Page 81 of 163 FirstFirst ... 3156717273747576777879808182838485868788899091106131 ... LastLast
Results 1,601 to 1,620 of 3247

Thread: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

  1. #1601
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    If it does indeed make people think they would realise this comparison is a valid in regards to assumption that a second referendum is by and of itself a solution for the Brexit question. After all, if the verdict is 'leave' again, implementing this 'solution' would just mean running the referendum again until the 'right' answer is given. This is a criticism often leveled at the EU and as a pro-European I don't think it's a good thing to encourage this (people will probably overlook that it is the British government's decision if it means they can target their favourite EU scapegoat). A rerun only makes some (though not a whole lot IMHO) sense if there's a concrete leave plan on the ballot ready to be implemented. At present there is not, so a rerun would indeed be 'Erdoganesque'.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  2. #1602
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    This is all correct about revoting. It would be clearly better to place on a ballot a single and specific proposal for leave. Voting up or down such a proposal would not negate or reverse a prior vague vote to leave. Of course PM May is not going to put forward such a proposal without some sense of approval before the vote. If it was that easy, she could get the parliament to vote for approval and be done with it. Thus the entire revote is a tactic by remainers to run out the clock on leaving which is similar to the critics (of May and the government) accusing the May government of running out the clock on leaving.

    From the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...johnson-claims

    In a speech in Aberdeen on Friday, the former foreign secretary and perennial Conservative leadership hopeful sought to turn the tables on remainers who argue that Brexit would increase the risk of a second independence referendum.
    Announcing plans for such a vote last month, the Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said Brexit would have such a catastrophic impact that Scottish voters must have the option to vote again, after rejecting independence in 2014.

    Sign up to our Brexit weekly briefing




    Read more



    Johnson said: “[A second independence referendum] would be nothing less than a flagrant breach of promise to the people of this entire country that when the people of Scotland voted on that matter – as they did in 2014 – with decisive effect, that verdict would be respected for a generation.

    Please read the full article at the link.

  3. #1603
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    @NorseThing I donīt understand one thing. Scottish and Leave referendum are not compatible with each other. Scottish is about staying in UK... if UK stays in EU and Leave is about UK leaving EU. Now I get why Johnson sayid what he said ..we cannot re-run referendums...so keeping Scots in UK and leaving EU at the same time, double win for him, he would like such scenario. But actual Scotts have problems with that those two things. That is how i understand the situation, either you honor the leave referendum, then Scotts want re-run or you you honor Scottish referendum, then any brexit option as result of leave vote are not honored... The same with Farage, if brexit will not happen, he will really campaign again for yet another brexit. IF brexit will happen, Scotts will campaign for yet another independence referendum...
    Last edited by Daruwind; May 11, 2019 at 01:04 AM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  4. #1604
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    This is all correct about revoting. It would be clearly better to place on a ballot a single and specific proposal for leave. Voting up or down such a proposal would not negate or reverse a prior vague vote to leave. Of course PM May is not going to put forward such a proposal without some sense of approval before the vote. If it was that easy, she could get the parliament to vote for approval and be done with it. Thus the entire revote is a tactic by remainers to run out the clock on leaving which is similar to the critics (of May and the government) accusing the May government of running out the clock on leaving.

    From the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...johnson-claims




    Please read the full article at the link.
    Its a perspective, and one of course that Boris would drive. However the SNP's counter is that brexit equates to a 'material change in circumstance' of the UK, and thus under those conditions they can legitimately seek a second referendum for Scottish independence. This argument is also a fair one. Regardless of what happens though, even if there is no second referendum on brexit, a second Scottish vote on independence within the next decade is now inevitable due to brexit and more importantly its aftermath (as explained the botched job the Conservatives have done will mean even a 'good' brexit, will not measure up, nor indeed be 'good' especially due to domestic economic weakness from other Tory related issues).

    So when you consider that side, am second referendum on brexit, actually has 0 relevance to Scottish Independence, as its something that is now back on the agenda regardless of if a second referendum happens or not, the Conservatives were politically blind if they believed that the SNP would not seize the chance that a yes vote for brexit provided for this. In this context then Boris is (as usual ) being rather fast and loose with the political facts for his own gain.

    He is right in a different areas though- in a broader sense, that a second referendum is advocated because Remainers believe it will stop brexit. Discard the arguments about 'Informed choice' or whatever, its only in play because polling and politics seems to indicate remain would win (Mostly because the 3 million odd Leave voters who had not politically engaged before, but who the Leave campaign very effectively mobilized are unlikely to vote again due to feeling once more ignored, and this time by the very Conservatives who approached them last time).

