For zealous Brexiteers, Victoria stil sits on the throne, India has not gained indpendence; neither has Canada or Australia or South Africa or Rhodesia or Malaysia. The Black & Tans are about to reconquer Ireland, and the Scots will close their Parliament. For Brexiteers, the sun has not yet set on the British Empire.
Brexiteers stubbornly pretend that they want to leave Europe to get back their sovreignty. "We want out country back," they say (or rather scream).
Where have we heard that before, I wonder.
And yet now that Teresa May is running scared, she's stopped talking about and and the tyranny of Brussels bureaucrats. Now, she talks only about immigration. "This will end the free movement of people," she thunders.
And where have we heard that before, I wonder.
Brexiteers believe Britain belngs to them, the white Christian people who founded it. Nobody else belongs, and should get out. White Immigrants are a blight, and dark immigrants are a plague.
And where have we heard that before, I wonder.
3
The British should threaten to vote with their feet. If those who want to remain in the EU try to leave - the brain drain would be excessive.
1
Do conservatives who oppose the ‘backstop’ plan want a hard border in Ireland? I keep waiting for more details on their plan...
3
Well, the UK better hurry up because with Paris burning, Italy writing bad checks, and Merkel perusing retirement home brochures there may not be an EU left to re-join soon.
3
Second referendum, anyone?
6
Democracies get things wrong. What saves them is the possibility of redoing the wrong. Germany did not get to revote its giving of a plurality to Hitler. We did get to turn out Hoover and I think we will "rethink" Trump though he did not even get a plurality. Britain should be allowed to revisit Brexit. One vote should not seal its fate. It is not anti-democratic to revote. It's the essence of democracy.
4
@Joseph G. Anthony
I have a question. Who decides when a democracy gets it wrong? When is it ok to redo a vote and when is it not ok? If Leave had lost could we have requested a revote? I think you are imposing your notion of what is right and wrong on a democratic process.
2
@Pantagruel
I don't think the question would have been definitively settled if the vote to stay had been as close. Because a stay vote would not have brought on a "leave" vote has, it might have taken considerably longer. And a close vote in the other direction might have prompted reforms. Of course I am advocating my own ideas of democracy: that's again what democracy is all about. Again, one answer, one time, is not Moses' carving into stone.
2
The legal opinion means there is time to redo Brexit, preferably with a Remain that can be agreed upon in a vote. There was deliberate deception in the way the original Brexit was considered.
3
Brexit was a mistake. Cancel it and move on. Simple.
3
Voting for Brexit and then spending years arguing about how is akin to deciding to marry, scheduling the venue, initiating a wedding registry and only then searching for an ideal mate.
4
Brexit was always a terrible idea for Britain, playing on resentments and faux economic forecasts and largely fueled by blatant demagoguery by self-promoters like Farage and Boris Johnson.
Brexit was turned into a national referendum by Cameron as a cheap political stunt. And the stunt backfired big-time!
The ever power-seeking May was a default PM, a leading proponent of nasty "austerity" policies that inflicted real harm on the British people (the 99%) as Home Sec. and someone no track record to suggest she could provide god leadership on Brexit, or anything else.
For reasons of pure ego -- or some sort of self-delusion -- May has aggressively pushed this Brexit folly with a willfully blind eye to all the harm this will likely to to Britain and the economic and political advice of anyone with any knowledge or perspective.
This is the worst political crisis Britain has faced since WW2, as a BBC commentator put it, and it's totally self-inflicted!
May should be forced to resign in disgrace. She has done terrible harm.
I only wonder why Parliament didn't have a "no confidence" vote months ago and a call for new elections? Parliamentary govenment's strength is this provision, so a nation isn't stuck for 4 (5, or 6) long years with a clearly unfit leader. Why hsn't this been done? If that all due to Cameron's original "5 year" (no elections) deal when he formed his original coalition?
4
If the United Kingdom does indeed leave the EU, everyone will look back ten years from now and say that it was a terrible mistake. Even if the UK doesn't leave the EU, the disruption, confusion, and debate has occupied much of the time of the government and Parliament for a year or so.
