Brexit Momentum Dwindling? #FlorenceSpeech #Brexit #VoteLeave #TakeBackControl #ChangeBritain

“Brexit” means Britain’s Exit from the European Union, which is not due to happen until March 2019. Sorry to explain that, but my recent conversations with people show that many think “Brexit has already happened” and can’t understand why more money isn’t being spent on the NHS yet. So, just to be clear: Brexit is in process, but has not yet happened.

Exiting the EU is supposed to be a two-year process. But now Prime Minister Theresa May has set out her plans for a two-year transition deal which is, by any other name, extended temporary membership of the EU. Certainly, it would extend the lifeline for us to backpeddle into the EU. Indeed, the day after the referendum I was already saying that I doubt Brexit will ever even happen. History shows that the EU Fanatics just will not accept “non” for an answer. And that incorrigible EU-phile Lord Heseltine has today, I think rather accurately, said that he not only foresees us not leaving the EU, but actually joining the Euro, too. Indeed, now that we’ve decided to leave, should we change our minds we will have lost all of our opt-outs, including on not joining the Euro; oh yes, the French and Germans will exact a pound of flesh and be out to humble us and lock us in forevermore.

So has the Brexit momentum critically dwindled?

Corbyn has forsaken his principles and Labour have reneged on their Referendum pledge to back Brexit. The Tories are weakened since losing their majority in the General Election. The party which single-handedly got us the referendum (whether you love them or loathe them), UKIP, seems to have had its moment and looks a spent force. The momentum for Brexit, which was the culmination of years of hard, focused pressure, is rapidly fizzling out. Just look at the polling data: the margin of support for Brexit is shrinking.

So, as someone who has spent half my life fighting for Brexit, I am extremely worried by the warning signs of interim deals and such. And with oppression of the Catalans by the Spanish state, and the election of anti-democratic EU fanatic Macron, I fear the future is bleak for European liberal democracy.

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-10-05-1475670108-7560650-brexit1.jpg

Advertisements

Hard, Soft, and CLEAN Brexit #Brexit

A brilliant article here which completely sums up my view on the Brexit process. There is no such thing as “hard” and “soft” Brexit in reality. The Leave campaign was based on “taking back control”, and making our own trade deals with the rest of the world, and making the British parliament the ultimate source of power in this land again, and making British law and British judges in British courts being the supreme arbiter of British matters. People complain that nobody knew what they were voting for, but on these points alone it was abundantly clear what people were voting for. And they voted. Yet if we do not leave the single market, the customs union, and the EU’s main legal constructs, then we will not achieve these ends that we voted for. And so, this “soft” Brexit would be no Brexit at all. We need to sink or swim on our own merits as a fully freed nation. And so the only true Brexit is, as the article points out, a “clean” Brexit. That is, a clean break from the EU instruments. Anything else would not achieve the openly stated goals of the leave campaign and would not fulfil the referendum result. Indeed, I could even see us officially rejoining the EU from such a Norway-like model several years down the line — but without our current opt-outs, such as from the Euro. The lie we’d be sold is, ‘Oh, well, the leaving experiment didn’t work out for us, did it?’ when in reality we would only have left in name, not substance, and thus would have been set-up to fail. Leave Euratom or not, perhaps there is a debate to be had there. But there is no debate that Brexit needs to be clean and requires us to leave the single marker, the customs union, and the EU’s main legal constructs.

For what it is worth, in the short run, there may be some instability, and I am sure that in the future there will be times when the UK is relatively stronger and other times when the EU is doing relatively better. But I have no doubt that over the long run, Brexit will be a resounding success which will not only arouse the jealousy and anger of high European Unionistas, but will also be to their eventual benefit — should they let it, and should we give Brexit that fair chance by opting for a “clean” Brexit.

Here’s the article in full in case the website takes it down at some point.

text above this point only © 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-10-05-1475670108-7560650-brexit1.jpg

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-apos-164052679.html

The biggest problem with Soft Brexit is that it’s not attainable

Liam Halligan

The Telegraph16 September 2017

Reblog

Share

Tweet

Share

<img alt=”The Union flag and the EU flag flying from the same mast above the Summerhall building in Edinburgh – PA” class=”Maw(100%)” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bQOs1eLsDW69F1id95sxyA–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_telegraph_818/122ba6583b8d3c46f34cfdb745c3acb5” itemprop=”url”/>

View photos

The Union flag and the EU flag flying from the same mast above the Summerhall building in Edinburgh – PA

More

In the first of two extracts from their new book, Liam Halligan and Gerard Lyons say the commonly held belief that Britain would be better off inside the single market and customs union is misconceived

There has been much talk of “Hard Brexit” versus “Soft Brexit”. Such labels are ubiquitous during these Article 50 negotiations – used freely by the broadcast media – yet they are partisan and deeply misleading. Hard Brexit makes leaving the European Union sound extreme and damaging, suggesting isola­tion and a bleak economic future. Soft Brexit, conversely, conveys a comfortable, ongoing relationship with the EU, with Britain still “part of the club”.

Leaving the single market and the customs union isn’t Hard Brexit – even if the name is deliberately coined to sound painful. It is simply Brexit. Staying inside the EU’s two main legal constructs, meanwhile, isn’t a harmonious Soft Brexit. It amounts, instead, to a deliberate and cynical failure to implement the 2016 referendum result.

A political narrative has developed that Britain would clearly be far better off staying inside the single market and customs union. As such, anyone wanting to actually implement Brexit, by leaving both, is seen to be obsessed only with sovereignty and immigration – and prepared for the economy to suffer, as long as they get their way.

Remaining a member of the single market and/or the customs union, in contrast, is presented as an enlightened “Soft Brexit” compromise, a balance between the Leave side’s “hard” ide­ology and Remain campaigners’ common sense. These are the terms of the UK’s Brexit debate, as viewed by much of our political and media class as we enter the autumn of 2017 and these EU negotiations heat up. Yet they are wrong on every level.

Soft-headed

Many Parliamentarians say they “respect the referendum result” but want “Soft Brexit”. Attempting to negotiate such an outcome, though, would seriously damage the UK, the EU and the vital ongoing relationship between them.

Soft Brexit would leave Britain in a dangerous halfway house. Inside the single market, the UK would become a “rule-taker” – still subject to rulings of the highly politicised European Court of Justice. We would be bound by huge restrictions on our economic and political freedom, but no longer able to vote on or influence those rules, even if they were changed to Britain’s disadvantage.

And, of course, single market membership would mean continued multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels and “freedom of movement”. This isn’t Brexit ­­– and would be viewed by millions of voters as an affront to the referendum result.

The economic benefits of single market “membership” are, anyway, wildly overstated and may even be negative. Membership means all UK firms – including the 95pc that don’t export to the EU – must comply with often unnecessary and expensive EU rules. Also, the single market in services barely exists, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Many EU nations refuse to drop barriers to imports of certain services – which severely penalises the UK, the world’s second-largest services exporter.

<img alt=”Prime Minister Theresa May – Credit: AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth” class=”Maw(100%)” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/eRwJzIyOMXGlA5R.SS9QNQ–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_telegraph_818/b4abf67a9cafdc8e344f742f012a3ec2” itemprop=”url”/>

View photos

Prime Minister Theresa May Credit: AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth

More

We don’t need to be “in” the single market to trade with the EU. The US conducted almost a quarter of a trillion dollars of EU trade in 2016 from outside – without accepting ECJ jurisdiction, freedom of movement or making large annual payments. The UK can do the same. If Britain cuts an EU free-trade agreement, tariff-free trade can continue.

If not, we can trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, paying relatively low tariffs – as does the US, China, Japan and every other major non-EU economy.

Since 1999, the share of UK trade with the EU has fallen from 61pc to just over 40pc. If the single market is so good for the UK, why do we trade less with the EU than with the rest of the world? Why is our EU trade shrinking and our non-EU trade expanding? Why do we have a large deficit on our EU trade, but a sizeable surplus on our trade outside the EU?

Being inside the EU’s customs union is also wrongly presented as economic nirvana. Membership means the UK must charge tariffs on non-EU goods. So British shoppers are paying more for a range of imports, including food, often to shield uncompetitive producers in other EU states from cheaper global prices.

