Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris
I can see where you're coming from. You think that if an imminent referendum triggered the debate in earnest, established political figures would weigh in with a pro-EU approach and the middle-of-the-road British voter would fall into line.
A few years ago that theory might have held good, but we live in interesting times now. People have been lied to, deceived, patronised and taken for granted by all mainstream political parties once too often and we don't believe any of them anymore. So why should we believe them on the merits of the EU?
There won't be a referendum because the politicians are frightened of the possible result, but if there was, I would bet you a pre-match pint in the Oak Lea that the "out" vote would win it!  |
I would be careful before you bet good beer. There are several things to consider. The vote would not be a fair one. Those in power can mobilize that power to promote their cause. They speak as "authority". They can claim they have a mandate, one given to them by the electorate in the last general election, to run the country in the best interests of Britain. They can also claim, with justification, that Britain does not have a history of plebicitary (yes, it is a word; got it from a great book by Sir Ian Kershaw
) democracy. It just isn't part of the democratic tradition. What is most important is that they will attempt to frame the question without consulting the "antis".
From what I read on here; and from what I read in the press, it is my humble colonial opinion that those who are opposed to membership in the EU could perhaps base their position not on the economics of membership in the EU, but on things that are more intangible, more fundamental, more profound .... perhaps more visceral: the fact that Britain is a distinct society, and that this is what is under attack. Britain's uniqueness. There is a Canadian example. The Province of Quebec has held two votes on whether or not to remain in the Canadian Confederation. The votes were close, very close. And the point was not whether or not Quebec would be better off economically, it was about whether or not Quebec heritage and culture and language would be swallowed up in an "English" North America (ok, we'll forget about Mexico
). Even though the votes went against the separatistes, they did win major concessions: French only signs for everything in Quebec; education in the French language; Quebec recognized as a "distinct society within Confederation" by the Federal govt. and the other nine provinces; control of immigration into the province ... and lots of other good stuff.
I think the point I'm trying to make in as little space as possible
is that it is not just economics at stake. And government must be made to listen to that, and make it part of the question.
As an afterthought to this ramble: The People's Charter of 1838 (I think that's the right date; Sam Wignall beat it into my head just so that I wouldn't have to Google it
) had six points ... only No. 6 was never adopted. Maybe it's time; then govts. would have to listen.