A general election does not ask the country if it still wants Brexit. All these political parties are split on the question.
You need a referendum offering ranked choice voting on the only 3 options available: Remain, Negotiated Deal Brexit (the Johnson one), or Hard Brexit.
The problem with the first referendum is that it offered a false choice between: Remain, or Fantasy Brexit.
By the way, the fish analogy is pretty good, but it would be more accurate to say you ordered UNICORN. This is because FISH is something that a restaurant could conceivably deliver, while unicorn is an undeliverable fantasy just like the Brexit that was sold for the first referendum.
97
This is the best response - I thoroughly enjoyed this piece, but it's conclusion was just slightly mistargeted.
We've already had one general election since the initial referendum, and most people voted for the two biggest parties. Campaigners for Leave have since claimed this stands as a reaffirmed mandate, but it doesn't, and I suspect Labour party voters who support the Remain campaign will readily tell you that their vote does not equate to an acquiescence on their account.
The first referendum was won through three factors:
1) Promises that were backed out of on live TV within hours of the results
2) Proven campaign finance fraud
3) A repeated call of 'we don't know if it will be bad for the country, but probably not'
Thing is, we do know now. a second referendum, more heavily monitored and regulated, is the only response. Britain might benefit from another election, but for a clear view of what the British people want, a referendum must come first.
23
@Sam I Am you ordered unicorn, and the chefs are arguing whether to serve you rhino steak or narwhal kebabs, or whether to go out hunting again.....
3
There are two interesting amendments to the US that bear on the "Brexit or No Brexit" question. The 18th amendment established national prohibition in 1919. However, after rampant lawlessness and the rise of (still viable) organized crime, in 1933, the 21st amendment repealed national prohibition. However, in the interim, widespread violations and the rise of organized crime to supply alcohol became so entrenched they are still with us.
Brexit is a mistake. Rather than waiting until Great Britain is a shrunken husk of its current self -- having lost Scotland and Northern Ireland, and much of its trade with nearby countries, and London as a world financial hub--and then belatedly petitioning the EU for return on much worse terms--perhaps it would be wise to hold the "opps" re-vote prior to the 14 years it took the US to undo prohibition. Like maybe in the next month or two.
79
I find it amazing that there was a referendum on Brexit in the first place without details worked out in advance. They had no idea what they were voting on. It was based on pure emotion. If there was another referendum now with more information about what Brexit means and how it would affect the UK, would the outcome be the same?
73
@Larimer lady
"I find it amazing that there was a referendum on Brexit in the first place without details worked out in advance."
Quite. The most important thing that was missing from the vote in 2016 was a definition of "leave" - it was like going to a restaurant and just ordering "food". In truth, the vote was bungled because David Cameron did not think that he would lose. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that there is no majority, either in Parliament or the country for any of the various "flavors" that have been mooted - hard, soft, Norway, Canada, etc. In these circumstances, it's clear to anyone with an open mind that the fair thing to do is to have new vote on the actual deal on offer.
16
@Larimer lady This is why things of such importance and complexity - foreign policy, trade agreements - should not be voted on. The people of Great Britain were lied to with bumper sticker slogans that hid the reality.
7
Any Brexit “deal” will run up into the Northern Ireland problem. Put a border, hard or soft, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the Troubles return. Put the border in the Irish Sea and you isolate Ireland from the rest of the British Isles. This could lead to the recently unthinkable … the reunification of Ireland as an EU member and the end of centuries of British rule there.
It is now clear that if Brexit occurs Scotland will decide that the Act of Union was a major mistake. The independent Scots will then join the EU.
At best England and Wales will remain united, and even that is not a given.
Thank you, David Cameron, Teresa May, and Boris Johnson for ending the United Kingdom and Great Britain.
156
@John Graybeard I don't want Brexit, but the cleanest solution might be for England to leave the United Kingdom and the European Union and allow Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales can choose for itself as well) to remain in the EU, since it is only really a majority of English voters that got us to this point.
42
@Mark - I completely agree.
9
@Mark
But Scotland (and Northern Ireland) would have to apply to join the EU. (It's very much a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this instance.)
There is no indication whatsoever the EU would even countenance such an application, even if Scotland could attain full independence. (Not even going to go there on Northern Ireland.) And both processes would take years...even longer than the Brexit debacle.
With respect, this is a hardly a clean resolution.
8
There is much to admire both in Britain and in the US. That said one can wonder if there is some common denominator that covers the US electing a demonstrably idiot president and Britain choosing the political equivalent of being "dead in a ditch", brexit. I fear it is a sense of entitlement, that you can make stupid decisions and get away with it because you are you. There is always a reckoning. We seem to believe that because we live in affluent societies, gravity doesn't apply. Perhaps flags at half mast in both countries, for Britain on every june 23 and for the US november 8 would serve as a timely indication of humility which is truely the opposite of entitlement.
3
Come on!. Just stiffen your chin Great Britian and crack on!
Having another vote is absurd. It's like voting Trump president and saying opps! we need a revote. But when he gets tossed out, the other side cries foul! and insists on a revote.
Thank you so much for the funniest piece ever! With all our problems with this idiot in the White House having depressed us beyond measure, a good, hearty laugh was a great gift to us poor, put-upon Americans. As for the Brits, I just hope this newest turn of events will allow them to wake up to the lies that started this whole thing and vote for sanity for their poor, put-upon country and get rid of the destruction caused by Brexit at long last!
2
The fish has definitely begun to stink.
2
If Brexit happens, look for Scotland to leave the UK and Northern Ireland to leave and join Ireland. The only thing left of the UK will be pipsqueak England and Wales - A good opportunity to offer them statehood in the USA - payback for the American Revolution?
2
Hear, hear!
The NYT opinion section appears not to know that Boris Johnson tried for a new election, and Parliament wouldn't go for it. Maybe the NYT should listen to NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757587543/brexit-parliament-members-vote-to-block-johnsons-no-deal-exit
I can't believe that the brilliant Roger Cohen wrote such a dumb column. The Conservatives are ahead by 12 points in the polls. They will win an election vhandily. It's Labor who doesn't want an election, because they know they'll lose big. The people want Brexit. Let them have it.
2
What will happen if Johnson is found dead in a ditch on Oct. 31?
3
Apparently, Nigel Farage agrees, NYT...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nigel-farage-says-a-general-election-the-only-solution-for-brexit-135347229.html
Leaving the EU is the dumbest move Britain has made since losing the American colonies.
3
Peace, order and good government -- our British heritage -- along with a sovereign prepared to do her job, that's what's needed for Britain. Your majesty, dissolve this loser parliament and call an election now.
How to leave without going anywhere?
The razor thin result of three years ago under grotesequely false pretences and massive public disinformation is no genuine mandate at all.
What is called for now is a straight up vote on BoJo's deal, take it or leave it.
Overdue. Brexit, ridiculous from day one.
In other news: The ENTIRE world is tired of England’s tired idea.
2
I think the last bit is incorrect. Jo Swindon and the Liberal Democrat’s want a second referendum, not a general election. That’s what she means when she says to take it back to the people.
1
The West has diddled with authoritarianism for a few years now.
In the US and UK we seem to be realizing that we don't like fish very much after all.
Thank goodness.
1
And when the Johnson & the Tories win, then what, Roger?
Another referendum, yes.
And politicians should stop lying about what Brexit would actually mean for Britain.
What a mess. Politics of xenophobia and insularity with zero benefit.
Hold another referendum. It's the only way forward.
3
The only upside here is that BoJo does not have the power of Humpty Dumpty Trumpy. He may be able to sink the UK and GB, and cause grave problems for the EU, but he has not yet abandoned allies to their death, nor embraced murderers.
Perhaps this is only due to a lack of opportunity, but we should be grateful for small things.
Nice of your chicken eating friend to tell us all what they think the people who've clearly said they prefer fish really want Roger...
They don't sound insufferably smug, condescending or pleased with themselves at all!
Vladimir Putin is a genius. Without firing a single shot, he has completely corrupted the two most important members of the Western alliance.
1
You are ignoring the reason Brexit lives on: racism! The Anglo-saxons are desperate to preserve their paleness. It’s all they have left. Please, let’s not forget the reason Brexit won at the poles to begin with: racism.
2
You know how your digital devices ask you if you “really want to delete this?” Having that second chance to decide whether you really want to delete all the work you had already done is a good idea. If you had accidentally started deleting all your work, “do you really want to delete this,” can bring everything back to where it was. If you wish, you can always push the delete key at any time.
This is what Artificial Intelligence can do when you have made a mistake by using your own personal, human artificial intelligence.
Do what the machine says.
Hit the “cancel” key,
and vote Brexit again.
Don’t eat the fish, they’ll spit on it. Just like the GOP does here, with a slightly different spelling.
VOTE, Again.
Fine article. (One minor note: a petard is a bomb, and doesn't lend itself to hanging.)
"The fantasy voted for in 2016 is not the reality of 2019."
Kind of reminds me of... the USA.
Brexit and Trump will be forever linked as related world-class, history-changing Mistakes, both marked by massive lying, much of it sourced to Russia, and promoted by Rupert Murdoch's media that make buckets of slime look good by comparison.
Yes, new elections. And both side of the Atlantic should *pray* they will be free, fair and not interfered with. This is no longer a given.
3
As with the good Ole United States past presidential election, Putin's hand in Brexit has been entirely successful. Nothing like a continued spell of chaos to alter the worlds previously leading two democracies.
As Donald might say, "Sad."
Mr. Cohen, this is a matter for the Brits to decide. They are not so foolish as to seek advice from anyone in the United States, a nation that is incapable of dealing with its own problems.
1
"The ‘Tampon Tax’ will ensure Northern Irish women can benefit from a zero percent VAT rate on the sanitary products after Brexit... Where is Monty Python when needed?"
No, no, no.
The BBC has reported that in Wales "Socks and kitchen paper are some of the items being used by women as sanitary products." The situation won't be much different in Northern Ireland:
Period poverty: Socks and kitchen towels 'being used as sanitary towels'
-- BBC News website, 4 March 2019.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47417429
“I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant..." - and all that stuff you described happened - "... then I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted fish.”
The problem is that some other people in the restaurant clearly and unambigously ordered fish. Even if just one of these people still wants fish - and it's a sure thing a lot more people than that still do - then the restaurant has to serve fish.
That's the way it is: it's one country and - in terms of Brexit or no Brexit - we all have to eat the same thing.
There was a referendum and then an election in which all the political parties stood on a platform of implementing the referendum result.
By all means let some party stand for election on a policy of reversing that decision - but after it has been implemented first.
Whatever your feelings about the long-term way forward, anything else is a dangerous betrayal of the system and what was agreed.
I sympathize. It feels the same way living under trump. An unnecessary descent into madness with danger lurking everywhere. And apparently no acceptable means to repair it. HELP!!!!
1
Mr. Cohen should be careful what he wishes for. Because of Labour’s dreadful Corbyn, diners would have to choose between the dead fish of Johnson and the closed restaurant of Corbyn. Johnson is a disgrace, and Corbyn has too much of the worst baggage to be leader of any party. An election could well go Johnson’s way, and if he wins a majority in parliament the no deal Brexit farce becomes a deadly reality. A second referendum is probably the safer choice, no matter if an election is called or not.
1
The Brexit referendum was an internal David Cameron Tory dispute .. to quieten the Tory Eurosceptic wing and UKIP (Nigel Farage).. Brexit was non binding and only advisory. It backfired spectacularly. Pandoras box was opened...
Brexit referendum should never have been allowed for the simple fact the UK is a representative democracy and who are sovereign You don't let people vote on something so complex and consequential especially after the majority of people who for 20+ years were exposed to anti EU propaganda and lies about the EU within in the British popular press i.e Sun" page3", Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail (IYes I'm pointing fingers at Boris Johnson. "Bendy" bananas anyone?) ..Sadly it was an abrogation of responsibility by Parliament...
I don't think a second referendum will solve anything..as the country is hopelessly divided for a least a generation (Rory Stewart the ex Tory MP, who has so cogently argued) and I am not sure everyone in the EU want the UK back for a long while..
I'm saddened for the young people who have seen their rights and opportunities been taken away...by lies...
The truth is the "blue" British passport will be worth less ...
3
Ha — the New York Times is well-known for hating Bernie Sanders — and the same can easily be said tor their feelings about his very able British counterpart, Jeremy Corbyn, who would be Johnson’s biggest threat in an election.
And yet, in keeping with the Times’s now multi-year, top-secret policy of marginalizing progressive politicians, this column manages not to mention Corbyn ONCE.
If Corbyn wins, expect the NYT to do everything they can to destroy him. Same for Sanders. (And both, thankfully, have a good shot in their respective sections.)
To the moderators: The 'fish analogy' has made the rounds online for a few months now, attributed to Alex Buchanan by Jay Rayner. I don't know if AB wrote to RC personally as indicated by "a British friend wrote me recently", but it couldn't have been a very private message.
1
They voted for chaos. Give them chaos.
2
Mr. Cohen, your British friend quite nailed it.
Now. Vote.
Mightn't this be a good thing for Mark Zuckerberg to consider. When slick shifty misstatements and outright lies about political issues enter the public sphere unchecked and unchallenged and fool voters you get outcomes like Brexit, and Trump.
1
The fish metaphor is not only the most apt metaphor for Brexit, but the funniest thing I've ever read in the Opinion section! I can't help but to see the Monty Python crew jumping about in bowlers and slapping each other fish.
If it’s truly do-or-die, and he didn’t, is he politically dead yet? This begins to sound like a Monty Python skit.
If Britain votes to stay, does it take an EU membership application form and get in line behind Moldova and Albania?
Also, the fish story is gold.
“Democracies are exercises in constant reassessment.”
Brilliant and succinct. Thank you Roger Cohen.
1
Because when you don't get the desired outcome of an election... throw it out and have another election until you get the results the oligarchs want..... how is that democracy?
Rather dishonestly, this column fails to mention that Johnson and the Tories have repeatedly tried to initiate a new general election -- which Labour and the Liberal Democrats (in short, the pro-EU Remainer gang) refuse to support.
The Times coverage of Brexit has been generally subpar over the last several years, treating the entire issue as pure pathology (or racism, or madness, or idiotic historic nostalgia for the British Empire). This column continues that ignoble tradition. Several other European countries have declined to join the EU (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland) and another withdrew from the EU (Greenland). I doubt they were all motivated by xenophobia or nostalgia for the British Empire. The EU is a major -- the major -- supernational project of our time. Not everyone supports supernationalism (and not everyone who eschews supernationalism is a racist troglodyte). I would imagine that if a proposal were put forth to merge Canada, America, and Mexico into a new North American Union, quite a few Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans might find that undesirable. Is it that hard to understand why some Britons might feel a similar wariness at merger into the ever more centralizing EU?
But I agree with Mr Cohen (and Boris Johnson!) on this -- it's high time for a general election. Can someone tell Labour and the Lib Dems to get on board?
Why did they want to leave again? Apparently the socialism was getting a bit thick; perhaps adding some milk to the tea would make it better, but what would the socialists of the EU give up to bring GB back into the fold? Nothing! Thought so.
It is amazing how anti-democratic the writers of the New York Times are when the rabble do not vote their way.
If the vote had been to remain and the Brexit crowd howled for a do-over you would be the first to say the people have spoken and get over it.
Over in American political land, the shunning/ignoring of Bernie Sanders by the bulk of American commercial media continues and now that 2 of the 3 leading Democrats running are Progressives, we hear the drumbeat about why we simply cannot follow the choice of voters unless it agrees with the political class that funds and advises the DNC. The same screeching is happening over at the Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-20/democrats-electability-isnt-everything-but-its-important
It is time to take a step back, take a deep breath and let the voters decide without influence by our supposedly impartial media. In the UK, the voters said they want out- deal with it.
It appears nothing will save the Brits from themselves. Their fate was sealed when BoJo was allowed into #10 Downing.
There was a vote.
One side won.
One side lost.
The losers refuse to accept the result.
Yes, the US and UK *are* alike.
LEAVE
1
You get "hoist by your own petard" rather than hung but willing to let this pass as Boris has shown he's more than capable of harming himself, and the rest of Britain, in unique and unusual ways.
1
Elections have consequences. Sometimes dire, Country destroying, deadly consequences.
