The Meaning of the Brexit Vote

I must say straight away that I am under the influence of Tobacco and Alcohol. I do not know what that combination of drugs might have done to my mind. Nor do I know what influence eating meat, vegetables and rice might have had, or the proliferation of fumes from vehicles on the motorway M61 which passes not more than half a mile from our home, or even the A6 which is even closer, or even the local, more minor roads. Therefore take everything that I say as drug induced hallucinations.

===

We must ignore failure to vote since all voters MUST know that the matter of EU membership is very, very, very important because they have been told so, again, and again, and again. Not one single voter in the UK can be ignorant of this referendum.

In those circumstances, what does ‘failure to vote’ mean?  It can only mean either ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I don’t know’. Both of those reasons are legitimate.

  1. ‘I don’t care’ means that the voter does not think that anything will change whichever way he votes.
  2. ‘I don’t know’ means that the voter cannot personally evaluate the variables.

So we ignore ‘failure to vote’.

Let us imagine that the ‘Remain’ vote is overwhelming – say, 70% to 30%. Cameron et al will rejoice. But what are they rejoicing about? What power does that vote give them? On the face of it, that vote means that 70% of the population are happier with EU rule than are happier with democratic UK rule. If that were true, then the vote would indicate that that the EU is more trusted than our own democratically elected government. But only a huge majority would so indicate because of confounders. The result of a huge majority would be to further encourage the Elite in Brussels.

Next, suppose that ‘Remain’ wins by a slim majority, say, 52% to 48%. What would that mean? It is very messy. Cameron et al would be put under immense pressure to actually perform. C et al would have to stop the Muslim (aka ISIS) invasion of our land. Quotas would not do – no way. What Germany and France decide is up to them. We are not having it, and no amount of EU majority voting will decide otherwise. We will not have it. Thus all the blather about the ‘legality’ of treaties would evaporate. (Anyone who knows about treaties knows that they have no aspect of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. They are just temporary arrangements. For example, I might agree with my neighbour that I shall not throw snails in my garden over the fence into his garden, provided that he does not throw slugs over the fence into my garden. If I find that I have no snails to throw over the fence, then there is no need for that treaty. If my neighbour throws slugs over the fence, then that is a ‘causus belli’. There are logical faults in the argument, but never mind.

Further, the matter of the immense cost of the EU would have to be addressed, along with fisheries and so on. C et al would be exposed as the incompetents that they are. For years and years, they have been the tools of ‘experts’. They themselves have no substance. They are just tools. And the corruption would have to be exposed.

Next, we consider a slim majority for Brexit. Wow! That opens a really tricky can of worms. And yet it does not produce an insoluble conflict. It means only that we citizens of the UK want full cooperation with our friends and neighbours on the continent, but not subservience. We can cooperate in every way, such as student exchanges, travel, trade, science, everything that you can name, but we do not want bureaucratic regulation and the cost thereof.

Finally, we consider a big majority for Brexit, say 70% for Brexit.

That circumstance is wide open, but not impossible. It would mean no MEPs immediately. No more formal political unions with EU political groups. But it has positives. The UK can decide which treaty obligations it wishes to continue and which it wishes to abrogate. Just do it. There is no law involved.

In the first instance, everything continues as it is. Very rapidly, there are no UK MEPs. That would be crucial as an immediate consequence of the vote, but at the bottom end, individuals would not be affected. That principle would be recognised – individuals would be affected least, and grand ‘courts’ would be affected most.

===

I don’t think that I have rambled too much this evening. Frankly, I’ve enjoyed thinking about the ramifications of the Brexit vote. The fun thing is that, which ever way the vote goes, nothing will ever be the same again.

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Meaning of the Brexit Vote”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Well expressed Junican. Lets get out of the EU and control our borders again !

    • junican Says:

      Thanks. I know no better than you. The Government has massive brain-power at its disposal.The question is, “how rational, independent and ‘scientific’ is that brain-power?”
      The EU has had 50 years to become corrupt. It has succeeded.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: