IN or OUT – My Thoughts On The Referendum
I believe passionately in democracy and would have accepted an out vote with grace if the referendum had been conducted properly. If it had been truly to define what British people felt was best for our country. Sadly, I do not feel that is what we have experienced over the last few weeks. If that was its goal, the referendum would have been conducted very differently and the information we received would have been informative, not biased on both sides. I have spent hours on different Facebook pages, particularly for the Brexit campaign, where there have been lies and deliberate manipulation of video footage to mislead and frighten.
There has been scaremongering on both sides. I do not call this behaviour democracy. I call it bullying by the media and by factions in this country who were determined to achieve their goals, which do not have the welfare of our people at heart, despite what they say. I believe in an attempt to show our discontent we have handed our country to the right wing, including our own MP Pauline Latham who was an OUT voter. Her party is not interested in giving us a voice. In fact Pauline is busy trying to stop our voice being heard as we fight for the future of our own Babington Hospital. Sadly, I see the referendum as a public display of the power struggle within the Tory party.
The public has spoken and we all have to live with its consequences. I feel we will all need to work together to try and make something positive out of a decision which has left me devastated and my grand-daughter furious, because she feels her hopes and choices for the future have been taken away from her. The best thing we can do now is fight for proportional representation so that we can have true democracy in the UK. After all, wasn’t that what the out voters were hoping to achieve, a chance for their voices to be heard?
By Sandy Devine
People and politicians have been making all sorts of assumptions about why people voted the way they did in the referendum about leaving the European Union. A General Election would be a deeper sounding of public opinion. People have a right to an opinion on what is negociated for and away. The context in which politics operates in this country will change if we leave the EU. People need the chance of fair representation and protection of their rights. People need and want more democracy not less.
Are you suggesting that we will have more democracy by handing power to the right wing of the Tory party, whose new leader is highly likely to be Theresa May? The same Theresa May who wishes to take away our rights and introduce gagging laws?
No I’m suggesting an early General Election so the country can decide who they want to be Prime Minister in this post-referendum world we find ourselves in. On Monday the Immigration Minister said in Parliament that European citizens’ right to remain in the country would not be decided on until there was “a new government”. I know of only one way to get a new government in a democracy and that is through a General Election.
I also think that the European Communities Act (1972) should be discussed fully in Parliament.
We do not have to, and indeed should not, accept the result of the E.U. referendum as final. It is ridiculous that a decision which will fundamentally change this country for years to come should be taken solely on the basis of a slender majority in what was essentially an inflated public opinion survey.
We live in a parliamentary democracy: we elect M.P.s and entrust them with the duty of governing us in the best interests of the country. Overall, they do a very good job, even on occasions taking decisions on matters such as capital punishment and decriminalising homosexuality, which would not have met with majority approval in a referendum.
We do not have a written constitution, so our government works by custom and tradition built up over centuries. That does not include decision making by referendum, and the Act of Parliament which set up the recent one did not specify that the result should be regarded as legally binding.
Therefore there should be a “cooling off” period (and, preferably, a general election) during which the consequences of leaving the E.U. can be more rationally assessed. After that, the final decision should be taken in the way which has worked successfully for us for centuries: by Parliamentary debate and vote. I have asked my M.P. Pauline Latham, to support this course of action, hope that others will do likewise.
George Monbiot, in yesterday’s Guardian (27/7/2016), warns that there is the possibility that a TTIP-like agreement could be made between Britain & Europe (NAFTA). He calls for a debate in parliament & even a referendum on the issue.
Sorry. My blog yesterday was about the possibility of an agreement being made between Britain & America (NAFTA) (not Britain & Europe). Aplologies for any confusion.
Apparantly the Government is planning to borrow £60 billion to pay for Britain to leave the European Union.