It's over a two years after the referendum. And the UK is on the brink of Brexit.
In those two and a half years a lot has changed. People are much more aware of what the consequences are now then when they voted.
It's a complicated issue and you could ask the question if with such complicated issues there should have been a referendum in the first place. And if so, you should first inform people in an educational way what the European Union entitles.
Is the UK really becoming more independent? Does the UK really have the power to fight against big economies like the US, Europe and China on it's own?
David Cameron has a lot to answer for!
In answer to your question about the economy - I don’t think anybody knows! But I do think that in the medium term we will all be tightening our purse strings if we leave without a customs agreement,
I do not believe that most of us had any idea of the difficulties that would arise. Apart from any other issues, the question of the Irish border seems unsolvable.I was Remainer but I have to say that because of the obstacles that have been placed in our way I am becoming anti the EU.
Although there is no legal obligation on the government to adhere to the result of the referendum I think that the country has painted itself into a corner from which there is no easy escape.
The Common Market was a great thing for the UK but I suspect that other countries, particularly Germany, were pushing us closer towards a federated Europe. My instincts go against closer political alignment but, on the other hand, I suspect Putin’s Russia would be delighted to see Europe become more fragmented.
thank you for your thoughts.
Yes the last two years have been bonkers. And the referendum who was won by the Brexit voters was a small victory. Too small for such a big question with so much consequences.
It's sad to see that political parties (both left and right) are more occupied with themselves then with the countries interest.
I was one of the only individuals who predicted that "Brexit" would never happen and I stand by that prognostication: The entire fiasco was a Vladimir Putin instigated and manipulated con job in a concerted attempt to significantly weaken the European Union, just like it appeasr as if he embedded what appears to be a submissive Russian asset in the white house who continues to do his level best to undermine and sabotage the USA's once closest allies in Europe once again, with intended or unintended intent to weaken the allied forces of good so Vladimir Putin can expand his empire:
I think the people of England who voted for Brexit just like the ignorant, gullible people who voted for our Circus Clown in the oval office, manipulated by Russian interference in FAVOR of Bozo Trump, are finally waking up to the reality of the gigantic mistake and manipulation that occurred all in the name of a Russian power play:
Unless you are a British citizen, it really is none of your business.
Reasoning like that Live to Learn tells me I'm not allowed to talk about football because I'm not a football player.
Depends on the issue. I firmly believe in the Democratic process. You guys held a vote, the measure passed. So, I think by attempting to vote again, to change the outcome, you risk making a mockery of the process. I can say you are attempting to make a mockery of the Democratic process, but the left here has been doing that for two years now, so you aren't unique. If you didn't take the time to educate yourselves prior to the initial vote, I'd say attempt to educate yourselves on the next issue that comes along. Don't expect intelligent people to have to wait for the rest to catch up, or give the uneducated a chance to change policy when they have sour grapes at losing. I've heard the ignorance. People have died so maybe that would change the outcome? It's a creepy weird argument.
That's the only opinion I can hold on the issue because I don't live there. I don't know the particulars of what inclusion or exclusion would entail. I'm not going to bash foreigners for their conversation on internal affairs. Bottom line, I'm not a Brit. I realize Brits stick their nose in our business all the time, it doesn't make it right or of any value.
Football would be the same. I can comment on things which affect me as a fan, but would be foolish to attempt to insert my opinion on topics which affect only players.
I realize that when someone agrees with you, you have no problem elevating that opinion.
Live to Learn, I’ll not cover all aspects of the pros and cons of a 2nd Referendum here because as you rightly point out, you are American and I am British (two different cultures). But one point I’d like to mention ‘for clarity’, is your reference to the argument that because some of the older people who voted for Brexit over two and a half years ago are now died that it might alter the result in a 2nd Referendum.
For Clarity, the Referendum Results was split many ways, for example:-
• About 75% of people over the age of 65 voted for Brexit, while over 75% of people under the age of 25 voted Remain.
• The vast majority of people in the Cities voted Remain, while the vast majority of people in Towns and Rural Areas voted Leave.
