I've known Jolyon Maugham for a while. We worked together on tax policy before the 2015 general election. The debate on domicile that was one of the rare successes for Ed Miliband in that election was something that we pretty much created between us. Jolyon was relatively unknown back then. He isn't now, as he is at the heart of the Remain campaign
Jo has an article in the Guardian overnight in which he says:
We now know the Electoral Commission believes that Vote Leave, the “official” leave campaign, broke the law. This comes in the wake of its conclusion that Arron Banks's Leave EU broke the law.
I am not going to reiterate all Jolyon's arguments as he ably makes them himself. Suffice to say, he points out that it is now known that the Leave campaign set out to abuse the law on referendum spending; it did so and it won the referendum. Now criminal prosecutions may follow. But the referendum result stands. Bizarrely, the result of the referendum was not binding according to parliament and so it cannot be legally over-turned because it has no legal force.
Of course, it should be overturned. As Jolyon notes:
Our own courts have said: “In elections, as in sport, those who win by cheating have not properly won and are disqualified.” The rules that parliament decreed to ensure the referendum was not captured by oligarchs will have been breached.
The argument of politicians - even Labour politicians, whose job it is to provide effective Opposition - is that this is all well and good, but ‘the people have spoken'. As a result, they say, the referendum cannot be ignored. If it is, they argue, then democracy will be undermined.
I am old enough now to have heard a great deal of nonsense during my lifetime. This argument takes some beating when appraised against that experience.
First, the result was secured by cheating. That is an affront to democracy.
Second, democracy is all about changing minds.
And third, no one is saying that the result should be laid aside. Because the reality is that what has happened cannot be undone. Come what may, the UK has tried to leave the EU and untold harm has already been done as a result. And no one is saying it should not even complete that process now. All that anyone, Jolyon included, is arguing is that there should now be another referendum so that now that people know they were cheated upon; know that their jobs and living standards are at risk; know that peace in Northern Ireland is at risk and know that the UK itself is at risk, they can have another say. That's what democracy should demand.
Unless you're a Tory or Labour MP, of course, when democracy apparently demands that you abandon the principles of Burke, you suspend your judgment, you vote for something that you know will harm the UK and your constituents, and you tell them that you're doing so because that's what they want, even though you don't know that.
In the surreal world of the absurd that now passes for politics this is as surreal as it gets. At least, until things get worse.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
But of course the vastly greater overspending by the ‘Remain’ campaign, collusion between the ‘Remain’ groups, getting the President of the USA to threaten the British people, etc., etc. is all totally overlooked by the author.
But there is a more poignant point that is totally ignored by those ‘remainers’ who do not accept the result of the referendum and that is that their perverse belief that the only thing that counts is the economy. This is a belief that totally ignores the fact that people fight and die for freedom, undergo immense hardships for freedom, and although ‘they’ will never understand it people actually make a conscious decision that their freedom is actually more important than money. This happens around the world – and indeed it has happened in the UK – and that is despite all the horror care stories such ‘remainers’ put out prior to the referendum and continue to spout ever since. Indeed it has become a running joke with the electorate that anything that happens that can in anyway considered bad is blamed on Brexit.
The author should wake up and realise that in every General Election the same fear tactics are used by political parties about their opposition = and fewer and fewer people even listen to such threats any more.
I have seen no evidence of that overspending
And in democracy, the expression of opinion matters
You seem to think otherwise
It’s all rather bizarre
Whatever the arguments about spending, or cheating, there can be no doubt that a huge public plebiscite, very well attended, took place. The result was also not in doubt. Despite the arguments of the remainers, there is no evidence that a new referendum would produce a different result.
Indeed, like many others, I will now vote leave, because of Greece, Portugal, Italy and Catalonia. And because of TTIP, and CETA. It seems to me that it will actually be easier to challenge corporate hegemony outside, rather than in.
The second problem is that for a majority of the British populace, Brexit is not even the third most important thing on their agenda, after social justice, the NHS, education and policing. It is sometimes difficult to see this from the Westminster bubble.
Finally, Jolyon Maugham and the other ardent remainers have, by their own political incompetence and attitudes, managed to alienate a huge swathe of potential voters – as many as a third.
We need to be careful what we wish for.
I see no evidence of your claim re Jolyon
Or of an increased majority when the evidence appears consistently otherwise
Shall we stick to what looks plauisble and arguable rather than fantasy and abuse?
I wasn’t aware that I was abusive, even on a third re-read. I don’t feel that I have been fantastic either. I do feel that I have a different point of view. Sorry. 🙂
There is no evidence support for Leave has risen
Or that Jolyon has alienated a great many people
There are now many people, who, like myself, started by backing remain, and Joyon Maugham to the extent of funding his legal campaign, and that of Gina Miller. Sadly, as I said, the actions of both himself, and other remainers, such as A.C. Grayling, have turned off our support, and in our case, caused us to look seriously at the arguments for leave. When I talk about “our”, I mean about 60-odd of the people that I am in regular contact with. I have had a lot of reports from around the country, that many people are thoroughly fed up with the brexit arguments, as they bear so little relevance to their own current lives.
Michael
I have to say I find that change in position very hard to understand
It is, of course, true that Nissan workers voted for Brexit
Do you really think that they will think Brecit irrelevant when their jobs follow those at Jaguar out of the country?
Surely you are expressing an aceptionally narrow view asking to the person falling from a 100 floor building who reckons that after 99 floors things really aren;t going that badly?
Richard
Michael Westcombe says:
“Whatever the arguments about spending, or cheating, there can be no doubt that a huge public plebiscite, very well attended, took place. The result was also not in doubt. ”
Well I have to disagree with you on that, Michael. The result was close, and a number of issues, not just one was sufficient to sway an electorate.
Distaste for Cameron and Osborne was enough on it’s own to shift the poll over the mark for Brexit.
Sovereignty and control spuriously ‘regained’ will be passed directly to the USA where we don’t have any influence at all on the political process. The immigration issue is a homemade disaster created by failure to use the powers available and to accommodate the influx of population by what would have been entirely beneficial social infrastructure development.
Indeed those who used their vote to register their disapproval of the latest occupants of Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street were the only voters in my opinion who got what they voted for.
Every other issue was false, misrepresented and essentially bogus.
I see no possible advantage forthcoming from leaving the EU in the manner we have gone (are attempting to go) about it. It seems to me to be beyond farce.
But we have made our collective bed and I expect the English and Welsh will have to lie in it. I think the Scots and Irish are not going to lie quietly.
Then…maybe Theresa May will produce an improbably large rabbit from her hat at the end of the week…..
Like ‘Harvey’ I expect it will be invisible however, except to herself (and perhaps a select few true believers?) I’m not expecting to get so much as glimpse of a flashing cotton tail.
Blimey. I see your disagreement, Andy, and it saddens me. There were a huge amount of problems, particularly with spending, but also with postal votes, in the 2017 Election. But we are still working with what we we have.
You also appear to be second guessing the result of the next election.
On spending, yes
On postal votes, some
On double voting almost none
They have tackled double voting
Mr Westcombe,
“there can be no doubt that a huge public plebiscite, very well attended, took place. The result was also not in doubt. Despite the arguments of the remainers, there is no evidence that a new referendum would produce a different result.”
I suspect you are quite wrong about the different result now; but leave that aside. The problem with your “not in doubt” plebiscite is not that there was a majority; but the narrow nature of the majority (in fact under 38% of the total electorate, but leave that aside also). Allow me to make five points.
1) Small majorities in ‘general elections’ are relatively easily changed by the next election; referendums are less easily changed and this can cause serious, even dangerous differences to emerge, and fester in the polity. The heat and division now in Britain is a function of the kind of folly produced by the referendum that was held in 2016.
2) Wise constitutional democracies do not allow major constitutional changes on small majorities. The wisdom of Madison’s American Constitution was in the checks and balances inserted deliberately to ensure a small majority did not turn a marginal victory into elective dictatorship; which causes dangerous political division. A change to the US constitution hence requires considerably more than a marginal majority.
3) In the 1979 Scottish Referendum on the Scottish Parliament, a clause in the enabling legislation required a 40% minimum (of total electorate) to vote ‘Yes’. The referendum produced a majority for the Parliament, but failed the 40% test. In 1999 the vote was decisive. I am confident the success of the Parliament is a function of that majority. Note that there is minority of Scots (almost all Conservatives) still unreconciled to Holyrood. I believe the country would have been torn asunder if these Conservatives had been a narrow loser in 1999.
4) We do not now have a wise constitution in the UK.
5) Brexit may very well lead to the end of the Union. The end of the Union will now happen on a margin of 50%, plus one vote. The precedent has been set by Brexit.
Thank you, Mr. Warren. 🙂
1). 2017 would seem to put that conclusion in jeopardy …
2). We are not a constitutional democracy. We are a feudal construct, where the Royal Prerogative holds sway. This is why we are always off to war.
3). All good, and I tend to agree with you – but as the Scots say – “NOT PROVEN”. 🙂
4). No shit, Sherlock. 😀
5). The end of Union may well be at hand, whatever happens. Just follow a few SNP on twitter for a while. Factor in the moves happening in Ireland …
By the way, I think that I agree with all your unspoken objections to referenda/ums. Unfortunately, we had one. I don’t want another. I would take a snap General Election, though – with both hands.
Mr Westcombe,
1) No, they can prevaricate, but eventually there will be a General Election (unless you think the Government will now suspend elections for the sake of Brexit?).
2) I do not dispute the decrepitude of the Constitution, but you may notice the Government has rather undermined your thesis by placing all its family silver on a thin majority, in a ropy Referendum campaign, founded on a solely advisory result, that has been turned into the settled will of the British people by sleight-of-hand; you could not rest any more on the principle of popular democracy than that. Of course we could simply call it all official demagoguery; either way I do not think it does much for your case.
3) Only the last sentence is ‘not proven’; and as a wise and witty Scottish jurist once defined ‘not proven’: “Not guilty, but don’t do it again”. So I will take that as your comprehensive assent.
4) I shall take your exuberant, knowing social-media, street-wise, vernacular-literary flourish as general approval.
5) In spite of some effort, I have failed to parse your meaning (it may be that the trail of …….. suggests that your thought ran off somewhere before you decided what it meant). It is easier to assume that you agree.
On your thought about future referendums? If you did not wish a return fixture, you should perhaps have voted differently. Nothing is forever; and given the chaos that has been unleashed by the folly of 2016, nothing is for long; an hour is a long time in politics, and even constitutions. Welcome to Brexit. The ‘blowback’ will probably not be resolved in either of our lifetimes.
Mr. Warren,
I voted remain. I have changed my position.
Despite being nearly 65, I suppose I am fortunate to have retained all my faculties. Thank you.
Mr Westcombe,
I understand that you changed your mind (although not the timing). What I really do not understand is why? I am baffled by this (because it is an argument I have seen before and it is incomprehensible): it is a bad decision, and you know it!
“I see no possible advantage forthcoming from leaving the EU in the manner we have gone (are attempting to go) about it. It seems to me to be beyond farce. But we have made our collective bed and I expect the English and Welsh will have to lie in it. I think the Scots and Irish are not going to lie quietly.”
Such a farce should lead to an immediate decsion to unmake the collective bed; it is doubtful if all four parties will choose to sleep in it. There is in your own statement of the problem what I can only see as a kind of inertia, verging on paralysis. Even Machiavelli’s interpretation of “fortuna” for humans, a perilous predicament at best in the politics of early Renaissance Italy, was not as deactivated, dormant, and desiccated as your position; forgive me but resignation is not as pallid as this.
Well, that’s your point of view, it is not mine. You might choose to reflect a moment, and think why you expressed yourself in that way, and whether that would cause me to reflect on my choice, or be confirmed in it.
My remain sentiment has got stronger since Brexit
Mr Roy,
You have resorted to an argument that is being used with increasing urgency by Brexiteers in the face of the Electoral Commission decision, and the simultaneous, increasing scrutiny of Conservative Party funding (including in NI and Scotland); namely “the vastly greater overspending by the ‘Remain’ campaign”.