Right, GOP ?
This is hilarious and helpful. The parallels to our country’s current insanity are alarming. We also need a vote, ASAP!
I remember well several months ago, Roger’s piece on this very subject for which he now advocates. He was prescient then as he is now. One would think that after almost a million Brits showed up in protest in London not that many days ago that the powers that be would have a clue as to what they are doing to their nation. And I will have a hard time accepting that Parliament’s obstinate resistance is comparable to our Republican Senate’s. But maybe I will have to. We already know that Trump and Johnson are brothers in their lack of character, dignity, and ethics. What a shameful family we have become.
1
Nationalism doesn't have the best examples of behavior throughout history. It's just tribalism wrapped up in fancy clothes and nifty flags.
Great Britain was once England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. All of which hated and killed each other for their "Nation".
1
And the British electorate never wanted fish in the first place.
They just wanted to let off some steam and protest against austerity and immigration in a nonbinding opinion poll.
Instead they will be served rotten fish for generations! Who knew?
1
Oh dear Roger. Published as an "opinion" piece I suppose this has to be accepted, but when you say that the primal scream is "Save us from Brexit" you (deliberately one supposes) overlook the fact, objectively reported by countless opinion pollsters on an almost daily basis that in fact that scream is "Just get Brexit done."
The self-same polls suggest that the numbers who would vote for Leave-espousing parties (ie Conservatives and BREXIT) in a General Election has grown significantly in recent weeks and that (Heaven Forefend!) in the Hell of a Second "confirmatory" (gah, nonsense) referendum the proportion voting Leave would now clock in at 56-58% against the 52% majority recorded in 2016. (I can confirm this as a 2016 Remain voter who would now vote for ANY option in either a General Election or a referendum that allows/mandates the UK to leave this bureaucratic Behemoth.)
Come on. Let some facts in on this unexpurgated hogwash...
Sorry, but Boris Johnson cannot be "hung by his own petard." In Hamlet it's "Hoist with his own petard," i.e., blown up by your own explosive device. It's hard to hang yourself with a bomb, though Boris Johnson has so screwed everything up I wouldn't put it past him.
2
The British need a constitutional convention to write a constitution and disestablish the monarchy.
It is time for the US to impose its American Revolution on the United "Kingdom."
Anything else is a betrayal of American ideals.
1
I agree with most of what you say, but the remedy has to be a second referendum on the binary question: The BoJo deal or Remain?
The brexiteers bray endlessly about the will of the people, which to them was frozen for all time on a day in June, 2016. Obviously, they are terrified to learn that sentiment has changed, as all the polls show.
A second referendum would expose the Little Englanders for the narrow-minded chauvinists that they are.
7
Very good article. Love your fish analogy.
3
"Johnson, having failed, needs to ask the country if it still wants fish. That’s called a general election. As Jo Swinson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said, the issue must be “taken back to the public.”"
I've beaten the drum for a re-vote ever since it was reported that the initial Brexit referendum was based on misinformation, Russian interference, and and the calculations of mendacious politicians.
For that, I've been routinely attacked for trying to take away the "will of the people". People say, in life you get no do-overs. But in politics you do--and British leaders need to seize the day and guage the true support for Bexit, via a new vote or referendum before bad law becomes permanent,.
8
The Tories can only blame themselves if they are not able to pass anything through Parliament.
First Theresa May called a general election that she lost, and forced her to make an alliance with the DUP.
Then Boris forced 21 members out of his own party becaus they dared to vote against his hard Brexit plans.
And at the same time he tried to unlawfully close parliament for 5 weeks.
You just can't make ennemies all over the place, and then expect them to cooperate in your dubious schemes.
1
The fish dinner fable is comical enough, but fails.
There is not one diner, but 66 million. Most at the table ordered fish.
The people voted for Brexit in June of 2015.
Incompetent and feckless British “leaders” have since failed to follow through.
The British people don’t need a new election.
They need new, incorruptible leaders.
Brexiteers wished Trump was their PM. Brexit would’ve happened already.
1
Sure, let’s have another election on Brexit! If you don’t like the results of any given election, call for a do-over! On this side of the pond the it’s called resist, harass, impeach! (Because I guess we missed the chance to simply hold the 2016 Presidential election over again, after so many people just didn’t want to accept the fact Hillary lost and Trump won.) Hey, if the U.K. holds another election on Brexit and the “leaves” win again, just call for a third election, and so on and so on and so on, until the desired result! What a mockery of democracy.
2
Roger Cohen, apart from any discussion of England sinking into the sea, giggling or not about the price of fish, I’m a bit confused as to why the issue of a tax that affects half the world’s citizens on a monthly basis seems like an absurd detail to you.
1
Finally! I've been saying this for months!
The lengths folks will go to, to avoid being wrong!
1
A pity not to give credit where it’s due. The spot-on Brexit fish analogy was originally by tweeter @alexbuchanan and then shared widely in August (and later credited) by food writer Jay Rayner
2
"The id has taken over. This has nothing to do with the rational mind."
How distressingly familiar.
1
I wish we had an early elections option here.
2
This is so funny. I love it. Only a foreigner who has lived there and left can fully appreciate the mad, jingoistic, frenzied silliness of it all. This has been in the cards for a very long time. The English are behaving now in their own land the way they behaved in India all those years ago but no one saw it. We did.
2
At this point, surely the rest of the European countries just want the English to leave? And I said "...the English...." on purpose. This fiasco is almost entirely driven by English votes, along with their deluded and just waking-up-in-the-cold-clear-light-of-dawn Orangemen/"...Loyalist..." comrades in Ulster.
If Brexit happens on Johnsonian terms, then Scotland will be independent within 5 years and we will see them who has what rights where to the North Sea oil and the fishing grounds.
5
Britain should call the whole fiasco off and concentrate on addressing what led people to vote for it. Many of the things that drove Brexit were the same things that drove people to vote for Trump; job losses due to export of manufacturing; failure to create jobs to replace those in dying industries; xenophobia; racism; and so on.
3
A new election. That's what rational people have been saying for nigh on two years.
How are the ditches over there on Halloween?
I wish we could have had a revote a lot less sooner than 2020. You guys can change a government based on no confidence. We can't.
1
Enough with England's problems already. We, here in the U.S., are interested in a Trumpxit, not Brexit.
3
Go ahead and leave the EU with or without a deal. Sometime in 2020, when what's left of the United Kingdom is in flames, see if the EU will grant you membership again. Doubtful, but maybe you can convince them to hold a referendum.
2
Well, I guess we know where Monty Python is when you need them. At least one of their members must be your friend who wrote about the known-for-chicken restaurant that catches on fire while everyone's arguing about fish. . . .
1
Boris Johnson, an arrogant Trumpian bully, is meeting a Parlament that won't allow his trampling of the rule of law. Good for them. A new referendum may be the most reasonable outlet, once the disturbing resonance of a Brexit comes into view. Upon reflection, belonging to the European Union, flawed as it is and in need of reform, may be the best part of valor.
3
We need a referendum on a Brexit deal.
When the most Googled term in the UK the day after the referendum was "Brexit", you know the voters may have been uninformed.
When the two liars who were out front in promoting the biggest benefits of Brexit, an end to immigration and an additional 350 million pounds a week for the NHS, admitted within days after the vote that both claims were total lies, you know those same voters were misled.
No Brexiteer said how Brexit would actually work. None admitted the huge economic hit it would entail, nor the very likely exit of Scotland from the UK. The crucial issue of the Irish border was never even considered.
David Cameron, in his infinite stupidity, didn't point any of this out. And Remainers were so convinced that Brexit's pitfalls were obvious that they didn't bother to vote. I know - I had a house full of them visiting for a wedding, and not one had bothered to early vote.
Brexit is far better understood now, and the urgency of voting is clear. A revote is mandatory.
2
Need a referendum, THEN an election. Lets see what people really want.
1
Perfect! Print this up as leaflets, put it in a plane and drop it all over Britain.
I lived in London during the referendum. What we know now, as far as court rulings go, is the Leave campaign - in cahoots with Cambridge Analytica and Putin’s bots, identified by Facebook and the FBI - sold flat-out falsehoods and broke campaign finance laws while doing so.
Yet somehow — incredulously— empty phrases like ‘the people have spoken’ and ‘Brexit means brexit’ continue to go largely unchallenged by the anemic leadership of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn. This of course comes
as no surprise given he’s a eurosceptic too, but for entirely different reasons — he thinks the EU is a bankers club (it isn’t)— unlike Empire fetishists like Jacob Rees Mogg who simply yearn to see a return of Ye Olde cheap labour with no protections in a race-to-the-bottom Singapore-on-Thames gambit.
The other reality is that no one voted ‘leave’ with ‘No Deal’ — what is clearly this
unelected PM’s preferred option. And so in some ways, yes; Brexit is the will of some people — those who orchestrated it to enrich themselves and their friends as the pound crashes and pesky EU regulations go away.
The biggest losers will of course be so-called ‘Leavers’ - mostly white, poorly educated workers no one spoke for when wages stagnated and jobs disappeared as the rich got richer after the crash. Sound familiar?
So it’s two nations divided by a common threat: Putin’s endgame; and faux-populist ideologues and their spineless supplicants who only stand to gain while everyone else loses.
4
Perfect analysis except an election before Brexit will polarise the vote giving the pro EU parties of the Lib Dems and Scottish Nationalists 50 seats each. Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party will split the leave vote and probably take 50 seats off the Conservatives. Guaranteed hung parliament and in a worse situation than at present.
You want an election? You’ve had an election but don’t want to carry out the wishes of the people so you ask for another election in the hope of getting a different result, one more to your liking. That’s not how it works.
This is what you get when the election was based on lies. You can't deliver what you promised because it never existed. Just like Trump the great deal maker never existed, it was a lie.
2
Curious that nobody is talking about the fact that Johnson’s deal is basically May’s deal only not quite so good. Parliament voted to approve the deal proposed by a male politician but did not approve the same deal when proposed by a female politician. No wonder Theresa May is laughing her head off. I am too.
2
Could someone explain the phrase "hitched his wagon to that Sisyphean mission, he finds himself cornered"?
Sisyphus had no wagon and the hill had no corners.
I love reading the Telegraph every day! Virtually every day brings a new setback for Brexit or for the hapless Boris Johnson, and every day the Telegraph (or one of the far-right twits who write its opinion columns) proclaims it a victory. Over and over, the Telegraph proclaims, the remainers have lost and Brexit is now assured! Thanks for the laughs, Telegraph!
"Singapore-on-Thames"? I would think "Karachi-on-Thames" or "Tashkent-onThames" would be more likely. The previously united kingdom - once Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales have all left - will be very poor.
This "must" election is great... if you oppose democracy and want every election you dont agree with re-run
From the moment it became clear that the Brexit referendum had been based on outright lies, the UK's first priority should have been a do-over, based on truth, with a REAL plan describing a REAL exit strategy that it was clear both the UK and EU could comply with. Three years of attempting to deliver a delusional and impossible fantasy masterminded by manipulative con men seeking destructive power to break down a stable governmental system just goes to show that there are good reasons for referendums to be non-binding.
I still do not understand why all the parties seem determined to deliver what they know won't work, to a nation which does not support even the fantasy version anymore. The repeated claims that democracy itself will fall apart if the country fails to deliver the non-binding lie to the non-consenting nation is just plain nuts.
23
Only the impossible arrogance and the unmatched sense of entitlement of the British imagines a way of having EU cave, agree to play a subservient role to Britain - to prevent a Brexit.
It is precisely this confident arrogance of the British that has rendered me an unapologetic Anglophile. There is not a battle they will not fight to win. This one is nothing. Remember Gallipoli? Or Somme?
But if EU does cave, and I am betting they will, BoJo will come across as a genius. I suspect BoJo will have every EU citizen paying tithe to Westminster as well, and agree to take every immigrant they deem undesirable (that would include Sajid Khan).
So let's give the lad a week.
Since the first Brexit referendum was based on lies, falsehoods and innuendo, peddled by the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, it’s no surprise that there’s so much chaotic confusion with no end in sight. BTW, you don’t have to buy former PM Cameron’s bio to understand that he messed up really, really badly when he called for the referendum. A second referendum is the only solution.
9
To understand the Brexit mess you have to understand both sides. There really are two sides. Roger Cohen can never see both sides of any issue.
Brexit has not failed.
The UK's elected leaders and MPs have failed. They have failed to clearly deliver the requisite exit that won in a referendum. Naysayers and the ruling class have obstructed and delayed to the discredit of all parties involved.
A do-over would be one of the most dastardly betrayals of democratic principles in the annals of history.
The EU should put the hapless Brits out of their own self-imposed misery by taking matters in hand and ejecting the UK.
Let the British populace reap what they have sown.
And - quite frankly - they probably will be the better for it.
Imagine you and your friends are in a car on your way to a new restaurant that you've heard/read about.
Everyone wants to go. Everyone is onboard.
As you get closer to the restaurant a newsflash comes on the radio that the restaurant, while not yet closed, is under investigation for serving tainted meat. The stellar reviews were all fraud.
Suddenly, you're not so kean to go. But the driver says "Oh, no, no turning back now. We wanted to go and we're going."
This is Boris Johnson and Brexit.
12
Very good - though, from swing state here in Hove, one might amend the penultimate paragraph to offer a vegetarian option.
1
Wonderful piece! I shall never be able to order fish again in a restaurant without remembering this article –and laughing out loud. "...the year 2128...". ;-}
6
As a former chef, I have to agree that anyone who orders fish in a chicken restaurant really does deserve whatever they get. You can raise a chicken on GMO grain and nuclear waste products and then wash it's sad carcass in chlorine and it is still not a fish. That the party of BJ and Reese-Mogg still are trying to sell this non-existent fish to an increasingly frustrated British (and EU) public really does need to be immortalized by the surviving Pythons.
7
Labour Party: Please replace Jeremy Corbyn and offer British voters a solid alternative to Boris Johnson and Brexit. Either that or a coalition government with Liberal Democrats are your only options.
8
Of course, the only way out of the dilemma is to take a new vote.
3
More than enough damage has been done already - just Brexit!
The biggest mistake made since the referendum was not facing up to the result, what one might call "Doing a Hillary".
It was pretty simple - leave the EU or remain. I wish remain had won but leave did. All this rambling about not understanding what leave meant is ridiculous.
I don't think they should have held the referendum but over 90% of MPs voted to hold it. They should not have done so without being willing to respect the result.
It isn't acceptable for them to backtrack because the nation voted the “wrong” way. It isn't the fault of voters - they answered the question they were asked to answer.
This endless revisionism needs to end.
Time to move on now.
3
General election or referendum? The two modes of deciding will likely bear different results.
The thinking behind Brexit is understandable, but the socioeconomic imperatives of Remaining cannot be ignored.
The penultimate paragraph made this essay.
The sign in the middle of the photo says it best--"I Am So Tired."
Please, Roger, no more parodies of British governance until something breaks.
1
Wrong. The only way to ensure widespread European neo fascism is to reverse Brexit. The structural economic and banking problems of the EU are never going to be addressed and neither is it’s anti democratic ethos. Germany has no right to de facto rule in Europe. Europe is geography not a political entity.
3
Right now at 7am Eastern, Parliament is dealing with the fact that ,for shipments to ‘...mainland Britain...’ from Northern Ireland , export declarations will have to be prepped and submitted. That applies to all shipments from NI.
So, there is in fact a Customs border between NI and the rest of the U.K.
I carry no Brief for the Orangemen/Loyalists, an unlovely group whose presence in Ireland is an historical Anatoly,but the Tories
have thrown them under the proverbial bus. They have done this after forming their current government in reliance on Loyalist members’ votes in the HOC.
Furthermore, they have done this in violation of NI’s constitutional position in the Union.
Finally, by having done this, the Tories are risking outbreaks of serious paramilitary violence in NI AND ELSEWHERE. loyalists have already made threatening remarks about “ bombs going off in Limerick...”
England has an obligation to not endanger peace in Ireland. If that means staying in the E.U., then that must be done.
9
It's still over a week away, but Mr. Boris Johnson has three choices:
1) Ask the EU for an extension
2) Find a way to die in a ditch, or
3) Resign
Sadly, sickeningly, it's a Done Deal. He will ask the EU for an extension. This is so sad, because most of the world prefers Dead in a Ditch, or at least a resignation.
If the EU had any brains, they'd give him at least a year, better yet ten years, better yet indefinite. This may be the only way to force the pompous charlatan mountebank towards another vote.
The next vote should be the second of three. If Brexit wins again, it happens instantly. If it loses, the deciding vote takes place in 2023. Ideally, votes of this gravity would be decided by a generation, three votes spaced 10 years apart. But let's short-circuit this. Another vote around the turn of the year, and if it's 'stay', a deciding vote three years later.
Dan Kravitz
7
Another referendum risks a civil war and sets a terrible precedent. Don't like a result? Do-over! Stall until the other side capitulates! How about the politicians there (and here) stop doing what they want and do what the people want.
Democracy is looking deader by the day.
4
Boris Johnson, Britain’s Vernon of Donald Trump should have an election where the voters have their say on Brexit. Leaving is a bad idea. They need to stay in. getting rid of Boris (Trump JR) is a good idea also.
2
Once again, Cameron promised getting a better deal from EU and then present it to the voters for approval. If Brexiters want to insist on the reason for the referendum, it's time to fulfill its provision. Go back to the people to rescue whatever bit of
credibility the process has left.
2
Even if a new vote ends up with Remain, would the EU even let them at this point?
1
The best article on Brexit - the fish restaurant analogy should be compulsory reading for all those lazy Brits who just "want it done", because they've been nagged to death by that 'integrity-free' Prime Minister, Johnson, the Sulk, into a fatal state of Brexit fatique. Brits MUST NOT capitulate ever. They must insist their representatives in Westminster ensure all their rights are protected and they are delivered to the best position possible - even if that means remaining in the EU.
5
The people have voted, time for Parliament to do their bidding. Quit stalling. There is no need for a re-vote other than the elites running things would hope for a 'remain' decision, if it came up 'leave' again they would still balk.
Brexit now.
2
A brilliant analysis of our collective political madness. It’s true that Brexit could have been penned as a skit or humorous vignette by a young Cleese and Chapman fifty years ago. (The “dirty fork” sketch comes to mind as its escalating absurdity seems apropos.)
Although the article is written with a distinctive wit found this side of the Atlantic, it also contains the clearest summary I’ve seen of this ghastly mess.
I hope it’s OK to summarise and rearrange a few points. I’m going to print them out in a large font and stick them on my refrigerator (that I’m stocking up at the moment - I love a good panic buy.)
- Britain is stuck.
- The Conservatives are in government, but not in power.
- There was a democratic mandate for Brexit, albeit one based heavily on lies.
- The fantasy voted for in 2016 is not the reality of 2019.
- Democracies are exercises in constant reassessment.
- Brexit makes no sense.
But then I got thinking:
- America is stuck
- Trump is president, but not in control anymore.
- There was a democratic mandate for Trump, albeit one based heavily on lies.
- The fantasy voted for in 2016 is not the reality of 2019.
- Democracies are exercises in constant reassessment.
- President Trump makes no sense.
I’ll have the chicken please.
18
It would be a mistake to equate a general election with a decision about Brexit. It is complex enough without adding another layer of "we think this is what you meant". A two stage referendum : revoke vs getout followed by Hard Tory WTO vs Soft Customs Union Labour Brexit if getout wins is what is needed.
What ardent Leavers seem to have forgotten is that the Leave Campaign walked back many of their promises the day after the referendum - which should have been grounds for invalidating the result. They also fail to recognise that the election after the referendum stripped the Tory party - running on delivering Brexit- of their majority, a more recent democratic exercise with more information that should carry more weight than the referendum.
Leavers should realise that despite getting 52% in favour of leaving, if you count people who didn't vote as remainers (ie they didn't care enough to want to leave) then the majority of the electorate did not vote to leave. We should not be taking drastic decisions unless there is a "mood proof" majority.
Finally tyoung voters disenfranchised and impacted more by the decision, unable to vote in 2016, eligible to vote now who deserve a voice with a richer set of information than we had in 2016. If Leavers truly care about "will of the people" (as if all of government hadn't mobilised to deliver Brexit for the last 3 years) then they should be backing a confirmatory referendum. They are screaming bloody murder instead. Funny That.
33
This article is well-intentioned, but I think that it contains several of the most important misconceptions contributing to the current stalemate. First and foremost, this isn't just an internal matter for the UK. The rest of the EU is not an insignificant appendage. Actually, it is several times bigger than the UK in population, gross domestic product, and land mass.
Second, the government of the UK triggered this crisis by invoking Article 50 of the EU governing treaty, not by passing a law in the UK Parliament. Brexit is therefore fundamentally a legal process within EU law, not an internal domestic affair.
Third, having Brexit unresolved hurts almost everyone in both the EU and the UK, every day and every year this drags on. Right now, millions of people who are exercising, or who will soon try to exercise, their rights to work and live wherever in Europe they and their employers wish will not know how much longer they will be EU citizens nor whether the UK will be an EU country.
Fourth, Brexit is a negotiation between the UK and the EU and the EU has some powerful cards to play. When, in a negotiation, you reject what was effectively a best-and-final offer from the other side you should neither be surprised nor outraged when the return offer is second-best-and-definitely final.
Finally, the UK is a first-past-the-post parliamentary democracy. Most experts think a new election will result in a hung Parliament.
8
Cohen's argument falls apart in the final paragraph. Swinson isn't referring to a general election, which is unlikely to result in the majority a party would need to 'resolve' Brexit. She's referring to a second referendum.
7
What seems to be forgotten by the ardent remainers is that the largest number of people in the UK to ever vote for anything voted to leave the European Union. The current memebers of parliament seem either unwilling or incapable of carrying out the wishes of those people which was to leave the EU so the sooner we can have an election and we can get rid of those unwilling to do the publics bidding the better.
3
@Jason Except that many people voted to leave because of the lies they were told by Boris Johnson and his cronies. For example, there were buses with huge signs about how millions more in funding for Britain's health care system would magically become available following BRexit. As soon as the leavers won, Boris and others started backing away from that promise.
27
Putin stealthily and masterfully exploited existing dissatisfaction in both the UK and the USA. The sad result was the pro-Brexit vote and Trump’s election. It’s time to get rid of both at the ballot box.
25
An election will come but is not the answer to do a Brexit or not. The opinion piece states: "The fantasy voted for in 2016 is not the reality of 2019." The 2016 vote was based on few facts and many dreams (and falshoods). Much more information is available today of the impact related to the Brexit in general and there is a specific deal on the table, the Johnson deal. The "final" Brexit decision should be based on another referendum - allowing a choice of the Johnson deal and the alternative of remaining in the EU.
13
Unfortunately, Roger is completely wrong about this. What's needed is a second referendum, not a general election.
A second referendum would pit two concrete options against each other: (1) one specific version of Brexit, such as Boris Johnson's proposed deal, or (2) remaining in the European Union by rescinding Article 50 that started the whole Brexit process.
A general election instead confuses matters by failing to clarify which version of Brexit is on offer. And it mixes up the Brexit question with unrelated issues like whether they prefer Boris Johnson's tousled hair and radical free marketry, or Jeremy Corbyn's scruffy beard and radical socialism.
25
Agreed, another election won’t solve it. May already tried that.
6
I am glad to see that Mr. Cohen supports, by implication, Jeremy Corbyn's pledge to negotiate a good Brexit deal that protects the British Public against loss of consumer protections; Workers rights etc and then bring that deal back to a referendum of the People. Its a pity he did not mention this democratic resolution offered by the Labour Party - led by Jeremy Corbyn.
5
@Robert Jennings
There's just a tiny problem Mr Corbyn is overlooking for years: Neither the Parliament nor he are those who could decide on the content of the agreement - just because it's an agreement so it takes two at minimum. So he can want or even decide what he wants to, it will never have any impact if there is no consent by EU.
EU will not re-start the negotiation process only because Mr Corbyn wants a different deal now and do it all over again. From the view of the EU it doesn't matter whether Mr Johnson or Mr Corbyn is using the no-deal threat to push through any agenda. He hasn't got even yesterday yet and I'm afraid he will never get it in future - as many commentators will never get it that it will be politically impossible to exclude the no-deal option from a future referendum. This is nothing but wishful thinking like the unbased assumption a majority would "undoubtedly" vote for remain this time. The YouGov poll Mr Cameron referred to all the time before referendum said: Comfortable majority for remain ahead. But SWP - a public German think tank - had found out long before referendum day that all former British polls except this single YouGov poll were anti EU or explicitely for leave. The first referendum had been bravado at best. So not again please.
1
Forgive me for taken this serious UK problem light-heartedly, but it is somewhat of a relief to know we are not alone in suffering from a current political situation.
10
@eclectico And the US wasn't the only country to be victims of Russian trolling. Many of the ads that were promoting the yes side before the vote turned out to be from Russian trolls. Putin wants to see the EU destroyed. And for some reason, Trump has been a big Boris Johnson supporter as well. I wonder why.
Mr Cohen endorses an election without acknowledging its shortcomings or acknowledging the other democratic alternative of a second referendum.
An election is messy and imprecise, and does not guarantee resolution of Brexit. First, an election should turn on the entire range of national policy issues, not a single festering issue like Brexit. Unfortunately, any election will be wholly dominated by Brexit, which cuts across party lines in an unprecedented way. As a result, Brexit-leaning voters who would otherwise support Labour, and Remainers who might otherwise support Tory policies, will face an irreconcilable conflict at the ballot box. These groups are both electorally significant. Secondly, an election could very easily fail to resolve the issue. Another hung parliament, further polarised with inroads from the Lib Dems and Brexit party on opposing sides of the Brexit divide, is a plausible outcome. What then?
The country fell into its current mess due to a half-baked, overly simplistic referendum. While there are credible democratic objections to having a ‘do over’ referendum and the precise questions to be asked would be hotly contested, a second referendum now would at least benefit from a much clearer view of what Brexit would look like and could resolve the issue without muddying the waters of a general election.
Finally, Mr Cohen fails to acknowledge the other main option - passage of the Withdrawal Bill currently on the table.
16
Hmm... sounds like someone has been getting their talking points from Jeremy Corbyn, an outspoken Brexiter who continues to thwart calls from within his own party in favour of a second referendum.
Firstly, taking the issue back to the public means a referendum, not an election. Over 180 of the last 200 opinion polls conducted over the last two years show that the public now support remaining in the EU. Whilst this shows a majority now in favour of remaining, the huge unpopularity of the current Labour leadership means that the Conservative Party would actually win a general election by a double digit margin (based on current polls) and continue to pursue damaging Brexit policies. If you factor in Boris Johnson's recent hiring of the two campaign wizards who just won Australia's long-shot election for the hard right using hardcore viral campaigning on Facebook, and the general election prospects look even more dire for Labour.
Secondly, the majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat membership favour a referendum - in the case of the LIB Dems, the leadership goes even further, proposing to campaign on revoking Article 50 (the legal instrument to leave the EU) altogether without even bothering with a referendum. This seems a little over-eager.
But the point is clear, public opinion has shifted on leaving the European Union has shifted. While a referendum on this issue would show this, a general election would not.
13
35 years on from when Thatcher deregulated finance, targeted price stability and legislated against organised labour middle England has noticed that their offspring have insecure low paid jobs and are failing to form asserts. Meanwhile the north is suffering from 10 years of austerity brought about by a misguided Tory policy relating to a doubling of public debt as a result of bailing out the banks in 2008. The answer, apparently, is to blame the EU - hence Brexit
16
@One Sandwich Short
An excellent explanation. Thank you.
It would be interesting to know how US citizens would vote if asked to join a political union of Mercosur countries with the centre of that Union established in Brasilia or Santiago? What started out as a trading block in the 1950's, grew into a Common Market in the 60's and then 'The Single Market' in the 1990's, was then transformed into a political project with ever closer union at its heart. Which was not what we signed up for in the 70's when we joined the trading block.
The Euro was established in 2000 to try and force the unification of all countries using questionable financial logic - i.e. no equivalent of the Federal Reserve to share/mutualise the debt burden due to Germany forbidding this as a condition of joining the Euro.
For 40 years the UK has been struggling with this issue. It has never been about the benefits of market access and trade for many Brits. As I asked above, would the US, having joined a trading block (& i know they are not in Mercosur - but bear with me) discover that they are part of a political project where their laws, trading policies, financial destiny are all controlled from Brazil??? I suspect the uproar would be considerable.
The UK has a different legal system (English common law) that conflicts with European legal conventions, like the US, we are a capital market economy, whereas the majority of European economies are Social Market economies, all of which highlights why we don't fit any more.
6
@KG
Not the best of analogies. Mercosur pales by comparison to the powerhouse of the EU. And the Berlin of such and entity would be Washington, not Santiago.
2
@D I Francis Brussels (and every month for silly reasons Strasbourg) not Berlin, is the HQ. Berlin was never an option as at the time it was behind the Iron curtain - and would also have been unacceptable to France. Which is why DC in the same construct would not be acceptable... hence the analogy.
2
@KG "we don't fit any more."
One might ask, "Who says?" Well, you. It is your opinion. Not necessarily fact. In fact, I'll wager you a fiver. On a second referendum. With a now younger population.
Stay wins. And that's their opinion.
I agree with Roger Cohen's headline.
Yesterday, I tweeted Donald Tusk: "Denying a delay of Brexit would judge in favor of Johnson what the UK Parliament has rejected. The majority of Brits no longer want Brexit. Let Britain have its vote, in light of being no longer misled by the Leave absurdity. The UK is still an EU member!"
3
@gary e. davis I wonder how he knows that a majority of Brits no longer want to leave. If anything the shabby way the EU treated first Mrs. May and then Boris Johnson makes me even more sure we made the correct decision to leave the EU.
ODE TO BREXIT
To Vote. Or not to vote.
That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Brexit.
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end it.
3
The morning of the results of the Brexit referendum, Boris Johnson went into hiding and Nigel Farage blithely admitted in a television interview that saying that a “Leave” vote would allow £350 million pounds a week to be spent on the NHS was “a mistake.” That false promise emblazoned on the side of the “Leave” campaign bus and seen by millions was perhaps one of the most instrumental in convincing older Britons to vote massively for Brexit.
The British people were lied to, pure and simple, and the only way to recognize that fact is by holding another referendum.
25
@Susan You are right Susan. And it was a Trumpian-sized lie. When did such industrial strength lying in politics become so, to use your local Paris idiom, de rigueur? Perhaps always, but this one took us all to another level.
2
General election will only make matters worse if there’s another minority government. Particularly as Tories continually prove they unable to work cross bench whatever their leader.
Second referendum is the only way now.
15
@IP There needs to be a second referendum. That should come first, but it should come any way things proceed. Young people voted by 73% for Remain by the way.
4
New parliamentary elections of course, along with the question on the same ballot: Brexit, No/Yes.
4
@Buja I think that might work - a new election and a new referendum on the same day. I think the questions should be: Remain / Johnson's Deal
5
An election will come when it is scheduled. But the hornets’ nest unleashed by the previous referendum can only be resolved, one way or another, by a second referendum. The first referendum was vague and the public was uninformed about many essential issues. The people who are now insisting on no deal were singing a completely different tune during the referendum campaign, assuring the public that nothing much would change other than that all the nasty foreigners would have to leave and that the national health service would get a huge windfall from Brexit. Not a word about possible economic consequences, the collapse of the pound, the possible breakup of the UK, and the enormous damage to Britain’s reputation as a stable democracy. The problem with Mr Cohen’s advocacy of a general election is that it us about an entirely different matter: who should be running the government. Polls indicate that a majority now favour remain, but do not want Jeremy Corbyn as PM. Furthermore opponents of Brexit are split in their party allegiances and the UK’s first oast the post system usually allows a minority of the electorate to elect the PM’s party. That is why Brexiteers want an election instead of another referendum. Mr Cohen’s argument mixes up apples with oranges. There should be a general election in two years, on schedule, to decide who will run the government for the following four years, and there should be a referendum to confirm or reject Mr Johnson’s deal.
21
@Tim I disagree with your statement: The first referendum was vague and the public was uninformed about many essential issues.