• Most of England and Wales voted Leave, while the vast majority in Scotland and in Northern Ireland voted Remain.
It’s the fact that the young (those who were between the age of 16 and 17 two and a half years ago), who’s future is being decided, and who are massively in favour of Remain, didn’t get the vote; while since the Referendum the number of elderly people (who’s not going to be affected by Brexit because they will not live long enough) have since died.
It’s not my argument because I myself am in retirement; but many young people who were 16 and 17 at the time; and denied a vote on their future, because they were too young to vote, do passionately argue this point.
Out of curiosity, if you have another vote and lose again will you be arguing for best 3 out of 5?
It’s a good question Live to Learn, and one that is frequently used by Brexiteers arguing against a 2nd Referendum.
Personally, I don’t like Referendums, because all too frequently ‘the people’ tend to vote in what is not in the ‘National Interest’. I believe that for all matters (except for major Constitutional changes) it should be left to the elected representatives of ‘the people’ to make decisions on behalf of ‘the people’.
For Major Constitutional changes (where the people should decide), in most democratically free countries in the world a ‘Constitutional Change’ requires a two thirds majority; specifically so that it is a clear majority, and not a split nation.
However, under the British Constitution, we don’t have the ‘two thirds’ rule, and Referendums are ‘Advisory’ only e.g. under the British Constitution, the final decision on whether to accept a Referendum result or not is up to Parliament.
If the 1st Referendum had been decisive one way or the other, then most people would have accepted the results of the Referendum. The problem with the 1st Referendum was that it wasn’t a clear decision. Half the people wanted to leave the EU and half the people wanted to remain within the EU; a split Nation.
It’s not just the Nation that is divided over Brexit, it’s also Parliament, and the Government; hence the current ‘Gridlock’ (impasse) in Parliament, who are paralysed in its attempt to make any decision on Brexit. One argument, to break the gridlock in Parliament is to put it back to ‘the people’, and let the people decide whether to accept Theresa May’s Deal, or to ‘Remain’ within the EU.
Obviously, if a 2nd Referendum was called, and it was as indecisive as the first, then that would be unhelpful; but I think that, now the myths have been exposed, and the facts are known, people would be able to make a more ‘informed decision’ and more inclined to accept the outcome of a 2nd Referendum, even if it was marginal again.
Albeit, ‘Opinion Polls’ (for what they are worth) have consistently shown in recent months that two thirds of the Nation do now want a 2nd Referendum, and that two thirds of people polled say they would this time vote to Remain; which if the opinion polls are correct, would give a clear message to Parliament of what the People Want.
Maybe we should have a referendum to ask the question ‘Do you want a second referendum on EU membership?’ Meanwhile the clock ticks and we draw nearer to 29th March with no agreement in parliament. It’s beginning to look more and more like a hard exit to me, with no firm plans in place for the aftermath of crashing out.
I feel a little sorry for Teresa May because she took on a task that most people would not want to undertake, but I have to say that she will probably be written into the history books as the most stubborn Prime Minister ever to have served the country.
I would feel sorry for Theresa May because she is in an impossible situation; but for the fact that a lot of her woes in Parliament is of her own making e.g. she’s acted like a ‘Dictator’ rather than trying to engage Parliament in the decision making process during the two years of negotiations.
Unlike the European Commission, who has throughout the whole negation process over the past two years, involved the Council of Ministers (the Governments of the other 27 Member States) and kept the European Parliament informed (so that all interested parties are kept on-side); Theresa May didn’t involve Parliament during the negation process, and even now is denying Parliament their Constitutional right to vote on the Deal and decide what to do if the Deal is rejected.
Theresa May, herself, is running the clock down, risking Britain leaving the EU without a Deal (hard Brexit) because of her unilateral decision to put off the vote on her Deal in Parliament until 14th January, leaving Parliament just one week to decide what to do in the event that her Deal is rejected e.g. the 21st January being the deadline for a decision if a Hard Brexit is to be avoided.
