BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[Buckleymanor]

You stated the country was under some kind of contract to stick to the first result, this, despite the exit clause agreed to Lisbon by the UK. If so, who are you to say when time begins? Why can I not choose the Stuart's proclamation of the DRoK, find a bloke named Stuart, and have you step and fetch for him?

I understand you don't like the outcome, fine, your opinion is as valid as another's and more than mine as I don't live in the UK. But the rest: 17 million people don't count, it was all a fraud by Exit, against the contract - that's all nonsense.

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.
Who are you say when time stops.
If you purchase something with a guarantee you expect that to be honoured.
Should you put up with slimy toths corrupting the original contract for there own ends pretending it's in the interest of democracy.
Most people never understood the implications of article 50 or even it's existence and for you to pretend that well you should understand and stand by it is quite frankly smug.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm still hoping the legal people will come up with a Brexitexit option, i.e. cancel Brexit, as at a regional level it was a "draw" (Scotland and Northern Ireland v. England and Wales) and I feel that the trouble that would be caused if Scotland and Northern Ireland tried to leave the UK would be far worse than putting up with the EU.

And as I said before, this referendum was implicitly about whether people were satisfied with the status quo or not, not about specific constructive alternative suggestions, and I'm certain that no specific realistic alternative would have as much support as Remain.

 

[mheslep]

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.

They do count, but not as much. Votes have consequences.

Who are you say when time stops.

I don't say. I new era has begun, because a majority say so, in agreement with a treaty that allowed them to do so. Votes have consequences.

If you purchase something with a guarantee you expect that to be honoured.

That's more self-invention bull. There was no guarantee.

Most people never understood the implications ...

And now more of the same, telling people what they do or don't understand. Give it a rest.

 

[rootone]

I... (Scotland and Northern Ireland v. England and Wales) and I feel that the trouble that would be caused if Scotland and Northern Ireland tried to leave the UK would be far worse than putting up with the EU..

England and Wales, but excluding London!, which itself is a distinct and populous region where the remain vote 'won'.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think you are really interested in what happened if won't to believe that this was a necessary referendum when the rest of Europe has managed to cooperate fore the sake of the greater good then fine...

As I said before, I don't have a stake in the fight either way. As a 3rd party observer, what disturbs me is peoples' willingness to abuse or discard democracy when they didn't get their way. It's fine to be mad and surprised by not getting your way, but what you and others are saying comes off as pouting.

 

[russ_watters]

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.

Of course: 17>15. That's what democracy is!

 

[Jonathan Scott]

England and Wales, but excluding London!, which itself is a distinct and populous region where the remain vote 'won'.

True. And that's despite the fact that former popular Mayor of London Boris Johnson was promoting Leave. If you count that regional result as equivalent to, say, Scotland or Northern Ireland, then that would be 3 to 2 regions in favour of Remain!

More seriously, I obviously don't really consider that approach particularly meaningful, but it is clear that the result was far from unanimous, and ...
(a) much of the Leave vote was a protest again the status quo
(b) the Leave side clearly made grossly misleading statements (labelled as being "simply untrue" by the UK treasury) which may have seriously influenced the result
(c) there was little discussion of the potential nasty side-effects e.g. on border controls in Ireland or Scotland leaving the union
... so I don't feel there is a clear mandate to continue at this point, and neither do at least 1000 legal experts, as mentioned in this morning's news.

 

[rootone]

Of course: 17>15. That's what democracy is!

Yes personally I accept that to be the case, although I am a Brit now living elsewhere in the EU, and would have voted remain.
I believe though that a referendum which in effect changes the country's 'unwritten constitution' in such a drastic way really needed to better thought out than a two horse, first past the post poll.
As far as I know constitutional changes in the US require a 60% majority of the senate to become law, (and as far as I know a public opinion poll, call it a referendum if you like, has no legal weight at all).