And because 80pc of these tariffs are sent to Brussels, and the UK does more non-EU trade than any other EU member, Britain accounts for an unfairly high share of the EU’s combined tariff revenues. Again, this burden is shouldered by consumers.

<img alt=”The UK does more non-EU trade than any other EU member – Credit: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images” class=”Maw(100%)” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/sVSy5ZFk8B5sO9N4ERPCkw–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_telegraph_818/138cbbe115793d4a93b8e5d8c2765155” itemprop=”url”/>

View photos

The UK does more non-EU trade than any other EU member Credit: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images

More

Customs union membership also prevents Britain from striking trade deals with nations outside the EU – countries accounting for four-fifths of the global economy. This is a serious disadvantage for the UK, given our deep cultural and historic links with a wide variety of nations. As the global centre of economy gravity shifts decisively east, it is vital for the our future prosperity that Britain engages more with the world’s fastest-growing and most populous markets.

Outside the customs union, the UK is no longer part of the EU’s trade deals with various nations – often presented as a huge sacrifice. Over the 60 years since the EU was founded, though, Brussels has failed to cut a deal with any of the world’s top economies. The EU has no trade agreement with the US, China, India or Japan. (The recent, very preliminary agreement with Tokyo was little more than a press release). The EU’s 50 or so trade deals cover less than 10pc of the global economy, being mostly with tiny countries.

The EU is not well placed to negotiate trade agreements, comprising of numerous member states, often with conflicting objectives. The deals it has struck have also generally favoured French agricultural and German manufacturing exports, rather than UK services. Nations acting alone – such as Switzerland, Singapore and South Korea – have secured far more important trade deals, covering a much bigger share of the global economy, than has the EU.

In 2013, Switzerland struck a trade deal with China after three years of talks – the UK can do the same. Far from being “at the back of the queue”, Britain is well-placed to reach an agreement with the US. And India has shown great interest in a UK trade deal. The sizeable nations that do have EU trade agreements – including Mexico, South Africa and South Korea – have also indicated they want UK-equivalent agreements, providing an opportunity for Britain to modify existing agreements to our advantage.

While Soft Brexit is often presented as liberal and progressive, the single market promotes the interests of producers over consumers while entrenching the advantages of large corporations – which are far better able than smaller rivals to handle the complex regulation. Freedom of movement rules provide big firms with a ready stream of cheap, easily exploitable labour, while suppressing the wages of the UK’s most financially insecure workers. The single market also facilitates large-scale corporate tax avoidance.

The customs union, meanwhile, is a bad deal for UK consumers. On top of that, the EU’s tariff wall, particularly on agricultural goods, combined with the ghastly Common Agricultural Policy, severely hinders the development of many of the world’s poorest countries.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Soft Brexit is that it is unobtainable. Back in December 2016, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said: “The single market and its four freedoms are indivisible – cherry-picking is not an option.” Yet this is precisely what the Soft Brexiteers are attempting, breaching EU rules by seeking single market membership along with a special dispensation from freedom of movement that no other country has.

That’s why “Soft Brexit” will actually end up being “Messy Brexit”. Pushing for this outcome puts the UK in direct and absolute conflict with the EU’s core principles – which, if seriously breached, could tear the bloc apart, as others demand the same deal. The most likely Soft Brexit outcome would be a diplomatic stand-off, along with chronic uncertainty for citizens, investors and businesses, risking serious economic and political damage.

<img alt=”A pro-Brexit demonstration outside parliament – Credit: Charlotte Ball/PA Wire” class=”Maw(100%)” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/tXQmEjm9XKb5FAHp2gsz1Q–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_telegraph_818/3b2232c1c12b909a3ed3168ec2189de3” itemprop=”url”/>

View photos

A pro-Brexit demonstration outside parliament Credit: Charlotte Ball/PA Wire

More

In late July 2017, this point was made with devastating clarity by Fabian Zuleeg, a policy analyst closely linked to the European Commission.

“What is missing in these discussions is a real appreciation of the view from the other side of the Channel,” said Zuleeg. “Allowing cherry-picking of benefits would act as a signal to others that a Europe à la carte is obtainable, opening the Pandora’s box of disintegration.”