The 21st January is the deadline, because if in the unlikely event Parliament did accept Theresa May’s Deal, the European Parliament then needs time to debate and vote on the deal; and if they don’t approve it by the end of March then the Deal is not ratified (not legal), and we leave the EU without a Deal (Hard Brexit).
Once Theresa May finally gives Parliament its Constitutional Right to take control of the matter, which will now not be until the 14th January; in the likely event that Parliament rejects Theresa May’s Deal, Parliament has several legal and practical options (as well as a number of other options which they are still arguing about that are not legal or practical).
In the event that Parliament rejects Theresa May’s Deal, the viable options are:-
• ‘Do Nothing’ e.g. a continuation of the deadlock (impasse); in which case we leave the EU at the end of March with No Deal (Hard Brexit); which would be disastrous for the British Economy.
• Revoke Article 50 and remain within the EU, which it can legally do because under the British Constitution Referendums are only ‘Advisory’. However, this would be seen as a cop-out, and therefore isn’t likely to happen.
• Suspend Article 50, to give time for a General Election or a 2nd Referendum; a legal right which was confirmed by the European Court last week.
But what Parliament cannot do is to suspend Article 50 simply because Parliament is in deadlock (and can’t make a decision), or because Parliament wants Theresa May to renegotiate the Deal. Given that the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty of 1998 is sacrosanct, and given Theresa May’s own ‘Red Lines’ e.g. limits on free movement of Labour, then the EU has already made it crystal clear that what we have is the best Deal possible. Also, the European Court made it perfectly clear last week that Britain cannot suspend Article 50 other than to give time for a General Election or a 2nd Referendum.
Yes, the question is, will a second referendum not just be a hornsnest like the first.
What would happen if remain wins with a 54 / 46 vote? It would be the same as the first. A split country. The only thing it solves perhaps is to give the government an option to rethink the Brexit procedure.
May indeed had an impossible task of “negotiating” a Brexit deal, something she voted herself against in the beginning if I’m correct.
I dont think annybody could have made a good deal. But you have something like damage controll. Except it looks like a no-deal is around the corner, something that’s the worst outcome of all in my opinion.
Yep, the Brexiteers will fight a 2nd Referendum with all their might; and so will the ardent Remainers, which will prominently be the 18 to 20 year olds, who were denied a say in their future last time round. So it would be a vicious battle, more so than last time: The strength of feelings amongst ardent Leavers and ardent Remainers is high (much higher than last time).
This video below gives a glimpse of the battles lines being drawn by Young Remainers in readiness for a 2nd Referendum:
The Brexit Dividend Song (B!!!!!! to Brexit Bus Tour): https://youtu.be/M6jPVSFRbv8
And yes, if the result is marginal again, it could (like the first referendum) be divisive; especially if the result went the other way. That’s why many countries have the two-thirds rule for constitutional changes e.g. it avoids splitting the nation, like the 1st referendum has done. Although, if it was a narrow margin for ‘Leave’ on a 2nd referendum, given that this time round more people know the facts, and are more aware of the lies and deceit used in the last campaign, I think most people would (this time) accept that it is the ‘Will of the People’.
We already have a ‘Split Country’, and with Parliament at an impasse a 2nd referendum may be the only sensible and democratic way out. With a divided country, accepting Theresa May’s Deal would not be the end of the matter; a campaign to re-join the EU would be mounted, and the fight would go on. Albeit, if we did re-join in a generations time, we would have lost all the benefits that Margaret Thatcher won e.g. the generous EU membership discount, and the right to opt out of the Euro etc. Although on a personal note, making frequent visits to France and Belgium for holidays and regular shopping trips, I love the Euro and wouldn’t miss the pound Stirling.
Yes Theresa May did support ‘Remain’ during the 1st referendum, and she has had an impossible task in trying to negotiate a Deal. But many of the problems are of her ‘own making’, because she did make the mistake of calling a ‘snap’ General Election, where she lost her majority; and therefore lost her ability to push Brexit through Parliament without having to appease all Conservative Remainer and Brexiteer MPs and the 10 DUP MPs all at the same time e.g. her need to ‘please all of the people all of the time’. In other words, if she had carried on with the majority she had she could have predominantly ignored the Brexiteers on the right of her party, and wouldn’t have been so dependent on the 10 DUP MPs to push through a Brexit Deal e.g. a Soft Brexit, which would have been more palatable to Parliament as a whole.
