Brexit (/'breksit, breqzit/; a portmanteau of 'British' and 'exit') is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). Following a referendum held on 23 June 2016 in which 51.9 percent of those voting supported leaving the EU, the Government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, starting a two-year process which was due to conclude with the UK's exit on 29 March 2019—a deadline that has been extended to 31 October 2019. [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
It’s none of my business. But I have a strong emotional attachment to something called the United Kingdom.
Why on earth would Boris Johnson commit to leaving the European Union on October 31 – “No ifs, no buts” – on the basis of a decision made by the people over three years ago?
Such a dogmatic approach to an outdated electoral outcome makes no sense.
Tying oneself to yesterday’s facts is neither admirable nor principled; it is ideological.
Keynes may or may not have said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. Irrespective of the accuracy of this famous attribution, it’s a fine and robust idea. Matters of fact should be determined by the best information. And the best information must include the most recent.
Surely ‘the statute of limitations’ has been reached for a decision made over three years ago? For goodness sake: in Australia, three years is longer than the average term of an elected parliament! There’s no way we would have our Parliament peopled by candidates who were successful in the election before last.
Rory Stewart, who flared brightly and briefly in the Conservative party firmament in recent months, made a case for not having a second referendum. He pointed out that, should the decision be reversed, the Leave forces would take to the streets immediately and there would be no end to the schism.
But even if that were the case, at least the divisiveness would be based on up-to-date information! And there might be every chance that the case to remain in the EU would be better than 51.9%. The demographics have shifted in favour of the remain vote. There is now much greater clarity about what leaving means in terms of trade and jobs, and what the practical difficulties are.
And surely a significant proportion of those who voted leave would agree that they did not vote for the uncertainty and bedlam of the last three years?
There are only three options: to leave subject to the agreement reached with the EU; to leave with no agreement; or to call the whole thing off. Maybe those could be the choices in a second referendum.
Respecting the primacy of the people and their vote is the essence of democracy. But it is false logic and dysfunctional to be tied to historical decisions of the people which, in all probability, no longer hold.
And there is one way to be absolutely sure. Ask them again.
Post script: in an interview with James O'Brien, and asked whether he thinks Boris Johnson is "dangerous", Rory Stewart paused for 11 seconds before answering. There was an earlier and revealing discussion between the two on O'Brien's LBC radio show.