I expected another extension. There have been so many extensions already, I feel conditioned to expect they'll just keep doing it. It feels like noone on either side actually wants Brexit to happen, but they've politicked each other into a corner, and they're all too proud to back down. It will be a shock when a deadline hits and they finally don't extend it.
Only 2nd extension. It's more about "democratic rule and negotiations is difficult". If it was XVIII century they would have simply leave & do the rest with an Armada.
This all started after the referendum, when David Cameron decided not to send in the A50 letter on the next working day. The EU-27 first mumbled politely that was okay, then mumbled equally politely that the letter had better be sent before a year had passed. And indeed it was signed and sent shortly before a year had passed.
There was nothing formal about that, but if you want to count deadlines then that one may be the first. Or not, IMO it depends on why you're counting.
RT @julianpopov: The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world.
"The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world." - https://mobile.twitter.com/julianpopov/status/11856641961780...
No. It would hurt not only Uk's economy but also most of EU's economy.
How, say french PM, is going to justify to his ppl that they will suffer... say loss of 1% of gdp, just because politicians decided to teach British a lesson?
No politician would be willing to do this, that would be career suicide brought up every elections.
Plus bonus UK then gets a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.
'Oh, the evil EU kicked us out without us having say, and now we are suffering. See how bad EU is' - Borris or another brexiter PM.
It's in the EU's best interest to treat this like a toddler's temper tantrum - wait it out and pretend it never happened when the screaming tapers off.
It's a crisis of democracy when the people voted so clearly and they're not given what they voted for. They're being slowly ignored by the political class.
I'm not sure what you think people voted so clearly on. No vote has ever been very clear about what the people wanted concerning Brexit. There has never been a public vote on a hard Brexit, merely on an intention to leave the EU, without any plan or specification about how. Many people campaigning for the Leave vote argued that the UK would stay in the common market, so you could easily argue that the people voted to stay in the common market.
It's true that what the people want is getting ignored by the political class; polls show a majority of the public wants to stay in the EU, now that is has become clear what leaving means, but the government keeps insisting on the hardest possible Brexit, against both common sense and the will of the people.
> No vote has ever been very clear about what the people wanted concerning Brexit. There has never been a public vote on a hard Brexit, merely on an intention to leave the EU, without any plan or specification about how.
Please stop spreading fud. There are many videos that I can post which have many MPs stating that a leave vote means:
But that's exactly my point: people contradict each other. Some Leave campaigners said that the UK would leave the common market, some said it would stay in the common market. The current PM said at the time that the UK will “still have access to the single market”[0]. Many other current hard-line Brexiteers said similar things at the time.
Even Nigel Farage has argued for something similar to Norway or Switzerland (known as the "soft Brexit")[1].
One of the videos you cite says "we wouldn’t be able to be in the single market, we wouldn’t be able to be in the Customs Union".
Given that the latest proposed Withdrawal Agreement would leave Northern Ireland in the single market and Customs Union, it appears you're actually reinforcing the point that no one knew what they were actually voting for.
Yes, the proposed deal does do this. Because Boris just wants a quick win and then wants to say that Brexit is done and then wants to win a majority on december 12.
It's one thing to do what's best for the country and what 17.4 million people voted for. It's another thing entirely to do what's best for yourself (that being boris)
"Leave won by 1 million. No of EU citizens who couldn't vote 3 million. No of British abroad who couldn't vote 700,000. Citizens of 53 Commonwealth countries were able to vote just by being UK residents. Will of "the people"- depends on who you asked #BrexitExtension"
Would you have been making the same argument if the situation was reversed?
I.e. the elected leaders held a position you strongly disagreed with, and there had been a referendum on the question in which the opposition to that idea had won?
In a quaint rural town in Britain the populace voted in a referendum about what to do about the town's horse mascot. The referendum offered two choices: keep the current (healthy but a bit boring) horse, or get a new and exciting unicorn — majestic, magical, sparkly!
A tiny majority believed the unicorny promises, and voted for the unicorn in 2016.
After three years of mucking about, it turns out that the best the town council can get is either a very old and haggard pony with an inflatable novelty unicorn horn (Johnson's deal), or the rotting cadaver of a dead horse with a carrot glued on its head (no-deal Brexit).
Obviously, one of these two must happen, because the people voted for it. Keeping the perfectly serviceable horse they have now is not an option, because democracy has spoken, and changing your mind is not allowed (because democracy).
Granted, as a European I may be a bit cynical about this mess.
They only need 50% if they are willing to introduce legislation to remove or amend the fixed term parliament act. But presumably they believe it is harder to get such a majority or they want to keep the act alive.
The EU and the ECM (what was voted for back in 1975) are two different beasts.
Maastricht and Lisbon treaty would of been key changes in that transition that many countries had votes (and also revotes) upon. The UK, did not alas and it is pretty obvious that it should of.
Ironically, the children of 1975 era had no say in their future until 2016 and you can see how they voted. Also those that who in 1975 voted to join the ECM, turned out to be twice as likely to vote to leave the EU in 2016.
But the whole aspect of thresholds is one that does need some thought and equally turnout. Maybe voting should be compulsory? Maybe threshold standards need to be defined.
After all, does the EU really want to have members who are not that commited to the goals?
Democracy is a fickle matter depending upon how you measure it.
It was only an advisory referendum, not a binding one. (It would actually have been declared non-binding had it been binding, due to the Leave campaign breaking the law.)
It's not the referendum that's to blame here, it's the government that's using the referendum as an excuse to push through their own ideas.
To me it's far more complex than this - the vote was a) extremely tight and b) fought on the basis of outright lies (on both sides, as I recall). Not only this but the original question was simply whether to leave the EU - with no consideration given to the fact there's a near-infinite number of ways that can be done (no deal, deal, Norway-style, etc).
I believe these are the reasons that the government + parliament have found it so hard/failed to come to a conclusion. It's also the reason I don't think this whole saga is anywhere near done.
Personally I'd like to see a second ref on specific options, but that seems unlikely now.
> They didn't actually vote for anything in particular. It was a move to solve intra-Conservastives issue. It did solve it.
The degree of intra-party struggle and defections, including from the cabinet, experienced by the Tories over Brexit divisions since the referendum suggest that the referendum did not, in fact, solve the intra-Conservative-Party issue.
Maybe point on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603 instead.