Her second mistake was in not involving Parliament in the negotiations over the past two years; because Parliament has to in the end vote on the Deal, and if she hasn’t got them on-board then (with a Minority Government) she is going to face insurmountable opposition when she finally presents them with a fait accompli. That’s why the European Commission worked closely with the other 27 Member State Governments, and kept the European Parliament informed, so as to keep everyone on-side.
Her third mistake is (given that her Deal would have been rejected by Parliament last week) is not giving Parliament adequate time to debate the issue and too seek a majority consensus on the other options; instead of running the clock down (by leaving the vote until next year, just 7 days before the deadline of 21st January) in an attempt of forcing them into ‘Her Deal’ or ‘No Deal’.
To me, her actions, rather than ‘Damage Control’ is Dictatorial. Theresa May does only have a ‘Minority Government’, so as much as she may not like it, the final decision has to be what Parliament wants, not what the Government wants.
The problem I see with a second referendum is that the first one was quite legal, done properly and produced a result. The philosophy of "I didn't get my way, so we have to vote again until I do get what I want" is not the way to run any form of democracy. As it expands it can only lead to a complete failure to get anything done. It also promotes the idea that compromise (not in Brexit, for that is either or, nothing in between) is unacceptable.
We're seeing that in the US, notably with gun controls and abortion. The people wishing to control others (gun confiscation and zero abortions) will never stop their efforts; every gain towards their point of view is met with more efforts to get more rather than an acceptance of compromise.
Good to hear your views wilderness; yep, your comment is one of many arguments banding around the UK in favour for and against holding a 2nd Referendum.
Another possible mistake by Theresa May was to postpone Parliaments involvement in the decision making process of Brexit until after the ‘Christmas Recess’ because it is giving more time for those MPs who want a 2nd Referendum to campaign for it in Parliament; and support for a 2nd Referendum in Parliament is growing by the day e.g. just today Amber Rudd MP (prominent Government Minister) broke ranks with the Government and publically announced that she thinks there should be a 2nd Referendum (so she may well be the next Government Minister to resign her Cabinet Post).
A Cross Party Group of MPs, including members from all political parties (except for the DUP) have formed an Alliance to campaign for a 2nd Referendum. These MPs from the Conservatives, Labour (including my own MP, Kerry McCarthy MP), Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, SNP and the Green Political Parties are all working together to campaign for Parliament to support a 2nd Referendum.
One of the leading members of this Cross Party Alliance being Conservative MP Anna Soubry, who is demanding a People's Vote (second Brexit referendum):- https://youtu.be/Nlp_Fe8QxDU
So with Parliament closing tomorrow for Christmas, and not returning until the 7th January, we’ll just have to wait to see what transpires in Parliament in the New Year.
peterstreep, My TRUTH always seems to rattle Trump followers like Live to Learn for some reason: Someday maybe she'll understand the fact that it was indeed Vladimir Putin and his covert Russian agents who instigated and spread crazy, radical right wing propaganda to influence a favorable vote for both Brexit and the orange Circus Clown now perched in OUR oval office, plopped in his seat with what appears to be an indictment hanging over his bloated head:
Both insane outcomes resulted in a more powerful and dangerous Russia which I'd say was the desired scheme:
I dont think its just Putin Jake. Europe has been seen as a dangerous economic power by the US too. The US doesnt want a strong Euro. Weaker countries are more easy to manipulate. Something that will happen to the UK.
The NHS is a big price and surely will be privitized and bought by US companies in the years to come, for example.
