Het verraad is niet het niet doorgaan van de Brexit, maar de Brexit

De logica van de Brexit, of liever gezegd de onlogica ervan, zoals verwoord door UKIP. Mijn reactie bij bovenstaande video:

The 2016 referendum was non-binding and advisory. So it is not required by law that the result (51.9% for and 48.1% against) is followed.

In addition, there are two more considerations to skeptically look at the result from 2016 and to re-evaluate it now: 1) the many irregularities with funding from the Leave campaign encountered by the Commons committee of Damian Collins and the government’s refusal to seriously examine it; 2) the increasing insight among large parts of the British population who now realize better than in 2016 that the diffusion of information was misleading.

The 2016 referendum was the second referendum. The first took place in 1975 and agreed to continue membership of the then EC. The logic is that if a second referendum cannot be held, the 2016 referendum must be declared invalid afterwards. Why no third referendum can be held if no second referendum could be held is food for logic.

UKIP Leader Gerard Batten proposes that the UK leave the EU as a divorce that can be negotiated, but that is not its most important feature. The withdrawal could hardly be negotiated because the EU followed its own procedures and the UK as a departing and breaking party (and member of the EU) had barely any negotiating power and had to endorse the EU’s common rules and had to act accordingly. Both parties (EU and UK) are members of the same club and therefore subject to its rules.