That’s why Theresa May did the right thing in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 – confirming from the outset that Britain wants to leave both the single market and customs union. We call this approach “Clean Brexit”.

This allows the UK quickly to take control of sensitive issues relating to our borders, laws and trade – because we are not negotiating over such issues in a bid to stay inside any EU legal construct. Knowing we will be outside both the single market and customs union from the outset also gives Britain time to prepare ahead of March 2019 when we leave the EU – creating new facilities for cross-Channel customs clearance, for instance.

By avoiding cherry-picking, Clean Brexit is better for Britain, the EU and their broader relationship – with the UK not trying to upend EU rules, increasing the chances of ongoing UK-EU co-operation across a range of headings. Soft Brexit, in contrast, attempting to trade off single market membership against freedom of movement rules, would maximise “cliff-edge” dangers and business uncertainty – and could result in a disastrous diplomatic stalemate, while risking a systemic crisis.

A strong hand

Despite widespread negativity, the UK has a strong hand to play in these Article 50 negotiations. Our £69bn EU trade deficit represents profits and jobs across tens of thousands of EU firms. Germany ran a UK goods surplus of £32bn in 2016. Powerful business interests have much to lose if Britain imposes tariffs on such exports. The BDI German employers’ union says it would be “very, very foolish” for the EU to impose high trade barriers against the UK. BDI represents around 100,000 companies, employing one fifth of the workforce.

France is sometimes portrayed as wanting to “punish” the UK for leaving the EU. President Macron has described Brexit as a “crime”, vowing to take an uncompromising approach to deter other member states from “killing the European idea”. Yet, for French farmers and winemakers, the UK is a huge market. Numerous French firms, and the French government itself, have strong commercial interests in Britain, with investments across sectors including transport, automotive manufacturing and nuclear power. The Netherlands will also want a zero-tariff deal with Britain so Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, remains a UK trade hub.

While European president Jean-Claude Juncker beats his chest and issues fiery rhet­oric, influential business groups are determined to limit trade restrictions between the UK and the Continent. By declaring Clean Brexit, maintaining we’ll be outside the single market and the customs union, Britain benefits from powerful EU business lobbies urging their governments to strike a favourable UK trade deal, know­ing they’ll otherwise face reciprocated WTO tariffs.

<img alt=”European president Jean-Claude Juncker – Credit: EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET” class=”Maw(100%)” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/jjzUcPLUS3eXe8YimbPYig–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_telegraph_818/3c6e11d1ae7423e0640cfcf66dc6c6b5” itemprop=”url”/>

View photos

European president Jean-Claude Juncker Credit: EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET

More

Ideally, the UK will agree what Theresa May has described as a “deep and comprehensive” EU free trade deal during the Article 50 period. Yet, settling a complex, multi-sector agreement with 27 governments, which must then be ratified by national parliaments and the European parliament, is probably impossible ahead of March 2019. That’s why the UK must prepare to trade under WTO rules, reoccupying our seat at the Geneva-based trade court and adopting our own tariff schedules.

Trading under WTO rules is often portrayed as a disaster. Yet most trade across the globe is conducted largely under WTO rules. The US and other leading economies trade with the EU on this basis, with each side paying tariffs that are generally very low. As such, it is by no means essential for the UK to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU ahead of March 2019. Failing to grasp this amounts to a major strategic error.

“No deal really is better than a bad deal.” The UK should state this clearly and often. “No deal” simply means we don’t strike an EU free trade agreement before March 2019 – which actually brings benefits. Under “no deal”, Britain’s EU trade deficit would generate substantial net tariff revenues, which could be used to compensate UK exporters.

More fundamentally, negotiating up against a hard deadline means the terms of any resulting agreement, which we must live with for years, would be far worse than a deal settled under less time pressure – once the Article 50 deadline has passed. Unless “no deal” is seen as a viable option, though, the UK’s negotiating hand will be seriously undermined – so all preparations must be made now to trade under WTO rules.

WTO rules are portrayed as “crashing out of the EU” to pressure the UK to accept an unfavourable trade deal before Article 50 expires. Yet “no deal” is an entirely coherent position and satisfactory outcome for Britain. Trading under WTO rules will provide a platform to strike a better long-term EU trade agreement, on our terms and in our own time, after Brexit has happened. The EU has even more incentive to do that than Britain, given its large UK trade surplus.