The people in Britain who support Brexit, so-called populists in America, and the nationalist in other countries are basically opposed to change -- dealing with different people, different races, different people, etc. They would like to stop time or better go back a golden age in the past.
But the world is changing because of economics and technological change. Communications, transportation, and shipping are cheaper and easier than ever; robots, computers, artificial intelligence, are changing all areas of work including manufacturing. Down through history nobody has been able to stop economic change. They won't be able to stop it now. The future belongs to those who prepare for it.
2
@Aubrey You write: "The people in Britain who support Brexit...are basically opposed to change"
The problem with this statement is that it can be rephrased so: "The people in Britain who opposed to Brexit...are basically opposed to change"
3
@Aubrey
There won't be an EU in ten years.
3
Having Putin responsible for the destruction of the United States of America and the United States of Europe EU, all because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics fell apart, is too horrible to contemplate.Maipulation has always been his way, and it seems to be working around the world.
4
Question. What does this mean?
"If the advocate general’s opinion is confirmed by the full European court, Britain will have until March 29 to rethink its departure and remain a member of the European Union on the current terms, which include several concessions."
What are "current terms"? I would have thought that was the status quo as of the pre-Brexit vote. Yet "concessions" would seem to seem to refer to some post-vote concessions, none of which seem to have received formal approval.
A clarification would help me!
2
The UK’s existing membership terms include a number of concessions on the part of the EU, including monetary rebates, no requirement to join the schengen area and no requirement to adopt the euro.
Brexiteers’ boasts that the UK could have its cake and it by leaving are all the more laughable given the bespoke arrangement the UK already enjoys.
3
Brexit was about sovereignty and identity not economics. A majority of those who voted in the referendum did not wish to be governed by unelected European bureaucrats who churn out an endless stream of rules. No doubt the cost of Brexit will be high regardless of the final form of it takes but it is what the people wanted.
To say that there should be second referendum is childish: why not a third or a fourth or even one every year. To say that not everyone who could vote in the first referendum didn't is also childish: why didn't they vote and why should we penalize those who did?
To frustrate the result of the first referendum will unleash forces in the UK and Europe the likes of which the world has not seen although we might be getting a sneak preview with the "Yellow Jacket" protests in France. Frustrating Brexit will also establish once for all that the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic and would go to any lengths (e.g. using the Irish issue) to block national democracy.
7
@Pantagruel
What makes the EU undemocratic if an internal British decision doesn't go your way? It seems you are the one that's being childish here.
6
I find it hypocritical of you to say that the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic and then cite the Irish "issue" as blocking "national democracy". It is the democratic will of all of the people on the island of Ireland (Northern Ireland and the Republic), the majority of whom desire to remain in the EU, that has been ignored and disregarded throughout.
15
@Andreas
Honestly i have no idea what you mean. But here is what I originally meant:
1. The EU used the Northern Island problem to force a backstop on the UK. This made the Brexit deal unattractive to the British public and might end up preventing Brexit. This was manipulative to say the least but was definitely designed to frustrate the outcome of a democratic referendum in which 72% of the British electorate voted.
2. When the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, the EU made them redo it in 2009 and got the desired result. Similarly for Treaty of Nice.
3. In Denmark the Maastrict Treaty was also accepted after a redo.
4. Italian politics are a mess because many governments were unelected but EU approved.
4
The obvious is at last becoming obvious: Britain needs to remain a member of the EU.
8
@James Murphy, I cannot agree with that assessment. Could UK have had survived it if it had not marched down the EU path? While I'm not a fan of Thatcher, her subsequent anti-EU stance (even after she left office) was indeed prescient. If there is ever a redux, if you could indeed Think Big, imagine a time when Thatcher can re-do HER decision to allow UK to integrate closer with EU, rather than standing apart. I do not doubt that UK would still be standing on her feet, rather than wobbling along like Greece.
