Going back to referenda…
It struck me this morning that both the 1975 and the 2016 vote went the way of their natural bias in the sense that - if what you have (the status quo) is not that great and someone offers you the promise of something better there is an inbuilt tendency to believe them and opt for change.
Britain in the mid 1970’s was not in a happy place - remember that this was a time of industrial unrest, power cuts, the 3-day working week, only just after the referendum we had to go to the IMF for funds to keep the country solvent.
The vote was not, whether to join - it was whether to stay in as the UK joined in 1973 but EEC membership had not had all that much impact - so in many ways the “vote for change” was more a “vote to stick with the change we just made”. Apparently the possibilities offered by EEC membership were not lost on the electorate who supported, by a wide margin, EEC membership.
Wind the clock forward to 2016 and the UK was, once again, not that happy - while nothing like the 1970’s we’d had 8 years of “austerity” following the 2007-2008 crisis, people hadn’t seen a real-terms wage rise for 8 years, there was a generation left behind from the move away from traditional heavy industry and towards high tech manufacturing and the Leave campaign promised them more money for the NHS, higher wages, and lower unemployment all without impacting our trade with the EU and at the same time as reducing immigration. Largely, I have to say, from a position of not having to make good on any of the promises. Again the “natural” way for the vote to fall was away from the EU in protest against 8 years of stagnation. The irony being that the EU was not, in the main, responsible for any of these ills and not much of the debate focussed on its real deficiencies.
In some ways the only thing that surprises me was that it was so close.
Given the closeness, and given May’s squandering of the Tory majority in a needless election it would have been wise for her to keep options open, to remind people that the intent of the vote had been advisory, to work out what sort of Brexit actually had a mandate before triggering Article 50. But no, she boxed herself in with her red lines and the Lancaster House speech.
Maybe Cameron felt that by resigning he could extricate the Tory party from his ill-advised promise to trigger article 50 the following morning. If that was the intent he failed.
Unfortunately it has taken on a life of its own and seems outside anyone’s control, with May clinging to Chequers - unlikely to get anything “harder” or “softer” through parliament, unlikely to get Chequers itself past the EU we are utterly deadlocked.
I’m pretty sure no-one voted for the current situation - not even Ken, I suspect.