For some reason that I (as a wholly unapologetic Remainer) simply do not understand, Brexiteers (almost comically) believe this reveals a devastating truth. It doesn’t. Speaking as a Remainer, I am pleased to inform you that I had no faith in the campaign of, or the case made by, the Cameron government, or of either side in the Campaign. The Campaign was, at best a vulgarity; a coarse, contemptible catastrophe. I consider both campaigns (both notably led by the Conservative Party – ‘heads-we-win-tails-you-lose’), to be poisonous anachronisms from a British past it would be better never to revisit. I do not support the EU because of the Referendum Campaign, I support the EU because any consideration of European history (or Europe’s present) leads to the necessity of the EU, as a work-in-progress that is far, far too important to be allowed to fail. I believe that at bottom Brexit Britain wants it to fail (they are still fighting the phantoms of 17th century ‘Universal Monarchy’, and have not stopped in 300 years); and that is, frankly unforgivable.
Remainers know very well that the Referendum was little to do with the EU, and nothing to do with the national interest. The Referendum was rather the only solution that would allow a seriously split, dysfunctional and frankly rebarbative and reptilian Conservative Party to survive its own folly, at whatever cost to the country (a penalty the Conservatives exact time, after time, after time in its dubious history). You think Remain cheated? Take the evidence to the Electoral Commission: please. If you are right this will only prove that both sides are beneath contempt. If we now find the whole exercise seriously breached the law, then so be it. Rerun the Referendum.
Brexiteers do not want a re-run now principally because they do not think they can win it.
@John S Warren
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the referendum campaign. Campaigns of any kind are often filled with mudslinging and negativity but this was the worst example that I can remember.
“Stand out” moments of awfulness:
1. The threatened emergency budget
2. The vote leave official TV broadcast
It’s very sad that something so important has been decided on the basis of so much absolute horse sh*t!
William Roy says:
Who said ?
When somebody tells you ‘it’s not about the money it’s a matter of principle’
It’s the money.
I don’t believe so, no. 🙂
William Roy says:
“This is a belief that totally ignores the fact that people fight and die for freedom, undergo immense hardships for freedom, and although ‘they’ will never understand it people actually make a conscious decision that their freedom is actually more important than money.”
Please can you itemise exactly how your freedom was compromised by the UK being a member of the EU?
And some more links for you.
https://order-order.com/2017/12/28/remain-campaign-flouted-rules-to-spend-double-legal-limit/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-remain-eu-referendum-spending-rules-priti-patel-david-cameron-a8137361.html
https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/
There you go, four links within minutes – now you cannot say you have not seen the evidence.
Oh come on
The Priti Patel dossier is laughable whilst you quote Guido Fawkes? Try evidence, for heaven’s sake, not drunken rabble rousing.
This is a serious site and this is a serious issue. Treat it as such or I will delete your further comments.
I couldn’t help noticing one thing missing in all the Brexit impact assessments. They gave us headlines that we would be worse off by £4300 per household by year, that for every £1 spent on the EU, we get back £10 and that the City would be worst affected, that sort of thing.
But no-one ( not even Cambridge Econometrics ) headlined their analysis with an inequality assessment. When money is more important than the equality assessment then I’m afraid that neoliberal influences have got inside those organisations that want the UK to remain a member and keep protecting our farmland owners.
I believe there are ways to purge progressive organisations of such influences, McCarthy springs to mind.
Jang Sung Taek says:
“I couldn’t help noticing one thing missing in all the Brexit impact assessments. ” [Sanity ?, and objectivity spring to my mind ]
And etc….
The thing that amuses and to some extent confuses me about ‘Brexit’, is that both sides accuse the other of having Vested Establishment Interests on their side.
Apparently the ‘Vested Establishment Interests’ are bifurcated as neatly as the two main political parties and the public.
Good game eh? Penalty shoot-out anyone ?
Yesterday I caught up with an old work colleague (now retired) who is also a devoted Christian (our meetings are really I feel a form of sparring about whether or not I should choose to ‘let God into my life’). I enjoy our chats because he is so genuine in his beliefs. Our chats also go into what it is to be human.
He told me that he and his prayer group had prayed to God to enable BREXIT to happen so that God could (I quote) ‘pour his love into just into England’.
