Letter: ‘Getting On’ With Brexit Will Usher In Turmoil

Published on: 31 May, 2019
Updated on: 31 May, 2019

From: David Roberts

In response to: EU Election Does Not Show Majority Support for Anti-Brexit Parties

The BBC’s analysis of the voting figures is more plausible than Mr Perkins’ idea that the Lib Dems and Greens are full of closet Leavers, especially if non-DUP Northern Irish votes are added in. Putting, say, two-thirds of Tory votes and (generously) half of Labour ones in the Leave camp still brings up a Remain majority of 52 to 48% – a neat mirror-image of 2016.

But the only way of knowing for sure is to put it to a vote. Leavers who think they are still in the majority can have no reasonable objection to this. It would bring people together and Remainers, at least, would accept the result. It could not lead to a third referendum unless something enormous happened to justify it.

In every other election – local, national and European – people are allowed to reconsider their views every few years, so why not over the very close 2016 referendum that has so much greater consequences?

By contrast, “getting on with it” (leaving the EU) will simply usher in decades of turmoil in almost every aspect of life – foreign relations, trade, investment, the environment, health, education, migration, technical standards…

The list is endless, as we are already seeing, and as other Europeans outside the EU (such as the Swiss, who have never ever stopped negotiating with Brussels) know all too well. Particularly risible is the notion that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals by itself than as the member of a bloc of 28.

But I must declare an interest: as an ex-diplomat, I am obviously an arrogant member of the liberal, metropolitan elite, a mere expert and therefore an enemy of the people. I freely admit to knowing nothing about maternity care, forensic accounting or the cricket world cup but I do know that Brexit is an unfolding national catastrophe and that the inevitable backlash is coming.

Responses to Letter: ‘Getting On’ With Brexit Will Usher In Turmoil

John Perkins Reply

May 31, 2019 at 5:01 pm

I don’t claim that the Lib Dems are full of closet Leavers. Quite the opposite, I accept that they might all be Remainers. Nor did I claim that the Greens might be so comprised; I only suggested they might have other concerns and it might not be possible to guess their motives.

Non-DUP? The BBC at least considered the difficulty of merging the results of an STV system with those of an FPTP system. Mr Roberts wants all the votes for Sinn Fein and the non-sectarian parties (all of them second preference) to be regarded as Anti-Brexit. What palpable nonsense.

It was put to a vote and the result was Leave. In every other democratic election people are allowed to change their minds afterwards, usually at the next one, not before.

A “mere expert?” – as opposed to us thickos. Could we have some real analysis of any “catastrophe” rather just “I know so”?
David Roberts Reply

June 2, 2019 at 8:12 pm

Actually, the Northern Irish votes don’t make much difference; whichever side of the equation you put them, the result still suggests between 52 and 56% of voters now want to Remain. Don’t forget that 2 million voters (mainly elderly, with a greater propensity to vote Leave) have died since the first referendum, and some 1.5 new Britons (18-21, more likely to vote Remain) can now vote. So the electorate has changed by 10% or so, a wider margin than the Leave majority in 2016.

Arguably, there are also three significant groups of people who were not allowed to vote last time but who should do so in any future EU referendum, since they would be deeply affected by the result: long-term British residents in other EU countries (short-term ones can vote), EU citizens resident in the UK (who vote in some of our elections) and 16-18 year-olds (who voted for instance in the 2014 Scottish referendum). These disenfranchised groups are overwhelmingly pro-Remain. In any case, circumstances have changed in the last three years and a second referendum would be considering a much more specific question or questions than the first. The case for holding one is therefore unassailable.

It’s important to distinguish between proper respect for professional expertise and contempt for public opinion. I have no idea about Mr Perkins’ intellectual capacity, for all I know, he could be a leading brain surgeon or an airline pilot. If so, I would rather be operated on, or flown across the Atlantic, by Mr Perkins than by a window cleaner or estate agent. We don’t get to vote about brain surgery, aviation, window cleaning or estate agency, but we do about Brexit. So we should all try to trust people with decades of experience in this area.
- John Perkins Reply
  
  June 5, 2019 at 1:34 pm
  
  I must confess to having some difficulty reconciling being asked to trust those with decades of experience and yet simultaneously accept the postulated, untested, opinion of those with none.
  
  It’s not unreasonable to assume that the two million voters that have died were experts in some way, whereas the 1.5 million “new voters” have not had time to learn more than basic skills.
Stuart Barnes Reply

June 4, 2019 at 8:33 am

It is amazing how the losers of the EU Referendum keep on with their nonsense even three years after being soundly beaten. It is clear that the word democracy has no meaning for them.

I would ask that someone explains where the money is coming from to keep their lost cause alive. Can it be the pesky Russians or is it the man who broke the Bank of England?

Re the BBC, it seems to me that it is effectively the broadcast version of the cuddly Guardian and thus completely unbiassed.