1
Somebody is going to have to tell me, and I don't understand, why the British people, Parliament, has to honor a silly little plebiscite that was tampered with by the Russians to guide the future of the country.
I don't understand why you let Russians into your country the first place. And I don't understand why we let Russians into our country to break law and set up a Russian mafia as if they were back in Moscow.
7
This is an English problem. The Scots voted strongly to remain. The Northern Irish voted to remain. I'm not too sure about the Welsh. The English were sold a bill of goods and never thought to examine the price. The political instability will make many around the world wonder whether the UK is worthy of investing in. I wish Ms. May well in her retirement and whoever becomes her successor I wish that person much luck in dealing with the immense problems that will result.
8
@Stephen Kurtz
The Welsh voted to Leave (52.5%) but that's not the point. Rather you should consider that Wales and England together constitute almost 90% of the UK's population.
At the parliamentary constituency level (national voting districts) 63% voted to leave.
So the problem is that there is no way to repackage the first referendum data to support Remain without leaving out someone who voted to Leave.
3
Resist and be squashed by thousands of little lemming feet or join and be squashed by a great fall.
1
Perhaps it is time for the leaders of Britain to admit that they made a mistake to ever begin this disastrous journey. Those who instigated this exit ran for the exits as soon as the vote tally was announced. And since then, the world has been treated to intra-party squabbles, resignations, inter-party squabbles and quarrels between British leaders and EU leaders.
I think everyone would be thrilled to see a leader emerge and say "Let's let bygones be bygones and all just try to get along." This has just become a never-ending argument that, frankly, everyone is tired of. A few months from now, everyone will be wondering "what was that all about?"
10
@Tom Q you hit it right on the nose. The anti-EU rhetoric thrown about before the Brexit vote was full of misinformation, anti-immigrant lies, and false promises of the process to follow. How about hitting a reset button and negotiating with the EU on any changes sought by the public? The EU is not perfect and should be subject to periodic changes. The Brexiters utilized discontent with the EU to advance their own agenda, which is a dead end.
Perhaps, US voters will undo our own mistake in November 2020!
8
I have said this since the referendum. "Brexit cannot happen." The Common Market, as it was once called, is the linchpin of British prosperity -- such as it is. The Continent will not let the Brits leave the Union and still remain fully in it's successor. Continental Europe is being the grownup here. The deal they offered was terrible -- deliberately so.
It is like a dad. "Ok, Sally, you can leave home to live with that biker. But we are taking your car, your credit cards, your health insurance, and will no longer cover your phone bills. You are free. Don't forget to call... Oh, wait. No phone. So write us. Okay?"
May's deal will tank by design. And one way or another Parliament will authorize another referendum. This first one was fishy anyway. What with all the hacking and outright lies. The only beneficiaries of Brexit will be Russia and China. Ain't a gonna happen. Trust me.
10
@BDWoolman: "It is like a dad. "Ok, Sally, you can leave home to live with that biker..."
I think you have nailed the reason why a majority of Brits so desperately wish to get out of the EU. No sovereign nation with a shred of dignity would like to be answerable to a 'dad' especially when the 'dad' started a couple of World Wars and also birthed the ideologies that eventually led to Communism and the Cold War.
3
@Pantagruel
it's not a majority. Again you throw completely false arguments around.
1
@Andreas
The claim of a majority is not an argument but a fact.
72% of the UK electorate voted in the Brexit referendum and 51.9% per cent voted to Leave. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
Compared to that 49% of the electorate voted in the recently concluded Midterm elections in the US.
If you aggregate the Brexit vote in different ways: 63% of national electoral constituencies and 9 out of 12 regions of the UK voted to Leave.
At the end of the day over 1 million more voters voted to Leave than to Remain.
How is that not a majority?
Unlike the facts above here is an claim: Your ability to cavalierly dismiss the genuine majority of the Leave side, convinces me that you would have refused a second referendum to Leave if Remain had got their numbers in the first referendum.
