Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The ERG are currently in negotiations with Nigel Farage in order to secure an electoral pact. If it succeeds, it will be difficult for the remain contingent to overcome electorally because the liberals and New Labourites of the bourgeoisie detest Corbyn almost as much as they detest the idea of the United Kingdom exiting the European Union.

A fair analysis i'd say. Though the Conservatives would have to get rid of Cummings and potentially thus Boris for any pact to be made as he would block it according to an ERG source:

“To get Brexit, we will have to defeat Jeremy Corbyn’s Remainer Labour Party. The Brexit Party stands by far the best chance of beating Labour in many seats nationwide.“Together we would be unstoppable, rout the Remainers and deliver a large Brexit majority in Parliament. If Boris seizes this opportunity, he can be a hero.”
However, its likely Mr Cummings would block any deal with the Brexit Party, with one Tory source adding: “Cummings is the obstacle to a deal between Boris and Nigel.
“Boris and Nigel did speak during the referendum campaign and got on, but Cummings doesn’t like Nigel. There’s an intellectual snobbery there.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...-over-possible

EDIT: My bad, thought i'd hit the edit button...

[mongrel]

' Not been in SW1 today, but a few snippets - concerns about direction of PM growing, fears among his allies he's ignoring any advice other than from Cummings da Costa - source says Johnson is meeting with those 2 at Chevening tomorrow, no ministers going'


Sounds like a setting for a Hitler Downfall parody video.

[Cope]

For the executive to not pass into legislation the current legislation is in breech of law. It is dictatorial and and an absolute disgrace that its even being considered. The Judiciary ARE implicated by IDS's rhetoric- that if Boris is sent to prison (very likely in the case of breaking the law like this) that it makes him a 'brexit martyr'- no it damn well does not. It makes him a criminal and attempted dictator. The 'martyr' implies the courts are against him to martyr him. Its absolutely ridiculous.

I am all for the legislative solution you suggest, if Boris does that great, but breaking the law is a hell no as it destroys absolutely UK democracy, checks and balances and the basis of sovereignty and not only does it not replace it with a alternate democratic system like PR, but merely leads to an overbearing and overpowered executive with no real checks.

Democracy has already been debased to the point of irrelevance by a parliament which, after over three years has refused to honour the result of a referendum, the pledges it has made and the legislation it has passed on the most significant constitutional question in living memory. If the PM refuses to adhere to this ridiculous obstructionist and subversive legislation, then the courts will punish him and the overbearing executive you're so afraid of will have been rebuffed and disarmed by the very checks which you falsely claim will have been "absolutely" destroyed.

And its here that also the first point you made is open to discussion. The referendum was advisory, we all know that but then the big two (but not lib-dems or SNP, so i assume you are excluding them from this) stood on a 'respect brexit' platform in their 2017 manifestos- issue 1) Manifestos are not legally binding- which is dumb, but again is the Westminster system. My MP David Liddington stood on a platform of saying no to HS2 which would have caused turmoil in Alyesbury... once in (this was 2015 and 2017) he toed the government line, became a minister and then ignored totally his commitments.

Authority flows from a combination of legitimacy and force, not legalism. The latter outlines the rules; it is not the source of the authority upon which the rules are constructed. If parliament chooses to debase its own democratic legitimacy by denying the outcome of referenda, pissing over its own pledges and refusing to acquire to an election out of fear then all it is left with is force. The referendum being "advisory" is an irrelevance since parliament could always have negated any legal requirement obliging it to honour the outcome via new legislation - just as it has now done with respect to the Withdrawal Act.

2) MP's are not constitutional servants, its why they can vote according to their own conscious and indeed can be whipped by parties. The Public recourse is in 2022 to ditch them for someone else if they desire (who equally will toe likely simply toe the party lines- this is where earlier we were talking about the Westminster system- you said people, i'd argue entire system is flawed compared to PR which is essentially what you are advocating here that would see brexit carried out).

This has nothing to do with PR. The referendum operated on the basis of proportionally representing the views of the nation and parliament has chosen to ignore it, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of votes went to parties which had pledged to honour the result.

In that context, what your arguing is a perspective sure, and one that i mostly agree with- but the answer is that they haven't actually debased their own legitimacy at all by opposing the referendums outcome- again lib-dems, SNP and those representing remain constituencies can legitimately do as they please- and will suffer probably 0 consequences as their constituents voted remain.

You're wrong. They can legally do as they please; that doesn't mean they do it with legitimacy. Since an overwhelming majority of constituencies across the whole United Kingdom voted to leave (as well as a majority of voters in both a referendum and a general election) parliament cannot retreat to excuses relating to local representation either. I'm sorry Dante, but by every reasonable measure of what constitutes "democracy" and proper representation, the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.

Those who are head leave constituencies (Or leave MP's heading remain constituencies) can act (as they are allowed) as they wish, but at their own risk at the next GE. This is the parliamentary system (and again the system i deem unfit for the modern age- but that's a broader point).

The problem is not the system; changing to PR or having a codified constitution will not solve the crisis of a self-righteous political establishment which prioritizes its own opinions above basic democratic principles.

Now sure i'm all for changing it, making it far more accountable (as currently it is not, and is designed not to be) but you do that properly, through reforms, the current idea of the Government simply seizing control is not ok on any level, and to potentially as it seems you might be saying, to argue that its fine because Parliament already shot itself in the foot and has no legitimacy is absolutely wrong.

Johnson potentially refusing to sign an extension agreement isn't the government "seizing" control; it's not as if he's got the Grenadier Guards marching up Whitehall. If he does refuse (which he won't) parliament has the power to call a vote of no confidence in his administration (which it won't because it's too cowardly too) and the courts have the authority to punish him - which they undoubtedly would.

Its not an either/or, its both are wrong- however Parliament is actually working as its intended (Hence my point way back about referendums being respected you NEED to change the Westminster system first, because yes they can legitimately ignore brexit if they choose- the only public way of expressing outrage is through a GE, and a GE with FPTP is designed to muddy the waters and benefit 'established parties'- hence the Brexit parties major issues in turning high vote share into actual seats). The Government on the other hand are outright in the wrong to even think of pursuing that course as it smashes apart any semblance of democracy that the Westminster system has, and replaces it now with a better version, but with an essential dictatorship.

Changing Westminster solves nothing. As proven by the repetitive debasement of democracy by a European establishment which has persistently ignored the outcome of referenda for well over a decade, any sovereign legislative body can do as it pleases irrespective of its constitution.

In terms of your proposed pathway, an easier one is for Boris to pass the bill for royal assent (none of this talk of the Government destroying the UK's democratic basis), and then turn to Labour and say 'done, now vote for a GE'- their whole reason to avoid one disappears.

As shown, parliament has destroyed its own democratic basis.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

' Not been in SW1 today, but a few snippets - concerns about direction of PM growing, fears among his allies he's ignoring any advice other than from Cummings da Costa - source says Johnson is meeting with those 2 at Chevening tomorrow, no ministers going'


Sounds like a setting for a Hitler Downfall parody video.

Like this? ^^



The funny thing is, now UK is really ruled by third-class advisers.

Something Brexiteer Fanatics already accused May before.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...adolf-13720227

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Democracy has already been debased to the point of irrelevance by a parliament which, after over three years has refused to honour the result of a referendum, the pledges it has made and the legislation it has passed on the most significant constitutional question in living memory. If the PM refuses to adhere to this ridiculous obstructionist and subversive legislation, then the courts will punish him and the overbearing executive you're so afraid of will have been rebuffed and disarmed by the very checks which you falsely claim will have been "absolutely" destroyed.

You miss my point, by the courts doing that, the brexiteers like IDS are already crafting a narrative of a broad 'establishment' vs the leave vote, which includes said courts. That the Government even consider doing this is a disgrace and a threat to the Westminster system in the terms of the rhetoric they are using. 'Debased to the point of irrelevance' again is entirely your own interpretation as i said the system is not irrelevant, you will i'm sure exercise your right to vote either in 2022 or more than likely before. What every constitutional expert under the sun though has analysed is that the Brexit referendum created a competing mandate (that was used differently by different parties) to that which FPTP creates. It does not make democracy irrelevant as parties and MP's choose which mandate they will adhere to.

This is the key point. There is not just 'brexit'- the referendum created both in itself competing mandates with their own legitimacy (I.e. LIb-dems and SNP interpretations) and with those that the Westminster system traditionally relies on (i.e. the mandate given by a constituency). This is the problem with your argument and interpretation- you are only presenting one source of mandate and legitimacy when it is not the case. Heck the public in 2017 highlighted the very fact that Brexit is not the be all and end all when May lost her majority attempting to run the campaign on brexit.

Authority flows from a combination of legitimacy and force, not legalism. The latter outlines the rules; it is not the source of the authority upon which the rules are constructed. If parliament chooses to debase its own democratic legitimacy by denying the outcome of referenda, pissing over its own pledges and refusing to acquire to an election out of fear then all it is left with is force. The referendum being "advisory" is an irrelevance since parliament could always have negated any legal requirement obliging it to honour the outcome via new legislation - just as it has now done with respect to the Withdrawal Act.

Again though 2017 highlighted that legitimacy (Though good point, well made regarding legalisms role- however legitimacy in itself to muddy the waters has several interpretations both theoretical in basis of the 'people' and then in practical in terms of how actually you do not need a majority of people to behind you in a democracy or otherwise to be legitimate and sustainable as a government) is not tied simply to brexit, what's more the brexit result in itself as i've argued countless times had no 'sustainability' exactly because its legitimacy was not then founded in a practical way. The result was close enough that as we've seen consistently since then, it polarized. You literally currently have hardcore remainers and hardcore brexiteers cheering their factions in Government and Parliament as they together shred the UK's political structure, thus in real terms, say Boris worst case- is locked up on Monday, and then the remainers seize control fully- is the Government and Parliament illegitimate? Not in the slightest it still has a mandate from almost an equal number of 'remainers' and any GE will have issues beyond brexit tackled (again 2017).

