I hope so Bruce. We need the remain people to get behind the vote. To continue denying it is what will cause unrest and division. It is causing uncertainty and becoming a self fulfilling prophecy.......Either we believe in democracy or we don't, there can be no shades of grey......
In Ireland, the first referndum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53.
The second on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 2 October 2009 and the proposal was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%, with a turnout of 59%.
The electorates of France and Holland each rejected the Treaty of Lisbon, first time around, but went on to approve it.
So (while I hold out little hope for a second referendum here, although I
think as voters realise the implications of quitting the EU - which seem to me to be pretty rough for everyone but fishermen there may be a real prospect of a substantial vote to back remain) there is certinly scope for grey.
Parliament is, and always was sovereign. It can change its mind. For example, the National Industrial Relations Court was abolished by Labour, whicle Conservative governments successively tore up the post-war consensus as to state ownership of key industries.
I
hope that leaving the EU is not a disaster. I do not
believe it will not be. It is a shame that those who campaigned so vociferously for Leave had not thought of any consensus, even amongst themselves as to how they woudl put it into effect. The idea of free access to the EU without free movement seems fanciful at best.
To quote one of the great sages of the day
"‘I’m going to nail my colours to the mast here: I don’t think the UK should leave the EU. I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving."
And today Boris Johnson, who led the nation over the cliff, complains that central government does not have a positve plan for leaving the EU. He had two articles written, one for in, one for out, before deciding which way to jump. He said then it was finely balanced.
I loathe the
fact that the bigots amongst those who supported Brexit (and I do not suggest it is more than a small minority of leave voters - and nobody here) feel legitimised to verbally abuse anyone who they do not see as part of their tribe. I am not part of their tribe. I am pround to be part of a civilised and open Britiain. But I and Mrs Jammy are applying for dual nationality so our children have an option to remain part of the EU.
And, by the way, I do regard Cameron as a privileged oaf. But he did not say, as you alleged "war was inevitable if we voted to leave and 'turn our backs on the EU'". The Telegraph (my favourite toilet paper) reported:
"Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it. We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost," he will say.
"The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
"Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to make that assumption."
He will say that it has "barely been twenty years" since war in the Balkans and genocide in Srebrenica, and highlight Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine.
"Of this I am completely sure," he will say. "The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were at each others’ throats for decades. "
Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries.
"And that requires British leadership, and for Britain to remain a member. The truth is this: what happens in our neighbourhood matters to Britain.
"Either we influence Europe, or it influences us. And if things go wrong in Europe, let’s not pretend we can be immune from the consequences.”
He will say that for 2,000 years Britain's history has been "intertwined" with Europe's.
"For good or ill, we have written Europe’s history just as Europe has helped to write ours," he will say.
"From Caesar’s legions to the wars of the Spanish Succession, from the Napoleonic Wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
"The moments of which we are rightly most proud in our national story include pivotal moments in European history. Blenheim. Trafalgar. Waterloo. Our country’s heroism in the Great War."
He will argue that Britain fares worst when it is isolated, as it was when it was forced to take its "lone stand" against Nazi Germany in 1940.
He will say: "It wasn’t through choice that we were alone. Churchill never wanted that. Indeed he spent the months before the Battle of Britain began trying to keep our French allies in the war, and then after France fell, he spent the next 18 months persuading the United States to come to our aid.
"And in the post-war period he argued passionately for Western Europe to come together, to promote free trade, and to build institutions which would endure so that our continent would never again see such bloodshed."
The EU surely still needs reform. We will have no say in that. But did Donald Tusk say (as you claim) "Brexit will mean the end of western civilisation?" What the Daily Mail in fact reported was:
"in an interview with German newspaper Bild, Mr Tusk - who runs Brussels summit for leaders of EU states - said 'no-one could forsee' the consequences of Brexit.
'Why is it so dangerous? Because no one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be,' Mr Tusk said.
'As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety.'
He argued that everyone in the European Union would lose out economically if Britain left.
'Every family knows that a divorce is traumatic for everyone,' Mr Tusk said.
'Everyone in the EU, but especially the Brits themselves, would lose out economically.'
It is misreporting these reasonable soundbites as inaccurate snippets which breeds "fear", and spherical objects. What do you actually disagree with in what they actually said?