Accepting “no deal” on trade is not the same as “just walking away” – which means failing to settle administrative issues such as the mutual recognition agreements on goods that facilitate trade. No one is advocating this. It is unthinkable that existing and uncontroversial EU protocols granted to countless other non-EU members would not apply to the UK, not least as we leave the EU fully compliant. For Brussels to deny Britain such rights would breach both WTO and EU law, while incensing EU businesses and voters by threatening billions of euros of profit and countless EU jobs.

The UK will, of course, continue to trade and collaborate with the EU ex­tensively after Brexit. Complaints that we are “cutting ourselves off” or “pulling up the drawbridge” are infantile and absurd. With a hung parliament, though, and the Conservatives vulnerable in the Commons and the Lords, the Soft Brexiteers sense this is their moment.

Far from “respecting the referendum result”, they are promoting an unobtainable outcome and sowing parliamentary chaos. Their aim is nothing less than to reverse the June 2016 referendum and, in doing so, topple the Government.

‘Clean Brexit – How to make a success of leaving the EU’ by Liam Halligan and Gerard Lyons is published by Biteback Publishing at £20.00. To order your copy visit books.telegraph.co.uk

Direct Democracy Petition: Update #DirectDemocracy #TakeControl #Switzerland #BindingReferendums #Referendum

image

My direct democracy petition has finally gone live (a few weeks after setting it up). So please share the below link and sign the petition (if you agree with me, of course!) I probably should have set this up a few weeks ago, though, before the bruising EU referendum campaign turned people off referendums.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/157241

If a petition gets 250,000 signatures, it should trigger a national referendum

Engagement with politics is continuing to decline. Direct democracy is part of the solution.

When an official petition receives around 250,000 signatures, it should result in an official, binding referendum.

More details:

In Switzerland, when around 0.6% of the population signs a petition, it triggers a referendum (https://www.ch.ch/en/referendum/). This system works well in a country of more than eight million people, and there is no reason why it wouldn’t work well in the UK.

A committee or group should be set up to administer these petitions so they do not needlessly consume government time. Note that only a small number of petitions a year would receive the needed signatures.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://petition.parliament.uk

Brexit… Lite? @vote_leave #takecontrol #voteleave #brexit

EUStates

Immediately after the EU Referendum, people were talking about whether we would really leave the EU or not. But now that people have more-or-less accepted the result, everyone is talking about whether we’ll opt for “Brexit Lite” (The Independent, The Scotsman, Digital Look) or full-blown Brexit.

But given the once-in-a-lifetime, Remain or Leave, “you can’t be half-pregnant”, binary nature of this referendum, how could there be a “Brexit Lite“, and what does that even mean? I thought I would pass on the above graphic to bring light to the situation.

The more of those circles you are in, the more locked into the “European Project” you are. Note particularly the circles which read “European Union” and “Eurozone”. But it is very possible to be involved in some parts of European co-operation without being a state of the EU. Brexit-lite would simply mean being outside of the “European Union” (without presumably becoming Eurozone or Schengen Area), but not leaving all of the other circles. Full blown Brexit would presumably be leaving all or almost all the circles. Simple. The question is: which circles will we join or stay in?

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://www.aegee.org/yvote2014/voting-guide/how-does-the-eu-works/

 

Swiss-Style Referenda #TakeControl #Switzerland #BindingReferendums #Referendum

image

Engagement with politics is continuing to decline. Direct democracy is part of the solution.

If a petition gets around 250,000 signatures on the official government petition site (https://petition.parliament.uk), I believe it should trigger an official, binding referendum.

In Switzerland, when around 0.6% of the population signs a petition, it triggers a referendum (https://www.ch.ch/en/referendum/). This system works well in a country of more than eight million people, and there is no reason why it wouldn’t work well in the UK.

A committee or group should be set up to administer these petitions so they do not needlessly consume government time. Note that only a small number of petitions a year would receive the needed signatures.