People are always uninformed in elections and referenda. The problem with the EU vote though wasn't so much people were uniformed so much as they were lied to.
10
I am afraid the well-meaning people calling for a second referendum are, IMHO, wrong.
The principle of a referendum has been established many times, once in a generation (or thereabouts).
I voted remain and still think Brexit was a mistake, but overturning what was a fairly decent margin for Leave sets an awful example. If you thought Boris was right wing, goodness knows what would emerge following a Remain 2 vote.
If we leave, subsequent voters will get to decide their own fate not bound by our decisions. If we stay after all this, do not think that will be the end of things. We MUST respect the 2016 mandate, like it or not
8
@Steve Tittensor 37 percent of the total electorate voted leave - and many Brits in Europe (1 million) were not given the opportunity. Not quite the 'decent margin' you suggest. Certainly, it was foolish not to set the bar higher for a constitutional matter (which it is) of such significance.
@Steve Tittensor No Mr Tittensor, you are wrong. What is currently being offered as Brexit bears no relation to the blandishments and, let's face it, bare-faced lies offered by the Leave campaign. It is now clear that the Leave campaign leaders gave no thought at all as to what Brexit might actually mean, as they did not expect to win. As a result we have had near-on three and a half wasted years of bickering.
Let's also remember this is all their fault from beginning to end. They could have had Brexit had they voted for Mrs May's deal but it was not "pure" enough for the zealots.
If by some horrible mischance the Prime Minister's current apology for a deal gets through, (it will be only because everyone is sick to death of the whole thing) then we will become enmeshed in years and years and years of further negotiation with the EU - as the trade deal itself only starts when this current phase is over.
The whole thing is a waste of time and money. We have belittled ourselves in the eyes of the world. The only way out is, sadly, another six months of grief and pain and wasted effot while we hold another referedum to bury this stupid idea once and for all.
An excellent article, but I’m afraid it falls at the final hurdle: the honest answer to the fish/chicken dichotomy is not an election but a new referendum, to confirm that the people want to stay the course (and insist on the fishy dish of Brexit). The reason that an election is in the offing is because Johnson is confident he can win one, but he would probably lose a referendum. Why? In a nutshell, because in an election the opposition is split.
The sub-reason for Johnson’s keenness for an election is that the opposition is led by Jeremy Corbyn, who appeals to a hard left minority that has captured the Labour Party leadership, but is otherwise very widely distrusted.
A general election will therefore probably resolve Brexit - by installing a Johnson government with a majority of seats (but certainly not of the popular vote).
That will allow him to push through his version of Brexit. There may well be an angry backlash when its isolationist effects start to hit the UK economy.
13
A new referendum with an option to remain seems the better option. It's not clear that a new election will help. The opposition is in total disarray and at the moment there is no credible anti-Brexit party. A unity government seems unlikely. The question needs to be brought back to the people.
8
A General Election is not the answer either, as the Opposition leader, Mr Corbyn, is well known as favouring Brexit. To further add to the analogy, another person also ordered fish. Another referendum is the only answer
7
@Nick Firth Correct Nick. Corbyn is a Brexiter to his bones. That is why the Labour party has been so complicit. While speaking about representing the public's views he fails to respect the views of his party. In his own electoral district a stunning 83 percent are Remain.
To use an old US phrase, people would vote for a yellow dog rather than Mr Corbyn... and I am a member of his party!
1
@Nick Firth Correct Nick. Corbyn is a Brexiter to his bones. That is why the Labour party has been so complicit. While speaking about representing the public's views he fails to respect the views of his party. In his own electoral district a stunning 83 percent are Remain.
To use an old US phrase, people would vote for a yellow dog rather than Mr Corbyn... and I am a member of his party!
As a New Yorker who has lived in the UK for almost 35 years, I’m afraid you got it wrong. It’s not about having another election to settle things but another referendum. The photo you showed with your article was from the million strong People’s Vote March last Saturday which is calling for a second referendum not a general election to settle the crisper find ourselves in. Otherwise I agree with your analysis of the situation. Unfortunately Boris is our version of Trump :(
25
@Amy Scott What specifically do you think should be the question(s) on a referendum? And who would decide? And how would go you go forward as almost 50% would say that the question has been phrased wrongly. No matter which question you ask, you would predetermine the answer, and everybody that disagreed with the premise of the question, would feel cheated. I think Cohen is right: an election would have the possibility of bringing forth new leadership. Each party would have to make clear what their position is, both respect to Brexit in general and the deal that is on the table.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for confirming my suspicions. Now I know I'm not crazy. Why are our friends doing to this to themselves? Oh wait, they've been asking us the same question.
12
In some ways a second vote seems sensible. But then, imagine the Brexit victory were instead an election by which a new majority government was duly chosen.
Then imagine that for three years the legitimately elected government were kept out of power, with the old party staying in charge.
Then imagine that instead of at last respecting the original election vote, some, hoping for the incumbent party to be re-elected, proposed throwing out the first election entirely and holding a second vote.
Is that even conceivable?
1
@Dixon Pinfold No it is not conceivable. This analogy does not work. In the case of an imaginary Brexit chosen by a General Election, the party with a majority by definition forms a government. In the absence of a military coup — in which case we’d all have bigger fish to fry — there is simply no mechanism for the previous government to stay in power. It could not happen and therefore shines no light on Brexit.
The situation we have is that the blunt instrument of the Referendum, a constitutional novelty, is in irreconcilable conflict with Britain’s more deliberative system of representative government. Parliament is supreme and neither the blank cheque of the Referendum nor an executive with delusions of omnipotence can trump that. But our deranged media and dishonest demagogues have sold Brexit voters a distortion of democracy in which only the Referendum matters. That’s the heart of the problem.
So Mr Cohen is wrong; a General Election does not solve this problem. It only entrenches it. What was caused by a Referendum can only be cured by a Referendum. We need a Final Say choice between Johnson’s Deal and remaining in the EU (leaving without a deal being an act of self-mutilation that no responsible government could countenance).
7
@Andrew Harrison
The problem is that there has been no responsible government since the Cameron days and situation got out of control not only in Parliament but in public also. Because of the reasons you have give in you second paragraph no reasonable decision is to expect by voters who will be increasingly bombarded by permanent tabloid spin without any counterbalance. You can't even exclude the no deal option because of intense public pressure increased by influential tabloids on politician craving for re-election.
I fully agree that only a referendum could have been the only viable measure to escape this gridlock now but because this instrument has been obstructed by all relevant political players from the beginning the situation got worse and worse so it's just too late now.
"The core reason nobody has been able to deliver Brexit is it makes no sense."
It is more likely that those supporting Brexit have different views of what Brexit is, which makes sense to them in their individual Brexit camps. There is no one view of Brexit.
I am not sure why Mr. Cohen calls for a general election and not a plebiscite on Brexit.
And what happens if Brexit wins again?
3
@Joshua Schwartz Brexit is not a thing, it is a political direction. There are as many Brexits as there are Brexiters. But another referendum would require a specific, concrete deal to be put before the people, not the undefined flowers and unicorns of 2016. If people still accept that, then so be it. At least, unlike now, they will have endorsed what they are getting.
5
@Joshua Schwartz
"And what happens if Brexit wins again?"
This is the reason why EU doesn´t demand a second referendum - as a condition for further extension for instance. Keeping the status quo isn´t as risky as a possible confirmation of Brexit after a, mildly spoken, passionate tabloid campaign definitely tendimg to a no- deal Brexit. Nobody could exclude this outcome in the present situation.
EU flags in London and Scotland are one side. The other are Brexit party conventions in the old industrial midlands. As far as I know there are more voters living in the midlands. In this regard the situation is quite similar to the split between coastal regions and Rust Belt/Flyover in US. While US intellectuals are focussed on their closer coastal "blue" environment British intellectuals are focussed on their "remain" London bubble. Their columns might sound persuasive but this isn´t so reliable in fact and there is no need to discuss the insufficient reliability of polls in this field any more.
3
@ws ‘Remain London bubble’ is a deliberately divisive, sneering cliche promoted by Nigel Farage and his allies in the right-wing tabloid press, intended to convey a sense of elitism, naivety and alienation from the ‘real’ Britain. London with it’s remain supporters is every bit as genuine a part of the U.K. as are those areas that supported Brexit, leaving aside the fact that remain voters were present in significant numbers across the country and a majority in both Scotland and a Northern Ireland. And what does ‘more voters living in Midlands even mean’? Plenty of those voters were pro Remain, but in any case it is the national numbers that matter; they were 52-48 three years ago, and almost undoubtedly more pro Remain today.
Some London ‘bubble.’
4
"Its distinct status for Northern Ireland is likely to leave the province de facto (if not de jure) in the European customs union..."
So, regarding Northern Ireland, de facto is that it is in, but de jure is still out.
It would be better to have a second referendum before a general election to focus voter attention on the actual choice at hand, which is between BoJo's warmed over May plan and remaining in the EU. If the general election comes first, the element of Brexit imperial nostalgia remains available to distort the outcome, with Farage competing with the Tories to see who can offer the most bizarrely seductive nationalist fantasy. That kind of election will settle nothing and likely make tempers even worse.
5
This not like an "election" where you can reverse course a couple of years later, this is permanent. Britain needs a second referendum not an election. That's the reason here in the US, when a permanent change is be determined by amending our constitution it doesn't take a mere majority, it takes 2/3s to agree! Can you imagine if all it took was a majority to change the constitution in this country? Heaven help us all! Our founders understood that radical change requires a super majority's assent to it. Otherwise you're doomed to have scenarios like this.
21
This is a perfect example of why all but the simplest of public policy issues should not be decided by a popular vote. If Brexit were to be submitted for a new vote, how would the issue be framed. Remain or take the deal negotiated by Mr. Johnson (to the extent the 110 page bill can be adequately explained to the electorate)? What about those who prefer a different negotiation or a hard exit -- how does a referendum capture their votes?
As imperfect as the legislative process may be it's generally far superior to a referendum.
3
"Johnson, having failed, needs to ask the country if it still wants fish. That’s called a general election."
No, it's called a fresh referendum. A general election can easily work in his favor. Parliament needs to schedule a new Brexit vote *before* a general election.
18
What is up with Cohen? I mean, can he not think straight? An election is not necessary and might not resolve the issue. The better course is simply another referendum. An election could easily result in the same or very similar split in the representatives as there is now. So, there'd be more paralysis. A better approach is another referendum. It'd be incredible if the Brits twice voted against their own interests.
15
People who believe that a new referendum would reverse the original Brexit vote would do well to look at this Summer’s EU Parliament elections. The largest single political party in the EU parliament now is the UK’s Brexit Party. Think about that... bigger than any other party, from any other country, and focused on a single issue. Brexit. And everything I know and see about the UK from decades of close contact tells me that the majority for Brexit is increasing.
4
@Dubliner There has been a clear and growing polling majority for Remain for over a year now. This is empirical evidence, not anecdotally-based assertion.
3
There is no country that has produced as many and as good actors, playwrights and for that matter all things connected with the stage as Great Britain has.
They really seem lost however when confronted real life.
8
@Areader Yes, and as Neville Chamberlaine found out the hard way, not that long ago.
I don't know about Britain, but where I live, our state legislature has been known on more than one occasion to refuse to accept referendums the public voted to pass. They try to get the public to cancel the votes in the next election, or they refuse to appropriate money to implement, or they sabotage it in some other way.
Doesn't look like this thing is going to happen.
3
No matter your politics the next to last paragraph has me laughing. Well written and conveys the true essence of the conflict the past three years within Britain.
16
Re: the ordering of fish: What a GREAT description of Brexit! That sent me into torrents of laughter. The meme was pretty funny, too.
16
It is germane to point out that the recent (and failed) Brexit proposals were all considerably different in detail from the 2016 campaign promises. Apparently, once the Brexiteers and the May and Johnson governments began fleshing out what, exactly, the 2016 vote actually meant, they were as confused and muddled as those of us on this side of the pond. What they produced bears faint resemblance to anything anyone voted for or against.
Which argues for a mulligan the thoroughly dispirited British, Irish, Scot and Welch citizenry. After all, that’s what you get when your tee shot disappears into the trees, never to be found by man or beast.
6
“Democracies are exercises in constant reassessment.” This is not a statement of support for democratic self-governance. Rather, it is the statement of support for “do-overs” whenever the writer finds himself on the losing side of a campaign. It is speculation if a second Brexit referendum would pass or not. What is not speculative is that the people did vote a few years ago, and for reasons having much to do with parliamentarian internecine warfare the people’s voice has not been put into effect. Maybe, when the people voted, they did not then take into consideration well enough the ramifications of breaking from the EU and its common market. Or maybe they saw very well and rejected the long view of continued subservience to the EU policies on trade, commerce regulation, and immigration. Maybe, they understood that economic and cultural globalization needs to be tempered by greater national self-rule even at the expense of short term political chaos. Most likely, the majority who voted for Brexit, like all majorities in every election, exhibited in their vote a mix of well considered opinions, callous xenophobia and narrow partisanship. If we really believe in democratic self-governance, then we accept the outcome of elections even when we can point out the foolishness of the majority. When a “do over” is justified for no other reason than that the majority decision invites chaos or is hard to implement then democracy is a sham. The people spoke. Their decision must prevail.
3
In England, a referendum is only advisory. It has no backing of law.
3
@Michael The poster from the deeply Brexit-involved city of Los Angeles is mistaken. The British government has been enacting the “will” of 52% of the people for three years now. It invoked A50, developed policies in line with the hardest interpretation of Brexit, completely ignored the 48% in an undemocratic display of majoritarianist rule, and otherwise pursued Brexit as the key and sole goal of government. It is not undemocratic that this goal is as unworkable as a four-sided triangle or the repeal of gravity. What we seek is not a “do-over” but a chance to pass judgment on policy direction in the light of empirical evidence.
The people’s right to periodically and meaningfully reassess the actions of their government is the essence of democracy. One vote once, on the other hand, is hardly democratic at all.
6
I’m an Irish American, but I have spent some time in the UK and have been privileged to work with many of their civil servants. I have great respect and even admiration for today’s Britain and our special relationship. I pray that they step back from the brink of madness that is Brexit.
15
Roger, I disagree. An election of the government is not what is needed. A referendum on Brexit (or fish) is what is needed. Not a new chef election.
21
"...assuming the European Union grants an extension."
At what point does the EU run out of patience and refuse further extensions? I understand the EU will also feel some pain from Brexit, but at some point surely they'll want to get on with it, no? (and it's my understanding that some countries' officials are somewhat there already?)
Also - and forgive my lack of understanding of the intricacies of what's going on in the UK - I've been reading a lot about how Johnson actually wants a general election, as he is confident that the country won't go for a Labour government, and a return of the Tories to power would de facto confirm that the country "wants" Brexit. But now the Lib Dems want an election too? Surely they don't think they'll come out on top?
Any enlightened readers out there want to educate this Yank?
2
@Vin Most likely the Lib Dems expect that neither of the major parties will get a majority or at best a very slim majority. This would leave the Lib Dems with the "balance" of power and can demand concessions from the government in exchange for their vote.
If there is a general election it is likely that the Conservatives will swing to the far right in order to whip up its pro-Brexit base in order to prevail. And the risk will then be that should they prevail these populists will form a government that is far outside mainstream Britain on virtually every other important issue of the day.
Right now Britain seems to have no political center. Labour probably cannot electorally prevail with Corbyn in charge and the LibDems are doomed to forever being the minor "smart peoples" party.
With the SNP secure in Scotland and itching to revive the independence movement I would be very careful to with a general election upon Britain right now.
It may well happen and present a brief triumph for Mr. Johnson.
But this truly is a situation of "be careful what you wish for".
4
On every front, behind the scenes, it’s V. Putin that benefits. His investments are paying off handsomely for him, not so much for the U.K.
the US, or the Kurds.
15
@RjW Exactly. And why are we fighting w China (Russia's chief foe), and our own closest allies, Mexico and Canada? Putin is a master-- but I hope the next president makes him pay dearly.
I respectively disagree with Roger Cohen conclusion that the only option for Brits to forget Brexit is a general election. Given the divided opposition and inept leader of the Labour Party the election will be a gift to Boris Johnson. More appropriate remedy for this vexing but single option is a second referendum with simple question" Do you approve of the current negotiated agreement between UK and European community or do you want UK to remain a member of the European Community". The British voters should have a chance to decide this issue without complexity of election platforms. After all everyone in UK and probably many other places have much clear concept what Brexit means now than 3 years ago.