3
The problem with the Brexit issue from the very start was the extremely poor quality of the debate about the merits of Britain withdrawing from the EU. It was superficial and generally unhelpful to an understanding of the implications for either remaining or leaving. The debate was a crass, political exercise with peoples' mind being manipulated by cynical politicians within the UK and troublemakers from outside the UK - we know who they are, particularly from the US and Russia. All of this is now coming home to haunt the implementation process. Can any one really say they have a clear, detailed understanding of the terms of the proposed deal and its implications for the future of the British economy? I'd be surprised, and with this uncertainty the proposed deal could well collapse, which "faute de mieux" may be the best outcome of all.
9
Mrs. May does not inspire, has never inspired, nor will she do so in the future. She epitomizes the very worst of a righteous white middle class who knows what is best for everyone else and brooks no opposition. Her actions reveal a narcissistic hubris that expresses itself as an obdurate determination to "do what is right for the British People;" meaning carrying out the result of a bogus referendum that called for our exit from the European Union. As a one-time Home Secretary under the dismal premiership of David Cameron, Mrs. May must know full well what is within and what is outside lawful action and thus know that the propaganda and financing of the "Leave" movement was based on lies and a most dubious provenance. Yet despite this, despite trickery and deceit, she insists that the referendum was fair and the result proper, and that it is the "Wish of the People." Far from it: the "People" have since the referendum experienced two years of utter stupidity and deceit from her and her ministers. The British are unfortunately known abroad as a nation of hypocrites. One can only hope that the next 5 days proves the opposite: that our parliamentary representatives show spirit and conviction; that they dowhat is right and honest by throwing the wretched Mrs. May out on her ear; and that they recognize that the European Union is a precious bulwark against nativism and intolerance. We need the EU as much as it needs us.
9
As an American watching from afar, the only question I have is this:
Why is this woman still Prime Minister and why are the Tories in power?
Jeremy Corbyn & Labour deserves a shot.
2
@David Gregory
Because democracies have rules and Theresa may hasn't yet lost a vote of no confidence.
When she eventually does lose such a vote or decides to resign, don't be surprised if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't deliver much. He has not presented a meaningful alternative to the government plan although being vocal in his criticism of Theresa May. Corbyn is a typical left wing armchair critic: big on words, missing in action.
2
@Pantagruel Neither have those conservatives presented a meaningful plan who are trying to oust Theresa May. I remember President Obama: he promised a radical change, and nothing changed radically and nothing much changed, although I do believe that he would have had a better chance if the recession had not come along. Moral of the story: when the money isn't there, change cannot be effected in a democratic way.
Brexit is a confusing issue with far reaching consequences, not only for the U.K., but for the future of the EU. The problem can be summed in one word: "sovereignty", which boils down to who makes the rules under which member countries must operate.
Many EU members, not just Britain, have been chafing under the weight of edicts coming from the EU's central governance. A shared commitment to accept the flood of Middle Eastern, North African and sub saharan African refugees has exacerbated the issue of self determination for the UK. Added to that, a plethora of regulations imposed by the centralized EU governing bodies has left the Brits feeling as if they have surrendered decision making powers to bureaucracies who don't represent or fully understand their interests.
The EU is confronting the same stresses with which we in America have struggled in the push-pull of "States Rights" versus centralized federal government. People resist governance when they feel it goes against their customs and beliefs, or ignores their needs. Seen in this light, Brexit may only be the beginning of the end of the EU as it exists today, unless they can address the thorny issue of sovereignty for member countries, great and small, rich and poor, authoritarian and democratic.
6
The tipping point for the yes on Brexit vote was seeing on the news, everyday, pictures of hordes of refugees from Afghanistan and the US destabilized Middle East, particularly Syria, flood unto Europe.
The Syrian refugees spiked by a couple million in 2012, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to allow a UN brokered peace treaty to proceed because it did not demand Assad's exit.
Many Brits had had enough of the EU open borders policy that enabled Eastern Europeans to flood their country and take their jobs for lower wages.
The wealth/income inequality in the UK is huge, as it is in the US and France.
A great source of facts on inequality in the world and by country: https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p99p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO/last/eu/k...