We had an interesting discussion about what I felt could be ‘God made’ (the universe, planet Earth, nature) and what was ‘man made’ (BREXIT, money production, economics). My colleague believed that God could handle it all whereas I felt that what was made by man could only be undone by man using some of the ethics laid down by Jesus and even older civilisations ( I like what Jesus is quoted as saying but I draw the line at the ‘son of God’ bit although I am reminded by my friend that the Holy Trinity means that if I approve of Jesus I also approve of God).
The thing is – no matter how aghast I was at what my friend told me, he believed in what he had done and why he did it. And why he prayed for BREXIT was because of the tripe he had been told by the Leave Campaign. He was asking God to focus on England really because he felt the country was declining and God (or we Englishman under His direction) needed to put the country right.
So I got home last night and here was this putative report of the Electoral Commission. And I felt really sad for my friend whose genuine and sincere belief in Christianity had been perverted by a bunch of smiling, knowing, corrupt creeps with no principles whatsoever. And my friend is one of millions who have had their minds infected by lies and deceit. I wish that I’d been there when Aaron Banks and his accomplice had just left the Commons Committee hearing because I would have wiped the smiles off their faces and gladly spent the night in a police cell for doing it (sorry).
I say again that the EU is not perfect and it needs to be reformed. But leaving it? It should never have been allowed to happen. And now I feel we must leave – if only to teach us a hard lesson. And that includes my Christian friend too.
What has BREXIT reduced this country to? We are just a play ground it seems for the moneyed elite. And that means that we must be amidst the end of days.
I have to admit that is the sort of Christianity that would make me an atheist in a moment
Indeed! There is nothing worse in my view than misdirected Faith.
Pilgrim Very Slight Return,
This person must have some remarkable qualities, which you don’t mention.
And you must have ‘the patience of a saint’.
Oh he’s lovely Andy – very genuine and heartfelt (for which I admire him ) but I find that he would rather resort to finding comfort within his faith than confronting the harsh realities of human stupidity. As I said to him, much of what is bad happens on Earth is the result of some human being not doing the right thing.
Upon reflection, his response really was one of thinly veiled nationalism. In that way he is no different from many men of his age who have witnessed the decline of this country but do not know who to hold accountable for it . He is an engineer by training.
Well the Church of England did used to be described as the ‘Conservative party at prayer’.
Back in the days of Thatcher, I used to struggle with those acquaintances who were enthusiastic Thatcherites but would trot off to church every Sunday. Concluded then that the Jesus I was taught about at school was not the same one that they worshipped. Either that or I had misunderstood what he was saying.
Or they did, deliberately
I doubt Jesus would join half the churches on earth
“But there is a more poignant point that is totally ignored by those ‘remainers’ who do not accept the result of the referendum and that is that their perverse belief that the only thing that counts is the economy. This is a belief that totally ignores the fact that people fight and die for freedom…..”
What utter unadulterated ess aitch aye tea. You pervert the meaning of the word “freedom”. My dad, pure Italian but of British nationality, was in the RAF right through from 1940 t0 1945, fighting the Fascists and fighting for true freedom. After the victory of true freedom he, and my mother who had lived through the blitz and the V bombs, insisted that there should never be another period when the nations of Europe should be free of hatred and mutual enmity, and should instead live together in partnership as a community of free and dignified peoples. Do you not remeber the picture of Kohl and Mitterand standing, hand in hand before two coffins, one of a French soldier slain at Verdun, the other of a German soldier also a victim of Verdun? Mitterand – a former member of the Resistance, Kohl who had been in the Wehrmacht, former ememies, vowing that France and Germany should never again tear the throats out of each other. That is a picture that brings tears to my eyes – and inspires me and many remainers to fight for the idea of a European Community. It is not the economy, stupid. It is the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity. And the likes of Farage and Banks, the puff faced pouting turncoat Gove, the blundering bombastic clown Johnson, the dull witted IDS, the even more dull witted Leadsom, the manipulative mendacious Patel, and Rees Mogg and his nanny wittering on about of St Crispin’s Day- are manipulating the naive nostalgists for “our finest hour” and the Empire on which the sun never set with mendacious nonsense about supposed freedom and leading us into separation and division aloof from our European brothers and sisters.