15
The UK does not need an election, other than that it is the only way for a second referendum to occur. There is no way that will happen under the current government, and having to swallow Corbyn as PM just to get to a second referendum is a bridge too far for even many Labour supporters. England is stuffed.
6
@expat
England & the UK are not the same thing.
Why a general election? A second referendum seems more appropriate where there is only one issue: Brexit. Parliament has broader responsibilities than whether or not to remain a part of the EU. With Brexit in the rearview mirror, let the next general election reflect the voters' position on all domestic and international issues MPs must deal with.
3
@William because it will still be a tie. You can’t get a clear path without an overwhelming majority. Most people just seem to want to get it (whatever that may be) over with so they can move on with their lives.
The referendum in 2016 presented a choice between the EU status quo and a future that was mostly based on magical thinking (where it wasn’t outright lies).
In 2019 (2020, 2021?) the British can vote on the genuine alternatives: the EU status quo, or a new treaty arrangement that leaves the U.K. poorer and weaker. Not to mention smaller, if Ireland unifies and Scotland separates.
When the facts change, sensible people change their opinions. A People’s Vote is the best way to capture this, but an election at this point would serve just as well. Among other things, it would force a reckoning in the Labour Party, which is currently adrift in a magical world of its own.
7
The Brexit has already happened, only the details are left. It's like our divorce, the moment I asked my wide if she wanted a divorce and she said yes we were divorced. Simple.
1
@A Nootka Nerd I’m afraid you are wrong in every single detail here. A divorce needs to be legally finalised. So does a country’s exit from a supranational organisation, whatever its professed wishes. At the time of writing the UK is still very much a member of the EU and long may it remain so.
How about best two out of three? Hold another vote ASAP. If Leave wins, the case is closed and adios to the EU. If Remain wins, then vote again in six months, with the outcome binding on all.
4
That fish analogy is pure gold.
(So was the Mad Max thing.)
63
The people voted for Brexit. That was a democratically expressed and clear view. If the rulers of Britain do not deliver Brexit it is no longer entitled to be referred to as a democracy and instead will join the other countries ruled as oligarchies - Russia for example.
2
@Patrick
Clear ?! Not what I have read and understand....the 'dirty Digger's ' press , as well as the rest of the largely right wing media contributed to the falsehoods about the EU. There was no plan, just a constant drumbeat from Farage and co, agitating about how wonderful a 'free' Great Britain would become .
1
@Patrick
Democracy is not a once-only event.
You don't get to vote just once.
If the UK had a second vote and the British voted to remain, is there any guarantee that the EU would accept them back?
6
@Judith
So long as the decision to remain is notified to the EU before the UK actually leaves, no acceptance is required.
3
@Judith But they haven’t left yet.
@Judith They have not left.
The solution suggested does not solve the problem described. What is needed is not a question of which fish you would like to be your member of Parliament, it is whether or not Brexit is what the British people still want, now that they actually know what it is, sort of.
7
@Speakin4Myself That's not where it is. Brexit is.
Restricting immigration was a main selling point a for a lot of Brexiteers. Why not just negotiate a partial Brexit with a harder immigration policy for Britain than the EU? The common market could still exist. As much as Brexiteers hated some EU regs, I think you could get a lot of support for Remain if you tackled the immigration issue.
4
@Agarre
The EU won't have it. It's a federation, and on a range of matters its member 'states' are not granted exemptions.
This fact is, as I understand it, the main reason a referendum was held in the first place.
3
@Dixon Pinfold Untrue. The EU is not a federation, it is an association of sovereign states. The irony is that member states DO have the right to limit immigration by EU citizens but generations of British politicians found it more useful to use the EU as a punchbag than to quietly exercise those rights.
3
Just checked recent brexit polling in England. It’s within a few points, remain leads, with 20 percent undecided. If brexit won again, how many more referendums would be needed to get the right answer?
5
Loved the fish/chicken story -- enabled me to work off the tension (for a moment anyway) with a real belly laugh!
3
While the 2016 referendeum was a magnificent example of direct democracy, a referendum on the actual result of negotiations would be a betrayal of the British people. ???
A deceased 80-year-old who voted leave in 2016 has more to say about the future of the UK than a young man or woman who is only now entitled to vote and who will have to live with the results.
It has been obvious for a very long time that whichever side won on Brexit, the other side would feel cheated. A general election will muddy the water because there are so many other issues and personalities dividing the parties. The only way to get any semblance of closure is a referendum where Brexit is the only issue.
Of course if Brexit passes there won't really be any closure. Just the beginning of years of post-Brexit turmoil as the government works to unscramble the economic eggs. But at least the British people would get to have their say on the real Brexit, not the 2016 fantasy.
10
Usually, long sentences are too exhausting to follow, or too boring to finish. Not the one below :)
“I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted fish.”
4
Be careful what you wish for. The UK polls which I saw from yesterday showed the combined strength of the Conservatives and UKIP (pro-Brexit)at around 48%. Under the UK's first past the post system this would give those who favor leaving a considerable majority in Parliament. With this Johnson could leave without a deal which seems to be his preferred outcome. Even if he lost, do you really think peace and order would return to UK politics? There would millions of enraged Brexiteers feeling they had been cheated. They would cause havoc and work tirelessly for another referendum. Do the Europeans see a future for the UK within the EU? At this stage, whatever they say, I doubt it.
3
Yes, yes, yes, this all makes good sense but sadly the contemporary British political context makes anything but.
The destination-free political maze defining UK political life currently offers government by a party out of power against an utterly unelectable official opposition with a third option of centrists with less chance of assuming power a rag-tag band of Maoists.
Maybe the dystopian scenario presented near the top of Mr. Cohen's column isn't so far-fetched after all.
3
My husband thought he was watching Monty Python on TV, it turned out that he was watching the British parliament. It is not an unreasonable comparison and it seems to get worse by the day.
12
Alas, Roger Cohen, if an election were the only choice for America as it is for Britain as Brexit fails again! Democracy is the moribund victim between Donald Trump and his base vs. the "Fake press" and "deep state conspiracy" of the Democrats to impeach president Trump. We don't know how Britain will fare before and after Halloween, but we have it on good authority that Americans will be more divided and at daggers drawn before and after our Halloween.
4
Having failed nothing, Boris Johnson is prime minister of Great Briton, a position from which he certainly is not going to give the deep state a do over vote. The British have spoken, and by the way, so have so have the Americans. What must be done is to acknowledge this new political day, with its own directives for our tomorrows, and move away from the way things were.
4
In fact, in 2018 Americans clearly rejected the Trump disaster in the making, and one can only hope that Americans will put the nail in his coffin in 2020. That’s what elections are for, to allow the electorate to change their minds (although of course the electoral collage didn’t quite align with the majority vote in 2016 and so maybe it won’t be so much about the electorate changing their mind, but about some electorate changing their mind, such that the electoral college vote reflects the popular vote). Likewise, in the U.K., the electorate could change their mind about Brexit now that they know what it could really mean, something that the Brexit proponents were quite adroit in glossing over, if not lying outright. However, because of the Labor Party’s deficiencies it may not be true that the Remainers will find it in themselves to vote the Conservative Party out of power.
9
@Joe Gilkey The British did not speak. Johnson was installed as PM when he was made leader of the Conservative Party by the vote of 91,000 predominantly geriatric, white, wealthy, southern party members. He has never won a general election as leader.
The people have already voted. They want OUT. Period. The EU
is horrified the rest of Europe follow suit. They also want their countries back. Time to dissolve the EU.
5
@MariaMagdalena Right, because 70 years of peace and prosperity are such an odious burden on the people of Europe, who had been getting along beautifully before the establishment of the Common Market....
1
Roger what are you talking about? In any immediate election neither of the major party leaderships would oppose Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn's failure to campaign clearly against Brexit in 2016 was instrumental in producing the referendum result. An election now would produce a big conservative majority enabling Johnson to secure parliamentary approval for any Brexit he wishes, including no deal, followed by 6 years of reckless right-wing policy making.
People need to be given an opportunity to vote directly on the Brexit issue. A second referendum is essential and until there is one a general election would be a calamity.
13
Your readers are right about their preference for a second referendum. However the spiel about ordering fish was absolutely fabulous. Thank you.
29
A referendum is required...not a general election. A referendum with the 'deal at hand' clearly stated and a full debate about the pros and cons of that particular deal spelled out by non partisan teams and gov. departments.
23
This seems like a largely mis-informed or mis-informing piece, with respect to its title. A general election would most likely re-elect the Tories and Johnson, probably with a stronger majority, because Corbyn is deeply unpopular. What's really called for is a public referendum on the current Brexit deal - was this the Brexit you voted for? or would you rather remain?
17
The first past the post system is particularly unrepresentative in the UK. In the last century, every election but one led to a parliamentary majority for a party that recieved less than 50% of the vote. This is a certain to happen at the next election because there are more than two competitive parties with large support. For this reason, the ONLY way to decide what kind of Brexit the people of the UK want is to ask them to approve each Brexit proposal as it arrives. Any other method, such as the election of a majority government with a minority of the vote that rams through their opinion, will not settle the question. Referenda may be inefficient but they are the only way.
6
Sorry, but a new referendum is not the answer for Brexit.; there is no answer because hate of "the other" was the primary motivation for Brexit. Even if the UK votes to remain in the EU, the hate remains to fester.
3
@judgeroybean
Think you're being a bit excessive.
Austerity policy had a lot to do with it.
Immigration was an add on to an already besieged people.
@judgeroybean That is not correct - those who voted Leave simply wanted back their Sovereignty which had been abdicated to the despots in Brussels.
After three years the Brexit negotiations have demonstrated that they are leading to one of two issues: either Brexit without agreement or North Ireland secede from the U.K. to become part of the EU. What is your choice, Interim PM?
2
@JBB If North Ireland secedes, won't Scotland be likely to follow?
I absolutely disagree with Mr. Cohen. An election will not be a test of Brexit; there will be too many issues in an election and it will give no clear opinion about one issue; that is why Boris wants an election. A second referendum is the only reasonable way to test the popular will on Brexit.
I cannot understand why Corbyn doesn't demand a referendum first, unless he really wants to guarantee there will be Brexit. Which many people think he does, though he refuses to say it. Corbyn is no better than Johnson on this.
29
With voters throwing traditional allegiances to the four winds the next GE will be hard to predict.
Since the Tories will most likely lose all their Scottish MPs and several MPs in the South including London they will have to make up with Labour leaving constituencies.
Therefore it is likely that the next GE will produce a hung parliament.
1
From the very entry of Brexit into the lexicon, it’s been abundantly clear that a referendum would be required to sort things out, fairly and finally. Let the voting proceed.
14
Johnson has played a brilliant, yet dangerous, political game. It’s us versus the awful parliamentary establishment (and Labor) that won’t get Brexit done. And numerous visits and false promises to the working class people of Northern England, stirring up outrage over Brexit. When have the conservatives ever been on the side of the working class? These are the people who the conservatives continue to squeeze with austerity, but will in fact vote for the conservatives to get Brexit done. They can’t stomach the Labor party or Farage. Mr. Cavaliere Johnson will bet his political future on a general election, the working classes will hold their noses and vote Conservative because they want Brexit done and he might just get the majority in Parliament he needs to push it all through.
3
A slight problem, Roger. A huge majority of Labour MPs do not want a General Election. Well, at least not in the immediate future, according to impeccable sources tonight.
And, despite polls currently showing large leads for the Conservatives, the Cabinet is conflicted on forcing the issue.
The public polls are an unreliable guide when it comes to predicting outcomes in individual Parliamentary constituencies. Perhaps private, more detailed polling is less encouraging?
An election could well reveal a large and soft Conservative underbelly where widely expected losses to the Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists in Southern England and Scotland may not be adequately compensated for by winning seats from Labour in South Wales, the English Midlands and the North. Also Nigel Farage's Brexit Party could well spoil the party. The ultimate protest movement - it's what they exist to do.
To use British-understatement, calling a General Election in these circumstances would be "a brave move."
5
I'd fully support Brexit if informed voters chose it a 2nd time.
8
@Markymark
Absolutely if the lying mischief makers could be sidelined to allow a clean vote.
You can see from the comments below the line, Mr Cohen, that it's just not that simple.
For one thing, because of something called the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the Tories can't call a General Election by themselves, even though the government has lost their majority.
It's complex to explain why, but suffice to say that Labour, the official Opposition party, have it within their power to call a no-confidence vote and kick off a general election, but very likely won't. Whatever the official story, the fact that Labour are behind the Tories in the polls by double digits is likely the real reason.
But more fundamentally, the Remain movement (well represented in these comments) have never accepted the results of the Brexit referendum. Their active resistance, coupled with Tory incompetence and Labour ambivalence, have led to this impasse.
Johnson has a deal and the Tories are actually in a pretty strong position. One option is to work to get final approval of their deal during the expected 90 day extension. They can point out their 30 vote majority in the 2nd reading of bill, including 17 Labour MPs while losing no votes, even from Tory rebels.
Or they can withdraw the bill and demand a general election. If Labour refuse, they can start the game all over again in Jan, when the next deadline hits. All the while their lead in the polls goes up.
As for Remain? This is their last chance not to have to change their name to Rejoin I suspect.
6
@Roger
"Remain movement (well represented in these comments) have never accepted the results of the Brexit referendum"
I think many remainers were deeply unhappy with the result but would have been willing to accept one of the models brought up, repeatedly, as possibilities by the Leave campaign: the Norway model, the Swiss model, Canada plus plus plus, etc.
Those options have all fallen by the wayside.
3
@Roger: Even as an ex-pat Remainer ("Remoaner" if you wish!), that was the most reasonable description of the future of Brexit that I have read in a while. Bravo Roger from Seattle!
Then there could be a more careful comparison of the detailed differences between EU membership and withdrawal rather than just the total economic figures. They shouldn't be voting for a deal which exposes them to pot luck.
3
The best thing for my country to do now, indeed the only way forward, it seems, would be a second referendum. Polls show that remain would win this time.
The problem is though, if one is called it would need the support of Conservative MPs and it would end their party. Johnson would be finished in politics, indeed he probably wouldn't be able to show his face in London again.
This would also cause huge damage to the people's faith in democracy. The narrative that the leave camp have been going on is that this is an establishment conspiracy to remain. As bad a the referendum was, the people did vote to leave. To turn round and say they did wrong vote and ask them again will anger those who still want Brexit.
There is no easy way out in this situation. If Brexit is delivered it will be the most disappointing unboxing in history. If it's not there will be a lot of people wanting a refund on their politicians
10
Would that such a primal scream would emanate from the United States whose cries should duplicate those proposed for Britain, but substituting Trump for Brexit.
Fish on both national menus are long past expiration dates, restaurants have burned, the mixed metaphors of this article have become archaic, and two former bastion nations of government more or less by the people have fallen into the fires of historic scrutiny.
The Brexit vote was a bad vote. The final tally has not and does not represent the best interests of the British people or the will of the majority of the country.
It's broke. Can't be fixed. Should've stuck with the chicken.
9
Brexit is not doable given the current Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland reality.
That should have been much more carefully discussed before this mess of Brexit was ever brought upon the United Kingdom.
With clearer eyes, more experience, more thought—a second referendum is needed. That is so overwhelmingly obvious.
19
I have English friends on both sides of this issue.
The pro-Brexit person is, in my opinion, still clinging to the notion that the UK should not be ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels and why should the UK pay for their opulent lifestyles. His thinking reminds me of people who hold onto a losing stock position hoping it will improve, as opposed to cutting losses.
The other chap sees Brexit for what it is (in my opinion), was not fooled by the lies about how much money was being paid to the EU, and is resigned to the reality that the UK is headed for a tough time -- banks and businesses left in anticipation of Brexit and the damage done in the run up will take years to fix. Stay or leave is, on some level, irrelevant.
As I see it, it was lose/lose from the start. The lies foist on those who can't discern fact from fiction show how gullible people are if you hit their hot points -- immigrants, nationalism...
