I was speaking in Brussels yesterday and referred, in error, to the ‘UK's member states'. I did, of course, mean to refer to the EU's member states.
Then I had to laugh and make clear that I was not suggesting that the UK might shatter soon, although the possibility had to be recognised.
No one in the room - from a wide variety of member states - was surprised.
There appears to remain complete bafflement in Brussels on the whole Brexit process.
And I sense a resigned feeling of inevitability now, knowing that as time passes the likelihood that crashing out with no deal is by now by far the most likely outcome.
I now believe that to be true.
I have to admit that somewhere deep inside me the flickers of hope are turning off one by one. I am now beginning to think there is no one and nothing that can stop us from this madness. And that we will pay for it for decades.
I hope I am wrong. But I can no longer see how or why because nothing else is being agreed upon.
And nor can I see any upsides. Not for England and Wales, at least.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I share your sense of gradual, impending doom. I can not see any possible positive from Brexit (in whatever form it takes) and those still on the “leave” side seem completely impervious to facts and reality. It’s like “everyone is out of step, except our Theresa”.
I have many friends in the Commission, Council of Europe and other institutions, and NO ONE can understand this at all. It’s like the UK is shooting itself in the foot, and then to make sure, is encasing their broken feet in concrete and jumping in the sea.
I currently live and work outwith the UK, and as every day passes, my intention to return becomes less and less. There is no good ending to this debacle for the 99%.
What is even worse Tony is that if the EU does not come to terms with the forces that enabled BREXIT it will sleep walk into its own oblivion.
They had better learn and understand PDQ that real world democracy is being usurped by online lies and agent provocateurs whose aim is to destabilise and cause chaos. The sort of chaos that helps to destroy the formation of a united focus point to bring about the changes we need.
There it is – in a nutshell.
Read it and weep.
It makes perfect sense if you’ve read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”. Recommended!
Like you my flickers of hope are turning off. It’s Twitter that’s done it for me, the level of discourse and engagement from the British public. The saying this is what they want, that democracy can only be respected if WTO terms are delivered… it’s incredibly disheartening. If a discussion cant’ be had, and people don’t give a **** about understanding the other side and evaluating the reasonableness of their position… well we’re screwed.
And that’s where we are.
Compelling.
As I have noted here previously, the Europeans have always held our parliamentary system here in high esteem – a benchmark perhaps?
But what is more worrying is that the Europeans do not seem to understand yet what has gone wrong.
And this may explain I’m afraid why the EU idea is going to remain at real risk from the growth of nationalism and the far right until it comes to terms with issues like the internet and the way the digital world messes with our cognition of what is going on. I sense complacency.
My worry (based on what we have learnt about Dominic Cummings and Cambridge Analytica etc.,) is that people are being taught to react like Pavlov’s dogs to stimuli in an unquestioning way. The following article was in Sunday’s Observer and makes very interesting reading and underpins why I think a second referendumb is big stupid joke:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook
Basically your conclusion is sound. But it needn’t be this way. But will we – and the EU even learn before it is too late?
………………………………………..?
Your hope is still flickering
Pilgrim Slight Return refers to:
“……….the internet and the way the digital world messes with our cognition of what is going on. ”
I don’t see it this way , Pilgrim. Yes certainly it changes our cognition, but ‘messes with’?
I’m quite sure that much of the hype about foreign intervention in domestic elections is just that: hype. Since forever the elites have had considerable control of the political agenda by owning the news media and controlling the agenda. Without the internet you and I wouldn’t be here having this exchange of views, would not have heard of MMT probably and if we had it would have been through articles trashing the very idea.
Without the internet I wouldn’t know very much about the Gilet Jaunes, or the growing Yellow Vests movement in the US. I wouldn’t have the opportunity to even hear the views coming through Al Jazeera and RT which I treat with the same suspicion as the BBC and homegrown MSM narrative.
The internet is as valuable a resource to ordinary people outside the elite loop as was the printing press which allowed people to read the Bible un-mediated by an abusive and controlling church.
Slagging off the internet and social media, in an attempt to control its ‘power’ is a dangerous current trend and I think it needs to be resisted. It is the elites that are doing this in an attempt to regain control of the information agenda. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Currently the internet is a medium to which we all have access and input. When ‘they’ get hold of it we’ll know nothing except what we are told.