My grandfather – the man who gave me my name – died as a result of having fought in both World Wars, but it was Hitler who did for him
I agree with you, wholeheartedly
Very well said Mike – the false patriotism of Brexiteers is particularily nauseating. Reminiscent of Dacre’s attacks on the Milliband’s father who was fighting on the D-Day beaches unlike Dacre’s own father.
I’m just back from yet more travels in Central/Eastern Europe, countries that have been torn apart repeatedly by both Nazis and Soviets. (I often wonder why the brutal colonialisation by Russia of those countries continues to be ignored by those on the further left, including Corbyn…?).
To understand the history of those countries over the last 100 years is to understand the massive importance of Europe and the EU in enabling them to recover their identities and rebuild their institutions and economies. Whatever problems they have now, they are massively better off and see how being members of a wider European group has been crucial to that progress. Seen from there, England’s decision looks like the worst kind of selfish, xenophobic nationalism.
@Robin Stafford
“Very well said Mike — the false patriotism of Brexiteers is particularily nauseating. Reminiscent of Dacre’s attacks on the Milliband’s father who was fighting on the D-Day beaches unlike Dacre’s own father.”
Prior to this attack on Milliband senior I had regarded the Mail as amusing nonsense (not that I went out of my way to read it). Following this story my attitude changed to near hatred. How dare a journalist sitting behind a comfy desk criticize the political beliefs of someone that actually served this country in the war? Also, publishing a photograph of someone’s grave just to enable a pithy headline is just ghastly.
Fortunately, it seems that the French and Germans – whatever the difficulties, however treacherous the ground – and so, so sadly, unlike the British; have not forgotten, do not forget, and will not (we must hope) ever forget, ‘the bigger picture’: a Europe permanently at peace with itself.
Mike,
Well said ! And nicely put, that man.
“,,, utter unadulterated ess aitch aye tea.” Hear ! Hear !
Your perception of the views of leave voters is as incorrect as the opinion that all remainers were concerned about is the economy. Perversely both views have the same origin. At the beginning of the referendum campaign both organisations commissioned polling to see peoples current views and what were the best issues to campaign on. Polling told them both the same thing. The population divided into 3 roughly equal sized groups, remainers, leavers and ‘don’t knows’. The first two groups had strongly held views unlikely to be changed by the campaign. The middle group of undecideds was the battleground for votes. The resulting choice of campaigning reflected the views of the undecideds, not those of brexiteers/remainers.
Can I offer a little story to lighten the mood?
Two years ago Miss Gina Briton agreed to marry Mr. Brexit. She thought for a short time about the issues and used a tick and cross system to make up her mind. One tick meant slightly positive reason; two ticks quite positive and three very positive reason. Crosses meant the reverse. When she counted them up she found the result was 52 ticks to 48 crosses although a friend of Mr. Brexit ,on whom he BANKS for a lot of his money, is suspected of adding ticks hoping no one was watching.
Mr. Brexit said that Gina would be free of her annoying neighbours using a right of way on her land. She would be better off because, married to him, she would no longer have to pay the market dues. The market bailiffs would let her off as they sold quite a lot to her. She would not have to take account of their silly rules and could make more money as she could buy and sell in the villages in the next county who would be delighted to see her.
Mr. Brexit said he had powerful friends in those villages and Mr. Bigly Global would trump any trading agreement she had in her own village. Mr. Brexit said Mr. Global shared his vision for the future.
All seemed well for a while until she told her neighbours. They said there are costs and obligations in running the market. If she wanted to keep trading she would have to pay like everyone else and follow the rules.
Then she noticed that Mr. Bigly Global was being very unhelpful to his neighbours and even threatening them. Gina began to think she might not sell any more than she already did.
The Lady of the Village wondered if she made the bailiffs a cake, she might win them round. The Bailiffs said it was very nice of her but the real issues were that the Bailiffs had to make sure foreign goods were taxed properly and up to the standard they had set. They did this task for the other 27 market traders and really it was cheaper for her to pay them to do than for her or the others, to do this individually. The Bailiffs told her to keep the cake and eat it.
Gina also tried to replace her maid and gardener with members of her family but she could find no one and so went back to the village but no one is keen to work for her anymore.
She has begun to think Mr. Brexit isn’t the man she thought he was and his promises might not work out.
