European Tourist Attractions - 30 June
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
A Second Referendum Anyone?
Nigel thinks it might be a good idea, to send off Tony Blair "to obscurity".
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I tend to agree, OG. A couple of definitions of “ideology” that I looked up:
“A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”
“The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual.”
I normally associate ideology with something like Fascism, Communism or even Conservatism (capital ‘C’). But I suppose looking at the definitions above, democracy could also be seen as an ideological concept (especially if you live somewhere like North Korea). However, the UK is, and has been for some time, a fundamentally democratic nation. To want to see the powers, that have been variously usurped by or transferred to a group of unelected foreign civil servants, returned to democratic control does not quite fit with my notion of an “ideology”. I cannot imagine a nation which embarks on such a quest to accused of seeking an "ideological" goal. (In fact I cannot see any sane country allowing their democratic powers to be lost in the first place, though that's another issue). But I’ll not argue.
“A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”
“The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual.”
I normally associate ideology with something like Fascism, Communism or even Conservatism (capital ‘C’). But I suppose looking at the definitions above, democracy could also be seen as an ideological concept (especially if you live somewhere like North Korea). However, the UK is, and has been for some time, a fundamentally democratic nation. To want to see the powers, that have been variously usurped by or transferred to a group of unelected foreign civil servants, returned to democratic control does not quite fit with my notion of an “ideology”. I cannot imagine a nation which embarks on such a quest to accused of seeking an "ideological" goal. (In fact I cannot see any sane country allowing their democratic powers to be lost in the first place, though that's another issue). But I’ll not argue.
But you see the opposite of it ... the European project ... as ideology. They are two sides of the same coin in my opinion.
As I said, I don't see having an ideology as a bad thing per se. But being committed to restoring the UK's "status as an independent sovereign nation, untrammelled by unelected civil servants", regardless of the impact that has on trade, is an ideology. The EU counter to that, being committed to preserving and strengthening the European project, is going to be their main priority now. If they can do so by giving the UK favourable trade terms, then maybe they will. Or maybe they'll be petty and spiteful enough to avoid that whatever it costs, since they are so unaccountable. I see Tusk, Juncker, Verhofstadt and Barnier as modern day versions of Dickens's Marquis Evrémonde...
Anyway, back to the OP - a second referendum. Whether we have one or not, now is not the time to moot it because to do so is likely to change the outcome of the discussions. I fear with what Blair and Farage have already said that the EU will be negotiating on the assumption that a second referendum is likely. This will change the deal they offer.
As I said, I don't see having an ideology as a bad thing per se. But being committed to restoring the UK's "status as an independent sovereign nation, untrammelled by unelected civil servants", regardless of the impact that has on trade, is an ideology. The EU counter to that, being committed to preserving and strengthening the European project, is going to be their main priority now. If they can do so by giving the UK favourable trade terms, then maybe they will. Or maybe they'll be petty and spiteful enough to avoid that whatever it costs, since they are so unaccountable. I see Tusk, Juncker, Verhofstadt and Barnier as modern day versions of Dickens's Marquis Evrémonde...
Anyway, back to the OP - a second referendum. Whether we have one or not, now is not the time to moot it because to do so is likely to change the outcome of the discussions. I fear with what Blair and Farage have already said that the EU will be negotiating on the assumption that a second referendum is likely. This will change the deal they offer.
The question is, at the 11th hour, maybe the 59th minute, before Brexit takes place ... will the electorate still want it?
The electorate will have changed since the first referendum. Some of the people who voted in the first referendum will have died by then. Some people who were under 18 will be old enough to vote. Some original voters may have switched sides, in either direction, and some original non-voters may (knowing now what they're voting for) will be ready to vote.
If it's possible to reverse the Brexit decision, and if there is an appetite for a second referendum, then why not have one? If the result is that the electorate democratically wants to Remain after all, or Leave on the terms on offer, then that's what we do. Democracy in action either way.
The electorate will have changed since the first referendum. Some of the people who voted in the first referendum will have died by then. Some people who were under 18 will be old enough to vote. Some original voters may have switched sides, in either direction, and some original non-voters may (knowing now what they're voting for) will be ready to vote.
If it's possible to reverse the Brexit decision, and if there is an appetite for a second referendum, then why not have one? If the result is that the electorate democratically wants to Remain after all, or Leave on the terms on offer, then that's what we do. Democracy in action either way.
The difference between In and Out was that there was no vote to go in. There was a vote to stay in a claimed common market after being forced in, but the vast majority had no idea it was more than that; that it was to become a single Union where the Union laws took precedence over our own. People had no idea what they were voting for, for years after the vote. With Out, people will know what they voted for immediately, they're extracting themselves from decades of being controlled by an outside unelected elite. It is merely the details of how it wll pans out that isn't known, and that's true for any future effects prediction of present decisions.
“The difference between In and Out was that with In, people knew what they were voting for before they voted for it.”
Absolute nonsense. As I have said before, the EU does not do the “status quo”. That is evident from the changes it has imposed on its members in the last forty years. Anybody who voted to remain thinking they “knew what they are voting for” would be in for a very great surprise. Since the referendum the EU has announced copious plans for its future structure which will provide changes every bit as profound as those in the past. As with anything in the future, neither to remain nor to leave has anything certain about it. The difference is that if the UK leaves the EU (properly) any changes will be under the control of our Parliament and not dictated by foreign civil servants.
Absolute nonsense. As I have said before, the EU does not do the “status quo”. That is evident from the changes it has imposed on its members in the last forty years. Anybody who voted to remain thinking they “knew what they are voting for” would be in for a very great surprise. Since the referendum the EU has announced copious plans for its future structure which will provide changes every bit as profound as those in the past. As with anything in the future, neither to remain nor to leave has anything certain about it. The difference is that if the UK leaves the EU (properly) any changes will be under the control of our Parliament and not dictated by foreign civil servants.