Andy
There is nothing wrong with what you have just said.
However, it is incomplete. The internet is very popular – and yes, I used it to study an MBA, I use it to obviously come here and elsewhere to enter into discourse with others, to organise my social life etc.
But it is also a place where people get ripped off, groomed, where they can learn to do things that maybe they shouldn’t and a place where they can hide. A place where they can also behave very badly (ask Richard) and pretend to be someone they are not. A place where one can reinforce ones’ views without balance. A place to be manipulated by the manipulative with their own agendas.
I’ll give you an example. I use Ebay to buy stuff (increasingly so as my wages have dropped these last 9 years and my partner has given up paid work to look after her mother) and every now and then the system tells me that I have goods in my virtual shopping basket. So, quizzically I click onto it to see what I put in there (I can’t remember if I did or not).
Do you know what? There is actually nothing there Andy. The number denoting the items disappear and I get a message saying that I might lose out on a bargain and it encourages me to go shopping – to buy something. It tells me that I am ‘missing out’.
Now – what would you call that? I have seen this on a number of very well known sites. eBay makes up a false shopping event in order to get me to think about shopping.
Think about it Andy and about the myriad of services out here (because this conversation is taking place after all out here in the virtual world) where such a similar idea planting device device is being used.
So I disagree that the internet gets slagged off. I do not think it gets slagged off enough. We are still in the fresh bloom of love with the this amazing (originally Government sponsored) facility to the point where I do not yet think that we have come to terms with its dark side. Recent events should make us sit up and take notice. But we are still not conversant with its power and potential – for good or bad.
And let us get another thing clear: it is not about watching the internet per se. It’s about watching the people on or in it, for it is people who misuse it – not the system itself.
BTW – my journey into political economy started a long time ago – in analogue books and journals. I still read books. The internet, this blog even – are not my only sources. I commend this to anyone.
For example, take Richard’s recent questioning of MMT and trade balances. I have not commented much (but I have encouraged discourse) because I do not know enough about trade to wholeheartedly back what Richard’s points are with full understanding. So I will read around the subject before I commit and I have one or two analogue texts to get me started so if I feel he should be supported here I can do it with knowledge and confidence in depth. That’s just me.
We need to approach the internet as dialectical problem and thus realise that it is both a social ‘good’ and a ‘social bad’. That is what I see. A duality. As with most things. And our job as a society is to take both sides into consideration consciously.
I’ll finish by recommending a book:
‘Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now’, Jarod Lanier , Penguin, 2018, £9.99.
(I bought mine from Waterstones on Chiswick High Street BTW before we went to Berlin for a holiday).
People in the online business world are having second thoughts about their life’s work. Why would they do that Andy?
I may have to read that
The danger of the internet is like that of TV, another relatively recent technology, being soporific, sense dulling, confusing reality with make-believe and turning many of us into vegetables. But while TV, radio and newspapers certainly target our beliefs and opinions and try to make us subservient to the received, approved wisdom the internet can target us with “smart bombs” designed just for us personally, tailored to our profile (which we gave them by posting on Facebook and elsewhere), and even disguised to seem reputable, and, most dangerously, we can reply in an instant and regret at leisure. It’s like what can happen on holiday and relaxing one’s guard, sticking the wallet in the back pocket, turning off the brain.
On the subject of books, PSR, analogue or otherwise, Dorling and Tomlinson’s book “Rule Britannia” is a devastating critique of the imperial mythology which they argue drove much of Brexit including those who led the campaigns and many of those who voted Leave. They argue strongly that it is our failure, and they single out the English in this, to come to terms with our imperial past, built on exploitation, racism, contempt for other peoples, a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement, attitudes reinforced by the lies told about our history and geography, and which have been detrimental to almost every aspect of British society from commerce to education and everything in between. They take no prisoners. But intriguingly they have not given up hope: that out of the ashes of Brexit a better Britain may arise, as people begin to realise what, and who, it was that got us into this mess and really take back control from the carpetbaggers.
Pilgrim,
1. The Internet and Social Media are not one and the same.
2. Problems created largely by Facebook and Google are resolvable and do not justify the throwing the whole thing out because were not quite sure of how to fix them just yet.
3. Your attempts at linking this issue to the 2nd referendum are highly doubtful. None of the 2016 social media problems (Cummings, fake news, Russian bots etc.) made any significant appearance in the 2018 US mid-terms.