Luckily, given the likely downturn, they won't need all those immigrants to build any infrastructure!
16
@Mark
It's nice, in a sad way, to see that the British are as eager as Americans to vote with their resentments rather than with their brains, and as eager, no matter how well off they are, to believe that they are being cheated out of their right to have more.
They might want to look at what some future trade agreements would look like to see if they're worthwhile compared to staying in the EU before voting on the current proposal. Then ther could be a more careful
1
@James F. Clarity IV - The problem with that idea is that Trump may promise Boris a wonderful deal, and the over-confident PM will say 'sure!', and Trump will renege on his promise, which is his standard modus operandi. We've seen this game before, and it doesn't end well for anyone who trusts the uber-grifter.
There should not be one rule for the House of Commons (only one vote allowed per issue, as ruled by Speaker Bercow) and another rule for referenda (which are historically very rare in the UK).
If there is to be an election, let it be an election for the House of Commons. That is the traditional way for the people to speak in a representative democracy.
1
@Frank Okay. I'll take that any day. No time for referendums myself, so let's discount that last pathetic Tory party internal fix and have a General Election.
This will be under the Tory sponsored Fixed Term Parliament Act, and any sensible opposition would only agree to it when it suits their tactical advantage.
See you in six months.
Over the past 30 years, the UK was the main obstacle for a true convergence towards a strong USE, United States of Europe.
The last 3 years have demonstrated to the world, how this was achieved: through a culture of short term opportunistic deal making, at the cost of long term vision. Through informal process and resistance to codified procedures and rules.
Brexit is the big hope for Europe to finally complete its journey towards integration.
Not the UK, but European citizens should be asked whether they want the UK to remain in. I believe, the result would be very clear.
8
Yes, why not do a second ref (feel bad that we in US couldn't even think of do over for 2016 debacle) -
I am sure that the stay-in will get more votes then the BREXIT people.
2
Clearly a 2nd referendum is needed given all that it is known now and was not known 3 years ago. The problem though is that pro-Brexit enthusiasts will cry fowl, they do not want a 2nd referendum as they have no confidence that the outcome will be the same as the first. Nor do members of Parliament, a vote to drop Brexit will be a repudiation of the shenanigans they have been engaged in and prove they wasted their time for 3 long years.
4
When Swinson argues that the issue should be "taken back to the public", she argues for a second referendum, not a general election. Cohen seems rather confused in this regard.
It is also blatantly obvious that a general election does not necessarily solve the impasse. It is quite likely that a general election will result in a hung parliament, which most probably will lead to a similar display in impotence. Obviously, a general election will pollute the fundamental question of Brexit with other social and political issues.
A British friend wrote Cohen: "I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted fish.” Cohen agrees, Johnson needs to ask the country if it still wants fish. But that is not called a general election! A general election will also ask: do we want a dessert?; should I play an old-fashioned gentleman or do we split the bill?; your place or mine? - and it will be a representative that answers all these questions.
3
bravo Roger, but what is ACTUALLY needed is a second referendum, basically asking "do you want the present no-deal- in-all-practical-senses Brexit, or would you like to forget about it and Remain?" THAT would be real democracy. but i very much doubt that the orange-haired toff would survive & so he will not let it happen.
14
The Brexiteers probably do not want a new referendum precisely because they know they will lose. The voting public had awakened now and it knows that VOTES MATTER. VOTES COUNT. It was a minority that voted to leave at the end of the day and they cannot overrule the majority.
6
Those who lost the Brexit vote 48-52 have always wanted another vote. They've always thought that if only voters could try again, they'd get it right the next time.
Those who lost Brexit have defied the voters and the governments which tried to honor the vote. Successfully. It hasn't happened.
Now Cohen suggests another vote. That is what he always wanted. That isn't a new solution, that is the outcome for which he fought against the last election result, all along.
If he lost again, he'd still oppose it. He'd complain about that vote, and want another one. He'd say the question should have been phrased differently, or better "revealed the lies."
Cohen might be right about Brexit. That isn't my call here. My call is that there was a vote, and he flatly won't do it.
He says he values democracy. But if he loses, he defies it. It isn't just Brexit either. This is just a huge unavoidable example.
Worse, the arguments for and against Brexit have largely assumed their own side's factual hopes and fears. This is not about facts.
Remember the Western, "We don't need no stinkin' badges?" Well, that is where we are with facts, and on both sides.
7
@Mark Thomason
At the time of the 2016 referendum nobody knew what Brexit actually meant, politicians included. Consequently lies and unsubstantiated “facts” — which turned out to be untrue — were used to persuade people that Brexit was a good idea.
In late 2019 more is known about the damaging impact of Brexit and we know the union will be worse of outside of the EU.
Since Brexit support doesn’t not run along party lines a referendum rather than a general election is the only way to gauge voter sentiment. A general election is likely to result in a hung parliament which will only prolong the ultimate Brexit decision.
Cohen misinterpreted the 2nd reading of the WAB stating that the PM’s Brexit legislation was approved. That’s not quite the case. Passing the second reading is “in principle” support, which numerous MPs gave in order to insist on amendments which, if not ratified, is likely to result in the Brexit act not receiving the votes required to become law.
5
You're wrong. What Britain needs is not a general election.It's a follow-up referendum in which the voting public is asked to vote for or against the deal - with no leading to a withdrawal of Article 50.
I would love to see the UK stay in the EU - it has become abundantly clear over the past 3 years that there is no upside to leaving - but even so it will have lost status and respect. The clock cannot be turned back.
25
"Johnson, having failed, needs to ask the country if it still wants fish. That’s called a general election." Roger, there's a huge difference between a general election and what many are calling for, namely a people's vote. Hundreds of thousands of people marched on Saturday in London calling for a new referrendum and this should happen before a general election. If the country has changed its mind they need a way to say so clearly. There's a very real danger an election doesn't produce a majority in Parliament,
17
If there is an election soon, should it include a second referendum on Brexit?
How much can you muck around with democracy? Countries can't just hold referendums and then hold another because some people don't like the original result.
Britain voted to leave and perhaps at some point might apply to rejoin the EU.
4
@Ambrose Why not? We have elections every 2 years to decide our representatives, who then go and change settled laws. Once we decided on a 90% top marginal tax rate. Should we have that in perpetuity because to change it would be to "weaken democracy?" In what way weaker? A referendum is no different from any other vote. What is done today might be undone tomorrow. That is the nature of a responsible government -- not to do something insane just because some prior government held a vote.
7
What about the people of Ireland? Brexit affects them arguably more than the UK, and yet they had no say in the matter.
What about the people of Scotland? They voted to remain by 3-1, and yet they were not offered the same deal as Northern Ireland.
What about the people of Wales? Their vote to remain was subordinated to the exit votes of marchland retirees from England.
What about the people of England who voted to leave because they believed the promises that Brexit could be negotiated to their advantage?
What about the young people who voted to remain, and who will stuck with mess long after the people who instigated it are dead and gone?
Politicians mess with democracy they lie and dissemble, and when they place personal ambition above the common good. That’s a far great danger than second thoughts that arise as a result of bungling and deception.
14
@Paul Goode
You make a good case, but basically you are saying that the electorate's choice was ill made.
I agree that the original referendum should not apply for eternity but it needs to be given at least some time to operate.
1
Centralization of government is liberal goal. It is so much easier for liberal policies to succeed in centralized government without those pesky states having a say. But it undermines the rights and freedoms of individuals and local government. Federalism is a never ending dispute between local and central governments within a nation that is good for the people. But the EU is a supranational government that wields power over members of different nations. Of course liberals want another election because they lost. But a second election only undermines the will of the people who won the first one. Is the plan to keep voting until the liberals get the result they want? Once a person or a state signs away their freedom, it is difficult to regain it. Would you want the United States to be so careless with our independence?
4
@dudley thompson The Brexit vote was held without most people knowing what the consequences were. If a 2nd referendum is still pro-Brexit then by all means proceed. If it isn't then why should Brexit take place if the majority now opposes it? Is that really democratic? It has been 3 years. almost as long as it takes to elect a new US President. Of course, since Northern Ireland and Scotland are adamantly opposed do not be surprised if they chose to secede rather than accept a result hoisted on them by the English.
3
@dudley thompson : Nationalism doesn't have the best examples of behavior throughout history. It's just tribalism wrapped up in fancy clothes and nifty flags.
Great Britain was once England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. All of which hated and killed each other for their "Nation".
“Does anyone remember why we did this to ourselves?”
I really think Brexit will turn into the modern version of Jarndyce versus Jarndyce. In a few years we will all still talk about how to implement Brexit, but no one will remember where Brexit came from and why.
So it is important to reflect now on the origin of Brexit, which in many ways recall the origins of Trump: an explosive cocktail of populism and indifference.
Populism generated the referendum.
The indifference of the people who stayed at home on the day of the vote allowed the "Leave" to win.
10
I note that the US of A could never be burdened with such a referendum as Brexit. The Constitution says in no uncertain terms that the full legislative power of the US is vested in the Congress so there is no possibility of such a referendum. And what Boris Johnson needs to do as Prime Minister is tell the people that the referendum that he championed is only ad can only be advisory because the full legislative power in Great Britain is vested in the Parliament, if not de jure then de facto because Brexit simply can not happen unless Parliament authorizes it. So if the people of Great Britain want to leave the EU, they need to elect people to Parliament that want it as well and until that day happens they should forget about it.
4
@Bob Richards Boris Johnson would no more say that than Donald Trump would say that the justice system is free, fair, unbiased and unpolluted and he will abide by its rulings without complaint.
Some 3rd class politicians used the last public vote on leaving to enable many voters in the delusion that the UK - or at least England - would soar if freed from EU shackles. That was a con, a majority bought into it and advanced the pols who sold it. Those voters now own Brexit, they have to defend it and their pols. It's a matter of self identity. Until they have actual experience with reality and a belly full of Brexit an election is unlikely to change anything.
14
Roger Cohen: Yes! I have been saying this from the moment it became apparent that the big-money players had been behind the Brexit scheme all along.
Now that voters know about that, why not vote on it again, this time with every logical consideration in place, rather than leaving the fat cats to run rampant over democratically aligned forces?
I for one, as an interested American of mixed English descent (Welsh), would like to think that my English-speaking friends may have come to their senses. And the Welsh speakers, too.
Thank you.
6
I find it hard to believe that anyone knows how a general election will turn out. A new referendum, perhaps, but I think who votes and how they vote is is a complete mystery these days....and as much as I like Mr. Cohen, I doubt he really knows either.
4
The EU will not grant an extension and Brexit will happen on October 31.
Britain can re-apply for EU membership anytime. If or when the failures have become obvious. Or not, if Brexit turns out to be a success.
5
The EU does not want Britain to crash out with no deal. In fact they do not want Britain out at all. They will extend indefinitely.
3
I don't understand why a "remain in the EU" vote in a proposed second referendum should be considered "unfair." When the UK hold a parliamentary election that changes the party that is in power, nobody complains that the results are unfair to the ousted party. How is this different?
25
@ Czarlisle
There is nothing whatsoever unfair about it. This is just an feeble attempt by pro Brexiters to make an argument against it.
1
I agree on the point that brexit needs to be put back to the people, but I disagree that this should be in the form of an election. There are so many other things that a British government should take care of than brexit and fighting an election where brexit is the main talking point means there will be no clear mandate on any of these. First, let’s have a referendum specifically on brexit (I would suggest Mr Johnson’s deal or remain), and then let’s have an election on all the rest if needed.
9
The Brits voted three years ago, 52:48 to leave the EU
Ever since the educated elite has refused to accept this democratic vote.
The reason : The educated profit from the UK being in the EU - from the city of London to the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford
The "uneducated" do not - they saw their jobs move to Poland were wages are 1/4 of Britain and Polish plumbers - under unlimited EU migration - take their jobs in Britain
Time for the educated elite to accept Democracy and implement the 2016 vote
2
@ Kenyon,
Three years is a long, long time. Leaving the EU might have been the genuine wish of the U.K. population three years ago, although a) there is some doubt about that and b) it’s pretty clear that most Britons did not have a clue about what it would really entail. It’s definitely time for a second look. If you are right and it is what the people really want, then no harm done and Brexit can proceed. But if sentiment has in fact turned against Brexit, there is no reason on earth that a purely advisory referendum taken three years ago should have any standing whatsoever.
26
@Kenyon
If it were a matter of the "educated elite" minority opposing the will of the majority - then a second referendum would give the same result as last time.
The reason the pro-Brexit side opposes a second referendum is because the lies they used to get that victory have been exposed, and it is not likely they will win again. The pro-Brexit crew are the ones afraid of democracy.
7
@Kenyon This tedious, politically suspect disparagement of “educated elites” has been thoroughly debunked here in the UK. Those opposing Brexit come from all classes, all regions, all age groups, all walks of life and all ethnicities. They now amount to more than half of the population. But you’re right about one thing: they are educated. The strongest correlation for a pro-Remain vote is college education or higher. We are being frogmarched to disaster in the name of what you Americans refer to as “low information voters”.
Casually watching this all unfold from across the Atlantic, it always looked like UK government was stalling on action until it was too late and a "do over" election was required. It would have seemed hard to believe 3 years could produce no result but here we are; it looks like they pulled it off.
Is there a cap on # of elections before result is accepted?
5
Let's look at this revote idea practically. Brexit was voted 52-48 for, the country being roughly split in half over this. It is unlikely to have changed. If after re-voting, Brexit wins again, we have wasted our time. But if Brexit looses, woe betides GB, one half of the country will (rightly) say that a decision was stolen from them, might look at other means than democracy and, surely, no story of fishy restaurants will appease them
2
@Frozy
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that nothing has changed. They've spent 3 years futilely trying to get Brexit done. My understanding is most of the polling now indicates that Remain would win in another referendum.
12
@Ryan That GB is split in 2 over this question is what is unlikely to have changed, not the result.
1
@Frozy
It is very likely to have changed - the lies used in the vote have been exposed, people have found out that the immensely favorable deal that was imagined does not exist.
Why not a referendum on the proposed Brexit plan, yes or no.
6
It seems to me many so-called leavers were confused by the first referendum. Apparently the most googled phrase in the days post first vote was “what is the EU” incredible as that seems. A great many more members of the UK now understand what EU means and the implications of Brexit. The people should be allowed to vote in the matter again.
11
But a large number of people still understand Brexit as meaning « Brexit means Brexit ». So putting Boris’s plan up for a public vote would do no more than invoke a similar unintelligable, meaningless mass response to « campaign promises » driven by personal ambition, and lead to another result based on stupidity.
What was and still is urgently needed (now that some kind of plan finally exists (because Cameron, incredulously, didn’t have one for a « worst case scenario » and was advised against creating one in case word of possible failure leaked out) is to carry out a nationwide communications campagne setting out in simple terms, that will be easily understand by everyone, what the implications actually are of GB leaving the EU. And the terms & conditions currently being proposed for « leave ». Then have a second referendum. Voters might then stand a chance of making an informed decision rather than one based on emotions, myths and lies.
Do a second referendum. If Remain wins, then formally stay within the E.U. If this is not seen to be fair because the first referendum was won by Leave, then schedule a third and decider referendum for one year hence that, if Remain wins again, will include a commitment to not hold any further referendum for a minimum period of ten years. Just thinking.
3
I did not think he could do it, but Johnson did manage to get the EU to reopen the agreement and Ireland to accept a way to jettison the backstop. Not bad at all. Johnson seems to have realized that even in any conceivable outcome, deal, soft deal, no deal, at some point the Irish border question would have to be solved, either in negotiations for a trade agreement with the EU or, given the determination of the American Congress to protect the Good Friday Agreement, a trade agreement with the USA. With this deal he manages to solve that problem and leave a post-Brexit Britain in a position to negotiate. Does this increase the prospect of Northern Ireland becoming united with the Republic? Maybe, but that outcome is probably inevitable, though were I an Irish voter I would not want to have anything to do with that NI mess. Besides, one would think that after the stifling problems Britain’s Parliament had with the Irish Parliamentary Party a century ago and now a reflection of the same political morass this time due to the DUP, Britain would be happy to see the end of its tortured Irish entanglement. How often, at crucial points in history does Britain’s Parliament have to find itself held hostage to Irish parties that have no real interest in the overall good of Britain? Johnson has made a good deal. Leave. Stop torturing Ireland and the EU. Leave. Leave. Just leave.
