Days before the referendum Farage indicated that if the result was 48/52 for remain, he would challenge for another referendum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-referendum_uk_576e6585e4b08d2c56393f12
Well the result went the other way, but the people have spoken, few think we should simply ask the question again.
On the day of the result, leaders of Leave were questioning two major promises made during the campaign - £350 million a week for the NHS and whether immigration from Europe would change in any way if the UK left.
We have become used to politicians "lying" in general elections. Regardless of the fact trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible is not always directly "lying", general elections ask more complex questions, with candidates from up to a dozen parties putting their personalities as well as policies to the electorate in each of 660 constituencies, national parties promising slightly different things.
It seems to me that clear promises made by Leave or Remain - on the basis of which voters made their choice - should be held to, and serious questions asked if they prove to be bald lies.
The decision was clear, but not so clear as the Scottish "No" vote in 2014. If just over 600,000 voters had gone the other way, 2%, the decision would be a nullity.
Further, it has been widely claimed by voters that many voted Leave as a protest, assuming it would make no difference to the result. They may well be more careful the next time they vote.
There was a large majority for Remain amongst younger people, hopeful for a future as citizens of an open Europe. They were out-voted by an older contingent. To be brutally honest, the future does not belong to the people who won it for Leave, many of them will not be around to see the consequences. There were many others who can safely be assumed to be in favour of an open, shared European identity, which the future also belongs to, but were under the age of 18 on June 23rd 2016. They have no say at all.
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/746196149816569857/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The referendum was non-binding, but there might well be civil unrest if Parliament simply chose to ignore it. However the country is starkly divided, probably 50/50 if you count the voters who voted Leave but "Did not mean it"...
There may be another way to settle this. I believe the government, or a new government after a general election, should establish the terms to leave based on the promises of the Leave campaign. Then at the conclusion of that process, produce a plain English summary of the result. The question should then be put to the people of the UK - or the remainder UK if Scotland and Northern Ireland have already left the UK by that time - under the terms of the deal on offer, do you agree the UK should proceed to leave the European Union under the terms proposed?
If there is then a substantial majority in favour, we can be sure it is the will of the people, at least those able to vote at the time, and we will all have to go our separate ways. Scotland will seek to remain in the EU, border posts may be needed on the A1 and A74 (M), and our European friends will no longer be so friendly.
The big question mark over this scheme would be, would the EU countries allow us the time, or insist we get things sorted as quickly as possible to let them get on with building a united Europe?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-referendum_uk_576e6585e4b08d2c56393f12
Well the result went the other way, but the people have spoken, few think we should simply ask the question again.
On the day of the result, leaders of Leave were questioning two major promises made during the campaign - £350 million a week for the NHS and whether immigration from Europe would change in any way if the UK left.
We have become used to politicians "lying" in general elections. Regardless of the fact trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible is not always directly "lying", general elections ask more complex questions, with candidates from up to a dozen parties putting their personalities as well as policies to the electorate in each of 660 constituencies, national parties promising slightly different things.
It seems to me that clear promises made by Leave or Remain - on the basis of which voters made their choice - should be held to, and serious questions asked if they prove to be bald lies.
The decision was clear, but not so clear as the Scottish "No" vote in 2014. If just over 600,000 voters had gone the other way, 2%, the decision would be a nullity.
Further, it has been widely claimed by voters that many voted Leave as a protest, assuming it would make no difference to the result. They may well be more careful the next time they vote.
There was a large majority for Remain amongst younger people, hopeful for a future as citizens of an open Europe. They were out-voted by an older contingent. To be brutally honest, the future does not belong to the people who won it for Leave, many of them will not be around to see the consequences. There were many others who can safely be assumed to be in favour of an open, shared European identity, which the future also belongs to, but were under the age of 18 on June 23rd 2016. They have no say at all.
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/746196149816569857/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The referendum was non-binding, but there might well be civil unrest if Parliament simply chose to ignore it. However the country is starkly divided, probably 50/50 if you count the voters who voted Leave but "Did not mean it"...
There may be another way to settle this. I believe the government, or a new government after a general election, should establish the terms to leave based on the promises of the Leave campaign. Then at the conclusion of that process, produce a plain English summary of the result. The question should then be put to the people of the UK - or the remainder UK if Scotland and Northern Ireland have already left the UK by that time - under the terms of the deal on offer, do you agree the UK should proceed to leave the European Union under the terms proposed?
If there is then a substantial majority in favour, we can be sure it is the will of the people, at least those able to vote at the time, and we will all have to go our separate ways. Scotland will seek to remain in the EU, border posts may be needed on the A1 and A74 (M), and our European friends will no longer be so friendly.
The big question mark over this scheme would be, would the EU countries allow us the time, or insist we get things sorted as quickly as possible to let them get on with building a united Europe?
Comments