Unlike public 'consultations' where the end result is decided before the process begins. The problem with true democracy for politicians is it states clearly what the majority of the public actually want and cannot be manipulated to give the answer they want.
At no time in the past 41 years did our government give the public any opportunity to express their views on our relationship with the European Union. Had they done so AND listened I suspect we would still be part of a more democratic and less arrogant EU.
When asked in 1975 if voter supported our continued membership of the Common Market 67 per cent said yes. Not a surprising result considering it offered an increased opportunity to sell our goods and services to a larger market. So far... so good.
Whether that was the sole intention or not is unclear but its influence spread inexorably into areas of our lives that were deeply resented. Our politicians showed little or no regard for public concern claiming it to be EU procedure.
Any dissent of EU immigration policy was likely to brand concerned communities Xenophobic by our political leaders who simply left them to deal with the consequences.
Perversely, as interference in UK law became increasingly resented by the British public EU lawmakers grew ever more meddlesome.
The micro management of British life from light bulbs to the weight of potatoes was an irritant foisted upon an increasingly aggrieved public for which bureaucrats in Brussels showed little or no regard.
Far worse was the dismissive attitude of British politicians who ploughed ahead regardless of growing public resentment.
A little more listening and a lot less arrogance would have gone a long way towards winning the hearts and minds of voters.
When finally our Prime Minister was forced into a referendum 43-years of EU membership failed to convince the electorate and the majority voted to leave the Union.
So here we are back paddling our own canoe. Our chastened politicians no longer have any excuse for ignoring the aspirations and concerns of the people they represent.
But this is no time for bitterness or gloating we have much to do. Freed from external interference and bureaucracy we can be nimble and fast on our feet. We must exploit the opportunities it presents.
I wish everyone, of all political persuasions, success in our new joint venture... together.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of wilmslow.co.uk.
Photo: By Quartier_européen_Bruxelles_2011-06.JPG: Zinnekederivative work: Ssolbergj (talk) - CC BY-SA 3.0.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Using your analogy, some of us, who actually thought rather hard about our decision, perceive the situation rather as an abusive relationship in which one party has bullied the other for a lengthy period violating every principle upon which their initial attraction (indeed, their prenuptial agreement) was based. When we began to cohabit with Europe we did not know that it intended to take ownership of a substantial proportion of our assets, nor that it intended to have all its family come to live with us, or that it would invite vast numbers of strangers from across the globe to do the same, notwithstanding the agreement we made that evening in Dublin.
My only feeling at present is one of freedom at being so close to the door, combined with apprehension that you might yet succeed in locking us in.
The "kids" are generally far less threatened than their elders by people talking in funny languages or with different coloured skin, more likely to have some grasp of a foreign language, much more internationalist in their ambitions for work or travel, far more likely to work for foreign companies, and if they think about light bulb legislation at all, are more likely to think that ones which use less energy is a good thing for the environment.
I'm sure someone will be along to contradict me, but I know barely anyone under the age of about 45 who wanted to leave.
The fact is the result was decisive. The turnout was higher than at any general election since 1992. The result for exit (52%) is higher than any British Government has won in a general election since 1931.
You state ... The problem with true democracy for politicians is it states clearly what the majority of the public actually want and cannot be manipulated to give the answer they want.
My opinion. Sorry this is not factually correct. It was only 46,500,001 people who had the right to cast a vote on 23rd June not "the public". Of these only 17,410,742 voted to leave the European Union which is approximately 37.44%. How is that a majority? Figures sourced from
http://bit.ly/28OZYrx
You state... When finally our Prime Minister was forced into a referendum 43-years of EU membership failed to convince the electorate and the majority voted to leave the Union.
My opinion: Sorry again. This not factually correct. It was only 17,410,742 of the electorate that voted to leave the European Union. The majority of the electorate (approximately 62.56%) did not vote to leave. Figures sourced from
http://bit.ly/28OZYrx.
You state... So here we are back paddling our own canoe
My opinion: And again sorry. This not factually correct. We have not left the European Union. Article 50 has not been invoked yet, and when it has been we have up to 2 years to negotiate the exit.
I appreciate you are only writing a column and that our opinions differ. I'm perfectly happy with that. The problem is that it's not only politicians who can be factually inaccurate but other sources too.
And neither do I agree with the interpretation of Jackie. No offence meant
for taken.
You wrote..Well done Britain.
I assume you actually meant "Well done UK."
Britain is just England and Wales. The name Britain goes back to Roman times when they called England and Wales "Britannia" (or "Britannia Major", to distinguished from "Britannia Minor", ie Brittany in France). The Roman province of Britannia only covered the areas of modern England and Wales. The area of modern Scotland was never finally conquered.
Or were you you deliberately ignoring the electorates of Scotland, Northern Island and the other crown dependencies such as Gibraltar who had a vote in the referendum?
no offence has been taken but I just want to say I disagree with you. No offence meant either. It's just my opinion. That's all
Jackie and co, I respect your decision to vote leave and for your reasons why. I simply don't agree with you. The decision is a balance of the good and the bad. The reasons you provided are basically all xenophobic. You ignore that most people coming into the country provide a net benefit and we rely \non them to keep vital services running. Not perfect, but net positive in my view - hence its about balance. I do not feel that we have given away all control or the country's assets to the EU, would be interested to understand on what you base this view - and I would point out all the benefits felt in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Liverpool to EU funding that our Govts have not provided.
