Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Is Brexit now inevitable? Not yet by a long chalk

by Brian · 28 July, 2016

In a recent post on Open Democracy UK, the formidable Sunder Katwala has advised us emotional Europeans to get through the mourning phases of grief and anger and at last embrace ‘acceptance’.  Being strongly disinclined to take his defeatist advice, I have commented as follows:

I could hardly disagree more, I’m afraid, Sunder, much as I admire a lot of what you write. Your ‘surprise’ at the emotional distress and anger felt by many of us pro-Europeans over the referendum result is itself surprising, and a little shocking in its lack of perception. Millions of us feel emotionally committed to Europe as strongly as we feel committed to our own country. To be wrenched away by a stupid, myopic, unnecessary referendum, being forced to leave by just a handful of percentage points — it’s mindless.

Such a huge decision, changing Britain’s place in the world for the worse and for a generation or more, perhaps forever, should have required a minimum of two-thirds for Leaving, and the decision should obviously have been made only when at least an outline of the terms of our departure from the EU and of our future relationship with it had become clear — what HMG would be asking for, and what the rEU was likely to be prepared to give us. A decision to Leave without the slightest idea of what Leaving would actually entail was largely meaningless, especially after sober forecasts of likely consequences were recklessly rubbished by the mendacious self-serving cheer-leaders of the Leave campaign.

Elementary democracy demands that once the terms are roughly known, the people of Britain (and N Ireland) must be allowed to say — not necessarily in another referendum — whether the likely terms of our departure and our future relationships are acceptable to them, or not: in other words, if they, or rather we, would have voted the same way on 23 June if we had known then what we shall soon know; whether the price we shall be forced to pay to leave, including especially the likely disintegration of the United Kingdom, especially the re-creation of an armed border across Ireland, especially further plundering of the standard of living of the poorest in our society by yet more reductions in their spending power, especially the diminution of our place in the world to an irrelevant island off the coast of continental Europe, of little or no interest to the Americans or anyone else — whether all these harsh penalties are really worth paying in return for the largely imaginary benefits of cutting ourselves off from our natural friends and partners in Europe. Maybe a sizeable majority will say they want to pay this appalling price. If so, I suppose further resistance will be futile. But maybe they won’t, and reality will triumph at last.

Meanwhile the criminal blunder of the referendum itself looks likely to be followed, if we are not careful, by the even bigger and more scandalous blunder of expelling ourselves from the EU on the single flimsy flawed basis of a vote founded extensively in ignorance, prejudice, lies and irrelevant anger. If our new leaders, many of them the very people who have got us into this terrible mess in order to advance their own political careers, insist on going ahead with our collective suicides on such a ridiculously unsound basis, history and Europe will not forgive them.

Meanwhile, it’s late, but not necessarily too late, to stop this madness. The fanatical Europhobes will squeal if the people are invited to judge whether the terms of leaving and future relations are acceptable, but no-one could claim that this would be undemocratic. Two opportunities to choose are manifestly better than one, especially when the one was so obviously premature and flawed.

You recommend that after we Europeans have passed through our phases of grief and anger, we must embrace acceptance. Why on earth should we? Until Article 50 is triggered, the die is by no means cast and it may not be cast even then. It’s utter irresponsible folly to start mourning when the loved one is not even dead. Brexit will, would, be a catastrophe for Britain on numerous levels. All sensible people should do absolutely everything possible to stop it. “Acceptance”? Defeatism, rather. A lutta continua!

Brian

Search this site

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences 
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
  • Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
  • Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
  • The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
  • Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

  • Next story Can UK exit from the EU still be avoided? More arguments for saying it can
  • Previous story Does Mr Corbyn need a minimum of PLP support to stand against Ms Eagle for re-election as leader? Yes

Recent comments


    Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
    • Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
    • Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }

    The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
    • Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }

    A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
    • Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }

    The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
    • V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
    • Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }

    The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
    • Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }

    Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
    • xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }

    A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }

    More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
    • Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
    • Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }

    Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
    • Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
    • Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
    • William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
    • Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
    • Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }

    Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
    • Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
  • Older »

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. 2 August, 2017
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted 5 July, 2017
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos 20 June, 2017
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences  9 June, 2017
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome 2 June, 2017

Search this site

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog © 2021. All Rights Reserved.