Brexit could well win in a second vote.
The US has Trump, France has the "yellow vests" rioting, and the UK has Brexit.
Many people have been left behind by elite's globalism.
They are justifiably angry and they will be heard.
On a second vote,Brexit could win again.
3
@Lucy Cooke Do you think that big business would pay higher wages to English/French/American workers if Eastern European/North African/Mexican workers were not available? Remember the working conditions of the native workers in the cotton mills of Manchester, and you have a good picture of what would happen when capitalism is left unchecked.
1
Not enough has been mentioned in the press about the involvement of Putin in the referendum. The largest contributor to the leave campaign was Arron Banks. His business partner and Leave spokesman was Andy Wigmore. The Guradian reports that Banks met with the Russian Ambassador many times before and after the referendum and flew to Moscow several times before and during the referendum campaign, where according to the Guardian he was offered lucrative gold mine contracts. On top of this we know that Facebook was invaded by an armada of false and misleading advertisements choreographed by third parties which are currently under study by a UK commission. Putin’s trolls and “bought and paid for” politicians have interfered in elections across Europe in order to break up the EU as a strategy to undermine and dissemble NATO and of course it’s also alleged his buddy Trump, who he allegedly helped to get elected, has attacked NATO and talked about cutting US support and involvement, so that public opinion won’t complain when the US doesn’t send military support when Putin invades a Baltic state or Poland, his two most likely targets. The point is this: if the leave campaign had not engaged in illegal tactics supported by Russia, the result would have been entirely different, with a majority voting to stay in the EU. The referendum was ilegally skewed and should be repeated.
13
I visited London last May during the elections when the UKIP (pro-Brexit party that Farage left yesterday) all but disappeared. I also visited Belfast where boarder concerns were causing a panic I hadn’t heard reported yet. I asked friends and family honestly if they thought Brexit would happen, and they all seriously believed it would, despite the obvious fissures that have only grown exponentially in the last 7 months.
I have never believed in Brexit. Too complicated and financially catastrophic for everyone except foreign oligarchs. Isn’t the point to get rid of foreign people?
There will be no Brexit.
10
@Moved To Comment
"Isn’t the point to get rid of foreign people?"
My sense is that 'the point' for some MIGHT be that. The point that is driving 'Brexiteering' is avoidance of the EU’s ability to rein in the power of certain oligarchic financial wizards. Their target is the EU's ability to sign up to climate agreements, its interest in considering a financial transaction tax, and its zeal in chasing down corporate tax dodgers, challenging monopoly control, and challenging social exploitation by tech giants, hedge funds, wealth managers and fossil fuel barons. In the UK, people have been so worried about Russian interference in our elections that they are in danger of missing the source of Brexiteering connected to the City district of London.
What matters now is a steady, non-hysterical movement of opinion by reasonable processes of accurate learning by UK voters.
4
Putin is getting exactly what he paid for in the UK and USA, disharmony and dissolution of western alliances that allows Russia greater influence on the world stage.
20
What a wast of tie, energy, and money to enter into a disaster and division when unity is required. djm
7
Ah, Parliament asserts its supremacy. None can bind its will, not even itself, and certainly not the prime minister, and especially perhaps this prime minister.
As awful as this whole debacle is for good government, I applaud those who oppose the deal for showing some backbone and standing by their beliefs. If they are ready to fall on their swords, I see no reason to stop them.
2
Actually two of these defeats yesterday which were basically about the right of parliament to add amendments to approving the May deal legislation probably provide her with a possible route out of the impasse. The EU are certainly not going to remove the backstop and the vast majority of MP's are not going to sign off on a crash out no deal. This is all going to nudge Britain back into an even closer relationship with the EU.
10
In 1930, Ortega y Gasset published his visionary book, "The Revolt of the Masses," in which he wrote the following, which I think applies accurately to the BREXIT vote: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will." The commonplace mind did not, and probably still does not, understand how the EU works, but it affirmed its misunderstanding of things in the BREXIT vote, and it imposed it on all. The best solution is to have the courage to repudiate the misunderstanding and go back to the way things were before the BREXIT vote. Prudence suggests this, and prudence is a virtue.
