However, it cannot be assumed that concentric circles will always work ... as exemplified by Dante’s “Inferno”, the 14th century epic poem, where Hell is nine concentric circles of torment located within the earth.
“And with the UK’s exit drawing ever nearer, the French president has urged his colleagues in Europe’s capitals, and especially in Brussels, to finally take a few steps in the direction of the British, and offer a solution from which all parties could emerge reasonably satisfied.
This seemingly comes as part of an attempt to revive the idea of a ‘multi-speed Europe’. Macron has been in favor of this concept for quite some time, having mentioned it in his Sorbonne speech last year: “Europe is already moving at several speeds, so we should not be afraid to say so and want it.”
Now he has found a new phrase for it, and reportedly wants to present his “concentric circles” at the EU Council Summit, in which a deal with the UK should be agreed upon. The concept of a multi-speed Europe has been discussed for many years, but has really come into focus since the Brexit vote. It was again put on the back-burner after Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech last September, where he completely excluded the idea and instead argued for a grand, centralised one-size-fits-all European Union.
Nevertheless, a multi-speed Europe could yet be the solution, not only to the debate on the future of the EU, but also for Brexit. As has often been noted, the ways different member states think of the EU couldn’t be more different, and their visions are often hard, if not impossible, to reconcile. There are some who simply want the EU to be a free-trade area with little cooperation in small areas when absolutely needed, there are others who want more integration in one area, but not others – and others who want exactly the opposite. Then there are the arch-federalists who want to go full steam ahead on their way to one united Europe.
It would truly be a European scheme of voluntary cooperation between individual member states. Emmanuel Macron said so himself last year: “We have to think up a Europe with several formats, go further with those who want to go forward, without being hindered by states that want – and it is their right – to go not as fast or not as far.”
Every state could sign up to those efforts which it likes. There would be a “Core Europe,” which is in favour of integration on the euro, on finance, the economy, migration, and so forth, and then there are other circles – those on the outside of Macron’s “concentric circles,” where states only participate in some areas.
As for Brexit, it would open the possibility for Britain to be one of those outer circles, perhaps creating a completely new one. This does not mean that the UK would have to be a member of the EU – neither is Switzerland, while it is still part of a European trading structure. It opens the door, however, for a new kind of partnership, for this “unprecedented deal” which EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier talked about recently. Because the structure of the EU itself wouldn’t be so strict anymore, new ideas and ways of cooperation could be thought up and introduced.
Some have argued that a multi-speed Europe is “too complex,” and not realisable. But we need to remind ourselves that such a complex structure already exists: there is the Eurozone, the non-euro EU member states, EEA, EFTA, the Council of Europe, Schengen, and the Customs Union, all including different states. A Europe a la Carte, as the multi-speed idea is also sometimes called, would merely institutionalise this structure, and make differences in integration common practice, adding much-needed flexibility on the European level.“
Would countries outside the core have frictionless access to the single market? If not, it offers no solution to the impending disaster about to be inflicted on the UK by the Brexit wing of the Tory party.
‘British manufacturers have particular concerns over any introduction of border checks and delays. “The phrase ‘as frictionless as possible’ is no good to us,” said one industry figure. “We need zero friction, or we have problems.”’
Three things are clear. 1) Whatever happens on 29th March, the majority of the country will not be happy. 2) Any deal going through parliament is unlikely to be passed. 3) The only 2nd referendum with a hope of a leave vote will be one with the simplistic 50/50 choice from last time with no built in margins like 55%. And the Tories wouldnt be so stupid to do that again. Would they?
My money is on no deal chaos.
Agreed. Regardless of whether people like it or not, this is the state of Brexit.
When the UK leaves in March, the 19 members using the Euro will consist 85% of EU GDP. Thus Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark with their own currencies will have a choice to make or perhaps the Eurozone will ask that they make the choice by a certain point in time. Is it possible that EU members not in the Euro may need to drop into EFTA at some point because the EU simply needs to unite and focus on resolving both the Euro architecture AND what to do with regions within the Eurozone which are really struggling. As we know countries outside the Euro can devalue.
The shortcomings of liberals and neoliberals have been commented upon here and there are a number of books and videos available now that we have hit the ten year anniversary of the crash. In short nobody wanted the banks to crash but why are the people obliged to pay for the policy and regulatory mistakes of the last decade? The belief and execution of austerity lite is why the centre has lost 10% voter share across Western democracies.
