The matter is the UK’s “decision” to leave the EU. Note, please, that the UK is not leaving Europe. I’m afraid the rest of Europe is stuck with us — the UK is going nowhere. At least not in the physical sense.
The fuss and nonsense that’s happening now in the House of Commons, and replayed ad nauseam on news programmes, is the result of poor judgment on the part of politicians in 2015 and 2016. The referendum result was, apparently, only advisory. It was an indication of how voters felt about being in, or out, of the EU. I only found out that the referendum was advisory, rather than a mandate after the results were announced. I suspect it was the same for many people. Being advisory there was no need for the Government to act upon the result. On the day after the referendum, there seemed to an air of confusion, as though people were asking themselves, “OMG! what have we done?” Of the electorate, only 37% voted to leave the EU. That means that 63% voted to remain (35%) or couldn’t be arsed to vote (28%). That, however, is how the system works in the UK.
The issue now is that Members of Parliament are divided in their opinions and the best course of action, and have, apparently, drawn lots of red lines they say they will not cross. There’ll probably be shortage of red ink and paint in the next couple of months. Some MPs are refusing to talk to each other unless things are taken off or put on the table. Beware of low flying clichés.
Some people are calling for another referendum. What will the question be? “Did you mean it last time?” or “Do you want to leave now you know the havoc that attempting to do so has created?” Others are saying it would be undemocratic to have a second referendum. What is undemocratic about asking voters if they’ve changed their minds? Isn’t the electorate allowed to change its mind now the chaos created by trying to agree the leaving process is visible?
I wonder if those who want to push ahead with leaving the EU are too focused on the goal? Have they got too close to the trees to be able to see the wood? Something similar appeared to happen in 1996, when climbers on Everest, it has been suggested, were so intent on reaching the summit they ignored safety considerations. Eight people died on Everest over three days.
Leaving the EU is, one hopes, unlikely to lead to any deaths, although doom-mongers are predicting the UK economy will be badly affected, and there will be shortages of food and medicines because of long queues at ports. The alternative, it seems, is to allow free movement of goods and people into and out of the UK, keep the association with security and research bodies open, and allow qualifications to be recognised. Of course, there are potential benefits to leaving the EU. Control of immigration into the UK. No need to follow EU laws, although manufacturers will still need to comply with EU standards if they wish to sell their products to the remaining members of the EU.
This is a poorly researched, badly written article. It’s based on heresy; or do I mean hearsay? Add to that the boredom from listening to endless apparently baseless speculation on news programmes, and the wall-to-wall coverage of MPs behaving like school children. It’s almost enough to make one want to emigrate…