Democracy weakened without a meaningful Brexit
✒ THE principle of “losers’ consent” is the lynchpin of democracy: in other words, after a democratic vote, the losing side accepts the result, however much it might moan.
The alternative, as we see in many so-called democracies, is protests, violence or vote-rigging, or the incumbent stays on.
Too many Remainers, particularly Remainer MPS, have never accepted the result of the Brexit referendum and have come up with every imaginable reason why they should not do so.
This goes to the very heart of our democracy, which is why feelings are running so high.
What’s worse is that some of those most active in trying to thwart Brexit made extravagant promises – for example, Hilary Benn: “You vote to leave. You are out.” Chukka Umunna: “We will leave if Leave wins by one vote.” Dominic Grieve: “The decision of the electorate in the referendum must be respected.”
RF Taylor’s claim (Letters, September 19) that we cannot negotiate on trade until a withdrawal agreement has been signed doesn’t make sense.
The default position in both Article 50 and the EU Withdrawal Act is that we leave the EU two years after Article 50 has been triggered or any agreed extension has expired.
Since the agreement is to take “account of the framework for [the UK’S] future relationship with the Union”, it is far from clear that this cannot include trade.
Mr Taylor says the UK was “on its uppers” in 1973 and so it was.
However, five years of being in the EEC with a Labour government in charge only made things worse. It was the election of Mrs Thatcher which restored this country’s economy and morale, not membership of the EEC.
I believe our democracy is strong enough to survive the current shenanigans in Parliament, but it will be weakened if we do not leave the EU with a meaningful Brexit.
Meanwhile, we have wasted seven months and got absolutely nowhere. Peter Eyres Cheltenham