I liked the ideas here.
It’s worth a read, I won’t repost it in full.
The main interesting ideas are:
- The EU isn’t perfect
- It has developed politically beyond original expectations
- This has not resulted in advancement for many people
- Many feel rejected, abandoned and lost
- It has generated justifiable resentment as a result
- British people want change, and we should respect that
- Leaving is going to be an economic and social disaster
- The leave campaign lied, cheated and undermined the process
- Immigrants are not to be feared
- It is still the most logical and best place for Britain to be
- With some reasonable alterations
So here is what they propose, which makes thunderingly good sense to me, so likely it will never happen, not with May and Corbyn in charge. They based it on the models of People’s Assemblies that Eire used to inform recent abortion legislation. We should take lessons from the Republic of Ireland in how to handle democratic change.
Ireland found a reasoned route through its own long and divisive argument over abortion through such a mechanism. A citizens’ assembly of voters – a representative group of voters selected at random – held a dignified and detailed civic conversation over several weekend sessions about the practical way forward. Its reasoned conclusions formed the basis of the proposal approved by the Irish people last May and passed into law last month. The contrast between this form of political dispute resolution and Britain’s argument in and since 2016 is humbling. This lesson must be learned and applied in the reopening of the Brexit question.
These aren’t legislative assemblies, they are consultative and advisory ones, intended to form ideas to put before a referendum.
The Guardian does suggest a new referendum, but not in the heat of the moment, where more sensibilities are going to be hurt, but after a consultative process that has never been tried in Britain.
So the Guardian intelligently suggests a rejection of May’s plan, a postponement of Article 50 which sees us booted out the back door March 29, and a reasoned discussion about what questions should be put to voters in a real referendum, where the stakes are known. This way, nothing gets shoved down anyone’s throat, we can discuss the terms under which we could leave or remain in Europe, and it wouldn’t be pols, activists, or facebook mobsters calling the shots.
I don’t know who wrote this editorial, but he/she deserves a fucking medal.