The United Kingdom voted to Brexit rather than Bremain, and now there's a lot of Bregrets. Many people were horrified to find that the second most popular Google Query from Britain the day after was "what is the EU?" This comes as Nigel Farage admits that his claim about the amount of money going to the EU was wildly inaccurate and pro-leave campaigners are admitting that immigration levels won't really go down. I'm left wondering how much of this big decision was actually based on any real facts.
(As an aside, I was surprised that the New Yorker cover somehow linked Brexit to John Cleese. So it wasn't just me.)
Now there are several news reports coming in of "Leave" voters who regret their vote. I suppose it's understandable that a person will question a big decision, but some are coming right out and saying that they didn't actually want Britain to leave, even though they voted for it. So if, like me, you wish the referendum had gone the other way, you can at least console yourself with the knowledge that these morons will get exactly what they deserve.
By the way, I wish the media would be more responsible and not broacast things like that. There could be aliens listening in, studying us. If they hear humans say, "I wouldn't have voted for X if I'd known X was going to win," it not only reduces the chances the aliens will see us as worthy of communication, it greatly increases the chances that they'll finally decide we're too dangerous and just nuke us from orbit.
These voters with Brexiter's Remorse help to explain what happened in the vote. Many were confident that "Remain" would win, even though the polls kept showing it as a dead heat. So why did they think that? You might think it was just the arrogance of "The Elites" who are supposedly the only people in favour of European integration, and forcing it upon everyone. And that's the interpretation that some journalists have decided to accept. But the sudden market corrections that came after the vote show that people who had a financial stake in predicting the result got it wrong anyway. Again, you might say that even though they had incentive to get it right, they were still elites out of touch with the common person. Well, fine, but there was another group that had a financial interest in getting it right, and are not part of these devious elites: The bookies. They still had "Leave" as 4:1 underdogs right up to the end.
The reason for the over-confidence was that voters tend to shy away from more radical stances in the last days of a campaign. I once heard a Canadian pundit call it the "NDP Swerve." The voter tells pollsters that they're mad as hell, and going to vote for the NDP, then gets in to the voting booth, and says, "what am I thinking, I can't vote for the NDP!" And goes back to the same party they always vote for. Along similar lines, there was an assumption that the "Leave" campaign was going to lose a few percent at least from whatever the polls were showing.
But it didn't happen. There was no swerve. And judging from the comments of regretful voters, it's because those angry voters didn't have their big change of heart in the booth, because they didn't think it would matter. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us: There have been lots of times recently when voters seem to be voting to "send a message" that doesn't really correspond to what they're actually voting on. They may use a referendum to pass judgement on the current government, rather than the actual issue. And various Quebec elections and referendum votes have been based on messages to various governments or grabbing leverage, rather than the (seemingly important) issue of separation.
So that's why some people are serious about wanting a second, this-time-we-mean-it referendum. Personally, I don't like that idea, even if it would be a second chance at the outcome I prefered. Aside from, you know, principles and crap like that, there's the dangerous precident. This referendum has shown everyone on Earth what happens when you don't take your votes seriously. A do-over would give flaky voters the confidence to make more silly votes they don't mean with whatever imagined intentions behind them. Whatever else it is, the Brexit vote is a great teachable moment for democracies everywhere. It's unfortunate we had to sacrifice a large country to do so, but if it convinces Americans not to protest-vote for Trump, it will be worth it.
Having said that, here's a scenario that wouldn't surprise me: The British government now has to negotiate a departure from the European Union, while also negotiating new treaties with countries and trading blocs around the world to maintain the same access to markets they had in the EU. That's probably going to take longer than expected, especially when you consider than the EU is probably going to make the negotiations difficult to make an example of the UK for any other countries thinking about their own exits. And there's the problem that the next British government(s) are going to have to make a lot of painful changes to get ready for separation. Let's say this all takes five years instead of the two that the pro-Brexit crowd has planned on. After such a long time, and with negotiations probably taking place under a new government, there might actually be a reasonable case to have a second referendum on the completed deal.
Would there be a different result on that one? It's hard to say. They will have seen a preview of what the UK economy will be like outside of Europe, and the initial signs are that it won't be pretty. But the flip side is that a sinking economy could just increase the anger and fear that the far right thrives on. If any of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate, that will remove a whole lot of "Remain" voters (note that England voted to Leave by a fairly large margin.) But then there's the age demographic. A few more years will allow demographics to shift a little more towards the younger, pro-EU voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment