Read on Twitter
Okay a long thread on my thoughts on Brexit.
First thing to disabuse is this notion that our membership of the EU was “not an issue five years’ ago.” I imagine for those happy with our membership it wouldn’t be an issue. The status quo was their preference. 1/n
First thing to disabuse is this notion that our membership of the EU was “not an issue five years’ ago.” I imagine for those happy with our membership it wouldn’t be an issue. The status quo was their preference. 1/n
But for many people the 2016 referendum was a long time coming. We joined what was then the EEC, essentially a trading bloc. Yes, “ever closer union” was on the tin, but it was not unreasonable to suppose that governments would not implement significant political and... 2/n
... constitutional change without seeking some form of mandate from the demos. Major denied us a referendum on Maastricht (probably because he would not win), the EU constitution was killed off by others, and Brown reneged on his commitment to have a referendum on Lisbon. 3/n
The pressure to have a referendum had been growing for years. Cameron knew this, which is why he fought GE2015 on a promise to renegotiate our settlement with the EU and put it to the people. He won that election and had a clear mandate to hold the referendum. 4/n
Parliament agreed. The Act enabling the referendum was supported by MPs from all parties except the SNP. Cameron negotiated his deal with the EU and the question was agreed.
Now, I know some people would argue that any referendum that could result in such significant... 5/n
Now, I know some people would argue that any referendum that could result in such significant... 5/n
... constitutional change should require some sort of supermajority. I’m not unsympathetic with that view, but the reality is:
- Parliament chose not to; and
- politically it would have been very difficult.
If some sort of supermajority had been required then Leavers... 6/n
- Parliament chose not to; and
- politically it would have been very difficult.
If some sort of supermajority had been required then Leavers... 6/n
... would have argued, with some good reason, that the dice had been loaded in a campaign that was already biased towards Remain.
In addition, the politics in a situation where leave won the vote but not the supermajority it needed would have been horrendous. 7/n
In addition, the politics in a situation where leave won the vote but not the supermajority it needed would have been horrendous. 7/n
So instead it was to be a simple majority, but in an advisory referendum (more on that later). The die was cast.
The vote was held.
Now the reality is, most people assumed Remain would win. It might be close, but that was the plan.
Remain would win; Cameron... 8/n
The vote was held.
Now the reality is, most people assumed Remain would win. It might be close, but that was the plan.
Remain would win; Cameron... 8/n
... would have been vindicated. Farage would have been neutered for, well, probably long enough for him to sink into obscurity - any time he made an appearance and bleated about the EU, the Remainers’ response would be, “We had a referendum. You lost. Get over it.” 9/n
Johnson would have course framed himself as the man of the people in readiness for the leadership contest when Cameron stood down and may well by now be PM, preparing for the next General Election in May 2020.
But we didn’t read the script, did we? 10/n
But we didn’t read the script, did we? 10/n
The “wrong” side won the referendum. It hadn’t gone to plan.
Almost immediately the hard core Remainers, the privileged that had never been told “no”, set about to thwart Brexit.
How dare the great unwashed not stick to the plan!
First order of the day... 11/n
Almost immediately the hard core Remainers, the privileged that had never been told “no”, set about to thwart Brexit.
How dare the great unwashed not stick to the plan!
First order of the day... 11/n
... delegitimise the referendum result.
“It was only advisory”.
True. Legally Parliament had merely asked the public what it should do, with no legally binding guarantees that it would implement the outcome. Politically, however, it’s a different story. 12/n
“It was only advisory”.
True. Legally Parliament had merely asked the public what it should do, with no legally binding guarantees that it would implement the outcome. Politically, however, it’s a different story. 12/n
Most importantly, the government had told us, in writing, that it was our decision and it would implement the result. It was not a legally binding promise, but it was a politically binding one. To not do so, would undermine our diminishing faith in politics and democracy. 13/n
Put it this way, if Remain had won with 52% of the vote, but the government ignored it and sought to leave the EU anyway, there would be justified uproar.
Then there’s all this nonsense about trying to co-opt non voters and those ineligible to vote into the Remain camp... 14/n
Then there’s all this nonsense about trying to co-opt non voters and those ineligible to vote into the Remain camp... 14/n
Essentially a duplicitous attempt to justify ignoring the result.
Then we had the attempts to delegitimise leave voters.
“They’re uneducated... they’re old”
I don’t think anybody denies that leave voters tended to be older and less well educated than Remainers. 15/n
Then we had the attempts to delegitimise leave voters.
“They’re uneducated... they’re old”
I don’t think anybody denies that leave voters tended to be older and less well educated than Remainers. 15/n
Those facts are not unconnected. People from older generations didn’t have the opportunities for further education available for younger people now. So yes, if Leavers tended to be older, they are less like to be as well educated. So what?
What is the point? It escapes me. 16/n
What is the point? It escapes me. 16/n
Then we had the call for a “People’s Vote”. I’ll come back to that later, but if we’re to have another vote, who the hell was voting in the 2016 referendum if it wasn’t the people?
Of course, we’ve had all the legal shenanigans. Gina Miller assured us her legal action... 17/n
Of course, we’ve had all the legal shenanigans. Gina Miller assured us her legal action... 17/n
... was not to prevent Brexit, but to ensure the proper process was followed. That excuse gets a bit wearing for the subsequent actions. But thanks to Miller, Parliament did vote by a huge majority to authorise notification under Article 50. Parliament did that knowing... 18/n
... the outcome could be a no deal Brexit. Parliament also voted to withdraw from the EU on exit day (originally set for 29 March 2019) again knowing this could result in a no deal Brexit. These facts are important. When Remainers argue that there’s no Parliamentary... 19/n
... majority for a no deal Brexit they conveniently forget that is the only thing Parliament has actually voted for and put into law. Voted and enacted by MPs the vast majority of whom were elected in GE2017 on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit.
So here we are. 20/n
So here we are. 20/n
We have a Remain Parliament that seems to be doing everything it can to prevent Brexit. It may dress it up as preventing no deal Brexit, but the reality is they could have voted for May’s deal (as wretched as it was) but didn’t. Remainers kept delaying in the hope... 21/n
... that at some point they’d be able to force another referendum, a general election or even a revocation of the Article 50 notification. And while the government was run by Remainers, they knew they could keep holding out.
Now the Leavers are in charge, time’s almost up. 22/n
Now the Leavers are in charge, time’s almost up. 22/n
So what’s next? Who knows... but it’s going to be fun.
Oh, while I remember, the disingenuous of many arguing for a second referendum is shocking.
It’s always “Remain must be an option and No Deal must be excluded”... in other words an attempt to fix the outcome. 23/n
Oh, while I remember, the disingenuous of many arguing for a second referendum is shocking.
It’s always “Remain must be an option and No Deal must be excluded”... in other words an attempt to fix the outcome. 23/n
Remainers know that May’s deal (or any variant of it) would not appeal to a number of Leavers. Deny them the option of no deal you effectively disenfranchise them. I would argue that if it has to be a binary choice it should be between leave with the deal or... 24/n
... leave with no deal, as we already decided to leave in 2016. But if there’s to be a confirmatory vote with remain as an option, it should include No Deal.
Anyway, these are my thoughts, as garbled as they might be... 25/25
Anyway, these are my thoughts, as garbled as they might be... 25/25