In short "something" needs to be done about universal income, jobs and benefits for ordinary people, else populist alternatives will become more, not less attractive. Brexit was simply a reaction to six years of austerity following on from two decades of neoliberal strategies and policies. Millions were left behind whilst the richest 10% have made incredible gains in their careers, property and other investments.
The article above is interesting but it also underestimates the potential for Italy and Spain to blow the Euro apart! That outcome is in nobodies interests except those who seek the end of the EU and Euro. What we look to be entering is a phase with first the Italian budget and then the EU elections next year where populists seek to rearrange the agenda, forcing topics such as universal income into the room. The landscape will definitely shift - the question is whether the elites in charge in France and Germany can adapt quick enough to maintain a lead in the forthcoming European elections.
In true democratic tradition, the centrists will simply have to come up with a policy agenda which is attractive enough to limit their losses as well as a strategy to work with the populist left on the topics which are of most concern such as the environment etc.
And what of working with the populist right? Well we can see today in the UK, US and Italy some extremely disruptive and destructive agendas - Trump, Farage, LePen and the League share a common purpose and use of linguistics and blame. If the centre right or others get into bed with them, then we know where it goes...
However, it cannot be assumed that concentric circles will always work ... as exemplified by Dante’s “Inferno”, the 14th century epic poem, where Hell is nine concentric circles of torment located within the earth.
On which circle would we find Victor Orban, or young Mr Farage?
Personally, I cannot see a multi-speed EU format emerging at least until after the UK is out, and the processes against illiberal politics in Hungary and Poland have run their course (a period which would also have an impact in the refugee crisis - because an Assad victory in Syria will, more than likely, see efforts to encourage, with international guarantees, return).
There have always been some in the EU, mostly original members, who have been seeking deeper rather than wider integration, and they may come to the fore, but for that to happen there needs to be a retreat of the right wing "populists". It would be easier for them to create a new organisation than to attempt to reform the EU in the teeth of, for example, Visegrad, opposition.
I would caution though, against assuming that for any EU member, including Hungary or Poland, that the attitude of the Government to the EU will be the same as the governed, surveys seem to suggest that membership the EU is more popular than might be expected.
The next funding round negotiations will be key in identifying direction of travel.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="seriously_red". Brexit was simply a reaction to six years of austerity following on from two decades of neoliberal strategies and policies. ..
Simply? Uncontrolled immigration affecting Labour heartlands ( note not the SELondon pseudo intellectual Guardian accolytes) might be a simple explanation to some, but it's probably a tad more complex than that.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Giles Coren of The Times said the demo yesterday reminded him of the queue for Waitrose. But surely it could not have been that middle class?
I fail to see how the sociological make up of over half a million people can be judged by the observations of cynical journalists, or anybody else either feeling positive or negative about the crowd. It was a lot of people after all.
I fail to see how the sociological make up of over half a million people can be judged by the observations of cynical journalists, or anybody else either feeling positive or negative about the crowd. It was a lot of people after all.
Just wondering if anybody cares what the working class might think, especially you pro Corbyn class warriors. They do not seem to have been on the demo. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
Finding myself becoming evermore detached from this whole thing now. Odd because I feel very strongly about it. The best way I can describe it is by saying it’s like reaching the part twenty minutes before the end of a thriller. You have a good sense of where the plot is going. Who are the good guys and the villains but still not sure if there is another twist before the final scene and although you think you have an idea of the final outcome you’re still not 100% sure.
Think I’m going to chill out about it now and enjoy the last 20 minutes. It’s as good as anything Hollywood can offer. Except perhaps for some sex and violence.
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
A lot of us? Time for bed.
You must be exhausted.
Must be my reading matter.
I could recommend some books for you, nothing to tricky.
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped an go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote nothing else can happen now other to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or it's people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy that one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
The appropriate balance between representative and direct democracy is both delicate and contested and it can be validly argued that referendums have no place in a properly functioning parliamentary democracy. But if the principle of using referendums in constitutional decision-making is accepted, as it widely is, then we must assess the Brexit referendum by its mode of organisation and the legality of its process. By this measure it is hard not to conclude that the referendum accorded with international standards for direct democracy, that it was conducted in accordance with law and that it was effectively regulated. On this basis I argue that the result is one which citizens should agree to, even if it is not one they agree with. The inevitable, if unpalatable, conclusion is that the outcome was lawfully arrived at and should be faithfully implemented. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/25/stephen-tierney-was-the-brexit-referendum-democratic/
On the other hand: Successful referendums that are part of a lengthy process, involving public input at various stages, high quality information, and clarity about outcomes, can be pivotal moments which help build support for key decisions about a country’s democracy. https://ft.com/content/f8f985cc-8375-11e8-9199-c2a4754b5a0e
I couldn't see the FT one, but the first one was interesting.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Giles Coren of The Times said the demo yesterday reminded him of the queue for Waitrose. But surely it could not have been that middle class?