The problem is not the system; changing to PR or having a codified constitution will not solve the crisis of a self-righteous political establishment which prioritizes its own opinions above basic democratic principles.

It absolutely will though simply because smaller or new parties like the Brexit party will be far better represented in terms of vote share turning into seats. The problem of competiting mandates would be greatly alleviated by the fact that PR allows 'one-issue' parties to rise and fall as necessary in a way that can directly effect the legislature and make-up of the executive. Unlike currently when UKIP and the Brexit party have only been able to loosely 'influence' policy. PR beyond breaking the 'big two's stranglehold also forces coalition and compromise, this would also be far easier than current given that their would also be for instance the brexit party potentially represented in serious numbers (Unlike currently where they can poll around 22% of vote share and potentially still get absolutely no seats- in fact its likely) A codified constitution with defined checks and balances would have eliminated the ability for the opposition to create an actual 'shadow government', it would also have prevented the Government from sneaking passed legislation and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny through the weighting of committees, Henry VIII powers and the addition to secondary legislation of primary.

PR thus would allow the referendum result to be enforced by voters (If that is what they choose) at any GE as it also allows the undermining of broad church politics (which distract from specific issues)- no longer are people stuck tactical voting for who they least like or are 'safe seats' actually thus. It means unlike currently their would be actual threat to those potentially who choose not to respect the result.

Johnson potentially refusing to sign an extension agreement isn't the government "seizing" control; it's not as if he's got the Grenadier Guards marching up Whitehall. If he does refuse (which he won't) parliament has the power to call a vote of no confidence in his administration (which it won't because it's too cowardly too) and the courts have the authority to punish him - which they undoubtedly would.

It is an attempt to seize control, its not something that should even be on the table in a democratic society. He doesn't need overt use of force either, The transition from democracy to flawed, or dictatorship can be bloodless and based around appeals to populism, and those populists do not have to be a majority (In fact typically they are not)- which is where IDS's comment about the law courts come in and brexit 'martyrs'.

Changing Westminster solves nothing. As proven by the repetitive debasement of democracy by a European establishment which has persistently ignored the outcome of referenda for well over a decade, any sovereign legislative body can do as it pleases irrespective of its constitution.

Though i would point out that its significantly harder to do so, particularly as the courts are far more involved in the safeguarding of a written constitution than a codified one such as the UK.

As shown, parliament has destroyed its own democratic basis.

Again i disagree. Britain's political system for some time has suffered from a lack of trust and yet has functioned without a loss of legitimacy (Until arguably 2010- but that's a broader argument were i would say the impact of the Financial Crash of 2008 as well as the rise of social media have made FPTP structures unfit for modern politics in terms of the public's interaction with power), but the brexit vote has by no means done that specifically or is the 'breaking point' (at least not yet), firstly because the referendum result as mentioned gave several mandates of its own that competed or complimented the existing ones that MP's relied upon for legitimacy- again Lib-dems and SNP did not stand to respect the referendums result, they are open in their opposition- their legitimacy derives from opposing it. Labour MP's in remain constituencies the same goes for them. MP's could also back brexit- but the nature of leaving the EU has splintered mandates too. We've seen polls currently from the public that they would overall prefer a deal than leaving with no deal- so that means May's deal is back on the table, or a re-heated version. Thus MP's as we've seen from the Tory side recently and with Kinnock on Labour can pursue that (and have public support in doing so). Likewise MP's who want/ do not want brexit but whose constituencies voted the other way need to be careful, but can again do as they please because we are not a direct democracy- this is seen in the fact that MP's who are going against the wishes of their constituents (like Liddington over HS2 did) may not even have their mandate and legitimacy taken away by their constituents as GE's have multiple competing interests.

Which is the second point, we're not remaining yet. Parliament has not at all legislated to remain, what they have done is taken note a significant portion of the public, indeed the majority from last weeks polling want to leave with a deal. Now of course i'm a cynic as are others and their no doubt are interests at play to try and remain overall or not, or indeed to leave on no-deal to implement a government programme that completely lacks legitimacy (Global Britain) as it compounds most of the other related issues that leave voters were concerned about. Brexit is high-jacked at both ends. So i would say its your interpretation that Parliament has disabused its democratic basis, its a fair one too, but my point is it is far more complicated than your current presentation suggests, nor i think you'll find is Parliament gone.

Also again to further complicate matters if i remember my political philosophy right, there is an argument to be had that legitimacy is not merely a populist interpretation of majority public support in a democracy as that leads to 'mob majority rule' and almost always ends up with a dictatorial structure for the executive. Bear in mind the UK's structure is based as Stanley Baldwin stated on 'Making democracy safe for the world'- whether you agree with him or not (i personally do not, but that is because i do not agree with the Westminster system) legitimacy in the UK is more than simply carrying out a majority wanted issue (and again my previous argument applies that the brexit mandates gave legitimacy to several perspectives on brexit for both remain and leave, and also competed with traditional sources of legitimacy for MP's from their constituents wishes- which are not based on singular issues either).

I'd ask a question that perhaps can either tie our points together or refine positions- but say Parliament has lost democratic legitimacy due to brexit- are you arguing their would be consequences to this in any real way? Or that the Westminster system simply chuggs on (as it did after the Iraq war) with people voting despite their distrust in a system designed to operate with fewer people voting and is heavily weighted to a two-party structure that is resilient though not impervious to external change?

If there are no 'actual' consequences (less people voting is also not an issue for FPTP), then surely we are open to the British Westminster system, Parliament and Government having lost legitimacy at various other points in history? I can't see what it would be, because again- as 2017 showed, and bearing in mind the competing mandates for politicians there simply isn't enough people who care about brexit (or remain) to actually have a significant impact in terms of radical change. Particularly if we look at the fundamental nature of what constitutes legitimacy in the British system- i.e. Governments never receive a 'majority' mandate of the vote-share, what simply happens is that through legal structures and arguably indeed the threat of force, the losing party is chucked and the winning party takes its place. The issue here with referendums is you do not have that finality at all (especially because the legal force is not there)- See Scotland which was legally binding, that's not back on the table as people have changed their mind and the SNP never stopped. This is what i see for Brexit going forward, that it is an issue in UK politics that has no 'end' in the short or mid-term, particularly as it reaches across party divides allowing Lib-dems, Labour and Tories to all get to voters they otherwise would never reach. What is to stop say at 2024 (If a GE is held this year) Labour or the lib-dems getting in and subsequently doing a Norway? And then the Tories or a brexit party coming in and scrapping it? Absolutely nothing providing their are hardcore groups interested in that who even while small, may tip a GE result.

Would these parties doing this potentially in the near future also undermine Parliament or the Governments legitimacy? I would argue of course not- they've received a further and fresher democratic mandate from being elected into a majority government/coalition. This again is the issue of brexit and specifically a so-called 'no deal' brexit, there have been 0 attempts to forge sustainable legitimacy (though i called it support at the time, but given this argument its essentially equally valid). Thus especially after 2017 when the Tories lost their majority, legitimacy became a complicated concept in regard to brexit (particularly again due to FPTP, PR would allow it to be clearer)

[Cope]

You miss my point, by the courts doing that, the brexiteers like IDS are already crafting a narrative of a broad 'establishment' vs the leave vote, which includes said courts. That the Government even consider doing this is a disgrace and a threat to the Westminster system in the terms of the rhetoric they are using. 'Debased to the point of irrelevance' again is entirely your own interpretation as i said the system is not irrelevant, you will i'm sure exercise your right to vote either in 2022 or more than likely before. What every constitutional expert under the sun though has analysed is that the Brexit referendum created a competing mandate (that was used differently by different parties) to that which FPTP creates. It does not make democracy irrelevant as parties and MP's choose which mandate they will adhere to.

This is the key point. There is not just 'brexit'- the referendum created both in itself competing mandates with their own legitimacy (I.e. LIb-dems and SNP interpretations) and with those that the Westminster system traditionally relies on (i.e. the mandate given by a constituency). This is the problem with your argument and interpretation- you are only presenting one source of mandate and legitimacy when it is not the case. Heck the public in 2017 highlighted the very fact that Brexit is not the be all and end all when May lost her majority attempting to run the campaign on brexit.

The referendum did not create "competing mandates"; every conceivable mandate needed for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has been acquired. Cameron received a constitutionally proper mandate via an election pledge to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union in 2015. The following year, following very little resistance in parliament, the referendum occurred in a free and fair fashion, with virtually all politicians (with the exception of the SNP) pledging to honour the result. Leave won by a close but clear margin of the popular vote; it also dominated the national constituency result. Parliament subsequently signed the Withdrawal Act into Law with an overwhelming majority. Thereafter, both of the major parties explicitly reissued their commitment to the result of that referendum in their manifestos in the 2017 general. Yet here we are, over three years later and neither the clear instruction provided by the referendum nor the litany of promises made by the most senior of figures on all sides of the Commons has been met.

What the arch-remain contingent are doing is using differences in the specifics to justify obstructing the entire vote. The Thornberry QT disaster highlights it perfectly: here you have a Shadow Cabinet Minister arguing, in clear contradiction to the manifesto pledges of her own party (and logic itself) that she plans to negotiate an exit deal with the European Union only to vote it down in a new referendum. It's nothing more than sophistic drivel.

