Defending BREXIT (and democracy)

  There is one simple reason why we, as a nation, have struggled for the best part of 40 years to reconcile ourselves to the concept of the European Union. That reason is democracy. At its heart the EU does not believe in ‘democracy’ in the way that we do. Ultimately, the EU does not trust ‘the people’. The self-appointed elite that governs from Brussels does not consider it safe to allow ‘the people’ to decide the important issues – or indeed to have any meaningful say at all in the affairs of the EU. It’s not hard to fathom why this is so. Germany and France, have both suffered deep national trauma as a direct result of allowing ‘the people’ to decide. Hitler did not seize power in March 1933 – the people voted him into office. He didn’t stage a coup. He didn’t ‘hijack’ the German state. He formed a legitimate coalition government in March 1933 having secured overwhelming popular support from the German people at the ballot box. In the three federal elections ...

I am starting to become slightly irritated by 'remain' politicians (and not a few journalists) who insist I am stupid - simply because I voted 'leave' in June 2016. Am I stupid and if so, why? Yes, I voted leave. Yes, I choose to ignore HM Govt's official advice (to vote 'remain') as published in the leaflet that was delivered to every UK household at the start of the referendum campaign. Yes, I voted 'leave', even though I had been clearly warned of the likely consequences of such irresponsible behaviour by the the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the United States of America, Grayson Perry and other assorted saints and world leaders, whose intelligence and understanding of such matters is clearly far beyond that of a lowly commoner such as myself. Yes, I think the result of the June 2016 referendum should stand  (and no, I do not think we should have another referendum) Yes, I think the UK should exit the EU on 29 March...

Why did May ever think the EU autocracy would show her any more respect than it did Cameron? He trotted off to Brussels in early 2016, supposedly to re-negotiate a better deal for the UK, ahead of the referendum. He got nothing. Juncker and the rest of the panjandrums swatted him away like some annoying street urchin. That was before the referendum, when it would have been easy to give Cameron at least something to take back to the British people. Had Brussels been prepared to bend, to offer some meaningful concession on freedom of movement, it would have been possible to guarantee the outcome of the referendum. But it didn’t. In time-honoured EU fashion it choose to ignore the impending deadline, confident in its belief that Cameron and his team of prefects would deliver the correct result – and, besides it was just a referendum, the result of which, if needs be, could be easily overturned as had been the case in Ireland and Denmark. So, why on earth did May think that the...

If pro-remain forces manage to overturn the result of the June 2016 referendum, which is quite clearly their intent, it will represent a betrayal of both the will of the British people and the most basic, fundamental democratic values which define us as a nation. There can be no justification whatsoever for overturning the June 2016 result. 52% voted to leave and 48% to remain. While there was no official tally of the outcome by constituency, independent analysis has shown a clear majority of Parliamentary constituencies voted ‘leave’ – for instance a study by Royal Holloway College (Prof Hanretty) suggests 64% of constituencies were in favour of ‘leave’. So politicians – all politicians – must accept the result and the inevitable consequence has to be that the UK leaves the EU – with or without a ‘deal’. That is what people voted for. It is unacceptable to suggest that the result of the referendum would have been different had voters known that the UK would start tradi...

The answer to those who insist on holding a second referendum is simple: yes - of course, there should be a second referendum....... .......IN 2056!!!!  That is 40 years on from the last one - because that is how long those of us who wanted to leave the EU were forced to wait before being finally allowed to have our say in 2016.

Voters knew what they were doing in June 2016.  The vast majority of voters (both 'leave' and 'remain') were very well  aware that leaving the EU would have consequences. The great preponderance of 'experts', who opined on the issue, were clearly of the view that Brexit - were it to happen - would at best lead to a period of uncertainty and at worst could cause a serious and sustained economic downturn. But, despite all the warnings, 17.4mn people voted to leave. They didn’t simply wake up on the morning of 23 June 2016 and suddenly decide that they no longer wanted to be part of the EU. By that point, dissatisfaction with the EU had been simmering for more than 40 years. Generally speaking the people of the United Kingdom are a fairly tolerant bunch. As a country we tend not to rush into things and, by and large, we are prepared to give people a chance.    By any measure, the EU has had its chance. The EU has had four decades to convince the British p...

In June 2016 voters were presented   with a simple in/out choice: either to remain in the EU or leave. When faced with that straightforward, binary proposition, 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU. Not only is it undemocratic, it is also patronizing in the extreme to suggest that voters who opted for ‘leave’ made a mistake because they did not understand what they were voting for. Voters did not make a mistake. They voted to leave the EU – that was the question that was asked. Voters had multiple reasons for wanting to leave the EU. Not all voters wanted to leave for the same reasons. Clearly, some of the major issues can be categorised as: ‘sovereignty’ ‘immigration’ ‘the cost of EU membership’ and ‘increasing interference from Brussels across a range of issues’. Nor were voters misled or duped. Voters opted to leave the EU in the knowledge that there might very well be, in fact probably would be negative economic consequences for the country as a whole. They were ...