How utterly unsurprising of Giles Coren to focus on the class of the participants and not the message. He's a tiresome imbecile: an auteur-provocateur, who neither informs, nor entertains, yet provokes very punchy thoughts in this particular reader.
It's a whole sixteen days since Coren - the antithesis to the genius of his father and sister - since he last wrote an article suffused with casual racism. (Anyone else think it's hilarious to write an article about a Chinese restaurant that concentrates on the fact Chinese people speak funny?) So I guess he had to do something else a bit "edgy" in order to continue to seem interesting.
For the record, there probably were a lot of Waitrose shoppers at the march. And, indeed customers of every other supermarket. But how would he know? Was he there? In which case his view as a participant and Waitrose user is somewhat hypocritical. Or wasn't he? In which case, his review of the attendees is broadly as accurate as mine of Kyseri would be, having never eaten there.
(Kyseri is a restaurant. Giles Coren has reviewed it. If you want to read his review, I suggest taking a long, hard look at yourself).
Waitrose shoppers are typically well educated, intelligent, individualistic, independent, knowledgeable, interesting, seld-aware, confident, communicative and encouraging. So it's no surprise that they would flock to a People's Vote march. And that Giles Coren would be diametrically opposed to them.
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped and go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote and nothing else can happen now other than to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or its people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example, of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy than one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
Its not that many people didnt know what they were voting for, but that the people organising the vote didnt understand the question they were asking.
Its a bit like Deep Thought in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Gives the answer to the "Big Question" of life, the universe & everything as 42. Ask a silly question you get a silly answer.
I fail to see how the sociological make up of over half a million people can be judged by the observations of cynical journalists, or anybody else either feeling positive or negative about the crowd. It was a lot of people after all.
Just wondering if anybody cares what the working class might think, especially you pro Corbyn class warriors. They do not seem to have been on the demo. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
That is complete rubbish - all classes were at the demo. There you go - corrected. I would say it was shy of thick, ignorant people but I think it is insulting if some are trying to say those sort of people are the working class.
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
A lot of us? Time for bed.
You must be exhausted.
Must be my reading matter.
I could recommend some books for you, nothing to tricky.
I fail to see how the sociological make up of over half a million people can be judged by the observations of cynical journalists, or anybody else either feeling positive or negative about the crowd. It was a lot of people after all.
Just wondering if anybody cares what the working class might think, especially you pro Corbyn class warriors. They do not seem to have been on the demo. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Oddly, you have never come across as someone who treasures us working class people before. Pleased to note your recent concern.
Well it is Lab, Lib Dem or Green for me. None seem to be doing that well, who would you have me vote for? I will do what I always do and vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories where I live.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
The definition of balance. Right there.
Yeah basically not keen on anyone, the older I get the more Anarchist I become. Although the Tories are so awful I will hold my nose and vote to defeat them.
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
A lot of us? Time for bed.
Yes - a lot of us. As a supposed denizen of the middle ground, your criticism of the two main parties seems to be 90% against the party of opposition who have no real power, as opposed to the party in charge of the decisions we are discussing. As an intelligent person, I am sure that you can understand why we might question your claim to be a centerist under the circumstances?
I fail to see how the sociological make up of over half a million people can be judged by the observations of cynical journalists, or anybody else either feeling positive or negative about the crowd. It was a lot of people after all.
Just wondering if anybody cares what the working class might think, especially you pro Corbyn class warriors. They do not seem to have been on the demo. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
That is complete rubbish - all classes were at the demo. There you go - corrected. I would say it was shy of thick, ignorant people but I think it is insulting if some are trying to say those sort of people are the working class.
But it isn't insulting to say those not on the march are thick and ignorant?
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped and go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote and nothing else can happen now other than to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or its people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example, of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy than one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
Can you also add that no decision binds those that come after. The very essence in my view of democracy is that no decision has infinite reach. No Parliament can bind its successors. The question is then how much time should any policy stand and the answer is until an alternative is decided upon and agreed. Our current woes stem directly from this, nothing of substance was agreed, the perfect example of cart before the horse.
Comments
‘British manufacturers have particular concerns over any introduction of border checks and delays. “The phrase ‘as frictionless as possible’ is no good to us,” said one industry figure. “We need zero friction, or we have problems.”’