24
Brexit n'aura pas lieu. Brexit won't take place. I've said that a lot. Here's why.
Federalism is impossible in a state in which one entity is 85% of the population. As such, DEVOLUTION is a fine solution. It is explicitly acknowledges the four nations that make up the UK. Remain won in N. Ireland and Scotland. There never was a UK wide consensus.
The leave side cheated by over spending, by making preposterous claims such as massive windfalls for the NHS, and by doing nothing about Russian meddling (if not actually encouraging it).
A referendum with a binary question is an impossible vehicle for a very very very complex decision. The referendum really answered no questions (the usual problem with referenda and why referenda are actually undemocratic).
The implications of Brexit were never really made clear. It was made to sound as if it were a matter of quitting one club and joining (or creating) a new one.
No one ever pointed out beforehand that any relationship with the EU post Brexit would mean that the UK would have to adhere to some of the EU's rules no longer being in the room where rule making happens.
Basically a hard Brexit means penury and a May agreement means impotence.
15
When people fail to vote, the result is no longer an expression of the will of the people.
The UK should have a second vote on Brexit, up or down, and let the now fully informed and engaged public actually have their say.
The UK's loud mouth ignoramuses have no more right to control the UK's future, then the Trumpists do in the USA.
34
@Oh
A 'People's Consultation of a sort does seem to be occurring, Oh, and my hope would be that whatever plebiscite (referendum, vote in parliament, general election or accommodation among the leaders of Wales, England, Scotland and the Irelands) eventuates will postpone any attempted finality by "ignoramuses" or "insensitives" until much better communication skills are recognized as essential to all concerned on both sides (and ends) of 'The Channel'.
Certainly, by all means double down on the ludicrous, ill-conceived referendum to exit the EU.
6
Chaos and hardship for the masses may be precisely what the Brexiteers desire. It will then be easier to loot the coffers of the Treasury by dismantling the social safety nets. As to the Irish border, the obvious, but always rejected solution is for England to end the occupation of Ireland.
17
Gee, listening to Kremlin-linked provocateurs like Nigel Farage wasn't actually good for Great Britain. Vladimir Putin didn't actually have the English people's best interests at heart.
Who knew?
21
@MisterE I seriously doubt that Nigel Farage is "Kremlin-linked." You are looking at two opposing sides of the political spectrum. Try again.
2
@marielaveau 'Opposite sides of the political spectrum' - really? Russia has not been a Communist state since the 1990s, and Putin is as conservative as they come. I'd say Farage and Putin are pretty well aligned.
6
@William Helminger Nominally, Russia is not communist anymore, and neither is China. But nominally means nothing where these two are concerned. China's capitalism is a thin veneer, and Russia's oligarchy masquerade. Only Trump is honestly what he is.
I pray for a new referendum, which the eastern half of Ango-America could use to rejoin the rest of humanity. The western half might then hope to do the same in 2020 -- or, with a good bit of luck, even sooner.
7
Glowing events in history aren’t forged by politicians who are dogged, and the dogged pursuit of a ignominious end is still pitiful no matter how doggedly pursued.
4
Thanks to the European Union and the Common Market that preceded it, Europe has been without major wars for the first time in history. The European Union has brought extraordinary prosperity as well. Those who favoured Brexit are simply British nationalists who like to think that the British are somehow superior to other Europeans. Perfidious Albion is making trouble once again. I hope that parliament will allow a second referendum.
62
@Robert Dole
Have to have a military to fight a war and few if any of the European countries you refer to have any usable military to speak of. Germany has a few hundred tanks that work despite the fact they make one of the best tanks in the world. I would attribute the lack of conflict to the US and NATO keeping the Soviet Union at bay before I credited the EU. Take away US military forces on the continent and keep that union and it is a different continent today.