Again though 2017 highlighted that legitimacy is not tied simply to brexit, what's more the brexit result in itself as i've argued countless times had no 'sustainability' exactly because its legitimacy was not then founded in a practical way. The result was close enough that as we've seen consistently since then, it polarized. You literally currently have hardcore remainers and hardcore brexiteers cheering their factions in Government and Parliament as they together shred the UK's political structure, thus in real terms, say Boris worst case- is locked up on Monday, and then the remainers seize control fully- is the Government and Parliament illegitimate? Not in the slightest it still has a mandate from almost an equal number of 'remainers' and any GE will have issues beyond brexit tackled (again 2017).

No one is arguing that parliament's legitimacy is entirely contingent upon the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Simply saying that the referendum vote was "close" isn't an argument. Virtually all democratic exercises are close. I couldn't care less if parliamentarians who would prefer for us to remain in the European Union don't like it; they are duty bound to honour the principles of democracy above themselves, just as they are duty bound to honour the results of general elections without trying to pass legislation to delay or overturn them.

It absolutely will though simply because smaller or new parties like the Brexit party will be far better represented in terms of vote share turning into seats.

No, it won't.

It is an attempt to seize control

No, it isn't. Refusing to comply with the law won't give the PM a Parliamentary majority, it won't give him a general election, it won't enable him to override the legislation and it won't give him the authority to take the United Kingdom out of the European without an agreement on Oct. 31st.

its not something that should even be on the table in a democratic society.

Neither is brazenly ignoring democratic votes. Parliament can't choose to play this game and then whine about what should or shouldn't be "on the table in a democratic society".

He doesn't need overt use of force either, The transition from democracy to flawed, or dictatorship can be bloodless and based around appeals to populism, and those populists do not have to be a majority (In fact typically they are not)- which is where IDS's comment about the law courts come in and brexit 'martyrs'.

No Dante. The PM is not above the law even if he refuses to comply with it. What's he going to do, be Prime Minster from a prison cell? I think not. If the electorate choose to see his potential refusal to sign an extension agreement as an act of defiance worthy of voting for then so be it: they're entitled to form whatever opinions they choose. Deploying the language of "populism" to dismiss the views of others is, however, little more than a regurgitation of the toxic vernacular of an establishment in denial.

Though i would point out that its significantly harder to do so, particularly as the courts are far more involved in the safeguarding of a written constitution than a codified one such as the UK.

Yielding to the technicalities of legalism no more ensures or encourages the prevalence of the democratic spirit than does having a parliament predicated on constitution of conventions. Any system which is dominated by solipsists and sophists will fail democracy.

Again i disagree. Britain's political system for some time has suffered from a lack of trust and yet has functioned (Until arguably 2010- but that's a broader argument were i would say the impact of the Financial Crash of 2008 as well as the rise of social media have made FPTP structures unfit for modern politics in terms of the public's interaction with power), but the brexit vote has by no means done that specifically or is the 'breaking point' (at least not yet), firstly because the referendum result as mentioned gave several mandates of its own that competed or complimented the existing ones that MP's relied upon for legitimacy- again Lib-dems and SNP did not stand to respect the referendums result, they are open in their opposition- their legitimacy derives from opposing it. Labour MP's in remain constituencies the same goes for them. MP's could also back brexit- but the nature of leaving the EU has splintered mandates too. We've seen polls currently from the public that they would overall prefer a deal than leaving with no deal- so that means May's deal is back on the table, or a re-heated version. Thus MP's as we've seen from the Tory side recently and with Kinnock on Labour can pursue that (and have public support in doing so). Likewise MP's who want/ do not want brexit but whose constituencies voted the other way need to be careful, but can again do as they please because we are not a direct democracy- this is seen in the fact that MP's who are going against the wishes of their constituents (like Liddington over HS2 did) may not even have their mandate and legitimacy taken away by their constituents as GE's have multiple competing interests.

As shown, a majority of constituencies voted to leave in both 2016 and 2017 as did a majority of overall electors. The fact that the Labour Party is now openly opposing its own manifesto and demanding a second referendum merely exposes the extent of their deceit. More laughably, even the current position they purport to hold - as evidenced by Thornberry's lunacy - is itself almost certainly a lie. There is no way on God's green earth that the Labour party would ever risk holding a 2nd referendum, especially if they were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. And even, if by some bizarre twist of chance, such a referendum were held at the behest of the Labour Party, their parliamentary wing would simply ignore the outcome again if it went against them.

But what outrages you is not this. It isn't that the Labour Party has been brazenly lying (and continues to brazenly lie) about its position on the most important constitutional question in over a hundred years. Nor is it that parliament is has deliberately obstructed the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union for over three years. It isn't even that the electorate is being held in abject contempt by a political class which won't even sanction a general election. No, what outrages you is that the PM might (but probably won't) take a stand against a piece of democratic vandalism dressed up in legislative clothing - an action for which he will be punished.

Which is the second point, we're not remaining yet. Parliament has not at all legislated to remain, what they have done is taken note a significant portion of the public, indeed the majority from last weeks polling want to leave with a deal. Now of course i'm a cynic as are others and their no doubt are interests at play to try and remain overall or not, or indeed to leave on no-deal to implement a government programme that completely lacks legitimacy (Global Britain) as it compounds most of the other related issues that leave voters were concerned about. Brexit is high-jacked at both ends. So i would say its your interpretation that Parliament has disabused its democratic basis, its a fair one too, but my point is it is far more complicated than your current presentation suggests, nor i think you'll find is Parliament gone.

Parliament has effectively legislated to remain until a general election which it won't support occurs, whereafter, if it is dominated by the same personalities, it will continue to obstruct the United Kingdom leaving the European Union as it has done for the past three years.

Also again to further complicate matters if i remember my political philosophy right, there is an argument to be had that legitimacy is not merely a populist interpretation of majority public support in a democracy as that leads to 'mob majority rule' and almost always ends up with a dictatorial structure for the executive.

A mandate for leaving the European Union has been acquired both by popular and representative consent. Whining about "mob rule" is nothing more than an attempt to justify ignoring democracy when it suits - which of course, the Europhiles of the liberal left have a habit of doing.

Bear in mind the UK's structure is based as Stanley Baldwin stated on 'Making democracy safe for the world'- whether you agree with him or not (i personally do not, but that is because i do not agree with the Westminster system) legitimacy in the UK is more than simply carrying out a majority wanted issue (and again my previous argument applies that the brexit mandates gave legitimacy to several perspectives on brexit for both remain and leave, and also competed with traditional sources of legitimacy for MP's from their constituents wishes- which are not based on singular issues either).

There exists zero parliamentary mandate for any sort of "remain" outside of those parties which explicitly opposed it during the 2017 election.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

With regard to the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the European Union (not the nature of the exit) the referendum did not create "competing mandates"; every conceivable mandate needed for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has been acquired. Cameron received a constitutionally proper mandate via an election pledge to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union in 2015. The following year, following very little resistance in parliament, the referendum occurred in a free and fair fashion, with virtually all politicians (with the exception of the SNP) pledging to honour the result. Leave won by a close but clear margin of the popular vote; it also dominated the national constituency result. Parliament subsequently signed the Withdrawal Act into Law with an overwhelming majority. Thereafter, both of the major parties explicitly reissued their commitment to the result of that referendum in their manifestos in the 2017 general. Yet here we are, over three years later and neither the clear instruction provided by the referendum nor the litany of promises made by the most senior of figures on all sides of the Commons has been met.

Ok firstly some background to Legitimacy in the Westminster system, there are tons of academic articles on this (Going back to the nightmares of my first dissertation indeed), but here's a simple run down:

This article has demonstrated that the disparate reforms inflicted upon the constitution bysuccessive governments have divided authority between multiple sites and created manydiscretionary spaces in which competing claims to legitimacy can be advanced. Thus, whilstthe crisis wrought by Brexit may appear sudden, it should instead be regarded as theculmination of decades of constitutional drift. The ratcheting of the devolution settlement,the half-reform of the Lords, the establishment of a separate Supreme Court, the extensionof direct democracy, the entrenchment of parliamentary terms. Taken together thesereforms are suggestive of a constitutional revolution. Yet the unplanned, unprincipled andoften instrumental nature of these reforms has instead resulted in a creeping crisis that fewpoliticians sought to forestall. Indeed, rather than averting this crisis, successive politicalleaders have actively engaged in constitutional brinkmanship for short-term political gain.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/12021...R2%20FINAL.pdf

Secondly: https://fedtrust.co.uk/the-2017-gene...te-for-brexit/ -Directly in terms of the issues of any brexit mandate from the referendum itself as it 'hit' the Westminster system, as well as issues regarding the 2017 election- surprisingly by a Prof i worked with at KCL- he's not particularly for remain or leave, but just loves the political drama.

This is also useful in partly informing my argument regrading mandates, legitimacy and the Westminster system (I can't provide my articles due to the KCL pay-wall, but this article is free and carries some of the broader themes in its micro-analysis:
https://consoc.org.uk/wp-content/upl...6.14_WEB-1.pdf

You are misreading what i'm saying. It did create competing mandates because internally and externally because brexit firstly not the only thing on the political agenda- for instance as we saw in 2017 that domestic social care policy (mishandling of) plus Labour's focus on the economy actually destroyed the Conservatives majority. This external context alone leads to brexit having issues of delivery because it can be shunted to the background as and when is politically expedient at the only time the public get a say in things. Secondly the brexit mandate in itself is not sustainable as i commented in the last part of the previous post, Brexit is currently not fixed policy because it lacks a sustainable mandate- there is nothing to stop after the 31st and we've left, a Labour or coalition government reversing it, rejoining or indeed going May's deal. Nothing. Their mandate would have been winning a majority/ coalition. When the next GE comes along, Labour may indeed put in their manifesto they want a second ref as Corbyn has indicated on and off, they may not. But it highlights that yes, brexit has several competing mandates. Internally there is too, because the question of 'how' we leave has been directly linked by all sides with simply leaving as the above source indeed argued.