    Daruwind essentially has it right in respect that brexit has and will continue to see the independence question coming to life again, and indeed it probably will result in the UK fundamentally breaking up as Boris states.
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 11, 2019 at 06:47 AM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  5. #1605

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    He is right in a different areas though- in a broader sense, that a second referendum is advocated because Remainers believe it will stop brexit. Discard the arguments about 'Informed choice' or whatever, its only in play because polling and politics seems to indicate remain would win (Mostly because the 3 million odd Leave voters who had not politically engaged before, but who the Leave campaign very effectively mobilized are unlikely to vote again due to feeling once more ignored, and this time by the very Conservatives who approached them last time).
    A second referendum is advocated by remain voters because they have everything to gain from it and nothing to lose. Not that I want to attempt to predict the nature of this hypothetical re-run, let alone its outcome, but even if the remain option was behind in the polls, its supporters would incur no risk if the plebiscite were held again; were they to lose their position would remain the same. Not that any of this really matters: the arch-remain contingent will persist in vandalising British democracy ad infinitum ​until they get what they want.



  6. #1606
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A second referendum is advocated by remain voters because they have everything to gain from it and nothing to lose. Not that I want to attempt to predict the nature of this hypothetical re-run, let alone its outcome, but even if the remain option was behind in the polls, its supporters would incur no risk if the plebiscite were held again; were they to lose their position would remain the same. Not that any of this really matters: the arch-remain contingent will persist in vandalising British democracy ad infinitum ​until they get what they want.
    It is indeed also true there is no downside. But that is as I've droned on about before i know , the shape of British politics for the foreseeable future, even if brexit is carried out. EU membership is going to be a political football for all parties and a myriad of opportunists (for instance once Corbyn steps down as Labour leader, Labour's half-half attitude to breixt may go 'full remain' judging by the beliefs of the party and most of its active supporters who outnumber its leave proponents).

    I would also add for balance, that if Remain had won the referendum, this is also exactly what various Leave groups would have clamored for too, see Farage's comments on the night . 'British democracy' was going to be embroiled in this the moment the vote was so close, no matter which side had 'won it' (and i use the term 'win' very loosely in regard to referendums within the Westminster system, as it essentially is only 'winning' one part of the battle, not the war, as Vernon Bogdanor likes to remind us (quite correctly) 'people power' is very new to British politics, not at all established and is directly challenging the EU inspired 'Courts power' and more to the point, Britain's traditional and historical source of power- Parliament, whose sovereignty is to itself, and has never been about democracy or people power- in fact it acted to constrain them quite successfully). So while i sympathise heavily with those making comments about democracy needing to be upheld (though i will always remind people, that does not mean opponents of a decision have to 'shut up and put up' or are 'traitors' or other ridiculous undemocratic notions, but in fact can and should continue to vocalize their opposition and push for their view), it is worth noting that this is a very vague and illegitimate hope, when legitimacy in the British system rests with Parliament and actively allowed MP's once the ballot has been cast, to do whatever they damn-well please, within a party context or not, domestic political reform would and should have been the precursor to any kind of popular referendum, lest we have as now, competing sources of political authority, which are illegitimate under the current system lest Parliament deign to 'lend' them legitimacy (hence May's 'Will of the People'- that is not an acceptance of 'people power', but Parliament choosing to recognize their voice in this matter, something that can and arguably for many has been withdrawn).

    Though i do appreciate my comments about the need for domestic political reform prior to a brexit referendum for arguments of democracy and all that to have any relevance is very much informed by hindsight, so its great and all for me to say it, but no one has a time machine alas.
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 11, 2019 at 08:13 AM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  7. #1607
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Yep, the split of britons 50/50 is something that will be around for sometime...decade, longer? The current demographics favours remain for younger thus slowly this option will gain majority ..slowly, very slowly (unless EU s up pretty really badly...). Plus slower UK economy for any reason would increase number of pro EU people as well (being under EU average means binding with EU while being above means leaving as not to be slowed down by others...). Brexit unless economic miracle happens would be the quickest way back to EU. Like evn Farage admits that after Brexit the economy will take hits..and Iīm sorry but the quickest way to lose support is a few years of really bad economy...
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  8. #1608

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    It is indeed also true there is no downside. But that is as I've droned on about before i know , the shape of British politics for the foreseeable future, even if brexit is carried out. EU membership is going to be a political football for all parties and a myriad of opportunists (for instance once Corbyn steps down as Labour leader, Labour's half-half attitude to breixt may go 'full remain' judging by the beliefs of the party and most of its active supporters who outnumber its leave proponents).

    I would also add for balance, that if Remain had won the referendum, this is also exactly what various Leave groups would have clamored for too, see Farage's comments on the night . 'British democracy' was going to be embroiled in this the moment the vote was so close, no matter which side had 'won it' (and i use the term 'win' very loosely in regard to referendums within the Westminster system, as it essentially is only 'winning' one part of the battle, not the war, as Vernon Bogdanor likes to remind us (quite correctly) 'people power' is very new to British politics, not at all established and is directly challenging the EU inspired 'Courts power' and more to the point, Britain's traditional and historical source of power- Parliament, whose sovereignty is to itself, and has never been about democracy or people power- in fact it acted to constrain them quite successfully). So while i sympathise heavily with those making comments about democracy needing to be upheld (though i will always remind people, that does not mean opponents of a decision have to 'shut up and put up' or are 'traitors' or other ridiculous undemocratic notions, but in fact can and should continue to vocalize their opposition and push for their view), it is worth noting that this is a very vague and illegitimate hope, when legitimacy in the British system rests with Parliament and actively allowed MP's once the ballot has been cast, to do whatever they damn-well please, within a party context or not, domestic political reform would and should have been the precursor to any kind of popular referendum, lest we have as now, competing sources of political authority, which are illegitimate under the current system lest Parliament deign to 'lend' them legitimacy (hence May's 'Will of the People'- that is not an acceptance of 'people power', but Parliament choosing to recognize their voice in this matter, something that can and arguably for many has been withdrawn).

