.U.
We do not want to have every aspect of our lives controlled by ever increasing regulations from a regime (the E.U.) we can not remove.
The “liberal” elite seem to have a problem with our rejection of this.
The PMO:
That trend remains to be seen.
Absent widespread conflict (which has occurred historically as universalism is thwarted) and violence rising, it may be possible if the “collective” (Mass Man, e.g.) once again accepts and follows individually determined relationships and constraints, rather than seeking refuge from responsibilities by the selection of “Leaders” who by their motivations will keep those chains in place, locked by the lack of individual character.