No one is arguing that parliament's legitimacy is entirely contingent upon the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Simply saying that the referendum vote was "close" isn't an argument. Virtually all democratic exercises are close. I couldn't care less if parliamentarians who would prefer for us to remain in the European Union don't like it; they are duty bound to honour the principles of democracy above themselves, just as they are duty bound to honour the results of general elections without trying to pass legislation to delay or overturn them.

Except they are not duty bound for the referendum. Parliamentary votes at a GE are legally enforced (which incidentally damn right i'm more affronted by Boris's drivel of putting him attempting to break the law). The Brexit referendum had 0 such structure or legally backing- this again was an issue i pointed out years ago and this is where the Westminster system aids and abets this. The only way to ensure MP's carry out the brexit referendum for the public is to vote that way in a GE... however FPTP and the Westminster system actively are designed to prevent single party issues being to dominant, and it shields establishment parties in a huge way as i've explained. Thus the public lost control and any say over the referendum result the minute their ballot was cast. This is fact, we can whine about how they should do leave it this way, or remain in this way, but there is very little the public now can do to enforce its views, and this is exactly what the 'Stability state' of the UK is meant to do, keep public engagement in the democratic process limited. So maybe they will ignore the result, or deliver it in a different way than sections of the public want, but this isn't the collapse of Westminster political legitimacy, this is the system working as designed. You can attempt of course to 'hold MP's to account' at the ballot box...but an account on what? There are multiple competing issues that will drown out your vote, and voting for another party like the brexit party is heavily weighted against in FPTP. Thus you can't because of the Westminster system's FPTP. To have a 'democratically' representative brexit and ensure the vote was carried through with how people felt, the system should have been changed before- but of course hardly anyone in the UK wanted that.

No, it won't.

You'll have to explain here. If we had PR, you could hold parliament far better to account because FPTP will no longer protect the two established parties, the brexit party might even be able to win seats comparative to its vote share, if we had a written constitution neither side would be able to play the parliamentary games that have so broken Parliamentary democracy (letwin, Henry VIII, weighted committees and the misuse of secondary legislation). I'm not really seeing any benefits to FPTP, particularly not its 'stability' part- but then i haven't really seen that since 2010 way before brexit.

No, it isn't. Refusing to comply with the law won't give the PM a Parliamentary majority, it won't give him a general election, it won't enable him to override the legislation and it won't give him the authority to take the United Kingdom out of the European without an agreement on Oct. 31st.
Neither is brazenly ignoring democratic votes. Parliament can't choose to play this game and then whine about what should or shouldn't be "on the table in a democratic society".
No Dante. The PM is not above the law even if he refuses to comply with it. What's he going to do, be Prime Minster from a prison cell? I think not. If the electorate choose to see such potential behavior (refusing to sign an extension agreement) as an act of defiance worthy of voting for then so be it: they're entitled to form whatever opinions they choose. Deploying the language of "populism" to dismiss the views of others is little more than regurgitating the toxic vernacular of an establishment in denial.

As shown, a majority of constituencies voted to leave in both 2016 and 2017 as did a majority of overall electors. The fact that the Labour Party is now openly opposing its own manifesto and demanding a second referendum merely exposes the extent of their deceit. More laughably, even the current position they purport to hold - as evidenced by Thornberry's lunacy - is itself almost certainly a lie. There is no way on God's green earth that the Labour party would ever risk holding a 2nd referendum, especially if they were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. And even, if by some bizarre twist of chance, such a referendum were held at the behest of the Labour Party, their parliamentary wing would simply ignore the outcome again if it went against them.

But what outrages you is not this. It isn't that the Labour Party has been brazenly lying (and continues to brazenly lie) about its position on the most important constitutional question in over a hundred years. Nor is it that parliament is deliberately obstructing a general election out of fear of what the people will answer it with. No, what outrages you is that the PM might (but almost certainly won't) force the courts to order him to obey the law - which if he does not, he will be punished for.

Ok i think see where we differ- Letwin, Henry VIII laws, the Government weighting committees and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny and parliament playing silly buggers of its (letwin again being prominent) are all bad, i've complained literally about all of them at length during the course of this thread, they all have incredibly severe implications for the long term in how the Government and Parliament both effectively have extra tools to freeze each other out providing there is no clear majority or loss of majority. However as bad and undemocratic as this is, its also all legal. Its breaking the Westminster system down further after decades of rot and steady erosion of its checks and balances, but it is not illegal. Boris and IDS are actively advocating an illegal approach- so damn right am i far more furious at that, this is dictator territory, it especially should not be endorsed. Even if Boris is arrested it as i've highlighted twice now politicizes the arrest as IDS and his ilk are already attempting to spin it as a 'Brexit Marty' - its raw populism of the dangerous kind.

If your're upset at Labours lying (you have ever right to be as a voter), or Tory lying or anyone lying- that's what the ballot box is for, however good luck doing that with FPTP, we might very well end up simply with 2017 all over again given currently polling prior to the GE. Manifesto's (again ridiculously in my view) are not legally binding. Party discipline too is a matter for the parties themselves to enforce. Changing the people in said system, will do nothing a;as/ This is not just an issue that brexit created, its part of a long and steady process of technical democratic failure that the Westminster system had undergone.

Here's the political reality too regarding legitimacy and mandates:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ev...h-a-remain-mp/

Scrolling down here, the constituencies that voted leave- some overwhelming, others though for Labour particularly and Tories too are for brexit only in rather small vote shares like 54% or 55% or 48% (which is not a sterling or sustainable endorsement for remaining for instance- it works both ways)... this is exactly where competing mandates and legitimacy comes in in the Westminster system. Though people who voted leave,but have a Labour MP who is openly supporting remain- will they switch their votes at the next GE to the Tory Party?

Let's take a real example: Bootle: Its in the North East, it voted to leave by 54.8%, it is Labour held, however it is also a Labour stronghold, with the Labour MP there- despite openly being a 'remainer' winning 84% of the vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootle..._constituency)). The next biggest is the Tories....who won a mere 12%, Labour actually increased their hold on this constituency by 9.6% in 2017- so their vote share rose hugely- despite again their MP being openly Remain.

His mandate thus is to carry on being openly remain, the Brexit referendum has had 0 impact, his legitimacy is derived from his constituents who seem to support him (or Labour) in everything else. Here is the massive issue in what you are arguing and exactly what i mean by competing mandates. Parliament has lost none of its overall democratic legitimacy, because brexit is one vote among many, it seems too that in constituencies like this it also literally has 0 ability to influence voters or effect policy at a GE. The 2017 referendum provided the legitimacy and mandate for this MP to continue as they desire.

Parliament has effectively legislated to remain until a general election which it won't support occurs, whereafter, if it is dominated by the same personalities, it will continue to obstruct the United Kingdom leaving the European Union as it has done for the past three years.

It cannot though hold off a General Election indefinitely, and a general election dominated by the same personalities again is again a competing mandate with the Brexit referendum (and arguably will override it, just as 2017 undermined it by the Tories losing seats based upon domestic policy taking precedence among voters), in fact a GE that returns the Parliament we have now highlights that in fact those 'blocking' brexit as you say have the public support of their constituents and those who voted for their party to carry on. Again this is the issue with adversarial politics as inspired by the Westminster system, it at that point is no longer obstructing, if despite the perceived lies, backtracking etc people still vote them in, in significant numbers too it means under the Westminster system that they are allowed to carry on as they are.

A mandate for leaving the European Union has been acquired both by popular and representative consent. Whining about "mob rule" is nothing more than an attempt to justify ignoring democracy when it suits - which of course, the Europhiles of the liberal left have a habit of doing.

Except i'm not talking about brexit, but about the different natures of legitimacy in political theory.

There exists zero parliamentary mandate for any sort of "remain" outside of those parties which explicitly opposed it during the 2017 election.

Under the Westminster system parties can create policy and implement it that is not in their manifestos or that ends up in far different form to their manifestos, or indeed ignore their manifesto's altogether (As May essentially did). Again this is a huge issue within the Westminster system and has been for decades. The brexit vote itself though gave the lib-dems a mandate to become the 'party of remain' by the supporting number it gave them. It likewise gave the SNP a mandate for remain in Scotland (and for Scottish independence off the back of that). If the lib-dems 'won' a GE somehow, or in coalition forced their partners to remain/hold a second referendum they can thus legitimately ignore the Brexit referendum itself. I think a large part of the disagreement we're having is that you are viewing the theoretical application of legitimacy and a conception of democracy that i would argue has not really in practice ever applied to the UK's 'stability state' system. At the same time though you i suspect are a fan of the Westminster system that is far more undemocratic than a PR model with a written constitution, and indeed that is almost wholly responsible for the current mess. A wider point if i may is that your defense of the Westminster system relies on 'better people' being in Parliament and Government, i would applaud that, but also point out that if a system is reliant on those participating always being 'good people', your into the Diocletian failure territory and its a system that is unfit for purpose. A political system that works needs to be robust so that when terrible, manipulative and exploitative politicians get in (in whosoever view) they are limited in the damage they can do, and their held to account readily and easily by the electorate. The Westminster system is designed to actively prevent their being real limits or ability to hold MP's to account from the public's point of view. The fact that we need better people for Parliament to in your view work properly highlights just how terrible the system actually is.

EDIT: I apologize for the severe overuse of the term 'Westminster System', it was late, there was Scotch and i was feeling severely un-creative apparently...