I strongly disagree peterstreep: The USA is at peak power and influence when Europe is strong and unified, except of course at the moment but we pray not for long, we have a puppet in our oval office who is trying to undermine Europe and our once strong and vibrant NATO allies, for what possible reason ?? To appease Putin of course:
Don't try to make this more difficult than it truly is, Brexit is absolutely a Russian scheme to segregate Europe and they found an idiot in Donald Trump to advocate for the weakening of the EU: Who else but Vladimir Putin would benefit from Brexit ?? It's self explanatory:
But once again, Brexit will never happen for many obvious reasons:
I agree with you that it benefits the US if Europe is a unified block. But not everybody in the US business world and political power will see it that way.
Facebook, Amazon and Google are not really fond of the EU with it's stricter privacy and tax regulations for example.
When the Brexit starts, the UK will lose all the treaties the EU made with other countries including the US.
The UK will have to negotiate new treaties with the US and as the UK will be weaker on it's own so the US can dictate the negotiations, something it can't do with the EU.
It's one of the strongest examples of Disaster Capitalism I can imagine (besides South America in the '80) - The UK is in shock for two years now and is heading to a crisis. The only ones who really love a financial crisis is the 1% as they can buy companies and shares for bargains.
The UK will be ripe for the picking for a Neoliberalism market at full throttle. Milton Friedman would love it.
As I read it, you're essentially agreeing with me for the most part and I can't really disagree with anything you've said peterstreep except the fact that while the EU might not be the ideal business situation for some of the major corporations that you've mentioned, unless they are in the oil and gas industries which could care less about world affairs or our fragile environment, CEOS of such dramatically great wealth and power typically explore other ways of maximizing profits, they usually refrain from advocating the fracturing of a solid block of countries just to get their way:
Brexit happened the exact same way Bozo Trump did, a few angry frightened white nationalists who were conned into believing foreigners who they once were, are coming for their jobs etc. Vladimir Putin saw the opening and exploited it to maximum benefit and now he's been celebrating two major victories without firing a single shot, his making of Brexit which will never happen, and his major participation in the election of Bozo Trump who will soon be REMOVED and Punished if we still have laws here in the USA:
I’m not quite sure if Trump will be removed, thats not an easy thing.
What worries me more though is not Trump, but the worldwide patern were Trump is a part of. Namely strong nationalistic tendencies. You can thank Steve Banon for that who support fascist groups in Italy, Belgium, France, Spain, Holland and other countries.
Brexit is part of these extreme nationalistic feelings. Anti immigration, America first, Uk more independent from Darth Brussels.etc.. it is sad how people forget and not learn from the past.
The level of shear insanity, chaos, perpetual crisis, betrayal, hostility toward our institutions and mega-corruption Donald Trump subjects the USA to almost on a daily basis is absolutely unsustainable: There is no option but his REMOVAL: Even republican senators are beginning to snap out of it and question his motives and unstable actions and re-thinking their loyalty to a sick elderly individual who could care less about the USA:
I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessment peterstreep with Vladimir Putin as primary beneficiary but Brexit is dead which will deny the Russians of their obvious power grab in the EU:
Sounds like chicken little. That's your standard response, if someone disagrees. Russian meddling.
It's short sighted and somewhat monotonous.
I’ve been very strongly pro-European Union ever since the European Parliament was established in 1979; and have keenly followed its development ever since. It was at that time that, with interest, I studied the EU’s History, its origins and reason for its origin. Sadly much of the wealth of that historic information doesn’t feature prominently on the web, even Wikipedia only glosses over the history (missing out fundamentally important information); but then again, all this happened long before the Internet existed.
In answer to your question: No Brexit is not worth it; even a soft Brexit will restrict free flow of ‘goods’ and ‘people’, and as such will push up prices in Britain and make Britain less competitive. And a soft Brexit is the only option if we want to preserve the Good Friday Agreement (the 1998 Peace Treaty between the IRA and the British Government); and I for one don’t want the Troubles (the 30 years civil war between 1968 and 1998) returning to the shores of Britain.
The EU (like with people) is something that when you get to know it, you get to understand it, and appreciate it; unfortunately, like politics, the EU is a subject that is a ‘turn off’ for most people; so most people don’t get to know and understand it. And regrettably, too much ignorance of the EU is fuelled by too much misleading anti-EU propaganda on the Web.