Some of her friends who care for her have suggested she think again.
Next door to Gina is an old gentleman whom she sees every day and he gives her advice -although she rarely asks for it. He is such a fixture in her life she calls him her ‘Daily Male’. He and his elderly friends told her there was nothing to worry about and the bailiffs and the other villages didn’t like her much and could not be trusted. All would be well.
The Lady of the village tells Gina she had made her decision two years ago and she has to stick by it or people would say she couldn’t be trusted. The Lady stated she was determined to deliver the wedding that had been promised. People expected it-although no one is asking them.
It is obvious the Lady is scared of Mr. Brexit and his friends, many of whom are money changers and very posh. Posher than the Lady in fact who has only married trade; some sort of hedger.
The Lady has suggested that Gina might continue to trade in the village but let Mr Brexit have his way with her but maybe not marry him. Many people think the Lady often had ideas which no-one else agrees with.
Most of the village elders think she should not question her marriage. Some, do think she should have a meaningful choice.
Either:
Just marry Mr. Brexit and turn her back on the village and hope he looks after her.
Or
Marry him as promised but continue to trade in the village, employ some of the people and follow the rules because if she didn’t she would be worse off. She would be Mrs. Brexit in Name Only. Miss Briton doesn’t mind being called GB but thought BINO made her sound silly.
One of her true friends said Gina should choose again and one of the choices should be to call off the marriage. Is she right?
🙂
Never mind all that, so long as the buses run on time… (She weeps in her coffee).
Marie Thomas says:
“Never mind all that, so long as the buses run on time… (She weeps in her coffee).”
You have buses ? 🙂
You can still afford coffee ? Quit whinin’, woman. We’ve nivver ‘had it so good ! After Brexit we’ll be roasting dandelion roots and acorns to make ‘coffee’. 🙂
â˜•ï¸ , âœˆï¸ â˜•ï¸â˜•ï¸â˜•ï¸
[…] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/07/05/in-the-surreal-world-of-current-politics-ignoring-the-… […]
Its probably easier to discuss the merits of overturning a referendum result if we detach it from the increasingly acrimonious brexit debate. So, should the result of a referendum be overturned if one of the official campaign groups breaks the rules? If its a spending rule then how much of an overspend is too much? What if both campaigns broke some rules? Given the size of a referendum campaign perhaps we can nver realistically expect some rules not to be broken. To who will we hand the right to override a referendum result? For me such questions create more problems and opportunity for subterfuge than any minor overspend on a campaign.
Returning to this specific case of the brexit referendum lets assume for argument the leave campaign did break the rules. This would be a clear example of breaking the letter of the law. However only a few days before purdah came into force the government spent 9m of taxpayers money on a pro eu campaign leaflet sent to every home. This did not break the letter of the law but certainly the spirit of it. Could it not be argued that this substantially greater overspend influenced the result even more? The government would have done a greater service had they attempted an impartial leaflet laying out the basic benefits and drawbacks of each course of action. It would not just have been fairer, it might have raised the quality of the debate.
Just noticed there is another ‘mike’ in this debate, my post to which this is a reply is my only one. Apologies for any confusion
Right on the money there, Mike. Sound point, well made.
Breaking the rules as some kind misdemeanour that may be overlooked, would have some merit; if it was ‘at the margin’ in a matter of no great or lasting concern: but that doesn’t wash. What your argument misses is the depth of rancour and bitterness that has been exposed by Brexit. It is unwise to overlook such activities (on any or all sides) when so much is at stake. The Union is already at stake. Where next?
You are overlooking the symptom because you think it does not represent a serious issue; but the underlying serious issue remains. I think you are trying to interpret a crisis as a storm-in-a-teacup.
Hi John,
I don’t miss the rancour and bitterness, I just believe those to be poor contributors to a debate on referendum rules. Include them and brexit arguments then everyone will advocate rules that support their own brexit views. It becomes a debate about brexit rather than a debate on referenda. Strip brexit out and an intelligent debate is possible.