As it turns out a variety of issues were voted on in that election including governorships and numerous state based referendums. The referendum outcomes for the most part were very positive. In Florida former prisoners received the right to vote, In California the conditions of farmed animals were improved and a new tax was levied on tech giants with the proceeds going to the homeless. Massachusetts became the first state to provide protections for transgender people.
There are other such examples and the results, across the country overall, were very progressive. Good referendums, good results, November 2018.
@Pilgrim Slight Return.
Agreed we have a double edged sword in the internet and we have a great deal to learn about how to use it, and how to avoid its blandishments. Having said that, how long have we had print media ? And indeed television. A very long time and we are still frequently taken in by the misinformation spread by it. And that’s before we even look at the paid for advertising content.
My grandfather used to say ‘You can’t legislate for stupidity’, and to some extent in the field of communication this remains true. People will believe what they wish to believe, and referring to my example of the Bible as an authority, people do. There is nothing easier to reinforce than a ‘faith position’, be it religious or secular.
Forgot to link this re. 2018 US referenda:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46120175
If you haven’t yet, it is now essential to read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism to understand what is happening in politics today.
The Internet and the social media it enables has made it easy to individualise and “atomise” society. Next comes The Big Lie to engage the atomised masses and provide momentum towards an undefined and always changing goal, while the true architects remain secret, even if they hide in plain sight.
We have been here before. It didn’t go well. We escaped only because America was outside the “debate”. Now it is on the inside, and cannot be the rescuing cavalry. It is up to us. Zuboff’s book shows just how the deck is stacked.
One or two people have been heard to utter the suggestion that the answer to the Brexit conundrum is simply to rescind Article 50. And we have established that is possible and would be acceptable to the EU.
I can’t see a sensible alternative, but it is barely on the agenda and our leading politicians have painted themselves into a corner from which they can only grope for least worst outcome scenarios. Are we to shoot ourselves in one foot, both feet or in the head ? Heavens ! That will teach Johnny Foreigner a lesson, eh?
My analysis of all this is much simpler than most people think. It is, as so often, ‘the economy, stupid!’. People in what in the US I believe they contemptuously call ‘fly-over land’, the north / midlands of England, parts of Europe, etc can all see perfectly well that somebody has made off with the cake. Unfortunately in England they were sold a lie that it was immigrants (and to an extent in the US and elsewhere too), the ‘EU’, etc. Of course it is not. The cake got nicked by the top 1% and the financial sector (the City in the UK). So that is why the income of the top 1% in the UK has gone from 7% of the total (from HMRC records so not including undeclared income) in 1977 to 27% of the total in 2017. People are feeling that their real incomes have not increased and they have been fobbed off with a house price ponzi scheme, but they haven’t identified the right culprits or what to do about. So Brexit is simply an angry lashout of doing the opposite of what they think the ‘elite’ want.
Anyone who ever played a game of Monopoly knows that wealth does not ‘trickle down’. Rather it trickles up so all the Thatcherite / Reagan / Chicago School monetarism stuff was just a clever con. The 2008 crash simply smashed the punch bowl and brought the party to an end. Since when further idiotic Government policies (austerity) mostly in Europe / UK have continued to make things worse with no real end in sight for most folk. The US did better because of the Obama Stimulus, but distribution of the benefits has continued to be a huge issue over there.
All of this could be solved quite easily:
1) Implement Richard’s tax proposals and use the tax system to pursue coherent political objectives (e.g. reduce inequality),
2) Spend government money on real things, e.g. council houses, education, infrastructure, the Green transformation.
3) A Federal Health Service in the USA.
4) Large tax cuts / increased spending by the state in Germany. Ending Germany exporting deflation onto the rest of the Eurozone.
5) Address trade imbalances. Huge deficits and corresponding surpluses are highly undesirable.
Totally.
Governments and opaque forces will always attempt to manipulate and propagandise, at home and overseas. But to blame Brexit on Russia and the internet is to spectacularly miss the point of why people are angry. Sustained economic and social injustice and disillusionment in the UK has caused anger and is leading to the breakup of society. It makes me think of the song by IDLES:
Fear leads to panic
Panic leads to pain
Pain leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkF_G-RF66M
I still maintain that if pushed on the issue, most of those in favour of Brexit would put greater importance on the UK remaining whole than on leaving the EU. Yet the talk of Scotland gaining independence seems to be dismissed…
You are right to point this things out BenzO.