What we have seen since we left is the level of concern felt by major companies and the govt of other countries - and of 75% of the younger generation (pity more of them did actually vote to get their generations views fully counted). Simon, I find you views about our young people pretty distasteful, the ones I know are not hangers on as you seem to suggest - but hard working and aspirational. They will not grow older to realise that they were wrong to vote to remain as they and we will never know what that alternative reality would have been like - though as my daughter points out, they will be alive to have to live through whatever we have committed them to.
Stuart - love your stats, very useful
Barry - so the fact that a few people get paid more then you think they are worth (and I would tend to agree with you) justifies seriously damaging our economy and future jobs??? Love to know what you think of footballers (and I guess you would ban it on that basis?). Really?!?
My "disparaging views" on the youngsters?? It is a fact that a large percentage of those moaning that the "wrinklies" have undermined their future (especially the 18-22 group) are in receipt of large loans (which fund underqualified lecturers to teach courses of little value and are the result of Blair concocting a way to keep them of the unemployment figures, and also fund the rip off of student living accommodation which big business has jumped on) and 40% will never pay them back. As someone who has worked hard for 40 years I am reluctant to listen to them especially as their turn out was so low. They do remind me of the very keen who ran around my university flogging the Morning Star and Socialist Worker before moving into highly paid employment and voting conservative!
You wonder why they are "moaning the wrinklies have undermined their future"? A generation who enjoyed free education, freedom of movement and a period of tremendous prosperity wants to deny them those opportunities, seems to blame the youngsters for the systems their own generation put in place, and in your case clearly has considerable contempt for their views.
Barry - if you have some rational and sensible reason why people who incur business expenses on behalf of their employer shouldn't be able to reclaim them I would love to hear it. If not, then please stop the tabloid practice of talking about expenses as though they are some huge perk or something vaguely grubby.
Well, as a parent I voted Leave for my son's, and grandchildren so I don't think THAT is betrayal - you talk utter rubbish !
You wrote .... Britain would obviously refer to the whole island as it has since 1707.....
My opinion .... It's not obvious to me nor do I consider it to be factually correct. As my Scottish friends often remind me, the term Great Britain was created by combining the "names" of Britain and Scotland the Great in about 1707.
You wrote .... My "disparaging views" on the youngsters? It is a fact ....
My opinion .... If it's a fact then it can be backed up by data to ratify it. I am unable to find any. Please post a link to the corresponding data source.
You wrote .... (which fund under-qualified lecturers to teach courses of little value ......
My opinion .... I wonder what qualifications and competences you have to lend credence to this opinion.
You wrote .... and 40% will never pay them back.
My opinion .... If this is factually correct then it can be backed up by data to ratify it. I am unable to find any. Please post a link to the corresponding data source.
You wrote .... They do remind me of the very keen who ran around my university flogging the Morning Star and Socialist Worker before moving into highly paid employment and voting conservative!
My opinion .... Everybody can change their mind. People do so because of all sorts of reasons. I was also wondering how many of these you actually knew in person and are still in contact with. Maybe we could ask them why? Or, is what you say just an opinion that's unable to be verified by actual evidence.
As I have consistently said. It's fine by me for you to have any opinion you want and I don't take offence at that. All I want to know is what is factually correct and can be backed up by supporting evidence, or what is just an opinion.
I just want to share my my opinion on your last post.
This is that I believe you too can often talk utter rubbish. It is, however, based on not having met you. Just from reading some of the comments on website posted under the same name.
This is just my opinion. It's not a fact!
http://bit.ly/1i24A6O
Peter, “the reasons you provide are basically all xenophobic”. Definition -” Xenophobia - dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries”. You seem to be arguing that it is somehow “xenophobic” not to give unrestricted access to those from the European Union. I would argue, that access is to anyone from whatever country if they have the skills required. In my view only open borders Libertarians can claim exemption from charges of xenophobia of the kind you make. Are you one of those? Witness, for example, the doctors from the Indian sub -continent who work in the NHS, and the people from the Phillipines who work in the Care sector. Their entry to the U.K is regulated, European citizens are not.
As to “assets”. The financial argument is a circular one. Where do you think that the EU gets its money from?
The UK has far greater “assets” than monetary ones, namely the asset of “sovereignty”. It is this asset which has been consistently eroded. Yet it is sovereignty that allows a nation to be nimble in its responses to a rapidly changing world. As a sovereign nation you can respond to the innumerable small, yet significant, developments that characterise globalisation, before the behemoth EU can get its boots on.
The future is bleak only for those determined to make it so. A number of countries are already looking to fill the gap when we leave.
http://bit.ly/29mIlk3
Our exports have been pitiful to date and there is now a real opportunity for these to expand. The North West has a history of enterprise and innovation as the home of the Industrial Revolution. It is time to make it so again.
I know that one of my characteristics is being too "detail" focused and not "seeing the bigger picture". But that's just the way I am. If I see or hear something that I believe is factually inaccurate them I point it out once I have researched the evidence available. It has led to some quite interesting and heated discussions at family gatherings!!!
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding there might have been.
Keep posting. It's good to talk and share opinions.