EDIT: Away from disagreements on legitimacy, mandates and the Westminster system this has happened:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...1jXKRKVQBxIBD8

Amber Rudd has quit the Government and the Tory party. Which i think comes as a surprise to no-one.

[caratacus]

EDIT: Away from disagreements on legitimacy, mandates and the Westminster system this has happened:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...1jXKRKVQBxIBD8

Amber Rudd has quit the Government and the Tory party. Which i think comes as a surprise to no-one.

Indeed, the surprise was that this Remainer accepted a ministerial position within Johnson's cabinet to begin with. Perhaps doing so to be able to resign like this and put the boot in?

Nor is it a surprise to some of us, that Theresa May has stepped forward to attempt a reinstatement of the 21 rebel MPs with Remain sympathies. The same MPs who had supposedly given her problems in implementing Brexit and resulted in her resignation. Oh the nobility of the lady!

Theresa May leads fight to reinstate Remainer rebels as she emerges as the leading critic of Boris Johnson's 'brutal' decision to purge 21 Tories.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-rebels.html

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Indeed, the surprise was that this Remainer accepted a ministerial position within Johnson's cabinet to begin with. Perhaps doing so to be able to resign like this and put the boot in?

Nor is it a surprise to some of us, that Theresa May has stepped forward to attempt a reinstatement of the 21 rebel MPs with Remain sympathies. The same MPs who had supposedly given her problems in implementing Brexit and resulted in her resignation. Oh the nobility of the lady!

That is something i couldn't fathom, given that she was essentially tipped as May's protege its been very odd that she sat around so long, or that she chose now to resign. Its not even if such a move would do her faction or her political career much good considering the real battle was between Boris and the 21.

Interesting stuff about May, not a surprise indeed, what's interesting too overall from the article is that Penny Mordaunt is also calling for their re-reinstatement on the proviso they toe the line from now on essentially. I'm not sure if its enough of an opening (or if any of the 21 would come back under Boris), but there is the distant potential for Boris to claw back something resembling a functioning government, who may at least once more under the Tory banner may vote for a GE (Big 'what if' and maybe though), its essentially all that he needs at this stage- though i'm not sure of the break-down on that vote even with them included off the top of my head, i suspect it might still be in the Opposition parties favour.

[Cope]

Ok firstly some background to Legitimacy in the Westminster system, there are tons of academic articles on this (Going back to the nightmares of my first dissertation indeed), but here's a simple run down

I like how the article doesn't mention the subjugation of the United Kingdom to the European Union as part of "the disparate reforms inflicted upon the constitution by successive governments" over "decades of constitutional drift".

Notwithstanding, the devolutionary settlements, the "half-reform" of the Lords, the establishment of a Supreme Court and the signing of the Lisbon Treaty are all the product of toxic Blairite scheming. As I said, it's not about the system, it's about the people in it.

You are misreading what i'm saying. It did create competing mandates because internally and externally because brexit firstly not the only thing on the political agenda- for instance as we saw in 2017 domestic social care policy (mishandling of) plus Labour's focus on the economy actually destroyed the Conservatives majority. This external context alone leads to brexit having issues of delivery because it can be shunted to the background as and when is politically expedient at the only time the public get a say. Secondly the brexit mandate in itself is literally not sustainable as i commented in the last part of the previous post, Brexit is currently not fixed policy because it lacks a sustainable mandate- there is nothing to stop after the 31st and we've left, a Labour or coalition government reversing it, rejoining or indeed going May's deal. Nothing. Their mandate would have been winning a majority/ coalition. When the next GE comes along, Labour may indeed put in their manifesto they want a second ref as Corbyn has indicated on and off, they may not. But it highlights that yes, brexit has several competing mandates. Internally there is to, because the question of 'how' we leave has been directly linked by all sides with simply leaving.

Competing party manifestos, not the referendum, created competing mandates. Even so, overwhelmingly, the electorate voted for parties which agree with the basic premise that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.

Except they are not duty bound for the referendum.

Yes they are. They might not be legally bound (an irrelevance since parliament can override its own legislation) but they are morally bound to honour referenda which they engineered and which they pledged would be respected.

Parliamentary votes at a GE are legally enforced (which incidentally damn right i'm more affronted by Boris's drivel of putting him attempting to break the law).

And if parliament were to legislate an end to general elections, would you be affronted by those who resisted the law then?

The Brexit referendum has 0 such structure- this again was an issue i pointed out years ago and this is where the Westminster system aids and abets this. The only way to ensure MP's carry out the brexit referendum for the public is to vote that way in a GE... however FPTP and the Westminster system actively is designed to prevent single party issues being to dominant, and it shields establishment parties in a huge way as i've explained.

The referendum result was given legal structure by the passing of binding legislation to determine the nature of the manner in which the exit would be managed. Any ambiguities in the form of the referendum were overcome by this.

You'll have to explain here, otherwise its just rubbish. If we had PR, you could hold parliament far better to account because FPTP will not longer protect the two established parties, the brexit party might even be able to win seats comparative to its vote share, if we had a written constitution neither side would be able to play the parliamentary games that have so broken Parliamentary democracy (letwin, Henry VIII, weighted committees and the misuse of secondary legislation).

Proportional representation isn't some sort of magic potion; it comes with its own irritations and dangers. When the AfD start scoring 25+% in federal elections, I will remind you of what they are.

An open democratic society relies upon trust between the electors and the elected. If the political hierarchy is dominated by scheming solipsists who are wedded to their hubristic world-views then the wishes of the electorate will go to hell in a hand cart no matter what form of representation is used. You might be able to use a codified constitution to mitigate the damage is some circumstances, but codified constitutions can often also be used as a weapon to exacerbate injustices.

Ok i think see where we differ- Letwin, Henry VIII laws, the Government weighting committees and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny and parliament playing silly buggers of its (letwin again being prominent) are all bad, i've complained literally about all of them at length during the course of this thread, they all have incredibly severe implications for the long term in how the Government and Parliament both effectively have extra tools to freeze each other out providing their is no clear majority or loss of majority. However as bad and undemocratic as this is, its also all legal. Its breaking the Westminster system down further after decades of rot and steady erosion of its checks and balances, but it is not illegal. Boris and ID's are actively advocating an illegal approach- so damn right am i far more furious at that, this is dictator territory, it especially should not be endorsed. Even if Boris is arrested it as i've highlighted twice now politicizes the arrest as IDS and his ilk are already attempting to spin it as a 'Brexit Marty' - its raw populism of the dangerous kind.

If Boris Johnson is willing to risk prison to further the cause of independence he will have my vote. An act of passive resistance by the most senior politician in the country against a law which, coming as it does at the end of years of obstructionism, vandalizes the heart of British democracy, would be a welcome show of solidarity.

Not that this is relevant in real life because it will simply not happen. Maybe he'll refuse to comply for a while to score brownie points with Faragists, but then he'll acquiesce.

If your upset at Labours lying (you have ever right to be as a voter), or Tory lying or anyone lying- that's what the ballot box is for, however good luck doing that with FPTP, we might very well end up simply with 2017 all over again.

Because proportional representation somehow solves a split parliament? No, you'd still end up with about 50% Conservative/Brexit Party and 50% Lab/Lib/Green/SNP.

Manifesto's (again ridiculously in my view) are not legally binding.

You can't solve the problem with legalism Dante. Trying to make manifesto pledges binding by law would cause crippling inflexibility. Usually pledges are changed or abandon on account of changing circumstances or bad judgement rather than because of abject lying.

Party discipline too is a matter for partie'res. This is all part of the Westminster system you've defended. Changing the people in said system, will do nothing. This is not just an issue that brexit created, its part of a long and steady process of technical democratic failure that the Westminster system had undergone.

My general view is these problems are a result of a collapse in collective purpose and proper democratic scrutiny following the end of the Cold War. The utter contempt that the established liberal political class holds its electorates in is by no means limited to the United Kingdom.

Scrolling down here, the constituencies that voted leave- some overwhelming, others though for Labour particularly and Tories too are literally for brexit only votes like 54% or 55% or 48%... this is exactly where competing mandates and legitimacy comes in in the Westminster system. Though people who voted leave,but have a Labour MP who is openly supporting remain- will they switch their votes at the next GE to the Tory Party?

Let's take a real example: Bootle: Its in the North East, it voted to leave by 54.8%, it is Labour held, however it is also a Labour stronghold, with the Labour MP there- despite openly being a 'remainer' winning 84% of the vote

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootle..._constituency)). The next biggest is the Tories....who won a mere 12%, Labour actually increased their hold on this constituency by 9.6% in 2017- so their vote share rose hugely- despite again their MP being openly Remain.

His mandate thus is to carry on being openly remain, the Brexit referendum has had 0 impact, his legitimacy is derived from his constituents who seem to support him (or Labour) in everything else. Here is the massive issue in what you are arguing and exactly what i mean by competing mandates. Parliament has lost none of its overall democratic legitimacy, because brexit is one vote among many, it seems too that in constituencies like this it also literally has 0 ability to influence voters or effect policy at a GE. The 2017 referendum provided the legitimacy and mandate for this MP to continue as they desire.

One of the reasons that the Labour Party has been lying through its teeth about its position on the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union is precisely because it knows that if it were to take the Liberal Democrat stance, it would risk losing millions of votes in the north.

PS: Unless there's another one I've not heard of, Bootle is in Merseyside, not the north east.

It cannot though hold off a General Election indefinitely

Parliament can do what it wants.

and a general election dominated by the same personalities again is again a competing mandate with the Brexit referendum (and arguably will override it, just as 2017 undermined it by the Tories losing seats based upon domestic policy taking precedence among voters), in fact a GE that returns the Parliament we have now highlights that in fact those 'blocking' brexit as you say have the public support of their constituents and those who voted for their party to carry on.