 

[russ_watters]

I believe though that a referendum which in effect changes the country's 'unwritten constitution' in such a drastic way really needed to better thought out than a two horse, first past the post poll.
As far as I know constitutional changes in the US require a 60% majority of the senate to become law,

That sounds reasonable. You Brits are too cavalier about your democracy for my taste: "unwritten Constitution" and "non-binding referendum" sound like self-contradictions to me. How was the entrance into the EU approved?

(and as far as I know a public opinion poll, call it a referendum if you like, has no legal weight at all).

A public opinion poll and a referendum are totally different/unrelated things. It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum. Am I wrong?

 

[rootone]

A public opinion poll and a referendum are totally different/unrelated things. It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum. Am I wrong?

As far as I know a referendum amounts to the the government asking for the public's opinion on what policy would be preferred.
The result is not legally binding in itself, an act of parliament still is required and it can take different forms, but I can't imagine any situation in which parliament would recommend to the queen ( who techically must approve acts of parliament). that a referendum should be ignored.

 

[Astronuc]

How was the entrance into the EU approved?

As far as I can tell, an act of Parliament.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enacted

It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum.

Yes, it was a referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
http://www.parliament.uk/eu-referendum
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/ (official commentary on referendums)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom (it's Wikipedia. Corroboration with the UK Parliament's information on referenda in the UK is recommended).

http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm

Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom join the European Union on 1 January 1973, raising the number of Member States to nine.

It seems to me that Cameron and others didn't take it seriously, and lots of folks simply assumed the UK would remain in the EU. There apparently wasn't much discussion as to the actual consequences regarding the withdrawal.

Cameron definitely should resign in light of the mess he helped create.As practiced, at least in regard to the present referendum on UK membership in the EU, it would seem that a referendum is an invitation for "democracy on a whim". That was a chief concern of the Federalists when establishing the US Constitution and the US.

 

[rootone]

Cameron definitely should resign in light of the mess he helped create.

He has, and now Theresa May is almost certain to be the next PM. (as decided by internal Tory party grandees, not a public vote.)
All the outspoken exiters have vanished, and she herself has been on both sides of the argument at different times.
Though not a Tory voter myself, I guess she is at least a competent manager type of person,
I might not like her policies that much, but she isn't a low IQs raving 'take the empire back' sort of looney that seemed to dominate discussion during the campaigning.

 

[Astronuc]

He has, and now Theresa May is almost certain to be the next PM. (as decided by internal Tory party grandees, not a public vote.)
All the outspoken exiters have vanished, and she herself has been on both sides of the argument at different times.
Though not a Tory voter myself, I guess she is at least a competent manager type of person,
I might not like her policies that much, but she isn't a low IQs raving 'take the empire back' sort of looney that seemed to dominate discussion during the campaigning.

Perhaps, I should have prefaced my statement, by saying if Cameron, hadn't resigned. I was simply agreeing with his decision.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Rolling Stone had an interesting article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627

A sample:

Were I British, I'd probably have voted to Remain. But it's not hard to understand being pissed off at being subject to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Nor is it hard to imagine the post-Brexit backlash confirming every suspicion you might have about the people who run the EU.

Imagine having pundits and professors suggest you should have your voting rights curtailed because you voted Leave. Now imagine these same people are calling voters like you "children," and castigating you for being insufficiently appreciative of, say, the joys of submitting to a European Supreme Court that claims primacy over the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

This is Rolling Stone, hardly a bastion of xenophobic right-wingers.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I don't think anyone's saying all Leave voters were misled or racist, but I very suspect enough of them were to make the difference.

I voted Remain as the "lesser evil" but I could see there were good reasons why many people voted Leave, which had to be weighed up against the potential disruption and disunity. However, there were spurious or unacceptable reasons why many more people voted Leave (including lies by the Leave campaigners and general hostility to foreigners). If the campaigns had been conducted in a more honest and acceptable manner, I'm fairly sure the result would have been significantly the other way, although obviously it's difficult to prove that. Of course it's also possible that some more people would have voted Leave if they hadn't been scared of the consequences as predicted by the Remain campaign, but I don't think that was anything like on the same scale as the other side.