Recently, in corresponding with an American on the subject who is anti-EU because he thought that the EU is run by France and Germany in Brussels, I found a rather informative video made by the Green Party that explains the basics of law making in the EU in simple to understand terms.
EU Law-making: https://youtu.be/5fOIdyiKl3U
Many people who voted Brexit wanted a more indepent UK. In a way its an equivalent of America first.
But just as the America first thing, its an illusion. On the global market an independent country does not exists.
And the smaller the country, the less independent you are, as your treaties will be dictated by the more powerfull states.
You could already see how the UK tried to “negotiate” with the EU. It didn’t do well. The EU as the bigger “country” dictated the terms. That’s how it will go in the future for the UK Im afraid.
Its not Mays fault, nobody could have “negotiated” a good deal.
So why did the conservatives go on with it, and why was Corbyn pro Brexit too as he did not actively campaign against it?
I dont get it.
I agree with your assessment Peterstreep. I can’t speak for Corbyn’s reasons, although I do have an inkling (based on speculation by some political analyst), but it’s no more than just speculation e.g. Corbyn is good at keeping his thoughts to himself.
However, the Conservatives reasons for going for Brexit is well documented; with (as you might know if you lived through the Thatcher Years) its roots going back to heated debates in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s prior to the UK Government to signing (ratifying) the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
Margaret Thatcher (who I detested) was a Euro Sceptic and a tough negotiator. Being a Socialist I disagreed with most of her policies, because of her ‘hard right’ politics, but to her credit she did negotiate many concessions from the EU (which we enjoy to this day); the most important of all being the Generous Discount in perpetuity on the Membership fee that the UK pays to the EU.
It was during Margaret Thatcher’s reign that the Maastricht Treaty was signed (in 1992). Part of the Maastricht Treaty was the establishment of the four pillars of the EU (The Red Lines); they being Free Movement of Goods, Labour, Capital and Services.
What is not well documented on the Web (events that took place before the days of the Internet), but was well published at the time (for those who were following events), was that the instigator of these four principles was Margaret Thatcher herself e.g. As a Capitalist (Conservative) Margret Thatcher saw these basic principles as being ‘Good Economic Sense’ that would benefit Britain’s Trade with the EU, and as such she pressed for their inclusion in the Maastricht Treaty.
She’s not mentioned in Wikipedia for her role in this because it’s the European Commission’s job to formulate the wording for the Treaties, after lengthy negotiations with the Member State Governments (Heads of States/Council of Ministers); but there was plenty of references to it in the local press at the time, because back in 1992 it split her party; Eurosceptics vs Pro EU Conservative MPs.
And the Conservative Party has been split on Europe ever since; with in-fighting rumbling on in the background, that only came to the fore in 2015 when David Cameron (a Pro European) was under pressure from factions within his own party to hold a Referendum, and under threat of losing seats to UKIP if he didn’t hold a Referendum, that he included it in his 2015 election manifesto…. And the rest is history.
Yes I remember Thatcher, and oh boy how I miss Spitting Image.
Thanks for the explanation, I knew more or less about the internal struggles but never realized how deep it went.
It is sad, but in a way I was not surprised how quickly Europe jumped on the opportunity to get rid of the UK. Although the EU would be stronger with the UK the relationship was always half hearted.
The UK never committed itself, it didn't want to join the Euro and I don't think it would vote for an European army. Something I think is necessary now the US today can not automatically be seen as ally.
It's cynical if you think about it. It is nationalism what breaks the country.
And it would not surprise me if Scotland would leave the UK within 10 years. Could the referendum supported by the UKIP and nationalistic sentiments in the end have been the end of the United Kingdom.
You are right. David Cameron (British Prime Minister at the time) did veto the creation of the EU Army back in 2010.