What has been happening for a fairly long time is that there has been a ‘drip, drip’ effect on the public consciousness about the EU – as well as Scotland – that has effectively turned people off it. Initially people’s concerns were with prices (and according to Hugo Young, prices after admission into the EU actually dropped). However, over time, people have been re-orientated to being concerned with say, things like sovereignty.
I liken this to something like if you drip acid continuously into say a bowl of water, eventually the neutral ph water will be over come by the acid and the ph level will go up and become shall we say more corrosive?
Benz0 says:
“…..Sustained economic and social injustice and disillusionment in the UK has caused anger and is leading to the breakup of society…..” Agreed. Brexit is ‘all about’ blaming the EU for our own governments’ failure to consider the interests of the whole UK population. I happened upon a clip of David Cameron in the run-up to the Referendum saying that it was not about kicking the government it was much more important than that. But by then he’d fairly nailed his colours to the mast of Austerity and social/economic division.
“I still maintain that if pushed on the issue, most of those in favour of Brexit would put greater importance on the UK remaining whole than on leaving the EU. Yet the talk of Scotland gaining independence seems to be dismissed…”
That’s not an impression I’m getting. There have been opinion polls suggesting quite the opposite. Independence for Scotland is only an issue for those Brexiteers who understand how much of a hit the English economy will take without the resources of Scotland. Most believe that Scotland is a basket case being subsidised by ‘English taxpayers’. What the attitude towards NI would be, were the DUP not holding a delicate balance of power in the Commons, is not easy to guess.
My own guess is most English voters see NI as a long running problem they could do without, and would cheerfully cast adrift. That a UK government NI Secretary could say that she didn’t realise that voting in NI was on sectarian lines rather makes the point that to (many in) Westminster Ireland is a foreign country.
It occurred to me, quite a while back, that the main thrust of Brexit is a bid for English independence, and follows the logic of English Votes for English Laws. Yet the government seems to be planning to hold the UK together by the redeployment of mainland police to NI and substitution with military troops on the mainland. That is not going to be a pretty sight in a country that pretends to be a bastion of democracy.
Two headlines making me a bit ill today. From the Independent “Brexit: Labour MPs accuse Corbyn of ‘standing in way’ of Final Say referendum on Theresa May’s deal” as cross-party MPs pull their amendment on next weeks vote. From Bloomberg “Blair: Brexit Is a Complete Mess, Repeat Referendum Only Option. Chances now better than 50/50”.
I’m longing for the days of New Labour and Blair! Someone put me out of my misery!!
Also an opinion piece in Bloomberg (Matt Singh): “There Actually Is a Brexit Consensus Among U.K. Voters. Theresa May’s deal is unloved, but it’s the closest thing to a compromise that most voters could live with.”
It goes: “It has become cliche to say that Brexit has divided the U.K. Polling so far, quite reasonably, has asked people whether the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May and rejected by Parliament so convincingly last week is “good” or “bad.” It also asks which of three currently feasible endpoints – May’s deal, no deal at all or no Brexit – respondents prefer. But what people would like and what they could live with are often quite different things. Number Cruncher Politics asked 1,030 eligible voters not only which outcome they’d prefer, but which they’d accept. Remaining in the EU was the preferred outcome for 37 percent, ahead of leaving with no deal (29 percent) and leaving with the proposed deal (23 percent), with 10 percent undecided. That seems to suggest that May’s deal is as unpopular among the public as it is in Parliament and supports the aims of those Remainers who want a second referendum.
“We then asked, for each of the three outcomes, whether the respondent would personally find it acceptable or unacceptable. Remaining in the EU was acceptable to 48 percent and unacceptable to 41 per cent, and leaving without a deal was acceptable to 45 percent and unacceptable to 39 percent. That is, the two extremes – remaining in the EU or a no-deal exit – are hugely polarizing. What was more revealing was that nearly half of those polled (49 percent) said they find May’s deal acceptable; only 30 percent find it unacceptable with around a fifth (21 percent) undecided. So as well as being the most acceptable and least unacceptable option, May’s deal is by far the least divisive.”