I also agree that such a fundamental change should never have been considered approved on the basis of a simple majority, when the consequences are so major. This is like a constitutional change, which should require a two-thirds or at least 60% majority.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think anyone's saying all Leave voters were misled or racist, but I very suspect enough of them were to make the difference.

The point that I, V50, mhslep, the Rolling Stone article, etc, are making is that if you want to call your country a democracy, you (Remainers) are not entitled to tell people (ANY of them) they are misguided, so their votes should not count.

[Edit] And validates their concern that you (the EU, Remainers) are a threat to democracy/sovereignty.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The point that I, V50, mhslep, the Rolling Stone article, etc, are making is that if you want to call your country a democracy, you (Remainers) are not entitled to tell people (ANY of them) they are misguided, so their votes should not count.

I don't blame the voters. I would just like to give them a chance to vote based on facts, not on deliberate fantasy.

 

[mheslep]

I don't blame the voters. I would just like to give them a chance to vote based on facts, not on deliberate fantasy.

Which is to say the voters can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy but you can, i.e. you say they are misguided, as Russ indicated. This is growing tiresome.

 

[mheslep]

...
As practiced, at least in regard to the present referendum on UK membership in the EU, it would seem that a referendum is an invitation for "democracy on a whim". That was a chief concern of the Federalists when establishing the US Constitution and the US.

A "whim"?

The UK citizenry has for years shown strong anti-EU sentiment, though their MPs in London have not reflected that sentiment. In response, the voters elected dedicated EU MPs like Farage that regularly go forth to their seats in Brussels and loudly savage everything about the EU leadership. Recently, in response to the EU status quo among Labor and Tory, voters have begun showing strong and quickly increasing support for the new anti-EU UKIP party, creating a real threat to existing parties, all based on a single issue. The UK does not generally hold referendums, but I think common sense directed Cameron to respond in this case, or preside over the destruction of his party. Exit was going to happen either way, though if it had happened via UKIP parliament I suspect there would still be the cries of shock as now, pointing at some luck-less PM who, they would say, was mad to have "allowed" this or that vote to happen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no problem with adopting a system of government where the smart and wise and least likely to be swayed by rhetoric are given more (or all) political power. But be aware that such a system:

1. Is not a democracy
2. Is unlikely to have the support of the future "have nots"
3. Is unlikely to last long: history shows that "government by the smartest" is quickly replaced by "government by the strongest".

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The UK's national statistics office told the Leave camp to stop making certain specific false statements quite early in the campaign, but they continued doing so until the referendum, and only afterwards gave in. I don't know the legal position, but to me that seems utterly fraudulent. Surveys close to the referendum showed that many people were influenced by those statements.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Which is to say the voters can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy but you can, i.e. you say they are misguided, as Russ indicated. This is growing tiresome.

No what is getting tiresome is your interpretation of the facts can't you and Russ get it into your sculls that the electorate was lied to wholesale before the election.
Winning by cheating is not cleaver or democratic.

 

[jim hardy]

There is no problem with adopting a system of government where the smart and wise and least likely to be swayed by rhetoric are given more (or all) political power. But be aware that such a system:

1. Is not a democracy
2. Is unlikely to have the support of the future "have nots"
3. Is unlikely to last long: history shows that "government by the smartest" is quickly replaced by "government by the strongest".

Isn't that what the US has , the masses choose "the best" representatives in hopes they are a cut above ?

 

[russ_watters]

No what is getting tiresome is your interpretation of the facts can't you and Russ get it into your sculls that the electorate was lied to wholesale before the election.
Winning by cheating is not cleaver or democratic.

You aren't entitled to -- oh, nevermind, I give up. I do have a story for you, though:

Back in 2008, before Obama was elected President of the US, he made a campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in his first 100 days of office. His supporters (including many on PF) gushed over it even though he gave no plan for how he'd do it. I knew he was full of crap and would never keep that promise, but none of them believed me. Turns out, the only possible plan (floated after the election) for making it happen was to ship all of the prisoners to Chicago, which the American people overwhelmingly opposed.

Another campaign promise that his supporters cared less about but I cared more about was his plans for nuclear power, including a Blue Ribbon Panel to figure out what to do about nuclear waste (a problem that didn't exist/had been legally bindingly addressed 20 years earlier). I knew that was just a fraud designed to distract people from a string of illegal actions he was planning to take with regard to nuclear waste (later overturned by the courts).

I knew Obama was lying to his supporters, but by the time they realized they'd been duped, it was too late and Obama had already won. "Do-over, do-over!" I screamed to all of the fools who shouldn't have been allowed to vote because they weren't up to the responsibility*. If only we had a ruling class of intelligentsia who could have seen their folly and voided their votes or called a do-over and berated them into changing to the "correct" vote, we could have avoided Obama's election+.

*Er, no I didn't.
+No, I didn't really believe that either. I like democracy and accept the reality that people lie and over-promise during campaigns and that it is the responsibility of the public (and media) to sort out the truth, vote as they see fit, and then accept the results, win or lose.

(See also: "SwiftBoating")

 

[mheslep]

but to me that seems utterly fraudulent.

It seems to me the statement of EU fees were exaggerated to some 350 millions from actual 250 millions a week (IIRC), and the rest about uncontrolled immigration, self-government, less regulation was not in dispute. It's hardly a "fantasy" that Britain will soon keep many millions.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

It seems to me the statement of EU fees were exaggerated to some 350 millions from actual 250 millions a week (IIRC), and the rest about uncontrolled immigration, self-government, less regulation was not in dispute. It's hardly a "fantasy" that Britain will soon keep many millions.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Basically, many on the Leave side picked combinations of "facts" based on mutually exclusive options to support their position. This is admittedly partly because the Leave side had many different positions themselves, but that doesn't really make it much better. After the referendum, various members of the Leave campaign blamed each other for misleading statements, but I don't recall ever having seen any attempt to produce a consistent description of what Leave would actually mean.

Firstly, as far as fees go, the 250 millions that's just the amount paid in, not the balance. It ignores the significant amounts that come back in general subsidies and more specific project aid from the EU, and any other costs of leaving, such as replacing EU-level services with UK ones.

Secondly, various people on the Leave side reassured businesses who were worried about the loss of free trade that the UK could follow the "Norway" model and remain in the European Economic Area, but Norway pays fees to be a member of that area at a rate nearly equivalent to the UK's current EU membership fees, so that would eliminate most of the savings on fees. Also, a lot of the EU regulations that people complain about are related to conditions which also apply for membership of the free market, not specifically the EU.

Thirdly, certain Leave supporters made a big fuss about "foreigners taking our British jobs", which they wanted to control. This is misleading to start with, as many of those jobs are ones for which insufficient British candidates could be found (including e.g. working in the NHS). However, they also reassured people that they would ensure that British people could still work and live in Europe (which is inconsistent, as free movement works both ways) and in any case, free movement is also part of the conditions for membership of the European Economic Area.

The UK already has a special exception from EU rules when it comes to border controls and immigration from outside the EU, although in the current refugee situation I feel that the UK should be working together with the EU to solve the EU-wide problem, not trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I can't say I'm happy with inflexible and prescriptive "One size fits all" EU rules and regulations interfering with many aspects of our lives. I would be interested to know more about any practical realistic alternatives, and might even want to vote for one. However, no such option was available in the recent referendum.

 

[rootone]

Another point is that the London City financial centrer which is the biggest income earner for the UK govt will no longer be able to do trade in Euros.
UK is not in the 'Eurozone', but at present the financial centre is authorized to trade in that currency without conversions and associated costs.
That will no longer be the case after the exit is completed, and much of that business will sensibly transfer to either Frankfurt or Paris exchanges.
To some extent Dublin also since no language complications there.