Whether or not parliament will have the legitimacy to oppose the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union following a general election will be contingent upon the manifesto pledges made during the campaigning period.

Under the Westminster system parties can literally create policy and implement it that is not in their manifestos or that ends up in far different form to their manifestos, or indeed ignore their manifesto's altogether (As May essentially did). Again this is a huge issue within the Westminster system and has been for decades.

This happens in democratic countries across the world - it isn't a specific failure of Westminster.

The brexit vote itself though gave the lib-dems a mandate to become the 'party of remain' by the supporting number it gave them.

No. The Brexit vote did not give the Liberal Democrats a mandate to become the "party of remain". Their voters gave them a parliamentary mandate to oppose Britain's exit from the European Union on the basis of their 2017 manifesto.

It likewise gave the SNP a mandate for remain in Scotland (and for Scottish independence off the back of that).

Again, no. The SNP already had a popular mandate for remain prior to the referendum (which they opposed in the first place) because they've never supported the United Kingdom's exit.

If the lib-dems 'won' a GE somehow, or in colaition forced their partners to remain/hold a second referendum they can thus literally and legitimately ignore the Brexit referendum itself.

If they "won" a general election they wouldn't even need to have a 2d referendum; they'd simply ignore their own pledge to hold one and revoke the A50 process altogether. If they actually did follow through with a 2d referendum, they'd deliberately engineer it to prevent leave from winning (by splitting the leave vote among multiple options). If still they managed to lose it, they'd still just ignore that result as well.

I think a large part of the disagreement we're having is that you are viewing the theoretical application of legitimacy and a conception of democracy that i would argue has not really in practice ever applied to the UK's 'stability state' system.

No Dante, I just understand that legitimacy is an idea, nothing more. You can use legalism to support specific interpretations of what constitutes legitimate governance, but you can't ever properly pin it down it writing.

At the same time though you i suspect are a fan of the Westminster system that is far more undemocratic than a PR model with a written constitution, and indeed that is almost wholly responsible.

All of this is contextual. You can't just say "Westminster is far more undemocratic than a PR model with a written constitution" without specifying the nature of the constitution itself. If you're going to codify a document of contradictory gobbledygook which can only understood by legal professionals then you may as well not bother.
And since none of the major European states which do use PR and codified constitutions have evaded membership of the European Union, it's safe to say that any such document would not and will not protect the sovereignty of the British people.

A wider point if i may is that your defense of the Westminster system spins on 'better people' being in Parliament and Government, i would applaud that, but also point out that if a system is reliant on those participating always being 'good people', your into the Diocletian failures and its a system that is broken. A political system that works needs to be robust so that when terrible, manipulative and exploitative politicians get in (in whosoever view) they are limited in the damage they can do, and their held to account readily and easily. The Westminster system is designed to actively prevent their being real limits or ability to hold MP's to account from the public's point of view. The fact that we need better people for Parliament to in your view work properly highlights just how terrible the system actually is.

Actually no. When push comes to shove, the only real defence that a population has against government abuses is a good education and strong principles.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I like how the article doesn't mention the subjugation of the United Kingdom to the European Union as part of "the disparate reforms inflicted upon the constitution by successive governments" over "decades of constitutional drift".

Notwithstanding, the devolutionary settlements, the "half-reform" of the Lords, the establishment of a Supreme Court and the signing of the Lisbon Treaty are all the product of toxic Blairite scheming. As I said, it's not about the system, it's about the people in it.

In terms of the EU's impact its indeed a recognized feature of changing the UK's constitutional make-up- specifically with a shift (like the Supreme Court) to legalism as the UK's courts became guardians of upholding EU law.

In terms of Blairite interference sure, though again this is something i would argue we look back to the reforms of the 1920s and prior for (specifically the Free trade debates). However when its been damaged thus, its a system issue for A) Allowing it and B) The Blairites have lost their influence since 2010, both in Labour and of course with the Conservatives and yet no party was interested in repealing or fixing those reforms, we're now n 2019 and the same is still true, because they benefited whoever was in Government. If the system relies on good people coming along to re-orientate and fix it, its a poor system as it essentially relies on luck. Between the fixing it can (and currently has been given the moves over brexit by both Government and opposition) be further undermined and broken apart. That is objectively a terrible system to safeguard and implement democracy.

Competing party manifestos, not the referendum, created competing mandates. Even so, overwhelmingly, the electorate voted for parties which agree with the basic premise that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.

Even if i accept this point (which i don't, because again interpretations of the referendum provided the basis for legitimacy going forward), it still matters not an ounce in practice or in regards to the practical utilization of legitimacy- again see Bootle, The Westminster system retains its legitimacy and has competing mandates and none of them an MP has to listen to, in terms of broadening legitimacy (now i've had the time to re-read my politics on this ) that MP may simply have legitimacy by being popular (or by his party being popular among constituents)- that equally overrides the technical legitimacy of a manifesto or referendum as it means he can ignore them easily and still be legitimate- the recourse he's voted out, however singular issues are not decisive in this as we've seen.

Yes they are. They might not be legally bound (an irrelevance since parliament can override its own legislation) but they are morally bound to honour referenda which they engineered and which they pledged would be respected.

Again see above, there are no consequences in this system for not doing so. It doesn't even damage the legitimacy of the system. Liddington was morally bound to oppose HS2, he did sod all, however Bucks in a safe-seat thanks to FPTP.

And if parliament were to legislate an end to general elections, would you be affronted by those who resisted the law then?

No. However they haven't, there is a GE in 2022 (incidentally you want Parliament to not be able to do that, support a written constitution that prevents such anti-democratic acts). Boris has actually discussed this openly, IDS has supported it- the Government thus ARE considering this, even if just as a narrative breaking the law for political gain is fundamentally anathema to democracy, particularly the narratives that can be employed around this. So if Parliament votes to disband elections, expected me to be equally opposed and disgusted. Right now, i'm disgusted that a government would contemplate this and has put it on the table. (Unlike Parliament).

The referendum result was given legal structure by the passing of binding legislation to determine the nature of the manner in which the exit would be managed. Any ambiguities in the form of the referendum were overcome by this.

Except it wasn't given as you've argued fairly that Parliament can and does have the right to change any of its legislation as it wishes, and has the legitimacy to do so as i've described. We've since thus seen extensions, debates over the manner of exit etc.

Proportional representation isn't some sort of magic potion; it comes with its own irritations and dangers. When the AfD start scoring 25+% in federal elections, I will remind you of what they are.

An open democratic society relies upon trust between the electors and the elected. If the political hierarchy is dominated by scheming solipsists who are wedded to their hubristic world-views then the wishes of the electorate will go to hell in a hand cart no matter what form of representation is used. You might be able to use a codified constitution to mitigate the damage is some circumstances, but codified constitutions can often also be used as a weapon to exacerbate injustices.

PR does indeed have its own attendant issues and dangers, for one it relies upon the populace being better educated about politics than a FPTP system does as its more open to populists as you've highlighted here with the AFD. It does though as you've said here alongside a written constitution mitigate some of the mess that we have here.

Brexit for instance is an example of direct democracy in action, that ended once the ballot boxes were collected under our current system, the scheming, wheeling etc that is going on at Westminster is exactly what the Westminster system was designed to allow, politicians are there to do as you've just (rightly) attacked them for- as their own conscious dictates (or that of their parties)- the balance is during a GE you can get rid of them... but again Bootle highlights that this is quite the case regarding a singular issue like Brexit.

So essentially you are decrying and yet supporting the very system that frustrates in your perception the will of the British people being carried out. You can have one or the other, but not both- Maybe brexit will eventually be carried out (i think so) either on the 31st or later, but MP's are allowed and facilitated to act as they currently have (and indeed again given legitimacy and mandates to do so by the 2017 GE which we both agree did, or indeed as i argue that the referendum itself created mandates by highlighting groups of people who could be championed).

The Westminster system as you rightly allude to here is about stability. That is it, it is not about implementing the will of the British people, it is actively about curtailing that for the sake of good governance, stability and the interests of 'those who know better', this is what Baldwin understood in the 1920s, this is the whole point of it. Do i agree with that? No hence why i support political reform. Brexit while not being the rise of the AFD or any such silly comparison that has been drawn about racism, empire building- whatever, does share the same principle in terms of the system, i.e. politicians have control over it to shape, change and bend it to their own interpretations as elected representatives and so legitimately and with a larger competing mandate behind them (I.e. by constituency thus far has faith in what i'm doing)- again recourse against this is the ballot box, again though its not exactly very effective with FPTP weighting it to their advantage.

If Boris Johnson is willing to risk prison to further the cause of independence he will have my vote. An act of passive resistance by the most senior politician in the country against a law which, coming as it does at the end of years of obstructionism, vandalizes the heart of British democracy, would be a welcome show of solidarity.

Not that this is relevant in real life because it will simply not happen. Maybe he'll refuse to comply for a while to score brownie points with Faragists, but then he'll acquiesce.

An interpretation your're allowed to have, though i would argue the narrative spun by IDS is certainly not indicative of a 'passive' protest and nor i suspect would it be if this was ever carried out, it indicates it would be an attempt to politicize the legal system, drawing it as a 'remain' institution and allowing its potential subversion through populist appeals. But it does no such thing as vandalize the heart of British democracy, because the heart of British democracy is under the Westminster system, Westminster. The legitimacy it derives from GE's, but who as i've shown the choices are weighted towards two established parties, with the existence of safe seats (Liddington and Bootle) and whose vote either does attach to a singular issue overall. If you want an open democratic society, support a more democratic vote like PR.