If you agree, and are a British resident, please sign my petition here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/157241

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://petition.parliament.uk

[new petition page link updated 22.07.2016]

EU Referendum: Vote Leave LIED!? @susannareid100 @Nigel_Farage @Vote_Leave #TakeControl #VoteLeave #Brexit

Nigel-Farage-ITVs-Good-Morning-Britain-Susanna-Reid

There’s been a bit of a stir because Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, has “admitted” that he can’t guarantee when, if ever, the money we currently send to the EU will be spent on the NHS and other public services. People are saying they’ve been lied to.

How is this news? Of course Farage can’t promise it! He’s not even in the government, let alone Prime Minister! Furthermore, he wasn’t part of the official Vote Leave campaign. It’s embarrassing to see Susanna Reid pretend to be a hard-hitting journalist, a female sexier Paxman, by pushing Farage on this. Typical ITV nonsense. Have a go at the BBC, and yes it doesn’t have a slight bias, but she wouldn’t have been able to go after Farage, tabloid-style, and pretend this is a scoop.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/newsnights-evan-davis-loses-brexit-8281875#Z0mv3SYpsa8HhXOQ.97

Britain Will NOT Leave the EU @gideonrachman @Vote_Leave #TakeControl #VoteLeave #Brexit

cbf2f15f-b69c-4c6b-b8fd-e4f3b0312848

Two days ago I wrote how I can foresee a second EU referendum, however politically suicidal or disrespectful of the British people’s wishes that that would seem right now. I spoke of how often this has happened in the past when the people say “NO!” to the EU, and why it can and perhaps will happen again.

Now someone who knows more than me, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, has said the same thing in his article I do not believe that Brexit will happen (also available here). Unlike Mr Rachman, however, I would not view the onward trundle towards a European Super State or a second referendum to be a good thing. I say, let’s get out ASAP! I also think we cannot trust Boris Johnson on this. After all, he was until recently a lukewarm Bremainer, and famously said a few months ago that the best way to reform the EU, and stay inside this reformed entity, was to vote “NO” in a referendum.

As I said two days ago, we must watch our masters carefully. Any hint at a betrayal of the referendum results, especially Referendum: The Sequel, must be loudly opposed.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html

Normal Service to be Resumed Shortly!

channel-test-image

To all the people who read my blog for dieting stuff, for my posts about languages, or talk about religion or films, I apologise for the current over-saturation of EU Referendum stuff! I hope you understand that this vote is truly historic and therefore warrants a bit of air time! Normal service will resume soon!

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://walbrookdiscovery.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/channel-test-image.jpg

Indy Ref 2: Reasonable Timeline @Vote_Leave #TakeControl #VoteLeave #Brexit

JS88315028

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vote 51.9% to LEAVE the EU, and 48.1% to REMAIN. But as you’ll probably be aware, England and Wales voted to LEAVE with 53.4% and 52.5%, but Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to REMAIN with 55.8% and 62%. As far as England is concerned, eight of its nine regions* voted to LEAVE; London was the odd one out. (All details can be found here)

Nichola Sturgeon is now saying the Scottish Parliament will try to block Brexit. I do not believe that this is legally possible, but it would certainly be an outrageous and totally unacceptable proposition. Particularly given that Scotland voted only two years ago to remain in the UK even though everyone was perfectly well aware that the UK might vote to LEAVE the EU two years later.

However, there is a valid point here. Namely, that maybe Scotland and the rest of the UK are diverging politically, and that a second independence referendum for Scotland might need to happen.

But what would the timescale of that be?

The SNP would surely wish to strike while anger is high. However, that seems unreasonable. Indeed, a proposal for a second Indy Ref anytime soon is demonstrably wrong: immoral, yes, but also self-servingly opportunistic, demonstrative of not caring for the UK or even Scotland, but only for one’s own ideology.

Firstly, it isn’t proper to have Indy Ref 2 before we have left the EU. After all, the electorate would not be informed on what an independent UK would entail. That sets Indy Ref 2 back 2-3 years due to the two year negotiation period after Article 50 has been triggered — and it doesn’t have to be triggered immediately.

Secondly, that would take us to 2018/2019. Parliament runs till 2020. Surely it makes sense to allow Parliament to end.