I also slightly differ in that I don’t believe brexit exposed the rancour but that rather the post referendum campaign created it. The root of it all was a poll that showed most remain voters accepted the result although their views hadn’t changed. The continuing remain campaign needed these voters back if they were to get another referendum. It takes a lot to get uk citizens to go against a democratic vote, its a principle that binds us. To do it they had to be convinced leaverrs regretted their choice, were racist scum or empire dreaming idiots. There began the endless series of fake polls using biased questions to create the impression people wanted a new referendum. The usual is to ask if they want a vote on the deal while omitting any mention of staying in the eu if it is rejected. Racism is claimed by numerous newspaper articles and of course there are always real examples. What isn’t reported is that the uk public overwhelmingly support all eu nations staying, remainers, brexiters, even 75% of ukip voters. The empire story is just garbage. Think back, can you remember anybody mentioning such a thing. Would anyone be considered anything but an eccentric idiot for doing so?
These are all products of a concerted campaign, its dividing the natuon and sadly convincing eu nationals they are unwanted is a price they are willing to pay.
Again, agree with Mike, here. Well said.
“It takes a lot to get uk citizens to go against a democratic vote, its a principle that binds us.” My question is simple; how much is a lot? For many of us, the cup overflows. I think you simply confuse popular inertia with lofty principle.
“Strip brexit out and an intelligent debate is possible.” Leave out a critical matter and we can have a serious discussion without addressing anything really difficult. Brexit means Brexit, a slick choice of words (a tautology presented as synthetic illumination). Brexit is a deliberate, ideological catch-all, much of it with a long and pernicious intellectual history in Britain. In other words, beg-the-question (petitio principii). The offer of serious debate is hollow.
Here is the problem; even at my age, I have learned a great deal about Britain as the politics of Brexit has unfolded (please note, I did not say I was ‘surprised’).Let me take just one example of what Bexit entails. It implies not just leaving the EU, but underming it, for that is what inevitably follows; the seductive idea of an alternative for Europeans to the EU; implying a return to a divided Europe, but without stating the end-game; in which Britain can return to a leading role in Balance of Power politics, which ended so catastrophically in the 20th century. Brexit is not a new idea for Britain, indeed it is the core faith of British exceptionalism; within it is the very old ideology of British ‘reason of state’ politics.
One of the lessons of Brexit is that in Britain we have become the masters of popular disinformation (it isn’t an accident, it is how politics is ‘done’ in Britain), and we have taken this to refined levels of mendacious destruction of meaning: we have disinformed ourselves. Unfortunately it has not kept pace with modern international culture and technology: hence the public now know they cannot believe anything, they cannot trust anything, and they cannot trust anybody. That, essentially is your case; and I do not argue. This is the Britain that you ask us to embrace.
Thank you John S – your thoughtful, analytical pieces are a prime example of this blog at its best. and a nod to Jon W too.
How bad must the corruption be? The lies about EU costs, the NHS bounty and the Turkish invasion of migrants must have misled thousands; the Leave margin – at 1.8% over 50/50 – is nothing once you factor in the Russian bot interference, data plundering for covert internet messaging, the dark money DUP funding … plus illegal coordination and overspending.
The referendum result intimately affects young and future generations – and not just in terms of money, public services and job opportunities. The decision as a UK European of where to live and even whom to partner shrinks without EU freedom of movement; it is a huge loss of personal freedom that gets little publicity. These negative effects of Brexit are an imposition on those not yet even born, but they will learn as adults that the vote that did this harm to them was fraudulent – and that the cheap parliament of the day waved criminality aside to avoid inconvenience and embarrassment.
Should our politicians scorn democracy and dismiss this calculated dishonesty as some sort of ‘boys will be boys’ naughtiness, or should they insist on the rule of law and natural justice to disqualify the ‘winner’? What would be so terrible about a new honest vote, with more of our young having a voice, with detailed government-endorsed information on the personal and communal economic consequences, and an electorate far more awake to reality?
What kind of democrat opposes the opportunity to put this obvious wrong right? Whether you supported Remain or Leave, future generations deserve to know we made it a fair fight.
Jon Woods says:
“What kind of democrat opposes the opportunity to put this obvious wrong right? ”
The sort of ‘democrat’ that thinks the purpose of democratic elections is to rubber stamp the policy decisions which reflect the desires of elitists. (?)