Skip to main content

Why I "undemocratically" complain about Brexit

Brexit is decided - the referendum gave a clear (if narrow) result, and the Conservative party were re-elected (albeit without a majority) on a manifesto to deliver a Brexit that placed Britain outside of the single market and customs union. So what then are all these Remainers clinging to, and surely it's a democratic decision to leave the EU. Isn't it undemocratic to continue to attempt to argue against this, or to attempt to thwart it?

I wrote this because Remainers such as myself are often accused of being undemocratic. It's a fair accusation, and one that I feel needs to be addressed.

1) Firstly, I haven't changed my views on Brexit just because the country voted one particular way on the day. Very few politicians switch their ideas every time a vote doesn't go their way.

2) I find Brexit extremely fascinating. This inevitably means expressing opinions about it.

3) I'm not suggesting that we just cancel Brexit. Whilst I would certainly welcome that, it's not fundamentally what I want or expect. A government, especially a Conservative government who made manifesto pledges, cannot simply stand up and say we're not doing it. The time isn't right as there are still several months of negotiating left; support for Remain is still marginal; there isn't enough pain in the economy yet to justify a reversal; the final deal is still a complete mystery. This may all change in due course.

4) Democracy has to have opposition to remain healthy. The government doesn't just get carte blanche to do whatever it likes. Currently the UK government are in a complete muddle, and could even be careening towards a no-deal Brexit, and tearing up all of the good aspirations and tests about what hoped to achieve.

5) We need to hold Leavers to account. Many things were predicted, claimed and promised. For people who voted to Leave, they should be particularly interested to ensure that what they voted for gets delivered, because at the moment, it's looking like most promises will be broken. There won't be extra money for the NHS and instead it will get contracted out to US healthcare providers. Northern Ireland is looking perilous. We could still end up paying huge sums to Brussels and accepting freedom of movement (fine by me), or alternatively we'll face massive disruption in spite of being promised business as usual. There won't be a great deal to be had with the EU, just more of the same or nothing at all. There aren't dozens of new trade deals waiting to be signed on exit date.

6) Brexit isn't inevitable. The UK is completely unprepared and is quite likely to ask for an 11th hour extension to Article 50 - or maybe momentum for a referendum on the deal will grow, and we'll be granted an extension to Article 50 on that basis. Brexit is also completely reversible - UK could be fast-tracked back into the EU at any time. Yes there is the Article 49 process but associate membership is available long before the A49 process is complete. UK could also be parked in transition for up to a decade before abandoning Brexit and rejoining the EU.

7) We never stop asking the people. Elections happen every 5 years for a reason. Whereas Remainers are accused of wanting to re-run the referendum until they get the result they want, Leavers seem to think that democracy should stop as soon as they get the result THEY want. Constantly reaffirming and changing course is democracy.

8) In business, all projects have the option to cancel them as facts change. All decisions are reversible. What is true for business is true for democracies. Democracies change their minds all the time, at each general election. We don't have to do this - it's political will, not a law of nature.

9) We need at least a competent Brexit. If I could trust that the government had a coherent policy and knew what it was doing, then whilst I may disagree I would feel a lot calmer about it. I complain far more about the process and strategy rather than the decision itself.

10) We can't ignore the 48%. Every one of the 48%, and many of the 52%, would favour a soft Brexit, at the very least, EEA/EFTA membership. Sure this isn't going to satisfy everyone, but it will be the only deliverable Brexit, that honours the narrowness of the result. Instead the 48% have been insulted and side-lined, and we are angry.

11) The UK desperately needs a way out. Right now, we are looking at a catastrophic no deal, or a united Ireland and a spartan trade deal with the EU. The treasury forecasts are damning. No government in their right mind would pursue this policy.

12) Leavers would have behaved the same. Nigel Farage himself said that the debate wouldn't be finished if Remain narrowly won. We should welcome debate not shut it down.

13) Many irregularities around the referendum cast doubt on its legitimacy. Many groups were excluded - 16-18 year olds, expats and foreign nationals. Vote Leave broke electoral law. Russia have been interfering, via social media and alleged donations via a prominent Leave backer. The referendum didn't have proper thresholds, or ask a specific deliverable question.

14) The referendum was advisory. With such a narrow result, the government really should be thinking for itself, and using its casting vote, rather than ploughing on with an ill-conceived project, and acting too hastily when the country is split down the middle.

15) Nobody voted for this Brexit. Neither the no-deal scenario, nor the Chequer's deal were what people had in mind when they cast their votes.

16) We don't know how to do Brexit. The UK government have been arguing amongst themselves for 2 years now, have discounted every single offer from the EU (e.g. EEA membership, Canada, Turkey, Ukraine) and the Chequers deal is a Frankenstein's monster that pleases nobody least of all the EU. Brexit is simply undeliverable. Brexit as promised isn't deliverable.

17) I may be personally harmed by Brexit. Most notably, things will get more expensive, and I've already lost quite a bit of money on exchange rates and food inflation. The BoE estimated that households have lost on average £900 each already due to Brexit (The Guardian, 22nd May 2018). Goodness only knows what will happen on no-deal. This entitles me to whinge.

18) Patriotism. I believe that the UK will be greatly harmed by Brexit. I believe that the poorest people in the UK will be harmed by Brexit the most.

19) Doing everything in my power to do the right thing. If Brexit turns into the national catastrophe I think it will, at least my conscience is clear that did what I could.

20) We need to debate the shape of Brexit. It's not as simple as just leaving, and many leave campaigners, such as Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan and Boris Johnson all alluded very strongly pre-referendum, that the UK should stay in the EEA. There are trade-offs to be made, even though the UK government has spectacularly failed to spell out these compromises and consequences.

21) Polling consistently shows a definite but narrow support for Remain. The UK is being taken out of the EU against its will. The government is acting against the will of the people.

22) There's always rejoining. Assuming some kind of Brexit in March 2019, either technical or abrupt, there's really no further mandate from the referendum. No mandate for further separation. Not only will the campaign to rejoin begin in earnest, but there will no grace period. Just because Cameron said it's a once in a generation decision doesn't make it true. The harder the Brexit, the sooner the referendum will take place to rejoin. In fact, we may as well save ourselves the bother of leaving in the first place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali