A Peoples’ Vote? A Cheap Fix

Just over half the voters wanted to leave the EU. Just under half voted to Remain. The Government and Labour Leadership now wish to do neither. What they plan, we are told, is a Compromise? Did anyone vote for a Compromise? No. It was to be In or Out. However, the Government, even with the support of the Labour Leadership, cannot deliver Out. That said, to seek a second referendum limited to a choice between the Compromise or staying In would be seen by Leavers for what it is, a dirty little Fix to cover the nakedness of May and Corbyn’s attempts to hold on to their party leaderships and of all the Parliamentarians who went along with the referendum in the first place. It would be telling Leavers, in effect, that, to avoid the embarrassment  of their voting for Leave again, that option was being simply left off the ballot paper this time round. The effect would be to disenfranchise the Leave voters or to force them to vote for what they have already voted against. The results would be dire.

Is there a way out? No. The sins of David Cameron and a spineless Cabinet and Parliament are to be visited on the nation and there is no absolution to be had. However, the punishment might be mitigated if those who campaigned for and proposed and approved the referendum were to admit their guilt in offering what was never available: some hope. Alternatively, the punishment might be survived if the Brexitiers were now to campaign for the Revocation of Article 50 rather than a People’s Vote on the faux basis that May has made an irretrievable mess of Brexit and that it is time to step back and regroup before the UK loses the option to leave under Article 50 by agreeing a Compromise with the EU.  If, with the tacit support of Remainers, they were successful, the EU row would then rumble on in the UK as it did before the referendum, albeit with more passion for a while, but without insulting the many who voted Out by employing a cheap trick to disenfranchise them. The Brexitiers say they love their country and revere democracy: now is their chance to prove it.

3 thoughts on “A Peoples’ Vote? A Cheap Fix

  1. I have read it. A coherent argument and didn’t pick up any typos. Will try and post it online and tweet it later in the day. We have to set off quite early this morning to make it to Beales and, hopefully, buy a suitcase.

    K Xxxx

    >

    Like

    1. Just spent and hour or two with Rhal talking about why, fairness apart, the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. I had realised that the insurance model did not work in the sense that the state is a security not an insurance business. We concluded that the rich have to pay more if they want an overall system that is of a higher quality than that for which the less well off would be able or willing to pay. And that embraces your point that the rich, for example, benefit from the less well off being kept healthy whether in terms of reducing the risk of infection or in providing the rich with an effective labour force. Further, while I now see that the price mechanism means there is no free riding by the general populace in the civil justice system , we did agree that • given that the rich want a high quality justice system as part of the “security package” that they are buying from the state, they should be willing to subsidise the poor who cannot themselves afford to use that high quality system and • non-disclosure clauses in settlement and other contracts are a distortion of the market which disrupts the price mechanism that underpins a self financing civil justice system in denying the public information that they need to make rational decisions about whether and how to engage with malefactors who buy off complainants in order to keep their malfeasance secret. A very helpful meeting. Off to the seminar in about an hour but meanwhile shall luxuriate in the refurbished SCR and read the Spectator. Did you get your suitcase? P xxx

      Sent from my iPhone

      >

      Like

    2. I should have added that our conclusion that the rich want a higher quality security package and should be and are be willing to pay for it is demonstrated by the fact that they could live in countries with lower quality security packages and pay less tax but choose not to do so. QED.

      P xxxx

      Sent from my iPhone

      >

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s