(13d) Anti Brexit march, a huge success
Reality
Very understandable, one million people march against Brexit because they are afraid of what may be a future outside the EU. Yes, I too would have voted against leaving the EU as its formation brought not only peace but also prosperity to all countries that joined. Still, often the EU did as the UK requested (such as no euro, no Schengen and even British police who is allowed to check people in Belgium and France who want to travel to the UK, English as main language, a neoliberalism and even when the UK are leaving the EU, the EU still follows UK's lead of enforcing austerity on one of its members just as the UK enforces it on its own people), and yet a large section of (mainly) the English remain angry that the UK joined the EU and blames the EU for what the UK does in the UK. And thus, now a large section of British society shows they want to remain.
 |
| No further comments |
Theory
And thus, yes, it is easy talking from my position in Belgium about having to respect the outcome of the second referendum in the UK about the EU, theory is often simpler than reality. Yes, it's up to the British to demand a third referendum on whether to stay in or out the EU because, although someone had the wisdom to write the European Article 50 so countries can leave peacefully the EU if they wish, it had also the stupidity not to mention that the outcome of a referendum would be final for e.g. the next ten years and how to negotiate the exit so that people would know that the outcome is final, more people would have taken the referendum serious. Thus, as there was and still is no scenario how to proceed, it is normal Remainers protest against leaving. Still, knowing the British, they can be hard verbally but also violent physical and thus, if remaining may win, what about disappointed Brexiters who need to continue to live together with foreigners they don't like and after the referendum may hate even more as many foreigners campaigned to stay in the EU (I fear certainly the Germans as many British still remember they liberated Europe, were not thanked for this as they were not allowed to join the EU and Brexiters now say Germany wants to take the UK via the EU. Also France is not a lover). But, maybe I'm wrong and the Brexiters will accept that their decision is overturned and will continue to live as before. Nevertheless, from the day after the referendum, Brexiters feared the outcome may be reversed and therefore shouted it should not. On the other hand, also some Remainers seem to be as extreme as the side they accuse of shouting. Also the EU fears that Brexit may be succesful as then more countries may decide to do so. Therefore, also lies are told about the downfall of the UK if outside the EU and that visa are needed to enter the EU or UK. The result: chaos and the question: what now? For instance, if the outcome is reversed, it will confirm the Brexiters that the EU is indeed undemocratic and doesn't respect what people want and thus they will become even more disillusioned with the EU and British politicians and may feel completely isolated. If the EU refuse a return, some Remainers may equally flip and blame the EU, just like Brexiters always blame the EU.
I'm also against reversing the outcome so shortly after the referendum from a theoretical point of view: if we want more direct democracy than a reversal of the outcome can't be celebrated because then the outcome of referendums on other subjects may also be declared unacceptable if politicians don't like them. While, I think referendums must certainly be organised on joining and leaving international organisations so that not a single party or politician with a majority can decide whether to join or leave. But, the current chaos may also teach people a lesson: people must vote on important subjects and answer the question asked and not vote a protest vote or they should not complain afterwards.
Another reason why this European Article 50 is important is to show the rest of the world where people die because they want to liberate themselves and become independent from what they consider as an occupation that it can happen in a peaceful way and without fights. An example is Tibet that is considered by China as part of their country and indeed, if Tibetans would accept this there would be no troubles but we understand that China occupies that country because people in Tibet don't accept China as their own country. Similar in Spain where elected politicians are imprisoned because they want independence, whether justified or not. But, to prevent the possibility of civil wars means accepting the outcome of decisions by people of a certain region that wants to liberate itself from another, at least for a certain period (such as 2 election periods), otherwise it means chaos and maybe worse.
Indeed, democracy means being able to campaign but also to accept the outcome of elections and/or referendums (unless society has been told that a referendum is organised as a guideline for politicians to determine policies). But, when the outcome results in abuse of human rights than of course people need to oppose the decisions; but this is not so in the UK although I accept many British may disagree and complain about lost influence and even jobs. But, reversing the referendum outcome will remove any moral leadership to demand that countries in outer continents should respect the decision of elections and even referendums.
In conclusion
Thus, I accept people protest and demand a reversal of the decision to leave the EU because there was no script that should be followed in case Article 50 is activated.
But, in a real democracy, the outcome of elections and referendums can't be reversed simply because part of society don't like the outcome. Unless unjust comes from the outcome so people must oppose the outcome but this is not the case in the UK.
Comments