President Emmanuel Macron recently revived a ‘not well publicised concept’ of an EU Army ‘as his idea’ to help boost his flagging support in France. But the concept of an EU Army has been on the EU’s ‘wish list’ since its creation back in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, if you Google the subject there is little reference to historic attempts to create an EU Army, almost all references refer to President Macron’s proposal. However, with a quick search I did find some obscure reference sources, for example:-
• A Strategic Note issued by the European Commission in 2015:- https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/fi … e_4_en.pdf
• And a newspaper report from 2011:- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn … rters.html
However, since Brexit, it has left the EU free to press ahead with the creation of the EU Army, as explained in this short video of 2016:-
Why Is The European Union Creating Its Own Military? https://youtu.be/ICsVWGq_rWU
However, although the British Government vetoed the creation of an EU Army back in 2010, it did however; unilaterally create a joint Anglo-French Military Force (including the Army, Navy and Airforce) which has been running regular joint ‘exercises’ in recent years e.g. the Anglo-French Army frequently running exercises on Salisbury Plain, England: -
Anglo-French Army Exercises on Salisbury Plain, England https://youtu.be/p-Vnjv0jZ64
An EU Nerd
When it comes to the EU, I am a bit of a Nerd e.g. I’m one of the few who actually bothers to read some of the long, technical, dry and boring material published on the Official EU websites (European Commission and the European Parliament); especially in areas of interest to me.
Albeit, some of the material on the EU Parliament website (especially the explanatory videos) is written in laypersons terms, so are easy to follow, and can be quite enlightening.
If you ever are inclined to keep tabs on events in the EU Political/Governmental Affairs, the Official websites are:-
European Commission: - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/index_en
European Parliament:- http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en
Yep, not only did Britain opt out of the Euro, but it has also used its veto more than any other Member State, not just to veto the EU Army in 2010, but back in the late 1980’s Britain also vetoed the adoption of an EU Constitution.
The Demise of the United Kingdom
Yep, it is ironic that the actions of Nationalists (and UKIP) may well lead to the eventual breakup of the United Kingdom.
Yep, it’s not just Scotland who may well leave the UK within 10 years (probably much sooner if we have a Hard Brexit), but Northern Ireland too; and in the Distance future (with a Hard Brexit) Wales could follow suit, and theoretically Cornwall eventually!
I don’t know if you’ve been following the politics of Northern Ireland; but under the 1998 Peace Treaty ‘the people’ of Northern Ireland were given the right of ‘self-determination’ i.e. ‘the people’ of Northern Ireland have the right to choose (via a Referendum) for re-unification with the Republic of Ireland.
In practice such a referendum can only be called by the Northern Ireland Assembly (Government); which under the 1998 Peace Treaty was set up as a ‘Power Sharing’ Parliament e.g. where the leader of the winning party is the Government Minister (usually DUP), and the leader of the main opposition (usually Sinn Fein) is the Deputy Minister.
• Sinn Fein, being the political wing of the IRA and in favour of Re-unification with the Republic of Ireland (Catholics/Nationalists), and
• DUP (Protestants/Unionists) being the political wing of the terrorists who fought the IRA during the 30 years of civil war in Northern Ireland (The Troubles) between 1968 and 1998. DUP being loyalists to the UK, and don’t want Irish Reunification.
Since the creation of the ‘Power Sharing’ Northern Ireland Assembly, following the 1998 Peace Treaty, DUP have always won the majority of seats in their General Election, so there has never been any opportunity for Sinn Fein to call for a Referendum on the reunification of Ireland.
However, support for Sinn Fein has been steadily growing over the years, and following their last Election, in 2017, Sinn Fein (with the support of other opposition parties who support renunciation, including Labour) are now just one or two seats short of having enough support to call for a Referendum. Their next Election is due in 2022, assuming that Sinn Fein and DUP have settled their spat by then and have recalled their Parliament, which has been suspended since January 2017 due to the feud between the two sides due the scandal that DUP was involved with.
Unlike Scotland, who voted for the establishment of a Parliament in their referendum of 1997, the Welsh being less Bullish only went for the establishment of an Assembly in their 1997 referendum, which has less powers than a Parliament; therefore, unlike Scotland, Wales are not yet in a position where they could seek independents from the UK, if they so desired.
However, the Welsh Assembly have tabled a Bill to be heard in their Assembly early next year seeking to upgrade their Assembly to a Parliament, and at the same time reduce the voting age from 18 to 16.