Thirdly, indeed, surely it makes sense for the UK to elect its first post-EU, newly independent government. We must see how an independent UK is to be governed. That means we must allow for at least one full parliament as an independent nation. That takes us through to 2025.

Fourthly, it is probably wise to allow two or three parliaments to pass so that we can settle into a pattern. After all, the first parliament that we elect may well be reactionary. This takes us to 2030-2035.

In short, the earliest it seems reasonable to hold Indy Ref 2 is in about 15-20 years time. That’s not me, as a British Unionist, delaying. Let’s lance the boil! If we need to split, let’s split! But I just can’t see how it is reasonable, let alone constitutionally or politically sensible, to hold Indy Ref 2 anytime soon.

*The EU developed NUTS 1 statistical regions of England.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indy-ref-2-poll-says-8289832#S5SLVrMPUvEYCsBI.97

EU Referendum: The Sequel @Vote_Leave #TakeControl #VoteLeave #Brexit

image

The UK has voted. The decision: to leave the European Union. However, over three million people have already signed a petition calling for a second referendum. In fact, so many tried to sign it that the government petition website crashed!

Now, I don’t believe this petition will come to anything. For a start, it calls for another referendum if the turnout was less than 75%. The turnout was “only” 72%. Yet you can’t retroactively apply this and say we now need another referendum because of the lower turnout. Shifting the goalposts at this stage would just further divide the nation.

However, I always worried, as did many other Brexiteers, that should LEAVE win, a second referendum would be called. Perhaps after the exit negotiation had finished. Y’know, to see if people were still happy with the deal.

This isn’t just conspiracy theorist Brexiteers talking nonsense again (even though David Icke is genuinely on our LEAVE side). Every time a nation is given a vote and says “No” to the EU, there is invariably another vote.

  • Denmark 1992 NO to the Maastricht Treaty 50.7%. Denmark negotiated, got some concessions, staged a second referendum in 1993. The result: 56.8% YES.
  • Ireland 2001 NO to the Treaty of Nice 53.9%. An improved proposal was put to voters in a second referendum in 2002. The result: 62.9 YES.
  • France and Holland 2005 NO to a Treaty establishing a European Constitution 54.9% and 61.5%. The EU simply put almost all of the same provisions in another treaty, The Treaty of Lisbon, which France and Holland did not have a referendum on.
  • Ireland 2008 NO to Treaty of Lisbon 53.2%. Some reassurances were given by the EU, and a second referendum was held in 2009. The result: 67.1% YES.

Seeing a pattern here? Yet whenever a nation says YES the first time of asking, there is peculiarly no second vote(!) For example:

  • Croatia 2012 to join the EU.
  • Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia 2003 to join the EU.
  • Ireland and Denmark 1998 Treaty of Amsterdam.
  • Austria, Finland, Sweden 1994 to join the EU.
  • Ireland and France 1992 Maastricht Treaty.
  • Denmark 1986 Single European Act.
  • Ireland 1987 Single European Act.
  • Ireland and Denmark 1972 to join the European Communities.
  • And of course all the aforesaid times where the nation voted YES on the second referendum, after saying NO in the first, a further third one was not held.

There’s a reason we always had the double jeopardy rule in English law. It simply isn’t fair to keep putting the same person on trial until you get the “right” result. This ancient protection against tyranny was effectively repealed on the reasonable-sounding grounds that should new evidence come to light, it is only just to try the person again. Likewise, it seems so reasonable to ask the people to vote again when new conditions come to light. And literally millions of people petitioning for a second vote, plus the upcoming withdrawal negotiation conditions, are indeed “new conditions”. Yet in reality, this would be nothing but a try at barracking and wearing people down emotionally and mentally to not vote NO again, to either abstain or switch to YES.

If we were always offered a second bite, or a best of three, then I wouldn’t be so vexed. But that isn’t how the EU works. When supporters of “The Project” can avoid it, they don’t ask the question. And when they do ask the question, only the “right” answer will do.

And that is why I am not dancing in the streets. And that is why I haven’t cried with joy yet. For I know all too well that this isn’t over till the fat lady sings. I will shed tears of joy when we have actually left the EU. Till then, us supporters of a free UK must stay wakeful and watchful of what our overlords do.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://petition.parliament.uk