Talk for Article "Could Brexit be reversed? A view from across the Channel"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I struggle to see the value of another speculative piece about ignoring the will of the majority. Constant calls to not Brexit from the people that believe they’re benefiting from the status quo, and renewed calls to get it done from the people that believe they’re adversely affected by EU laws/regulation/bureaucracy are not news.

    The narrative that pro-Brexit voters were somehow tricked, are stupid, or now regret their decision is not necessarily a fact-based one. Those in power naturally wish to remain in power, and have the loudest voices. WikiTribune is doing a disservice to its mission if it continues to serve as an echo chamber to the powers that be.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      @Chris, the ”view from across the Channel” is not just ”another speculative piece”. It does 3 things: it is a reminder that a reversal of Brexit, if initiated by the UK, would not contradict the EU Treaties; it points at the probable lessened influence of the UK globally, if outside the EU; and it suggests that if the UK were to rescind its divorce letter, the situation thus created could bring about the improvements to the EU that have long been called for in London.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        I have to say that I do find this article somewhat biased, and yes, speculative.

        1) The only newspaper source used is the Guardian, which is a pro-EU paper.
        2) There’s far more to this than what rules do or do not exist in a treaty. What about the will of the people? Ignoring that has resulted in riots in the past. The poll tax riots of 1990 for example.
        3) The phrase “one could imagine” surely implies speculation.
        4) There seems to be an assumption that the result would be different the second time round, and so no mention of the considerable political risk that a second referendum would mean. How foolish would the government look if the result was still Brexit? Mass resignations, and even more damage done?
        5) A second referendum is likely to fuel further economic chaos at least until it takes place. Stock markets really don’t like drawn-out uncertainty.

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Hello Dan, as you must know, writing about current affairs requires some mention of possible future developments, even if they may seem ”speculative” to those who do not approve of a policy or relish a possible outcome. Writing only about the past is called history, and even then, there might be some uncertainty. You mention that ”markets” don’t like drawn out uncertainty: rest assured that even outside of markets, there is a demand for clarity about the UK position in the Brexit process it initiated without pressure from any EU country or institution. Apparently you are not entirely familiar with some aspects of the European project since its inception (including a famous statement by Winston Churchill in Zurich in 1946), and it may have escaped your attention that, since joining the EEC in 1973, the UK government has taken part in every decision which could have an impact on Great Britain. You might find it useful to read, here in WikiTribune, .

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            I am familiar with Winston Churchill’s speeches regarding European unity.

            He supported the basic idea of the EU, but did not want the UK to be a part of it, only a supporter.

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              @Dan, Winston Churchill died in 1965; the UK became a member of the (then) EEC in 1973, when Edward Heath was Prime minister, and apparently he was under no foreign constraint, see .

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    @John: indeed, in most countries a referendum does not replace the legislative process, but carries political weight. Thanks.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    We should remember that the referendum was called on an ‘advisory only’ basis so the government was not bound to honour the result. There was also a petition raised to amend the EU referendum bill to require a qualified majority rather than an absolute one. The petition did not succeed as far as I recall because of timing rather than debate.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Nathaniel, I just saw your edits, and thank you for them.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Sorry Nathaniel, my above remark should have been posted on TALK attached to another Essay, the one on the 2017 Missile Crisis.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us