The shortcomings of liberals and neoliberals have been commented upon here and there are a number of books and videos available now that we have hit the ten year anniversary of the crash. In short nobody wanted the banks to crash but why are the people obliged to pay for the policy and regulatory mistakes of the last decade? The belief and execution of austerity lite is why the centre has lost 10% voter share across Western democracies.
In short "something" needs to be done about universal income, jobs and benefits for ordinary people, else populist alternatives will become more, not less attractive. Brexit was simply a reaction to six years of austerity following on from two decades of neoliberal strategies and policies. Millions were left behind whilst the richest 10% have made incredible gains in their careers, property and other investments.
The article above is interesting but it also underestimates the potential for Italy and Spain to blow the Euro apart! That outcome is in nobodies interests except those who seek the end of the EU and Euro. What we look to be entering is a phase with first the Italian budget and then the EU elections next year where populists seek to rearrange the agenda, forcing topics such as universal income into the room. The landscape will definitely shift - the question is whether the elites in charge in France and Germany can adapt quick enough to maintain a lead in the forthcoming European elections.
In true democratic tradition, the centrists will simply have to come up with a policy agenda which is attractive enough to limit their losses as well as a strategy to work with the populist left on the topics which are of most concern such as the environment etc.
And what of working with the populist right? Well we can see today in the UK, US and Italy some extremely disruptive and destructive agendas - Trump, Farage, LePen and the League share a common purpose and use of linguistics and blame. If the centre right or others get into bed with them, then we know where it goes...
Personally, I cannot see a multi-speed EU format emerging at least until after the UK is out, and the processes against illiberal politics in Hungary and Poland have run their course (a period which would also have an impact in the refugee crisis - because an Assad victory in Syria will, more than likely, see efforts to encourage, with international guarantees, return).
There have always been some in the EU, mostly original members, who have been seeking deeper rather than wider integration, and they may come to the fore, but for that to happen there needs to be a retreat of the right wing "populists". It would be easier for them to create a new organisation than to attempt to reform the EU in the teeth of, for example, Visegrad, opposition.
I would caution though, against assuming that for any EU member, including Hungary or Poland, that the attitude of the Government to the EU will be the same as the governed, surveys seem to suggest that membership the EU is more popular than might be expected.
The next funding round negotiations will be key in identifying direction of travel.
It is, in no way a Brexit solution.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="seriously_red". Brexit was simply a reaction to six years of austerity following on from two decades of neoliberal strategies and policies.
..
Simply?
Uncontrolled immigration affecting Labour heartlands ( note not the SELondon pseudo intellectual Guardian accolytes) might be a simple explanation to some, but it's probably a tad more complex than that.
But surely it could not have been that middle class?
It was a lot of people after all.
I think I have said it many times, I like Labours policies but I am not sure that Corbyn is electable. Unlike New Labour where I didn't like their policies but Blair was very electable (and I didn't like him).
How about you, is it Lib Dem or no one? Or are you the Tory a lot of us suspect you are?
Think I’m going to chill out about it now and enjoy the last 20 minutes. It’s as good as anything Hollywood can offer. Except perhaps for some sex and violence.
Contemplate the nature of the candidate(s) in front of you as much as which party they represent.
Kate Hoey or Anna Soubry for example.
It's a whole sixteen days since Coren - the antithesis to the genius of his father and sister - since he last wrote an article suffused with casual racism. (Anyone else think it's hilarious to write an article about a Chinese restaurant that concentrates on the fact Chinese people speak funny?) So I guess he had to do something else a bit "edgy" in order to continue to seem interesting.
For the record, there probably were a lot of Waitrose shoppers at the march. And, indeed customers of every other supermarket. But how would he know? Was he there? In which case his view as a participant and Waitrose user is somewhat hypocritical. Or wasn't he? In which case, his review of the attendees is broadly as accurate as mine of Kyseri would be, having never eaten there.
(Kyseri is a restaurant. Giles Coren has reviewed it. If you want to read his review, I suggest taking a long, hard look at yourself).
Waitrose shoppers are typically well educated, intelligent, individualistic, independent, knowledgeable, interesting, seld-aware, confident, communicative and encouraging. So it's no surprise that they would flock to a People's Vote march.
And that Giles Coren would be diametrically opposed to them.
Horrible, horrible person.
Its a bit like Deep Thought in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Gives the answer to the "Big Question" of life, the universe & everything as 42. Ask a silly question you get a silly answer.
Riiiight.