2
I'm not sure an election is going to solve anything. If the Conservatives are kicked out and Labour voted in, does that mean the voters reject Brexit and embrace remain? Or does it mean they're ejecting the Conservatives because of incompetence. Electing the Lib Dems would be a clear vote for remaining, but do the voters want to be governed by the Lib Dems? A referendum would be clearer, although that would bring its own set of problems: yes the first time, no the second time. Wouldn't you logically need a 3rd referendum?
2
What your friend wrote about ordering fish in the restaurant turned out to be a Monty Pythonesque skit... great imagery. Still chuckling over that one. - thanks!
11
I read the fish restaurant story a few weeks ago in the comment section of an earlier Brexit piece. It is brilliant and to the point and deserves wide circulation.
2
There is only one problem with an election and it is this awful First Past The Post system. Since you can get a majority government with only 39 or 40 % of the votes, I doubt that this will be a way out of this mess. It would still not reflect the will of the people on Brexit.
4
Mr. Cohen may not like Brexit, but a majority of the British people seem to be consistently for it. I'll be interested to read his column in the probable event that a general election delivers the conservatives a majority.
4
@Dustin Steinhauer
The polling seems to show a slight but steadily holding shift to remain.
@Dustin Steinhauer Let’s wait and see. What if Labour wins? When you say a majority, do you mean barely 51% or an overwhelming one?
This was one elegant newspaper column, with clarity seldom brought to our own transparent fog. If only the redundant agonies inflicted upon us by commentators on Trump, could be shoveled out of the stables with each morning's dump from the Administration, itself, we might breathe of nuance again, of clear thinking -- such as this:
Britain is stuck. The Conservatives are in government, but they are not in power.
5
Spot on, Mr. Cohen. Britain should, however, wait until after the 31st to have another general election, just to give Boris a chance to make good on his promise of being "dead in a ditch." Not that I'm worried that someone who loves himself so much would actually harm himself, but something tells me he lied about that, too, like almost everything else he does.
17
A general election is the wrong answer to the brexit question. It would conflate general good governance with implementing a decision to leave the EU.
The government has proposed a strategy for leaving the EU. Having decided by a very narrow majority three years ago to leave, only the UK public can now decide if the version of leaving their government has devised is actually what they want or whether they'd actually like to change their minds and stay.
This would require a confirmatory vote (aka second referendum) and answers the brexit question. If necessary, the referendum could be two stage i.e. if we leave would you prefer this deal or no deal followed by the question, now you know what leave lookalike, do you still want to leave.
The problem with holding a second general election (we've already had one since the referendum) is that its likely to result tin yet another hung parliament with no majority for anything - it's likely to resolve nothing.
4
But if a re-referendum produces another LEAVE, then won’t the cycle just endlessly repeat?
4
@Fred p The first referendum was advisory only. Presumably a second would be binding. If Leave wins again, then so be it, they will go ahead and jump off the cliff.
@Fred p
Best two out of three?
It doesn't seem to make sense to agree with the Brexit plan, then not agree with the timetable because one needs to read the full Brexit plan? And, if the new Brexit plan is really the old Brexit plan + minor tweaks, why do they need more time to read the Brexit plan? It remains to be fear of the unknown. I think this should definitely be put back to the public, but what Parliament just did is hard to comprehend. Boris will be elected I am afraid, and Brexit will go through. Based on this last week's events, it should've gone through already.
1
@Bruno There was no Brexit "plan." There was a catchy invented word "Brexit," not unlike "Kleenex" or "Ex-lax" or "MAGA," and 52% of the voters bought it because the salesman yelled loud and had no scruples and the free things he offered sounded nice.
Now, if you're paying attention, reality has dawned.
SO, when the Brexit Fraud fails like the Criminal Trumps' attempt at stealing the Presidency for PUTIN, SHOULD HAVE, then what?
Johnson will be ejected with a good kick to plump behind and who will lead Britian? CALL FOR THATCHER!
2
Another referendum is most certainly the right answer so that the UK can get on with being the UK.
12
An election is the only answer for this US, as well.
5
As other commentators have noted, Brexit cuts across party lines, and therefore a general election is not a solution. Of the three main parties only the Liberal Democrats are unambiguously pro-Remain—and they can't win. (I'm surprised Roger C, such a fabulous journalist, doesn't address—or even seem to recognize—this intractable issue at the heart of the impasse.)
My view on Brexit? We should all simmer down: It's about a trade agreement FFS.
And if it *isn't* about a trade agreement—and is in fact about ever closer political union and ultimately federal Europe—then the British people have been conned and are quite right to vote for more agency in the matter! This desire for agency—to "take back control" if you must—doesn't make them bigots and racists.
Try this: frame the question to yourself as "Withdrawal from the Maastricht treaty" (the treaty that converted the "European Economic Community" into the "European Community" in 1992). It sounds more boring doesn't it? Fewer emotions to be whipped up into a frenzy...
Bottom line: it's perfectly possible to love Europe, and Europeans (and indeed be in favour of immigration via a well-managed policy)—and still want to withdraw, amicably, from the EU.
7
We will see how that works out for them when Scotland decides to leave the UK in a few years because of their support for the EU. I believe, coming from the perspective of a political scientist, that if the referendum was held again that the populace would choose to stay in the EU. Other "commentators" have also said this, especially considering all that came out about disinformation after the fact.
3
@Carter Wale - Isn't the problem with a second referendum that (polls suggest) we'd get the same result? Or perhaps a different result (pro-Remain) but by the same narrow margin, just reversed. That wouldn't solve much—and might make things worse.
There are lots and lots of people—including many sane, rational, non-xenophobic people—who are pro Brexit. As I try to tell my American friends, it's not the same phenomenon as Trump.
There are overlaps, of course—but in my view they're minor. The Farage-types just grab all the attention, because hatred makes good headlines.
3
If the U.K. goes ahead with Brexit, Scotland will leave the U.K., Northern Ireland will leave the U.K.. Even Wales may leave the U.K. . That will make the United Kingdom just the Kingdom and Great Britain just Britain, or more correctly Lesser Britain. Sic transit gloria.
And what will a general election solve?
Conservatives will still have more seats than the hapless Labor Party. Most but not all Conservatives favor leaving. Most but not all of Labor sort of want to stay.
The foam at the mouth Protestants in Northern Ireland do not want anything that is different from the mainland fearing unification with the Popish Republic. Who knows how they will vote?
The Scots want to stay in the EU or leave Britain.
The only chance of Britain staying in the EU is if a another group stating clearly they oppose leaving wins enough seats to hold the balance of power.
Otherwise Britain is back to square one.
Fact is, it hardly matters whether there is a Brexit deal or not; whether the Brits decide to reverse course; the black cloud hanging over the United Kingdom will not dissipate. Long ago, the Brits committed themselves to following a quasi-socialist agenda, mixing capitalism with state sponsored health care, etc,, producing an economy that for decades has fallen behind in producing innovative new industries to power growth. Instead, job producing industries, say, like the late lamented auto industry, have disappeared (no need to count, the Brits are well informed, on this score. Leaving the Euro zone or having the bureaucrats in Belgium run their country wont' make any difference in the long (or short) run. Head for the hills.
A general election will not be mainly about Brexit. It will be about whether Jeremy Corbyn is less or more integrity-free than Boris Johnson. Either way Britain loses and Brexit happens.
The Remainers have been shooting themselves in the foot since the Referendum was first announced. Even today they have failed to point out that Britons living abroad were not allowed to vote. Most of the ex-pats live in the EU, almost all are passionately opposed to Brexit, and their votes would have put paid to Brexit.
Even after the Referendum, it might have been possible to form a Remain party, taking MPs in large numbers from the two major parties. That would have required a leader in the mold of Winston Churchill or Robert Peel. He or she didn't emerge and, now, it is almost certainly too late.
4
@proxicap Brexit can only happen if it does nothing to diminish the world power or make it non functional (Anglo-American) as this world powers fate is to be destroyed at the hands of the Kingdom of God. Rev CH 17 says so.
Recently I heard a reporter on the BBC answer a woman who called in saying that anything as important as Brexit needed at least three referendums. The reporter answered that if that was tried, it would lead to revolution. Indeed, the ordinary people of Britain, in both parties, are tired of the elites telling them that they know best, and we'll just keep doing this over until the little people are forced to cede their deplorable opinions. Amazingly, this is a great deal like the reaction will be of the 60 million voters in the US who voted for Donald Trump, if they're told to stand quietly while the elites throw impeachment spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. I'm actually a democrat; not a Democrat; like the voters of Britain, I think there should be some respect for a majority vote.
And you know what? Countries that no longer produce insulin, or can feed themselves, or produce some necessary high grade steel, should be very cautious about going global.
3
The vote on European Union membership was 1,216 days ago. A lot has changed and a lot more is known. Over two million voters have churned.
It has to be right to ask the people again. Moreover, now there are clear choices to vote for.
8
@Mary
"I'm actually a democrat; not a Democrat; like the voters of Britain, I think there should be some respect for a majority vote."
And yet clearly you have zero respect for the majority vote in the US in 2016, where the candidate who lost by 3M votes wound up in the WH.
27
@Rex7 The founding fathers established the electoral college for a reason: to make sure that the smaller population states did not get swamped by the larger population states. They were a very smart bunch, and you should hesitate before interfering with their work. However, if you don't like the electoral college, you have the right to start an amendment procedure to change it.
3
Leaving the EU is an economic sea change for Britain. It should never have been decided by a simple majority. Like ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution (which requires passage by 2/3 of the states), a new referendum on EU membership should require a 2/3 vote to leave. Anything less than a 2/3 majority vote in favor of Brexit should mean Britain stays. The upheaval, economic dislocations and overall risks in departure from the EU require something close to a consensus to implement.
David Cameron was a little stupid in thinking that he could cut off UKIP with a quick little referendum. He set forces into action that he should have anticipated. It's time to undo the 2016 mistake, taking full care that Russia and its fellow travelers and a load of social media disinformation don't exert influence over the vote. Brexit should require a 2/3 majority in order to achieve a true mandate to leave.
44
Allowing the first referendum was a huge mistake by the British government. The average citizen simply doesn’t have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision on whether or not the U.K. should remain in the EU. And the average citizen still doesn’t have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision on this, so a second referendum would also be a huge mistake. This is a question which should only be decided by a legislative body.
Both the U.K. and the US are now undergoing the painful process of determining whether representative democracy can actually still work in these countries in the 21st century. And right now the jury is out.
5
So many of us have been educated to admire British politics. But now it seems no better than American politics. This could be a good thing: the British claim to fame has never been very well documented and finding Britain no more impressive than Malta or Finland may be healthy.
1
Oh for the love of God LEAVE already!
49
It’s painful and boring but millions of people voted for the opposite. It’s horrible and divisive but when it is “done” it actually isn’t...for even longer than just “leaving already will you” - it’s a never ending fever.
19
@JFB Some in Ontario say the same thing about Alberta. Most of us think things are pretty good the way they are and we just need to fix the details to everyone's satisfaction. Zero sum solutions are not helpful or ideal. I want a Canada that is united. I want a UK that is satisfied with its arrangement and feels, even if they didn't want it, that it was arrived at by a fair and open process, not a rash, politically motivated referendum with more unknowns than knowns.
12
@REPeep A majority voted to leave. The Establishment refuses to respect that result. It's a disgrace.
A second referendum would again be subject to a deluge of baloney from the leave faction intended to inflame division, not to clarify the matter. Whether the result would be decided by the unfortunately brainwashed or the more sapient is very unclear.
1
"Singapore-on-the-Thames" ?
They should be so lucky.
But they won't.
5
The United States and the UK are going the way of Rome, collapsing from internal greed and corruption. It's the nature of cultures and civilizations. What we're witnessing is the denouement of Reagan-Thatcherism: Once you unleash the dogs of greed and kleptocracy, it's very difficult to corral them again. Especially if you don't even try.
316
@Rocky
Reagan and Thatcher were out of office by 1990, 30 years ago. Since then we've had New Labour, Clinton, Obama, and lots of other leaders of the left and right. The cold war ended; China adopted capitalism and grew explosively for 30 years. The Middle East and Afghanistan erupted into endless wars.
There comes a point when Reagan/Thatcher is just a meme for old codgers to rattle on about. Join the 21st century, or join an assisted living home.
7
@Tom Meadowcroft I can't speak to Thatcher, but Reagan – with his open contempt for good government – definitely started this country on its downward path.
49
@Tom Meadowcroft
I hope you get treated with the same respect you give to "old codgers" when you get old enough to be called one.
As for your analysis, you misread Rocky's comment and you seem to have missed the recent history that justifies it.
2
I actually see a parallel here between the Brexit fiasco and what has been going on in the USA for the last three years. In the UK the elites decided the vote was wrong because the people were ignorant, in the USA the Democratic elite decided Trumps election was invalid because.... well because they don’t like him. In both cases the will of the people is being thwarted. And, yes I know about the popular vote and the electoral college, but the constitution says how presidents are elected just as it has for over 200 years. Get over it.
3
The flaw in your thinking is that the current situation of impeachment hearings is only because the Democrats don’t like Trump. There now is strong and credible evidence that he violated his oath of office. To do nothing about that would be unpatriotic and morally wrong.
79
@Thomas Smith
Well of course there’s a parallel between Britain’s Brexit and America’s apocalypse.
In Britain some people with common sense now realize that the “all gain, no pain“ Brexit they were offered in the first referendum was a chimera, and now they want a REAL referendum on a Brexit where the realistic consequences are known upfront.
In the United States, despite the right’s oft-cited claim, their opposition was never trying to “undo” the 2016 election. That was true throughout nearly three long years, during which time Trump was merely bombastic, vulgar, and incompetent. And even now, given his crass pursuit of wild conspiracy theories to gather dirt on political opponents past and present, if it were merely venal, it might be tolerated. However, Trump’s bald-faced extortion scheme, withholding 391 million dollars of US taxpayer aid promised to Ukraine is not just criminally self-serving, it also compromises Americas long-standing leadership role in European security and undermines the integrity of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
Accordingly, it is only appropriate that the house intelligence committee pursue its inquiries to determine whether search egregious behavior also constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
That’s the parallel.
@Thomas Smith Actually, in both cases, the trouble is caused by the fact that what was elected is woefully unfit for anything but sowing chaos. Presidents who are corrupt and incompetent must be called to account, and massively complex plans to alter the structure of one's economy must be adjusted when they fail - the will of the people is not static. I have to wonder why anyone thinks that ignoring the consequences of elections and letting one's country burn is respecting the will of the people.
I don't really see a way out for either the US or UK. The Brexit proposal was created out of racism, specifically hatred of non-white citizens of the EU settling in Britian. A vote will not change this fact. Similar to the vote in the US for Trump. The problem isn't the Brexit policy or Trump, it's the weak alternatives to end stage capitalism offered by austerity loving centrists, leaving voters a choice of austerity w/ racial hatred (ie. conservative) or just straight centrist austerity.
At least if you vote for the racial hatred you actually get what you vote for, as the 1% steals everything not bolted to the floor.
2
What is needed is legislation - or whatever they call it in England - making a rule that in order to leave the EU there must be two consecutive elections with some supermajority minimum (I don't know what that number is).
Leaving the EU is too serious a move to allow a small majority of voters swayed by lies and innuendo financed by Putin.
Putin is brilliant. He has discovered how to improve his and Russia's standing by destroying democracies from the inside, without ever firing a shot. He is doing it to both GB (via Boris and Dominic Cummings) and the US (via Trump and Moscow Mitch).
We must fight this takeover of the free world, and ultimately penalize those responsible.
72
@Chris They've been calling it legislation in England since long before the United States existed.
At this point I have no doubt that if there were to be a second Referendum, the results would be totally different the first go 'round.
Not only because of the non-ending back-and-forth of the entire Brexit question, but because in the interim it has become unquestionably clear just how catastrophic a move like that would be to the entire British economy.
Then there is the fate of Northern Ireland -- and Scotland which is ready to jump the Brexit-ship at a moment's notice.
