(13e) Brexit and far right

Grayling claim Brexit block could boost far right is 'gutter politics'

I think minister Grayling is right when he says that blocking Brexit could boost extreme right. But, I think the opposite can have the same result.

Brexiters
Imagine people waited 40 years before the 2nd referendum about Europe was organised (the 1st was when people agreed to join the EU) and then their vote will be ignored, whether via a 3rd referendum (still the possibility people vote out) or because UK's government decide to stay (this is possible until the 2 year transition period is over or longer in case that period is extended). Or maybe the EU offers the highest position to a British politician in return that the UK remains part of the EU. Such a politician may be old PM Tony Blair, admired in the EU as we recognise him as a good PM that resulted in UK's golden age after PM Thatcher's time. But, he's hated by a large section of the British public who claim this is because he removed mass murderer Saddam Hussein from power but I think it's mainly the unions and their members as they lost influence during PM Blair time in office and many will not accept his return into politics. Another possibility may be old PM Gordon Brown who, although less appreciated in the EU, still has admirers in the UK. Or someone else although I'm not sure whether old PM David Cameron may be acceptable as EU politicians and remainers blame him for the Brexit mess as he organised the referendum and then left. But, in all scenarios, if the UK remains inside the EU than some Brexiters will be very angry as it will confirm that both the EU and national governments ignore the voice (vote) of ordinary people while others will simply ignore decisions they don't like. It's human nature.

Remainers
But equally, in case the UK leaves, this may cause the rise of extremism by some Remainers. Indeed, while Mr Corbyn was respected by many ordinary Labour members, after he spoke out against ignoring the referendum outcome, many Remainers became disillusioned and may not vote for him just as before anti-EU persons who voted Labour had to vote for the Tories as they promised a referendum and to respect the outcome. Imagine the EU may agree that the outcome of the referendum is final. Certain Remainers may become furious when they feel the EU betrayed them. Imagine after the European elections, migrants continue to enter the EU. The EU parliament may be more rightwing and thus may welcome a British politician who takes "responsibility" by  preventing that migrants enter the EU while send those back who arrived. Further, as we're heading towards the end of the (extended) transition period without a deal, chaos may rule, certainly when the British can stay but didn't organise EU elections and their old fraction remain, something I fear is not legal. Indeed, governments can fall when ministers are not directly elected but chosen from members of parliament as they can be replaced with other MP's but I fear elections must be held latest at the final deadline which is in May 2019. The only solution, I think, to prevent chaos is that the outcome of the referendum is accepted by anyone, leavers and remainers.

Take voting but also voters serious
Maybe people will not be angry when they leave or remain although it seems more likely many are already angry, either because they fear a reversal of Brexit or because they fear Brexit may happen. But, in a democracy, people should inform themselves before elections and referendums and people should vote and take it serious or afterwards they should not complain about the result that in my opinion needs to be accepted unless there is evidence fraud is committed during the election.
Further, I'm in favour of fixed periods before a next election or referendum can be organised and in the case of Brexit, this period should be longer than the transition period, even when the outcome causes troubles because doing differently can also result in troubles. And thus, as the rules about an exit from the EU were not clear, I accept people can now interpret how to continue their way while if rules are set in future, than these must be followed and if not, it suggests something is seriously wrong in society. But for now, maybe some will try to scrap article 50 so countries are bound to the EU for eternity while everyone understands that is not possible. And thus, without article 50 people may have to fight to liberate themselves as has been done throughout history and even today.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

(18l) Belgium, king Leopold II and Congo

Image
Leopold II in Congo Belgium has a terrible human rights track record because of its second king Leopold II (1835 - 1909) during whose reign millions of people in Congo died. People may say he is not personally responsible but the same can be said of Hitler. However, Leopold II could have ruled only Belgium but this he considered too small and thus he lobbied to gain Congo for himself and succeeded on the condition he would treat its people correct, something he refused to do from day one. Therefore, he is responsible as he actively searched for this expansion to enrich himself so he could enlarge his own glory in his kingdom Belgium with neglect of his "subjects" in Congo. And people in those days had already a conscience because the king had to replace the first ambassador who refused to collaborate to expand the king's personal property.   To have an impression of the terror Leopold ii allowed in Congo is a picture in this article that shows a black father who l...
Read more

(05d) PM Merkel is against Eurobonds - I agree to some extend

I'm having again Internet after almost a three months break. Finally, back to the world. Many European politicians (and certainly economists) want to introduce Eurobonds and as I understand it, the EU may take some (most, all?) of the debts of poorer European countries and spread it over Europe so that both strong and weak shoulders will carry the problems. Of course, it is only understandable that Europe wants to help countries that are in need (as it should do because they are members). But, as the German PM Angela Merkel (a woman who thinks differently than most men and wants other solutions then the usual ones), I am against spreading debts because it will weaken every country that take some of the debts (it is similar to banks using savings of people to pay off their debts so that when people want their money the banks can't give it anymore (I wonder whether rating agencies threat some countries well so those countries are prepared to take responsibilities to save count...
Read more

Buildup of Tensions in Societies Throughout the World

Image
We notice worldwide tensions are growing within societies. This is mainly as a result of growing inequality but also other factors are involved such as a virus and climate change that destroys crops so people start to migrate as essentials become rarer and thus more expensive compared with what people earn. The result is likely that increasingly people in places where the migrants move to will demand a closing of their borders. Let's discuss. Financial crisis 2008-2009 While inequality was growing as a result of what many people earned versus rising costs of products, this accelerated when the financial crisis was organised just over ten years ago. As a result, people lost work and many even their home such as in the USA so poverty increased although the rich became richer. But, while house prices dropped because many flats and houses became available, those with money were able to buy them cheaper and sell or rent them out to make money when property prices rose again. The problem...
Read more