Apparently Burnham wrote a letter to ministers, in which he said this:
I am clear in my conviction that the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservative government was not good enough for Britain… It has led to a decade of low growth, burdened businesses with more red tape and weakened our ability to control immigration. It is a harder Brexit than was promised at the EU referendum.
…we will need to consider the UK’s long-term relationship with the EU as part of our 10-year plan. I will set out the next steps for this process around the [UK-EU] summit.
Hopefully that summit brings some good news (i.e. closer relations between the UK and EU).
As the debates inevitably increase about an improvement of relations between the EU and the UK, I’ll be watching out for those voices trying to sow division. It’s pretty clear that Russian influence was all over the referendum. That same influence is everywhere (including on this platform).
All they want is more conflict and more chaos to weaken opposition to their world domination ambitions. In this global game of Traitors and Faithfuls I’m keeping my eye on those who want to divide. It could be along political lines but also taking advantage of racial tensions too.
Unfortunately here in the UK we’ve got the Reform party that’s doing exactly that. They keep getting caught doing corrupt things and their Welsh leader is still in prison for taking money from the Russians. Somehow though, their popularity has not diminished as much as it should have. I guess the lure of a simple enemy (immigrants in this case) to blame is too attractive for a lot of people.
Regardless of all this I am optimistic for the long term. I think there’s going to be a huge upheaval before we get there but it feels like pivotal things are about to happen that will most likely be triggered by the upcoming likelihood of a massive Republican defeat on Tuesday.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
What promise? There were next to no details given on what form of exit would transpire. That was one of the major talking points of Brexit.
Brexit didn’t actually go through until after the 2019 election. During which Boris Johnson campaigned and made many promises about Brexit, eg it was “oven ready” and absolutely would not be a hard Brexit. They claimed to have had better trade deals ready.
There were plenty of promises made. Boris was even put on trial in 2019 for his 2016 Brexit campaign lies, where he only got off on a technicality because the Brexit campaign wasn’t technically part of his ministerial duties. Everything since the 2019 election was, though, yet he was never charged again - even when he was caught lying to the queen.
Some Brexiteers suggested that Brexit would be a softer affair, in the lead up to the referendum.
Tory peer Daniel Hannan (formerly an MEP) said in 2015: “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”. And yet we did leave the single market, as part of the hard Brexit pursued by the Tories.
But yes I suppose other leading Brexiteers didn’t make details explicit. Perhaps, after the Brexit referendum, we should have had a second referendum to determine what shape Brexit should take. We could have remained in the single market for many industries (similar to Norway/Switzerland/Iceland) or the customs union (similar to Turkey), or both.
Brexiteers are famously supportive of “democracy” so they shouldn’t have had any objections to a second referendum.
Aye, having a second referendum after the details were hashed out would have been more fair. But that’s not what Burnham has said. What he’s said doesn’t align with reality.
He’s knowingly lying in order to manipulate. He’s a politician after all.
Having a direct democracy would be more fair.
Why do we need representatives to travel to Westminster to have their say on our behalf?
The question was “in or out”. Britain (mostly England) chose “out”, because evidently they don’t teach history in the schools.
What the campaigners promised wasn’t linked to the reality of the EU treaties UK had signed when the EI formed, or the reality of needing to negotiate with the EU from a significantly weaker position.
Maybe another negotiating team would have gotten a sweeter deal, maybe not. In any case, it’s the deal UK voters asked for (by electing successively worse governments).
You could argue it’s a deal that some Brits voted for, but definitely not all Brits of course.
Only 51.89% of those who voted in the Brexit referendum in 2016 voted for Brexit.
In 2019 there was a general election, and during that election campaign, Boris Johnson promised to “get Brexit done”, but only 43.6% of voters in that election voted for Johnson’s party, the Conservatives. So a majority of voters in that election voted against the Conservatives.
It would have been possible to leave the EU while staying in the single market and/or customs union, but the Conservatives chose a particularly hard version of Brexit, cutting more ties than necessary with the EU.
Removed by mod
The people said out.
Less than 52% of voters in an allegedly non-binding election doesn’t come close to qualifying as “the people have spoken”