Another thing that also needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that many Britons didn't even bother to vote on the first Referendum because no one thought it would fly -- just like a lot of voters here never thought someone like Donald Trump could ever be elected.
Now we know better.
It remains to be seen if they do.
21
Have another vote. Russia played a role in the Brexit vote. Do not let them have the final word. Such an important and lasting decision to leave needs much thought and education. Apparently this decision was made in haste and with falsehoods presented by the Russians and others. Now that the people have a clearer understanding, know there was interference in their election, and have taken to the streets demanding another vote, let the people have their say and schedule another vote on Brexit.
8
An election will play into Johnson's soiled hands. He will hide Brexit behind all sorts of puffery, lies and promises. He will distract people from the fundamental issue, talking about health, police and taxes to get his bad deal done. Already his spin is to try and de-legitimise parliament and MPs, calling them zombies for opposing him and seeking to examine the details of his "deal."
98
@Michael Letellier
It sounds like Boris Johnson is more like Donald Trump than we previously thought. Scary.
38
@Michael Letellier Newsflash -- parliament HAS no legitimacy. A quarter of the Lib Dems are from a different party, having crossed the floor against the wishes of their constituents. All of the major parties declared they would respect the result. The opposition refuses to give Johnson an election, mainly because they know they will lose.
@Michael Letellier
He will run against Corbyn, thereby totally confounding the issue of Brexit. An election is the very worst option. Is that why Corbyn seems to want one? I know it's why Johnson does!
There was a general election about 1 year ago. It solved nothing, Why would a new one?
What is needed is a new referendum about the Boris deal, or no deal or revoke art.50. This is the only way to decide the Brexit issue. Then a general election might allow a Parliament aligned with the will of the population.
And don't tell we cannot redo a referendum since one was done 3 years ago. A lot has changed in 3 years, and people are allowed to change their minds, just like they are allowed to vote for a different party at each election.
14
3.78 percent was the difference in votes in the referendum. It amazes me how British the British are about accepting a referendum result that was clearly the test bed of social media chicanery.
20
The BEST column I've read thus far on the Brexit Twilight Zone episode. All we need do now is bring Rod Serling back to life to properly introduce the details.
Maybe BREXIT is a real argument for making Queen Elizabeth an absolute monarch. Her Majesty would have avoided this horror show.
8
Assuming a new public vote results in a choice to remain in the EU, will there be demands to do it all over again, a best 2 out of 3 result? Where does this stop?
3
@JD1
Now that it's become clear what a Brexit would mean, how it would splinter Britain, it does not surprise me that people would seek a new chance to vote on the issue.
What I don't understand is the commenters here who are obsessed with the idea that mandates bust be unchangeable. Revisiting decisions when faced with important new information is necessary if one is to make the best decision , be it for a country or an individual.
25
What's needed is not a general election, but a second referendum. A general election will not necessarily solve anything.
25
@Deborah Scroggins I disagree. Johnson was not elected by the British people, but by less than 100,000 aging Tories. He has no mandate. He has no parliamentary majority. He has no credibility. The true alignment of forces in the country after this fiasco has to be established. Thanks for writing. Roger
2
@Roger Cohen
Aha, so you DO read these comments!
Well, not to be argumentative, but I say no, there ought to be a new referendum first. If Johnson wins an election he will treat the results as if it WERE a referendum and claim it to be a mandate for Brexit on his terms.
Let the people decide, eyes-wide-open Brexit or remain.
Then, after THAT, have an election to establish the “true alignment of forces” where the decision about which party can best run the country is not overshadowed by a Damoclean Brexit.
6
@Roger Cohen
The problem with a general election is the first past the post system. If we had proportional representation I would agree with you that a general election would reflect the true alignment of forces in the UK.
A referendum on the choice of Johnson's deal vs remain would focus the question where it needs to be focused, and would resolve the immediate question on the basis of one person one vote.
4
There was a clear mandate from the Brexit vote. Now I guess whenever the Britts get a result they dislike, they can just do it over until the ruling elites get what they want.
10
@Thomas Smith: The Brexit vote was conducted with illegal backing from Russia, and with British pols making an array of promises that bear no resemblance to the current Brexit. This is the original bait-and-switch. There is a real problem with undoing a referendum. There is also a real problem with making promises you know to be false (and they really did know they were false). If you address the second problem, you exacerbate the first. If you don't act on the first problem, then you encourage greater dishonesty in the future. This is not like an election where a bad government can be voted out in 4 years. This is an irreversible change.
40
@Thomas Smith A two percent edge in voting is NOT a clear mandate. And that edge was obtained by a torrent of lies.
18
@Thomas Smith Wrong. A large number of people didn't vote and many that did, had no idea what the implications were of their vote.
The campaign to leave was one of hate, racism, and bigotry. The Russians flooded social media in the UK like they did here in the US to help create this mess.
In the days after the shocking result, most people in the UK searched for information about the European Union than any other term.
6
It is a sad feature of the left that when it loses an election, it always wants a re-vote, because it cannot believe that people would actually have the temerity to vote in another direction. Parliament needs to implement the Brexit decision first, as the will of the people. Then, if Johnson wants early elections, he can call one.
6
@Snowball Brexit is no longer the will of the people, as a new referendum would prove. Which why Bresiters don't want another referendum.
5
@Snowball They have been trying to implement the will of the people for some time now, and every attempt has failed. This isn't about leftists negating the results of an election, this is about finding a way forward when the effort to carry out the will of the people has failed so spectacularly.
3
Another referendum is what makes sense to me but then I’m so confused by it all. It has never made sense to me. I do know that my ex-pat English friends in France hate Brexit. And I’ll go with them.
11
You voted to separate from Europe.
You elected the man who was on a mission to get it done.
Then you sabotage every effort to do just that.
This is not a choice of where do you want to eat, you cannot dilly dally and then pout and say anywhere is fine. This is not that kind of choice.
Stay or go. It’s simple, make up your mind.
5
The British did not vote for the man who would get it done - that is the point. Parliament is not in favour of Brexit but many members feel obliged to give effect to a referendum that sits ill with a parliamentary system. Others do not. Your impatience is understandable but if it was easy it would have done by now.
4
@AutumnLeaf
The people did make up their mind, but their "betters" didn't like the answer so they are refusing to accept it.
The only solutions that ever seemed even feasible were trading N Ireland to Ireland for a territory to be named later (perhaps in concert with Scottish independence) or doing a customs union only arrangement where the UK forfeited voting power on such matters but freed itself of other obligations or staying in the EU.
Given the Brexiteer's slogan "take back control" it seems clear the first two choices would likely have failed to win a majority without a very different campaign to promote them.
2
@Alan
" trading N Ireland to Ireland for a territory to be named later"
Wow. That isn't how it works!!!!
Please go back and do a little research on the history of Ireland and NI! When you get to the Good Friday Agreement pay special attention.
While it’s very much the case that the Conservatives started this mess, beginning with David Cameron’s foolish decision to hold a referendum to appease members of his party, the Labour Party is also beset by pro-Brexit politicians, many of whom serve constituencies that voted to leave the E.U. As a result, Labour is not the clear-cut anti-Brexit party standing in staunch opposition to the Conservatives. Rather, Corbyn says that if Labour were to win an election, they would negotiate a softer Brexit, and then put that up for a binding yes/no referendum. It's a plan that makes "Remain" far from certain, even if one votes for Labour. Corbyn's rather qualified stance is also why Johnson and the Conservatives will still prevail in a general election.
The only chance for real clarity on Brexit is a second referendum -- the option politicians on all sides have spent months studiously avoiding.
16
@kaw7 Career politicians afraid for their jobs are the main cause of this mess, abetted by dark money forces.
3
An election probably won't change much. I think it would actually lead to a minority government and even more naval gazing.
The only way to end this now is for someone to make themselves deeply unpopular, whether that's by forcing through Brexit or by cancelling it entirely. Either way, there is no silver bullet that ties up all the loose ends and keeps everyone smiling.
2
@Mark That "naval gazing," is that what we used to call watching the submarine races as teens?
2
@Mark I think you mean "navel"? Unless you you have some ocean-bound idea? Which could be handy in these times. As such, please elaborate!
An Election? Like a General Election? Boris has called for it twice but Labour won't agree. You mean a Second Referendum right? Of course that's what you mean. That Will NOT Happen until the results of the First One have been implemented. So go ahead and have the General Election. Then the UK can go forward with a WTO Exit instead of this very favorable to the EU deal that Boris has managed to negotiate. Roll those dice if you dare.
7
@GregP That was what I assumed him to have meant...it would be good were Roger to clarify!
2
@GregP
Erm...no, the vote in 2016 was not the "First One". David Cameron was persuaded, for reasons entirely unconnected to the welfare of the UK as a whole, to allow a vote to overturn the real First One of 1975. Whereas the vote of 1975 was said at the time to be a unique event to represent the people's choice in perpetuity, the Second One in 2016, argued for be Leavers, established the principle that the issue could be re-voted; this was not the case before. Moreover, the vote of 2016 did not establish a definition of "leave", and it is abundantly clear that there is no majority, either in Parliament or the country for any of the various "flavors" that have been mooted - hard, soft, Norway, Canada, etc. In these circumstances, it's clear to anyone with an open mind that the fair thing to do is to have new vote on the actual deal on offer. This is why leaders of Leave faction (William Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings) are on record favoring a new vote on the negotiated deal - but, of course, that was before the vote in 2016.
2
Help me. I'm never able to remember movie titles. I saw the movie you are describing twenty five years ago. I think Bill Murray played Boris Johnson. Or did he platy Nigel Farage?
2
In other words, keep voting until you get the answer YOU want.
9
@M No, just do what sensible countries do and ensure the public are well informed before asking them to make binary decisions that affect generations....
62
@TooUnCool
There was a long campaign, and nearly every "celebrity" in the UK other than BoJo, Farage, and John Cleese favoured "Remain".
Remain had more than enough time to inform the public.
4
@M Things have changed. The problem is that what they voted for doesn't appear to be achievable. I have family in Britain who very enthusiastically voted to Leave, but who now say that if they'd known how badly it would turn out they would not have voted at all. They would still very much prefer to be out of the EU, but, being rational creatures, they also recognize that the effort to do so has caused material harm to their country and society, and there is still no end in sight. At this point, no one is getting the answer they want, but they need to find an answer people can live with.
1
I very much enjoyed your friend's fish-story analogy.
169
@Will McClaren, I did, too. Also the meme about 2128.
16
I have been arguing for a revote for a long time. Brexit was based on lies. It is not a damage to democracy to kill Brexit, it shows the strength of intelligent democracy to kill Brexit.
272
@Anthony Intelligent democracy seems an elusive quest at this juncture.
8
@Anthony Politicians lying!!! OMG, what a revelation. Or, I don't like the result of a democratic election so let's keeping voting again and again and again...
The anti-Brexiteers had their shot and lost. If they feel so strongly they always have the right to re-apply for admittance to the EU if they capture enough seats in Parliament.
@Rocky
That's because politicians are afraid of it. Johnson is afraid of it, and Corbyn seems to be afraid of it.
The argument by Leavers that the people cannot change their mind is one of the stupidest arguments for anything I've ever seen. The arguers think the stupidity is in the people they are trying to convince there can't be a second referendum. ("Nonbinding", of course.)
Thanks, Mr. Cohen, for a great piece--but no, not a general election, but instead a referendum on the dreaded B word now that the public has better information on the drastic effects B will have on the economy. Beware, Brits, of casting yourselves adrift from friendly nearby shores while U.S. sharks circle by.
170
@Andrea Whitmore It's not U.S. "sharks," it's Putin's revenge for the fall of the Wall on both the United States (note the irony of Trump's "wall") and Britain (for the EU and being a keystone in NATO).
This tactic was also tried in France with the FN (now the even-more Vichyesque "Rassemblement National"). Putin gave money, and Marine Le Pen went to Moscow to thank him, giving the entire dirty game away to a nation that underwent a hostile, looting occupation with the help of eager toadying collaborating politicians and citizens. The French recognized what they saw and voted this down in the last presidential electionk.
British and American voters were more easily misled.
2
The purpose of representative government is to have decisions made by people with experts to advise them and time to sort things out. Having an election based upon a single issue like Brexit where misinformation and propaganda dominates all discussion and soundbites proliferate doesn’t sound like a responsible idea. Sounds more like MPs ducking responsibility.
24
Like so many conservatives, they express (demand) wants that satisfy them in the moment, like children who aren't able to anticipate the consequences of their demands. Once faced with the consequences of their decisions, they're not especially adept at crafting solutions to the problems they create, unwilling to admit that perhaps what they are so intent on changing wasn't really all that bad.
This reminds me of political figures who are called out for 'waffling' on positions, which to me always represents that they are continuing to process, react, and adjust their views based on new information. Changing minds isn't necessarily a bad thing when those changes are informed by facts. Why not take another vote and see if the popular sentiment has changed?
111
I disagree. Brexit cuts across party lines so effectively that a general election could hand Boris Johnson a majority with which to pursue a relatively hard Brexit, even though opinion polls now consistently show a small mahjority in favor of remaining in the EU. The remain vote is dangerously split across the SNP, LibDem and Labour parties.
The only solution is for parliament to approve BJ's withdrawal agreement (since it's the only WA that has commanded any parliamentary approval), subject to a binding confirmatory referendum where the UK public decide on the WA vs revoke A50 and remain.
General election = hard brexit = disaster for the British people.
83
@Sean Taylor I agree. One of the problems has been that the idea of where consent has been mangled--is it from parliament or from the referendum? I think the use of a referendum in this case has been a disaster because the question was so broad and public knowledge so lacking. A way out of the dilemma would be to accept the current deal and also have a final referendum on the terms of the deal. The question would be: agree with the deal or revoke the article 50 vote and stop efforts to leave. After that, no more referendums. If parliament is sovereign, as I believe it should be, MPs should argue problems out and not look for simple ways out of their responsibilities.
3
I'm confused; there was an election and the people voted to leave. Are you suggesting that they go 2 out of 3, or that they keep voting until the result meets with your approval?
8
@I want another option
The first referendum was interfered with by outside influences. Self serving politicians lied about what Brexit would mean. Finally, now that the public is better educated, AND because the government has NOT delivered Brexit as "requested" according to the first vote, a second referendum would be absolutely appropriate.
361
@I want another option
Nobody is suggesting that. The original (non-binding) referendum was flawed because it asked people if they wanted to remain or if they wanted a fantasy Brexit. Having chosen the latter the government has done it's best to deliver the fantasy Brexit. Unfortunately that has not gone well at all, and if they keep trying it will only lead to more delays (i.e. a 'remain' by default, which is not what anyone voted for).
A second referendum would ask voters if they want to resolve this quagmire by remaining and telling the EU "just kidding!" or if they would be willing to leave the EU under specific terms already approved by the EU Parliament.
75
@I want another option
There was a referendum, in which each elector got one vote which directly addressed the issue, as opposed to a general election where you vote for your member of parliament who then votes on specific issues.
A general election now (which is permitted if approved by the Fixed Term Parliament Act) will not resolve brexit on its own, because whichever party or coalition forms the next government will have the same brexit issues to resolve.
There is a strong argument to put Johnson's deal to the public in a referendum with the other choice on the ballot being to call the whole thing off and remain. This is not the same question that was posed in the 2016 referendum so it is not "2 out of 3" or whatever. Democracy doesn't stand still.
I think a better analogy to the fish one would be voting to take a road trip, finding that the bridge is washed out, but insisting that we have to go forward no matter what because there was a vote. Have another vote, but this time the question is, go over the cliff into the gorge, or turn the car around? Not the same context or question at all, so no affront to democracy.
And the answer to the question looks pretty clear to me.
18
Does anyone expect an election might resolve the deep seated differences among Britons? An election might bring new parliament as divided as the current one. There seems to be precious little faith in the Labour leader who has waffled for months. If he had been as forthright about supporting labor, consumer and environmental protections of the EU at the time of the referendum, as he is now, it might not have passed.
BoJo's claims of supporting democracy and the people's decision of the referendum is destructive of the sovereignty of parliament, which was a bedrock principle of British democracy. Running a campaign of the "people vs. Parliament" is just as damaging to democracy as calling the High Court "enemies of the people," as one newspaper did. This is no more than Trumpeting with a British accent.
19