How many times have you thought ‘Why does it have to be so complicated’? Looking for white sauce recipes I was confounded with requests to decide if I was OK with my data being used/searched for a better user experience. No I just want a sauce recipe. In the end I left the Internet and made something up. If something becomes too complicated should it be scrapped and started again?
Politics is very similar. In the UK we are in the middle of Brexit (just in case you have been hiding under a rock and don’t know). The question was Do you want to Leave or Remain. The result of a referendum was to Leave the European Union. A simple answer to a simple question? No, because politicians, lobbyists, big business and analysts got involved. What kind of Leave do they mean? Hard Leave? Medium Leave? Soft Leave? Leave with access to the Common Market? Leave with access to the Economic Community? The options are limitless. No, those who vote leave just want to end our membership to all these different organisations, repeal The 1972 Communities Act and leave. Start again because they subconsciously recognise when the system gets too complicated and you don’t understand the rules the system is broken.
Have you tried to read The Draft Agreement? Even the full title is too long. As for understanding, well you would have to have a law degree which specialises in international and contract law. Then you need a library of documents that refer to every other treaty and legislation that have ever been written by the EU and imported into British law, and trust me they can know how to kill trees. Half of the document (all 585 pages of them) could be reduced if you just got rid of the blank areas. Then another third when you get rid of the repitition (boy do they like the sound of their own voices). However, you would think because it is so long it must be very detailed. Wrong. It is vague, with broad sweeping sentences that have to be read a couple of times to try and nail it down but end up not meaning what you think.
Here is an example Article 8 – Access to Networks, Information Systems and Databases.
‘Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, at the end of the transition period the United
Kingdom shall cease to be entitled to access any network, any information system and any database
established on the basis of Union law. The United Kingdom shall take appropriate measures to
ensure that it does not access a network, information system or database which it is no longer
entitled to access.’
So when I read this I thought about mobile networks and anything on a computer that has ever been created since our computer age started, especially since the origins of the Data Protection Act. So on that basis is sounds like they want to return us to the Stone age and we have to rebuild everything. What the…? No this can’t be right read on. The next point that jumps out is Article 50 where, to summarise because trust me you do not want the full version, we have to pay what they charge for access and pay on a specified date. Is that in additional to the 39 billion we have already agreed or on top of? Oh Article 50 is then repeated verbatim in Article 53. At this point I threw my hands up and went to look for someone more qualified than me to explain it.
It is this confusion that allows people to miss important Articles such as 131, 132 and 164-169 which deal with whose law has supremacy and who is in control of the negotiations during transition.
The referendum, which I already consider The People’s Vote, asked a simple question, got a simple answer and then it became unnecessarily complicated.
The past two years have been spent creating The Draft. As far as I understood we were meant to be agreeing what we owe under our existing commitments, and working out what the notice period was from the various organisations we are a part of. The process of detachment, complete detachment from the European Union allowing us access to the rest of the world. However they didn’t do that they created the Draft.
Now it has become so confusing the politicians have got themselves in a knot and are tell us ‘We need another vote because you got it wrong?! We got it wrong? You’re the ones that over complicated it and wasted two years doing it.
Maybe the referendum was a vote for simplicity and the American election a vote for plain speaking (sorry but I think they got that wrong, have you read his tweets)? Maybe if we had the choice we would reject cookies. Maybe we are sick and tired of this complicated, bureaucratic quagmire that you have created.
In business there is a rule if you are not making a profit after a certain amount of time then it is time to shut down and start again. This should also ring true for this. People say that you can only change things from within. We’ll we have been within for 45 years and have found it impossible to get anything done due to the nature of the bureaucratic monster the European Union has become. Yes we have opted out of certain things, but we have been involved enough to experience frustration and obstruction.
We were given two and a half years experience of membership, to decide if we wanted to stay in the EEC after we joined in 1973, when we had the referendum in June 1975. We had another 41 years of watching the European Union evolve into something completely different and the 37.7% has grown to 51.9%. That is a significant swing after 48 years of experience especially when take into consideration population growth. We tried it and now we want out. You had your turn and now we want ours.
This why we are angry, why we are shouting, why we reject the experts. We don’t trust you anymore, because you don’t listen.
We gave you a simple answer to a simple question, why can’t you understand that?