Referendum Result Quotes

Watching Nigel Farage rudely insult fellow members of the European Parliament today - the first occasion they were all assembled in Brussels since the tragic 'Brexit' referendum result - made me feel utterly ashamed to be British. Let it be known that Nigel Farage is the very epitomy of a narrow-minded 'Little Englander' who does not represent the vast majority of outward-looking people from Great Britain. His shameful and unofficial campaign to convince the British electorate to leave the European Union was peppered with lies and deceit. His populist and xenophobic rhetoric has also subsequently contributed to ugly scenes of racial abuse and hate crime directed at Eastern European nationals and ethnic minorities living and working in the UK, in the wake of the referendum result. Fellow Europeans, world citizens, let this be a wake-up call. Deny your own domestic peddlers of populism and nationalism the opportunity to follow the example of this unelected, disrespected maverick, intent on making a name for himself, for he has unwittingly unleashed a wrecking ball on Britain's future economic prosperity, cultural diversity and social harmony.

But anyone of us who starts writing and treats what comes out as ‘oop, here come the results of the referendum on whether I’m a complete piece of shit’ is going to have a bad time.

The army could not have been happier. The result of the referendum was a repeated slap to the faces of those liberal powers who thought they could change the country. The army never wanted change, not with so many interests, businesses, and powerful people involved. It was a system sixty years in the making. Removing Mubarak didn’t even touch the deep state that he was a disposable face of. The Muslim Brotherhood were never serious about the revolution either. They used it simply to come into power. They had no problem with the old regime as long as they were on top of it. One

The institutions that American’s founders created to safe guard liberal democratic government cannot survive when half the country does not believe in the core principles that undergrid the American system of government. The presidential election of 2024, therefore, will not be the usual contest between Republicans and Democrats. It is a referendum on whether the liberal democracy born out of the Revolution should continue. Today, tens of millions of Americans have risen in rebellion against that system. They have embraced Donald Trump as their leader because they believe he can deliver them from what they regard as the liberal oppression of American politics and society. If he wins, they will support whatever he does, including violating the Constitution to go after his enemies and political opponents, which he has promised to do. If he loses, they will reject the results and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of of the federal government, just as the South did in 1860. Either way, the American liberal political and social order will fracture, perhaps irrecoverably. (Page 3)

8 In a speech at the opening of the European Research Institute in 2001, Tony Blair summarised ‘the history of our engagement with Europe’ as ‘one of opportunities missed in the name of illusions – and Britain suffering as a result’.

The danger was that referendums might promote irresponsible government, in which ministers promised referendums for party purposes while disclaiming responsibility for the results. ‘The new doctrine’, Thatcher complained, was ‘to pass the buck to the people’.

In 1995, the result of the PQ-mandated second referendum on Québec independence was such a close call that in many other countries it might have degenerated into civil conflict. But that didn’t happen. Why not? Maybe because on all of those occasions we kept talking, since we know in our heart of hearts that what we’ve got is worth keeping.

Having a ballot referendum on an important issue is a farce if a federal judge can throw out the results and impose his or her own will in place of the will of the people.

There has been some talk (but not enough) about the political and social consequences of the devolution fiasco three years ago, but none at all about the cultural consequences. At the time my friends were startled and mystified when I told them what a blow the result had been to me, not as a person but as a novelist who thought his mission was to portray the Scottish people. I could not see how any writer could portray with enthusiasm and conviction a nation that had so little faith in itself as to reject a modest degree of self-government or, to put it more accurately, to let itself be cheated by a piece of parliamentary chicanery. In Canada I could hardly get anyone to believe me when I explained the 40% condition.

The vote for Ukraine’s independence spelled the end of the Soviet Union. Those participating in the referendum had changed not only their own fate but the course of world history. Ukraine freed the rest of the Soviet republics still dependent on Moscow. Yeltsin made a final attempt to convince Kravchuk to sign a new union treaty when he met with him at a Belarusian hunting lodge in Belavezha Forest on December 8, 1991. Kravchuk refused, citing the results of the referendum in all oblasts of Ukraine, including Crimea and the east.

British society has always been deeply divided about its links to Europe, to the point that Prime Minister Cameron felt he had to promise a referendum on staying in Europe as part of the Conservative election manifesto in 2015. Historical circumstance meant that the June 2016 referendum took place in the midst of the refugee crisis, which tipped the balance in favour of leaving. Today the result might be different, but in point of fact half of British society has always been hostile towards Europe and always will be.

Irrespective of the result of the General Election, I believe it will be possible to argue that Scotland has voted for more democratically accountable control over Scottish affairs. Scotland's inalienable right to self-determination includes the right to decide how to exercise that right. In the General Elections of October 1974, May 1979 and I believe in the forthcoming contest, and in the referendum on the Scotland Act, the Scottish people will have expressed the wish to remain in the United Kingdom, but with a substantial measure of Home Rule. Mrs. Thatcher would have no right to ignore that expression. Repeatedly stated, it would be the clear wish of the majority of the Scottish people. To deny it would be to say that of all the nations of the world today we had no national right to self-determination.

Buoyed by the EU referendum result, the arch-monarchist Tory MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell, chair of the All-Party Flags and Heraldry Parliamentary Group, tabled a parliamentary motion on 3 November 2016. This called for the reinstatement of ‘God Save The Queen’ at the end of each day’s transmission on BBC1.

David Cameron did indeed resign about four hours after the result of the referendum became clear, which was the only honourable thing for him to do. Like a gambler on a lucky streak, he had stayed at the table for one too many hands and lost it all.

Legislation: Attempts by legislature to legislate the actual conduct of diplomacy in detail are almost always counterproductive. Legislation restricts diplomacy's freedom of maneuver and greatly reduces its suppleness, leading to large opportunity costs as efforts to amend or repeal laws to respond to new developments compete with other legislative priorities. Legislation: Legislators may proclaim a policy, but they cannot implement it except by enacting into law punishments and prohibitions on trade and travel. That is why the first resort of lawmakers is to sanction, embargoes, and other restrictive measures on intercourse with foreign states. But little is gained by name-calling, and laws directed at foreign sovereigns usually damage rather than advance prospects for peaceful resolution of international disputes. The inherent rigidity of statutes precludes essential flexibility in response to unexpected change. Amendment or repeal of a law requires new action by the legislature. Legislation thus makes all diplomacy ad referendum to the lowest common denominator of special interests that enacted it. This is a powerful inhibitor of diplomatic efforts to achieve the very results those who sponsored the legislation intended. Moreover, such laws are rightly taken by foreign sovereigns as a hostile act. They invite a hostile response, which may well injure unrelated interests the legislators would, upon mature reflection, have wished to save from harm.