With Corbyn not budging and May having survived two no confidence votes, determined to see the 2016 result delivered and (apparently) being able to ignore an amendment to remove ‘no deal’, I think she will spook enough people to back her deal. Especially if the EU can provide some genuine sweeteners.
“The likelihood that crashing out with no deal is by now by far the most likely outcome. I now believe that to be true.”
Well, thankfully, the betting markets and bookmakers are heading in precisely the opposite direction
https://smarkets.com/event/945627/politics/uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-2018 (the best link here)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-odds-likelihood-bookmakers-william-hill-peoples-vote-final-say-a8685616.html
and so is this significant idiot:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-nigel-farage-ukip-leave-remain-peoples-vote-final-say-theresa-may-deal-jo-johnson-a8685346.html
While I always appreciate your perspectives I sometimes prefer the bookmakers’ dedicated and unsentimental approach to probability.
Hmmmm….they’re about as good as opinion polls
“Hmmmm….they’re about as good as opinion polls”
And clever with it. They get paid irrespective of the result. 🙂
Bookmakers’ odds reflect the weight of money on the respective outcomes. They cannot see the future any better than you or I.
Oh come on,
That chart and those numbers with that first link are overwhelming. You must have been pleased to see that whether you admit it or not.
Richard
Lanier’s book is only 144 pages long.
For a research colossus like you, it would be a doddle.
PSR
You jest sir!
I do not cling to a hope of BREXIT being stopped on the basis that it is an unsafe outcome from a democratic POV.
But if we have to go, then let us leave well – not too quickly because we are embarrassed or sheepish. I am sure that the EU could tolerate that.
We just do not have the people who can get that over to the EU. Or, if we have do, they are not in the right place at the right time.
But make no mistake: this is for Parliament to solve. Not the British people.
And I remain deeply concerned about Ireland. Long term we must stop propping up the North and do something decisive with it.
To Mr Hewitt and Mr Fante
No, No, No.
That is not my point fellas. Read! I’m not talking about taking it down Marco. I’m talking about making people accountable on it.
There was a time when some well-meaning people thought that the potential of TV was to bring truth and education to the masses. Watch the film ‘Good Night & Good Luck’. Now look at something like ‘Naked Attraction’ or whatever it is called and tell me that is educational.
The increased commercialisation of TV lies at the root of its crumbling quality. It’s need for revenue compromises its content all the time. Even Thatcher looked at the deregulated ITV and was heard to say ‘What have we done?’.
And a point in fact is that WE choose the TV that we watch and there are still some good programmes that do not pander to the mainstream – whatever it is.
As for America, I could not give a damn what happened there but for my own country I do care and the internet, social media is being used to spread lies and untruths as it were the opposite and we saw that in 2016.
Obviously Mr Hewitt and Mr Fante are still in love with our brave new world on the ‘Net. That’s really nice but for once I look forward to you getting your seven year itch. And you will. The honeymoon with the ‘Net has been over for me for long time. It’s manipulated by the profit motive in the most pure way and at the same time the more discerning user can still find it useful.
Just like TV!
Pilgrim, this:
“As for America, I could not give a damn what happened there” doesn’t cut it. Its just flippant.
The 2016 US presidential election was ground zero for the Russians, bots, trolls, targeted fake news, Mercer, Cambridge Analytica etc., Most of the things that you’re referring to (the Carole Cawalladr collection). In that same year similar problems emerged in Britain with the Brexit campaign.
My point, as you well know, is that those problems did not significantly re-emerge in the US mid terms. The internet still poses unacceptable and avoidable problems that are yet to be resolved but the problems have changed and the battleground has shifted.
My other point is that none of that presents any excuse for not holding referendums. Referendums have been successfully held in 2018 with good results.
I remain unconvinced Marco that there will be some sort of moment of epiphany here in the UK about the internet or the conduct of democracy in the digital age.
What is different Marco (and not flippant) is that the poor Americans have had an ‘in your face President’ who has been unapologetically vulgar and has even upset the party that is hosting him.
Trump’s clumsiness and lack of grace (also his inability to cover his tracks) has caused outrage in America. And I think he will get some blowback and might lose the next election. To compare America to our situation though is specious. So all I know is that I disagree with you. Big time.
The Tories have done all sorts of nasty things here but I do not see much outrage. Rather – as Polly Toynbee has noted in today’s Guardian – there is a sort of resigned complicity in it all that is frankly disturbing. And one thing you can say about May is that even though she is being so venal she does so with typically good old fashioned English ruling class composure which many find convincing.