Whether the Bill passes or not remains to be seen e.g. under their Constitution, because it’s a Constitutional Change, the Bill needs an 80% majority in favour in order to pass.
Assembly Members vote to introduce the Welsh Parliament and Elections Bill: - http://www.assembly.wales/en/newhome/pa … temid=1910
A little known fact, that skipped the attention of most British People, is that Cornwall was granted ‘Minority Status’ (protection of national minorities) back in 2014. The Cornish People, who prefer their country to be known as Kernow, campaigned for such status for 15 years; as this old video shows:-
The reason Cornwall was granted ‘minority status’ is historic e.g. Cornwall is the only part of England that was never ‘fully’ conquered by any invading forces e.g. the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans; and therefore their Celtic Culture and Language has stood the test of time.
Granting ‘minority status’ may not sound significant, but it does give the Cornish People the potential option to follow in the footsteps of Wales and Scotland, if they so wish; and eventually, independence from the UK, if the Cornish People so wish (the right of self-determination).
Cornwall granted national minority status by British Government in 2014: https://youtu.be/vmzA8v3H5nw
I did not know about Cornwall and Wales. But I dont think their economy would be up to it, but you never know. (Maybe it will be bought by Facebook and so the company ensures itself a seat in the EU)
One thing is sure though, the hegemony of the UK is brittle and with economic tough years ahead not an easy thing to hold together.
Unless you play the card of Nationalism, something often done in times of need. A war also helps as Thatcher showed with her Falkland war, without it she probably wouldn’t have been ellected..
Problem is that a Scottt has a different kind of nationalism then an Englishman...it will be tough as the UK does not even have a football team.
Talking about football, will Cornwall also have it's own team on the next European Championship....
I hope the UK will not play the war card to deflect the troubles at home. As probably one of the biggest things the UK has to “ offer” the world as a bargening chip is its army...
Yep, that sums it up rather well.
I don’t know about the football, but being Bristolian (with our own dialect) I do love the richness of the ‘cultural’ variations in the different regions of the UK, including their local foods, accents and dialects; and their various Celtic flags and languages.
When visiting Cornwall, we always treat ourselves to a Cornish ‘Cream Tea’ (scones with jam and clotted cream), although not being a tea drinker I substitute the tea with coffee. Albeit, being a vegetarian, I’ve never tried a Haggis (Scottish).
And I do love the ‘sound’ of the Celtic (Gaelic) languages (I find them quite musical to the ears), even though I don’t understand them (although my grandmother could speak Welsh).
The Different Languages of the British Isles: https://youtu.be/ODeYttUY4VI
I find it quite ironic that we’ve exported English to most of the rest of the world, yet English is just one of many languages spoken in the British Isles.
Arthur (Nathan is my son)
by rhamson 3 years ago
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a similar direction. Can the US learn anything from this or are we just terminally...
by Mazzy Bolero 6 years ago
Should Britain leave the European Union?President Obama wants Britain to stay in the EU. Ever larger numbers of the British want out. Are there better reasons for staying in than for leaving?
by John Coviello 3 years ago
Do You Think Brexit (Britain Leaving the European Union) Is a Big Deal?Is Brexit a big deal or much ado about nothing? If you live in Britain, which way are you planning on voting and why?
by Ralph Schwartz 9 months ago
The Christian Democratic Party (CDU-Germany) suffered disastrous losses is state elections yesterday, leading to an unexpected announcement by Angela Merkel, that she will step down as the Party leader. How do you think this will impact the European Union and the world?
by Judy Specht 6 years ago
Regardless of what side of the SCOTUS decisions you wanted; does it bother anyone besides me that seven million people voted in California and 5 SCOTUS justices said,"They don't count". Justice Kennedy even said they were,"Haters". To lump seven million people into one group...
by ga anderson 3 months ago
Of course, a word means, (or is supposed to), mean what its definition says it means.And of course, it is technically correct to deny alternate meanings are correct or acceptable.But ... I think it is more real-life true that a word, in common usage, is more correctly defined by what a broad...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|