Because proportional representation somehow solves a split parliament? No, you'd still end up with about 50% Conservative/Brexit Party and 50% Lab/Lib/Green/SNP.

PR as a more direct form of democracy is designed to split Parliaments, it facilitates a very different political culture than the 'winner takes all' of Westminster currently. Parties are forced to work in coalitions with those they might not otherwise do so, it also impacts the political culture of the populace who become willing (Due partly to lack of safe seats) to vote on single issues. Thus i doubt you would get right now a neat 50 50 split, also the Brexit party and Conservatives would far more easily form a coalition against Labour and Lib-dems- the only reason their currently united is Boris overreached and shot himself in the foot- last week they were disunited and arguing over Corbyn and Clarke.

You can't solve the problem with legalism Dante. Trying to make manifesto pledges binding by law would cause crippling inflexibility. Usually pledges are changed or abandon on account of changing circumstances or bad judgement rather than because of abject lying.

This is a fair point, however i would argue that i would prefer to see a change in the nature of Manifesto's - make them detailed policy plans, that are independently verified by an official independent body to their ability to deliver (For instance in 2017 May's was not)- then with a PR system, the public will have the direct recourse to be able to punish their MP's/parties who do not follow through on their promises (Again no safe seat for Liddington).

My general view is these problems are a result of a collapse in collective purpose and proper democratic scrutiny following the end of the Cold War. The utter contempt that the established liberal political class holds its electorates in is by no means limited to the United Kingdom.

While i've argued for a longer view, i thoroughly agree with you here, the end of the Cold War and so-called 'end of history' saw the 'social front' i.e. Western politicians serve their public or else everyone might go 'Red' - which saw the creation of welfare states and concentration in the UK particularly on increasing the standards of living consistently have been ditched as their is no perceived 'threat' by political and economic elites. And you are quite right this isn't just a UK problem, however for the purposes of this, the UK's Westminster system facilitates an uncaring political elite far more easily by the shielding it provides them than an alternate system would.

One of the reasons that the Labour Party has been lying through its teeth about its position on the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union is precisely because it knows that if it were to take the Liberal Democrat stance, it would risk losing millions of votes in the north.

PS: Unless there's another one I've not heard of, Bootle is in Merseyside, not the north east.

Yep your are indeed spot on about Bootle, as i said tired and Scotch. I literally looked at the map saw it was north east but wrote west anyway .

But yes indeed, it also appears to have worked incredibly well, they've been given legitimacy and mandate to continue as they are- this guy openly is pro-remain.

Parliament can do what it wants.

As mentioned there is one in 2022, if Parliament decides to try and scrap elections as far as i recall, much as the Government attempting to do the same, the Civil Service can then legally intervene and take control to rectify the situation.

Whether or not parliament will have the legitimacy to oppose the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union following a general election will be contingent upon the manifesto pledges made during the campaigning period.

Again not really, because manifesto pledges are only part of the legitimacy (in theory and practice) for MP's, one source. Liddington again with his personal pledge and HS2, and again your own point that Manifesto's have to be flexible with parts being scraped and changed as necessary undermines this entirely. As we've seen in 2017 and currently, legitimacy is not troubled simply by Brexit, it depends what the public are interested in and how they vote, particularly as MP's like in 2017 arguably might be in, despite their parties manifestos (when many Blairites actively distanced themselves from Labour HQ and Corbyn)- they got in on their own initiative- literally their were leaflets of 'not with this guy'.

This happens in democratic countries across the world - it isn't a specific failure of Westminster.

But PR again allows these instances to be far more easily punished at the Ballot box.

No. The Brexit vote did not give the Liberal Democrats a mandate to become the "party of remain". Their voters gave them a parliamentary mandate to oppose Britain's exit from the European Union on the basis of their 2017 manifesto.

It exactly facilitated that, parties took the advisory referendum as essentially what is was- an opinion poll. This is why it was effectively broken down and different chunks interpreted in different ways. For instance the Conservative version is that it was everyone added up together, and thus we leave. However the SNP argue that's ridiculous because the population of England alone would always dictates the future of the entire Union due to its huge population compared to Scotland, N.I. and Wales, they instead took the Scottish element and argued here was their mandate for remain and yes they were opposed to this in the first place, but mandates and legitimacy are not (and here is again partly the issue with the brexit vote vs 2017 GE) immovable structures, they are fluid that change in competition with other fonts and need to be updated as and when possible.

If they "won" a general election they wouldn't even need to have a 2d referendum; they'd simply ignore their own pledge to hold one and revoke the A50 process altogether. If they actually did follow through with a 2d referendum, they'd deliberately engineer it to prevent leave from winning (by splitting the leave vote among multiple options). If still they managed to lose it, they'd still just ignore that result as well.

That's also fair, and again they'd still have the legitimacy and mandate to do all that.

No Dante, I just understand that legitimacy is an idea, nothing more. You can use legalism to support specific interpretations of what constitutes legitimate governance, but you can't ever properly pin it down it writing.

Exactly, and what i've been arguing is that theoretical legitimacy is not simply from one font, and moreover that brexit and its process has very little impact (whatever parliament does) upon the political legitimacy of Westminster and its MP's. Because the legitimacy of brexit and raising of it as you've argued here of it being essentially the be all and end all of all democratic legitimacy in the UK is subjective. I'm sure other voters will feel the same as you do, but not all, and not nearly a majority (17 million at a push), the loss of their support is entirely sustainable (and i actually suspect many of who will continue to vote and engage with the Westminster system and their MP's) and is what FPTP and the Westminster system (Which was designed with its checks and balances and never really updated properly) for a far smaller politically engaged electorate. Indeed Westminster sustained legitimacy even during the 'sleaze' years of the 90s which had a consistent drain upon trust in Politicians and the political system. If Westminster ever lost legitimacy in practice (and also again in the UK non-voting implies rather ridiculously in my view, a removal from the political pool of that person- hence why it can still be legitimate theoretically and in practice have 0 consequences even with voter apathy- which at worst brexit will create from 17 million voters- though again i suspect most of them will continue to vote and engage in politics).

Also legitimacy is not simply an ideal but has a huge practical element that it both effects and is effected by. This is what makes political legitmany important for stability, and also is why brexit has very little actual effect on Parliament or the Governments legitimacy to the public. Partly due to her Westminster system, But also that brexithe simply doesn't have the support (or opposition) to have ever any objective impact upon Parliaments legitimacy. Subjectively as i've said, sure to leavers or remanners, but neither side can 'rock the establishment' in any meaningful way. The best case, maybe the brexit party manages to break through FPTP and gets seats. They do brexit. But parliament continues as it has always done. The worst case they fail, the referendum result is overturned completely and Italy business as usual, but now with it on the agenda (as it already is anyway even if we do leave) for the next decade or so as politically there is capital to be had. It thus has 0 impact upon parliamentary legitimacy because as we saw in 2017, not enough people placed brexit center stage in any meaningful way. Thus competing theoretical and practixal legitimacies and mandates, that water down brexit alone.

All of this is contextual. You can't just say "Westminster is far more undemocratic than a PR model with a written constitution" without specifying the nature of the constitution itself. If you're going to codify a document of contradictory gobbledygook which can only understood by legal professionals then you may as well not bother.
And since none of the major European states which do use PR and codified constitutions have evaded membership of the European Union, it's safe to say that any such document would not and will not protect the sovereignty of the British people.

Again i'm not saying your wrong at all, But firstly there is no requisite for a written constitution to be legalistically complicated, and secondly again in regards to sovereignty of course not, but as we've discussed more broadly (and i'd recommend the work of Shirely Scott on the ATS for an example) actual sovereignty is something that is frequently outsourced from trade-deals to multipolar superpowers (or singular ones certainly). I've just finished a huge piece on the special relationship, where specifically from 1943-1968 the idea that the UK was in practice a real sovereign nation is a joke, while theoretically sovereign that was about it. The US absolutely dominated its external affairs and had huge influence in the domestic make-up of policy- however the US chose to exert its power indirectly as that is its preferred way of doing things. A key (and amusing) highlight for this is during the Missile Crisis, when the US activated its nuclear missile systems and air command stationed in Britain, without even informing the British government (something it was beholden to do), this also made Britain a target for Soviet retaliation or first strike- all without Britain itself knowing until far after the incident.

There is also an argument to be made for this during the 1970s. Indeed the only 'true' sovereign states are those that are hegemons- again see any work on Dependency Theory which highlights this well, the UK has no been a hegemon since 1943. In effect membership was partly what mitigated this- and here the concept of sovereignty and the EU is hugely complex compared to what you've argued here. Britain had massive influence in shaping the EU's institutions and systems, it also secured opt-outs etc, and it merely as in any other alliance, organization (Again the Antarctic treaty is a great example) pooled parts of its sovereignty in the EU (just as you do to a more limited extent with a trade deal), while also enhancing its sovereignty through the fact it had a veto and a direct say/leadership role within the EU. The UK for instance could never be externally compelled to federalize, its impossible, hence the existence and persistence of two-tier membership with the EU- a British government though as elected by the British people could of course (Hello Westminster system issues with voting).

So sovereignty in reality is more nuanced in political realities than simply you either have it, or you don't. A key example is South America in the later 20th Century- did they have sovereignty or not? They were independent states, with sovereign governments whose election was not tampered with. However overbearing trade relations with Britain and the US has these states as part of their 'informal empires' at worst, or at best as integrated into a 'dependency theory'. Where the exercise of that actual sovereignty is much diminished and based upon an allowance of what Britain and the US would put up with.