@Robert Dole There will not be a 2nd referendum. It would have to be ratified by parliament which, given the number of opponents in TM's own party plus JC's flirtation with EU-opposed state ownership of British institutions such as Royal Mail and the railway, is not likely. And then it would take some time to make it actually happen anyways, but the clock keeps ticking.
2
@Robert Dole What an ill informed comment. You dare say 'Perfidious Albion' when in fact Europe gave the world the gifts of Napoleon, Hitler, and Karl Marx, the ideologue behind the scourge of communism. The reason Europe has had no major wars since WWII is because the British and the Americans rid Europe of fascism, built it back up from scratch, and kept it safe from the USSR and its allies using NATO. Please take the trouble to educate yourself on European history before posting.
3
The UK government needs to withdraw from withdrawal and go back to the EU. I simply do not understand why Theresa May is being so intractable. Brexit is a disaster. It is starting to sound as though her government is continuing on this path to stupidity in order to teach the British who voted Leave a lesson. It's a pretty expensive, patronizing, and self-destructive lesson. She will almost certainly lose her job as Prime Minister if Brexit continues. But if she allows Brexit to continue she will lose it anyway as the UK plunges into economic disaster.
Given that so many who voted Leave did so based on a farrago of lies, how about giving the population a chance to show that they have accumulated some wisdom by changing their collective minds? What would be so terrible about that? Why is May being so obdurate? She has a chance to make a real and positive mark on history by allowing a new referendum. She should take the better path, face her own political demise (which is inevitable anyway), and just do it.
40
I did not vote in the referendum for three reasons. Firstly both sides in the campaign were telling lies. Secondly the choice I saw as being between Europe with Poland, Hungary and Italy going towards dictatorships and a mess of negotiations because Britain wanted all the benefits of European Union without the costs. Thirdly I am very old and did not want to impose on future generations.
The current state of affairs was to be expected. We have the choice of bad, horrible or disaster and I cannot say which outcome is in which category.
24
@irdac
"We have the choice of bad, horrible or disaster and I cannot say which outcome is in which category."
I appreciate your humility, irdoc. At the same time I do not feel quite so pessimistic. Guessing that Europeans will allow the UK Government to withdraw its ill-considered notice of intent to leave the EU (perhaps demanding some compensation, like British troops deployed nearer key borders with Russia), I sense that what is happening now is tantamount to consultations as to the wording of some form of plebiscite, during which period Briton leaving the EU is (indefinitely?) postponed, Eurocrats come down a little off the high of their being awarded a Nobel Peace prize, and the British financial establishment learns to listen to those left struggling by that establishment's success overseas.
2
@Angus Cunningham
Unfortunately we have politicians making the decisions. Currently very few seem to think logically. The majority do not like the proposals they are debating at the moment. The Conservatives are split between not finding the Brexit proposals acceptable, not prepared to give the populace a second vote and trying to avoid a general election. Labour oppose the government but could not on their own win an election. So I am afraid there are too many whose consideration is "What is best for me".
5
@irdac "Thirdly I am very old and did not want to impose on future generations."
But didn't the choice to join the EU place an imposition on future generations?
3
I've been following the debates in Parliament closely and my prediction is that the hard line Brexiteers will not vote for Mrs. May sensible plan, the government will collapse before the Brexit date at the end of March 2019, and that eventually there will be NO BREXIT at all. That is what the hard liners who have proposed not ONE PLAN which would allow for the UK to leave the EU AND maintain an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. History has shown one thing that all can agree on and that is that NO ONE wants to inflame tensions with regard to the "Irish Issue". It's a shame that the legally held vote of the British people will come to not being fulfilled because of the entrenched views of radicals on BOTH sides of the House of Commons.
2
@ManhattanWilliam 52% vs 48% - that is near enough 50/50 and a country that is divided like that can't prevail on any account. Nationalism may brush over the issues for a little while, but it is superficial and will not hold up for long as the British have grown up since the dusk of the Empire.
The Conservatives have completely collapsed. Brexit is totally in limbo. Its time for another election.