Over here therefore in the UK we have a Tory party that despite hurting us since 2010 is still able to project a veneer of respectability and cling on. Many think that she is doing a great job. Those same people are not interested in how Leave won.
I put it to you that the game as you call it has not shifted here at all. It’s only just got started Marco.
Referendumbs? They’re finished Marco in this country in the short term at least. They have become another plaything for those wanting to stack the cards in their favour. How can the people decide when they are being abused so badly? It’s GIGO Marco: Garbage In = Garbage Out.
We might as well have Morris Dancers and a Maypole dances outside the next lot if we have them – just to make them feel legit’ and relevant – living in our past as we always do.
Today I got a response to my supportive letter to the Speaker of the Commons from his office which reads;
“Mr Speaker has asked me to thank you for your recent letter and for your kind and encouraging words about the way in which he carries out his duties of the Chair”.
So, my recommendation to you Marco is rather than coming here and arguing with me about increasingly redundant means of democracy like traditional referenda, you write to the place where real sovereignty in this country lies and offer some support to those who are trying to make it work. I still charge Parliament with sorting it out and will hold them responsible for not doing so.
And tell me – who is Carole Cawalladr?
I tend to triangulate my multiple sources when I’m digging around you see, and I am not familiar with her work.
And BTW Parliament will more likely act when they have a renewed mandate and the previous mandate (Ref. 1) is made redundant.
You might not think that necessary but generally, they will.
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“……And I think [Trump] will get some blowback and might lose the next election……”
Americans have never yet (it is said) unseated a President while the nation is at war. If the Deep State is happy with the manner of his performance expect a war to ensure his re-election.
Iran would be the favourite target probably. That’s coming along ‘nicely’, though maybe Venezuela will do. 🙁
“who is Carole Cawalladr?”
If you don’t know that then you don’t know this subject area.
Google it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Cadwalladr
No need Marco – it turns out that along with Channel 4 News and various reading around the issues of online democracy that I have actually been reading Ms Cawalladr in the Guardian all along – a paper I have been reading for well over twenty years. Her name just did not click with me. I can assure you that her articles on this issue have.
As for your ‘BTW’ – I have advocated (and still advocate) that with the evidence there is (and if anyone could give a damn) about the way the Leave campaign was conducted, the RefV0.1 result should be invalidated. And you know, it already is from what we know.
Parliament just has to grow the minerals to say so. Of course, it may never. But then, really as far as I am concerned, it has forfeited the right to exist. It might as well not exist actually.
So Marco it DOES have it’s mandate already. It just doesn’t want to face up to it. Or – more pointedly – the FTPA prevents it from getting around the opposition. This situation is not helped by what Dominic Grieve has rightly highlighted as people being in Government who do not know how the parliamentary system works. This includes our prime minister who had to have some judges tell her that parliament had to ratify the decision and not her in all her glory.
RefV.02 will set a very dangerous precedent about who runs this country. Running a referendum in as unhappy place as this, with people who are wound up, who have been set on each other and misled (with bad information and in the sense of politicians and chancers like UKIP and various far right groups – all enabled by online access) is stupid. It puts a burden on the people that they cannot bear. Not because they are stupid or unworthy but because they have been abused by power.
RefV0.2 It is the equivalent of trying to put out a fire with petrol. I believe it will not work. And as a political device, referenda will be finished if they are not finished already. PR is the way forward in the future.
Parliament must solve the problem. Or it has no credibility.
If it cannot, then we must leave.
That’s it.
Now off you go and encourage our parliamentarians to sort it out. They need you.
I have to say as an addendum to my belief that Parliament has the answer is this from Jonathan Freedland which I see as eminently sensible:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/will-of-the-people-brexit-june-2016-leavers
Having said that it could also buoy up RefV0.2 but you know where I stand on that.
Andy
There is no doubt that present U.S. Government is angling for war. But it has not happened yet.
And – given the amount of turmoil Trump has created within the inner workings of the U.S. Government – war may still not happen.
The pro-Trump voters can goad him on all they like. Trump has been shitting in his own back yard since he got in. He has made enemies within the political machinery that gets things done because the thick fuck only knows one way to win.
His own stupidity might help keep the peace.