A more recent example is the Antarctic Treaty- which protected the sovereignty of Britain over its former Falkland Island Dependencies, however in practice it also was actively designed by the US (as the archives openly highlight) to usurp Britain's sovereignty and incorporate its Antarctic territories into its own sphere as the power imbalance, much as in Dependency Theory meant that the UK could do little in practice there that the US (who was consistently by the way an Antarctic rival, right up until 1959 when the treaty was signed it was hostile to Britain's presence) did not like or want, moreover when the ATS is renewed, if ever Britain leaves, its theoretical sovereignty is then totally demolished as the US has undermined its practical basis.

Now sure, maybe EU membership to Britain's was a 'bridge to far' as sovereignty was openly outsourced (Though pooled as well in a way in which the UK had significant control still), but there are other incidents both coming (US FTA potentially is a big blip, as was proposed membership of the hemispherical trade blocks) and have been that, that in some cases are indeed far more losses of sovereignty than EU membership ever was.

What i'm getting at is that no document can protect the sovereignty of a people in a multipolar world in which Britain is not a hegemonic power (Nor due to geopolitical reality will Britain ever be, or seek to be one again). As we've seen post-1943 for Britain, and the world over in the 20th century sovereignty has degrees and most of who in daily interactions for non-hegemonic states are outsourced in a very negative way for the state in question. The EU was indeed a pooling of sovereignty, but one in which the UK had a greater than usual say in that- unlike again its Cold relationship with the US which was one of subservient partner who did lose a significant degree of its sovereignty in foreign and domestic policy much akin to the 20th century South American states (a fact recognized by nearly all PM's through until the 1960s- i couldn't say more than that as its beyond my current period of research), leaving the EU will not protect British sovereignty, but i do respect that for some people its an overt example of the loss of sovereignty, and thus is more trouble than more serious losses the UK has had.

This isn't thus to disparage that reason for brexit, but point out that again no written constitution on earth can prevent the loss of sovereignty in practice to a larger power if it has an interest in exerting hegemony over you, and we're currently going into a multipolar world where there are hegemonic powers who are directly interested in that.

Actually no. When push comes to shove, the only real defence that a population has against government abuses is a good education and strong principles.

I hugely agree, though UK political education is by and large absolutely dire unless you pursue it beyond secondary school or are self-taught. This is exacerbated by British academics giving ground for a variety of reasons both of which they are to blame, and the public, to non-academic voices in the definition of Britain's political structures (This is a huge problem in my field for instance, particularly with social media reach- anyone with an opinion can and is presenting it easily to a wide audience without any checks and balances on what they are saying- the academic community responsible for providing these checks and balances has instead of meeting this challenged, simply conceded ground, partly due to the 'we've had enough of experts' attitude, but also because they've chosen to double down on their own research in peer reviewed cycles, talking to one another about incredibly relevant stuff regarding politics, brexit and the post-brexit order, but which they haven't really attempted to put out there to the public, because too much of a political stir has consequences for their careers be it remain or leave, but also many simply just do not have that drive- they assume writing a book or journal article is enough to get there work out there to a public who largely barely know which academic journals are reputable or where to find them. Its incredibly bad, but does lead to a population who i would fairly argue, is not at all politically educated (though brexit and its debates have done wonders in some respects to opening peoples eyes to how the British political system works).

[Cohors_Evocata]

All this hemming and hawing in and about Westminster may just prove futile in the end: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-things-stand

(EDIT: Note I don't mean the discussion above, which has proven quite an interesting read )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

France isn’t prepared to postpone the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K.’s departure from the European Union “in the current state of things” as British authorities aren’t providing evidence that they’ll offer new solutions to end the Brexit deadlock, French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.

“They say they want to offer other solutions to ensure the withdrawal,” Le Drian said Sunday in an interview with CNews television, when asked about a potential postponement of Brexit. “We haven’t seen them, so it’s no. We won’t start over again every three months. Let the British Parliament, let the British authorities tell us what’s the path.”

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit strategy is in tatters after members of Parliament voted to stop him carrying out his threat to take the U.K. out of the EU with no deal at the end of October. Lawmakers have also refused to back an emergency general election that Johnson is pushing for.

The situation in the U.K. is creating disturbances, the French minister said. It’s a “dead end” because there is no majority in the U.K. for a no-deal Brexit, nor for a withdrawal agreement or for holding new elections, he added.

Macron caved last time of course, but I'm not sure he will again this time. There was an expectation of progress attached to the last extension and none of the non-British spokesmen involved I can recall have indicated this delay has brought that. Given Macron's own recent popularity issues, I can't imagine he or his government want to be perceived as too yielding in the Brexit standoff, even if their position is stronger than several months ago. Arguably, the wording might indicate that a situation where the Opposition takes control of the Government would be different enough from "the current state of things" (I'd want to see the original French on that quote) to make extension feasible again, but as far as I know the various opposition parties don't agree on how to proceed beyond "extend for now" either.

[95thrifleman]

It's a good point from the EU's perspective. It's likely, even if Corbyn wins ge, he won't have the majority to pass any eu deal himself.

[Ludicus]

It's a good point from the EU's perspective.

Nope, it's just political pressure.Let's keep in mind that MPs 'checked with EU chiefs over Brexit delay' before passing bill

But in fact, another three, six months would not solve the problem- I mean, there will be no any "new deal". The current deal is reasonable:businesses aren't cut off by continuing rules in a transition period until December 2020;obviously, the necessary condition is a backstop keeping the UK in an EU customs union for some time.
---
Britain should ask itself: in the post-Brexit period, can Northern Ireland and Scotland be kept in the UK? Probably not. If Corbyn wins, the prospect of a second referendum will calm down the waters and Europe will patiently wait. The thing is, Europe needs the UK and the UK needs Europe.
Food for thought,
Listen to a British Jew. Mark Leonard is Jewish British political scientist, co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations .
Read the full article. When European politics becomes personal
Excerpts,
(...) More recently, Europeanisation has been transformed from an elite privilege into a mass cultural phenomenon. Thanks to falling travel costs, tens of millions of people on both sides of the English Channel go back and forth in each direction every year. Even in the remotest parts of the UK, supermarkets are stocked with Italian pasta, Greek olive oil, French cheese, Danish butter, and Spanish wine. Some two million Britons have settled in other EU countries, while three million Europeans have taken up residence in the UK.

After the referendum in 2016, my own fear of losing European citizenship led me to apply for German citizenship. (1) (...)My mother was a professor of German literature, so I learned early on about Germany's painful reckoning with its past and its journey back toward European civilisation. This, too, informed my European identity, which rests not just on the pillars of British and German history, but on a synthesis of hope and fear. When my grandmother taught me about the Enlightenment ideal of prizing reason above all else, she was drawing not from a distinctly British or German tradition, but from a European one. She also taught me to appreciate the idea of Europe as a refuge from our own family's tragic history.

That, in fact, has been the motive of the European project: to engender shared ideals and prevent a return to the continent's murderous past. The EU was created to transcend national histories of Nazism, fascism, and communism.

(1) In fact, Due to Brexit, Jews seek passports from countries that oppressed their ancestors

Concerned over losing valuable rights for traveling and staying in the 26-country Schengen Area, more Jewish Brits are turning to Spain, Portugal and Germany for citizenship
(...) getting German citizenship can also feel like reclaiming a part of one’s identity, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a member of the British House of Lords, argued in an essay she wrote after the Brexit referendum. “It also declares a belief in Europe, an admiration for how Germany has dealt with its Nazi past, and a real belief that [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s welcome of migrants was both right and brave.”

The UK needs to choose its place: a shared European destiny, where it has a meaningful and respected voice, or obey to Britain's new hyper-nationalist brexit master, Trump?

[Katsumoto]

The UK needs to choose its place: a shared European destiny, where it has a meaningful and respected voice, or obey to Britain's new hyper-nationalist brexit master, Trump?

Brexit really has very little to do with Trump and he certainly isn't its master.

[95thrifleman]

Brexit was voted for before Trump came to power....

[Daruwind]

All this hemming and hawing in and about Westminster may just prove futile in the end: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-things-stand

Macron caved last time of course, but I'm not sure he will again this time. There was an expectation of progress attached to the last extension and none of the non-British spokesmen involved I can recall have indicated this delay has brought that. Given Macron's own recent popularity issues, I can't imagine he or his government want to be perceived as too yielding in the Brexit standoff, even if their position is stronger than several months ago. Arguably, the wording might indicate that a situation where the Opposition takes control of the Government would be different enough from "the current state of things" (I'd want to see the original French on that quote) to make extension feasible again, but as far as I know the various opposition parties don't agree on how to proceed beyond "extend for now" either.

It could be foreshadowing of longer extension as well. Simple hint to UK that short extension is no go...but I doubt EU will in the end force no deal after all this long way...It could happen by accident but those are probably public statements to prepare ground or back to home public...

Only reason why EU27 would not agree with another extension is in case they will strongly believe that UK will revoke article 50. There will be still options left to UK - no deal, may´s deal and revoking article 50. And first two were already voted down multiple time. (not saying there is majority for revoking either...)

[95thrifleman]

the problem is there is no majority for ANYTHING

[Daruwind]

True, but staying in EU for now is just keeping status quo. No deal is longer way back to very same conditions (negotiations..) like May deal/withdrawal act....so what option there are? If there are no extensions, only option is revoking...

[Alastor]

It could be foreshadowing of longer extension as well. Simple hint to UK that short extension is no go...but I doubt EU will in the end force no deal after all this long way...It could happen by accident but those are probably public statements to prepare ground or back to home public...

Normally I would agree with this. But when I read things like that: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9095976.html it makes me wonder.