 

[epenguin]

I already agreed with those who have said that the referendum is not an appropriate procedure for this question. That there was no serious occasion for it, and that it was done for essentially trivial internal party political reasons, which have now had these disproportionate consequences. In many countries it would not have been constitutionally possible or under more rigorous conditions. There is as far as I know no serious constitutional jurisprudence or political philosophy behind this innovation of referendums. However in a populist way it is considered “democratic"

(This is not the only change towards a populist notion of “democracy" there has been in recent years in Britain. This same Cameron, wanting to get out of responsibilities re Syria* , has given Parliament a veto over practically any military action by Britain. And in the present isolationist mood of the British public that means there probably won't be any more British military actions. Another populist development is having given the mass Party in the country (both Conservative and Labour) a vote in the selection of party leader and thus in the choice of the person to be Prime Minister, previously a purely Parliamentary matter, getting a bit closer to the American system.)

Now we are where we are, there is no way back. The new Prime Minister has accepted the verdict of the referendum. It is not politically realistic to do otherwise. Sure, what this verdict really is going to mean, that is what relations with Europe will be worked out is still up in the air. It does not depend only what the government wants but of course also on the European counterparts. The easiest thing, and as I mentioned before the natural tendency of political and administrative inertia, is for as minimal change as possible.

And the ideas that have been argued above by a few posters that the referendum should be invalidated because of the various vices, disinformation, and so on, is not only not on politically but I do think it is actually wrong. On this basis instead of a referendum you would have a neverendum. On this basis every General Election result could be called into question. You get into who is to be the Judge and who should judge the Judges? The judges are the voters, the responsibility is theirs. All you can ask is that both sides have the opportunity to present their case and to criticize and question their opponents’. A Party cannot ask for an election result to be overturned on the grounds that their own campaign was inept!

For many of the questions there are no real "objective facts" independent of judgement (which people did call for also during the referendum, a kind of abdication of response their own responsibility for decision). And in the detail I don't believe that what Jonathan and others complain about really stands up. For example the claim that Britain was paying x billion pounds a year to the EU and this could be recovered and devoted to the National Health System if we no longer EU members. (For non-Brits I should explain that the NHS is now the national State Religion, and you cannot present yourself in an election campaign unless you promise to ringfence and devote extra billions to it, so this claim was bound to arise.) Then on the other side it was pointed out that the figure quoted as paid by Britain to the EU was just a one-way transfer, whereas the true net transfer was a figure of around half that. Then this was admitted, but it was riposted that one part of what was given back (the ‘Thatcher’ rebate) was precarious and constantly called into question , and that the rest of it was for projects decided by the EU, that is it was money that came back to us but we had no choice about how to spend it. And so on, there was free debate. You cannot have judges then investigating about whether everybody heard everything that everybody said. Oh and then there is the fact that the difference between x billion and half of x billion is quite meaningless to the average voter, and so whether it is one or the other doesn't matter anyway

And disinformation from the Remain side was just as common. Have you forgotten Project Fear? Was the figure that every family would lose £4,400 put around by Chancellor Osborne and objective fact or not? Or one allegation I found particularly objectionable that was put around by the Remain side – even an organ as respected as The Economist said it at least twice, was (playing into the abovementioned reverence for the NHS) the alarming allegation that we would no longer be able to recruit Doctors and nurses from Europe after Brexit. This is of course not true, and was deliberately ignoring what had been explicitly explained any number of times by the Brexit campaign.

A second referendum is not on, and not justified anyway. Later after negotiations and agreement, if the form of Brexit and the agreement with the EU turns out to be sufficiently different from what people thought they were voting for there could be a moral justification for one, and certainly there would be a clamour. In fact when an agreement happens I am sure there will be someone who calls it a betrayal. But then as the choice will be between that and nothing, I can't see even two years down the line a second referendum being practical politics.

• This then helped Obama paint over his Red Line.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I for one definitely don't want a rerun of the previous referendum, but the possible interpretations of "Leave" are so broad that the electorate needs to have a further say, for example on whether we stay in the European Economic Area (which implies continuing fees and requirements for freedom of movement), and whether we even have a right to continue with Brexit at all given the positions of Scotland and Northern Ireland and the effect which it would have on the union. That further say might for example be a general election.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Boris Johnson has now been appointed as foreign secretary! We don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think most of the world is going for the "laugh" option.