As we head towards the important decision (perhaps the same decision we were faced with in 2016), views have hardened and our leaders have learnt not to ask us—the people—to make the decision. Parliament has been prorogued (this was written before the Supreme Court’s judgement), at least in part to prevent it making a decision—whether MP’s decision would be right or wrong depends on your perspective on Brexit.
The decision may come down to choosing from three possible outcomes: leaving the EU without a deal, leaving the EU under a withdrawal agreement, and remaining in the EU.
To us, this blog’s authors, the second of these ‘options’ does not seem like leaving the EU at all (for reasons we explain in several posts on the withdrawal theme). And the third variant may be imposed on us by Parliamentary sleight of hand or through a second referendum (which will probably not be a rerun of the first).
For a full list of articles click the monthly archive drop-down menu. Many are linked from our menu list of Themes, which focus on the main issues, as we see them. For a quick introduction, see our Summary.
We invite (moderated) reader comments – please keep the debate polite.
Summary – revised in September 2019
The European Union is failing to meet its stated goals. Inspired and claimed as “a project for peace” it was always, in practice, a quest for ever more centralised power, regardless of the wishes of its citizens. As its strategic failures become ever more obvious dissatisfaction grows. We doubt that the EU can survive in its present form much longer.
Our blog reveals evidence to show that the EU is on the wrong path. The Project is run in the interests of an elite web of politicians, administrators, bosses, unions and lobbyists – who are determined to continue on the current path despite the wreckage already created and in prospect. Their greatest success has been to convince many people that it has a high moral purpose and beneficial outcomes.
It seems plausible that the core beliefs of most Remainers and Leavers are equally driven by idealism—either that working together across nations is a virtue that will ultimately lead to good outcomes, or that freedom from remote autocracy is in the best interests of citizens.
The ideology is a ‘United States of Europe’ and progress is by the ‘Monnet Method’, to achieve the ideological goal without raising the suspicions of the majority of citizens, and even leaders, who would oppose it.
Latest Updates – revised in September 2019
We’re in the current messy situation because, instead of leading, Theresa May was led by opposing factions and by the EU; she tried to square the circle and found the answer is never ending.
The dangers and fragilities within the EU are still rising, as they were at the time of the previous referendum, so we hear about the downsides of leaving more than the upsides of staying, perhaps because there are few upsides. And we hear nothing about the downsides of staying in a fractious and fragile Union.
Parliament has voted to take leaving without a deal ‘off the table’. They have a disgraceful draft Withdrawal Agreement on the table, perhaps to be ratified at the fourth attempt. And they have in mind, under the table, withdrawing the UK’s application to leave under Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union. They propose a second, ‘confirmatory’ or ‘people’s, referendum limiting people’s options to a bad deal or not leaving so that Honourable Members can justify campaigning to remain. That at least is Labour’s strategy, while the Liberal Democrat would not leave whatever voters decided.