8
Hard BREXIT then! PM May didn't even support BREXIT before she got the gig. With Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage making a mess of the UK, who is going to clean up? Jeremy Corbyn? The guy is equally incompetent
4
@Bos Jeremy Corbyn would be a very competent prime minister, and that is why the elites and their media portray him with so much negativity.
Of course, Corbyn would protect the interests of the many not the few.
Bernie Sanders in the US, would also protect the interests of the many, not the few. And for that, he too, is loathed by the elite and its media. https://spectator.us/bernie-sanders-democratic-front-runner/
3
@Lucy Cooke
Bernie is too drunk with power like Jeremy. Both extremes are sensible. You don't want just a few, of course; however, mob rules has its problems.
There are good people in both the very rich and the common folks. Neither Bernie nor Jeremy could articulate that
The British Prime Minister reminds me of interim coaches. Both inherited programs after the previous leader made a mess of things, and both vowed to carry on but lacked vision, creativity, or actual leadership credibility. Theresa May is a bit different in that she tried to build that cred by holding a snap election only to watch the results backfire horribly. Brexit is now a zombie policy, most everyone wishing it would die (if for different reasons) but no one having the fortitude to cut off the head. I hope for the sake of the UK that wiser heads prevail and a second vote takes place before March 29, but if I had to put money on an outcome, I'd put all my chips on inertia dooming the UK economy for decades to come. Sad to watch but very much of a piece with the wider current of democratically elected leaders in western Europe and North America. Angel Merkel has many faults, but she seems to be the last leader standing with a brain linked to her spine.
23
That was the most entertainment day in Parliament for a long time. And significant. The Grieve Amendment puts Parliament, the legislature, in the driving seat if May’s reviled agreement gets defeated.
Finally, after two and a half years of cretinous populism from bloated, incompetent has-beens and government lies, Parliament wakes up and finds its courage.
18
I rarely hear the argument for holding a second referendum based on the fact that the Russian government had massively interfered with the Brexit referendum. This vote was severely contaminated by Mr. Putin and his cronies as was the U.S. Presidential vote. The British government should admit to this interference, inform the Russians of the consequences if they even suspect that the Russians are continuing to play their now familiar political games in their country ever again, and schedule a 'Mulligan' vote ASAP.
65
@ Bruce Stafford. I do so hope you are right in that last paragraph. And after all that I hope it will lead to a another vote on Brexit. I was encouraged to read that the EU is opening a window to unilaterally cancelling the withdrawal of Britain from the EU if they request before the time limit of March 29.
I think Britain needs the EU, the EU needs Britain, and the world needs the EU.
45
The Brit conservative agenda does not benefit the nation. it is plagued by quaint notions of nationhood that are as dated as the clueless Ms. May. Will she and her Trumpian friends survive the fray, with any luck the may not.
22
@Rodger Parsons
Mrs May, as she styles herself.
1
First of all, I have noted the use of the term "lawmakers" to describe U.K. M.P.s, (Members of Parliament). For example: "lawmakers on Tuesday voted to give Parliament more control of the exit process".
Many Americans would be confused by the term "M.P.'s" as to them it would mean Military Police, but it's actually an erroneous term when used to describe M.P.s in a Westminister System. The reason is that in that system, "lawmakers" also includes the Court system, as judges can make laws via precedents through Common Law judgements.
Now that's out of the way, it does seem that the previous U.K. P.M. David Cameron calld the referendum to quell division among the Conservatives about continued participation in the E.U. In other words, keep the Tories from fracturing.
And guess what, that is exactly what is happening now!
I think that the referendum should have required compulsory voting on the issue (as occurs in Australia).
I would say that we can look forward to Theresa May's Government failing another vote of no confidnce on the floor of Commons, and that the Queen could then ask Labour leader to head a new Government, or require an election be called. The Conservatives would lose it for sure.
27
My sense is that Cameron allowed the vote solely to placate the Tories. He didn’t think the vote would pass. Just like DJT didn’t think he was going to win and kept up his businesses and hired 4th and 5th tier cabinet members.
Both are right wing geniuses in terms of political strategy.
13