![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lnrAlso I wrote this on Facebook, and thought I'd share here too. I was kind of hoping I might get some engagement from some of the pro-leave people in my friends-list, but who knows if Facebook will actually show it to them.
In 2016 we held an advisory referendum to decide whether the UK should leave the EU or not. At this point it wasn't clear exactly what leaving would entail, and there was (at best) a lot of misguided misinformation out there. The vote narrowly went in favour of leaving the EU, and the government announced the intention to formally leave on 29th March 2019.
Since then the government have been working to make a deal with the EU to establish what leaving actually means in practice. What are the rules on us visiting them, and them visiting us. What about people who already moved here? What about Erasmus exchange students, trade deals, human rights, and the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The picture now, with 4 days to go, is that the only available deal answers those questions, and not all favourably. There will not be hundreds of millions a week for the NHS. Companies are moving manufacturing out of the UK, subsidies for farming will go, trade difficulties may lead to food and medication shortages and so on and so on - with the picture looking even less rosy with No Deal. And our choices now are to accept this deal, leave with no deal, or remain in the EU.
So what I don't understand is why anyone objects to the idea of a new referendum to decide which of these choices we should take. The original referendum did not have any of this information, and was not binding. This new one could be, which would remove the objection to remainers simply "voting over and over again until they get the answer they want". If the "will of the people" *is* still to leave, even though it might be disastrous for the economy and particularly to those who *don't* live in cushy middle-class university towns, then a new referendum would still mean leaving the EU, with eyes open rather than on a bed of lies.
In 2016 we held an advisory referendum to decide whether the UK should leave the EU or not. At this point it wasn't clear exactly what leaving would entail, and there was (at best) a lot of misguided misinformation out there. The vote narrowly went in favour of leaving the EU, and the government announced the intention to formally leave on 29th March 2019.
Since then the government have been working to make a deal with the EU to establish what leaving actually means in practice. What are the rules on us visiting them, and them visiting us. What about people who already moved here? What about Erasmus exchange students, trade deals, human rights, and the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The picture now, with 4 days to go, is that the only available deal answers those questions, and not all favourably. There will not be hundreds of millions a week for the NHS. Companies are moving manufacturing out of the UK, subsidies for farming will go, trade difficulties may lead to food and medication shortages and so on and so on - with the picture looking even less rosy with No Deal. And our choices now are to accept this deal, leave with no deal, or remain in the EU.
So what I don't understand is why anyone objects to the idea of a new referendum to decide which of these choices we should take. The original referendum did not have any of this information, and was not binding. This new one could be, which would remove the objection to remainers simply "voting over and over again until they get the answer they want". If the "will of the people" *is* still to leave, even though it might be disastrous for the economy and particularly to those who *don't* live in cushy middle-class university towns, then a new referendum would still mean leaving the EU, with eyes open rather than on a bed of lies.
no subject
Date: 2019-03-25 08:21 pm (UTC)1. We won last time but we'll likely lose this time, so no.
2. It will revive social tensions. Actually I think this is wonkspeak for "it will split our party" and make us unelectable. It's the real reason. Neither Labour nor Conservatives can conceive of putting the national interest ahead of a threat to their electoral success.