    Though i do appreciate my comments about the need for domestic political reform prior to a brexit referendum for arguments of democracy and all that to have any relevance is very much informed by hindsight, so its great and all for me to say it, but no one has a time machine alas.
    There is a difference between political campaigning and the flagrant obstruction of democracy. There have been two clear mandates for the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, one via the referendum and one via the general election the following year: neither has been honoured. Parliament's behaviour is the moral equivalent of an incumbent government refusing to cede power after having been defeated in a general election. The establishment has debased itself beyond repair over this issue.



  9. #1609
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There is a difference between political campaigning and the flagrant obstruction of democracy. There have been two clear mandates for the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, one via the referendum and one via the general election the following year: neither has been honoured. Parliament's behaviour is the moral equivalent of an incumbent government refusing to cede power after having been defeated in a general election. The establishment has debased itself beyond repair over this issue.
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing wholly here, just noting that for instance the campaign for a second referendum is entirely in keeping with democratic practice, and also to your (from a moral perspective fair) point about the UK establishment acting counter to what many factions of leave want, that in practice though the 'mandates' from the public actually mean nothing. They carry no political legitimacy on their own in the Westminster system, other than that which Parliament want to attribute to it (the only 'threat' being the government is replaced during the next GE- but given the time in election cycle, this isn't exactly a 'big' issue, plus of course a GE dilutes the issues, giving a great degree of protection from specific unpopular decisions...however if you've made many on many fronts then of course the party will be punished- but again at this point in the election cycle timeline its usually what happens to a government after 2-3 terms), which they can and indeed have arguably done, change, bearing in mind alas even Manifesto commitments are not actually binding (See Conservatives and their broken promises over rent and energy caps, alongside their failed commitment to maintain TV licences for pensioners), moreover the 2017 election indeed complicates the issue of mandate further, through no party having a sole majority, thus as we saw during the coalition, Manifesto commitments mean little. The British public for the most part are designed to be spectators to the political system after casting their vote into the ballot box, both in a GE context and a Referendum one.

    The issue thus isn't that the establishment has 'betrayed' anything, but its exerting its powers as it legitimately can, what its been met with is a realization on behalf of the electorate that British sovereignty and power does not lay with its people, and nor is it intended to be under the current system. This is why brexit has created something of a constitutional crisis. There have been similar events of course, Chartism has parallels in terms of the public outcry for greater democracy against an establishment that is not keen to grant it, though Britain's political establishment are historically expert at satisfying this through implementing the controls of a 'managed' democracy- whether we'll see this again in the coming years, we'll have to wait and see (Thatcher for instance in different context with similar parallels chose to protect and reinforce indeed Parliaments sovereignty vs a vocal section of the electorate calling for a democratization of power).

    The interesting thing going forward will be that essentially the calls for greater democracy which i'd be so bold as to suggest you epitomize here, in a member of the electorate who feels the political establishment should listen to the electorate to a far greater degree as opposed to the current system of Parliamentary sovereignty laying within itself, with the electorate purposefully kept at arms length, what will happen. I suspect currently either it'll change radically (probably coinciding with the break-up of the UK as it currently is), or it'll change not a jot as the political establishment cement themselves in place Thatcher style again and try and outlast any vocal elements of the electorate who want a more European style of direct democracy to be implemented to some degree (whether that be a constitution that is written, a reform of the Westminster system- though i would argue this would be merely the continuance of the managed democracy we currently have, or something like a radical overhaul, including a PR system and powers returned to the local level that since 1945 had been consistently centralized).
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  10. #1610

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There is a difference between political campaigning and the flagrant obstruction of democracy. There have been two clear mandates for the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, one via the referendum and one via the general election the following year: neither has been honoured. Parliament's behaviour is the moral equivalent of an incumbent government refusing to cede power after having been defeated in a general election. The establishment has debased itself beyond repair over this issue.

    As a someone with no stake in the issue, I have to agree with you. Like it or not, the Exit folks won the vote, and the Remain folks lost, and it really is time that Britain honor the vote, even if it's wisdom is questionable. If tuosr of the Remain party can always petition to rejoin the EU in another 20 to 30 years after the all the alleged old timers who voted to leave have died. But trying to nullify the Brexit vote by simply dragging their feet on exiting isn't right or ok. Note, there is the old saying 'what goes around comes around",and those who are trying to nullify Brexit by dragging their feet will find the same tactic being used against them on some other issue in the future..

    In a democracy, you don't always get your own way.

  11. #1611
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    As a someone with no stake in the issue, I have to agree with you. Like it or not, the Exit folks won the vote, and the Remain folks lost, and it really is time that Britain honor the vote, even if it's wisdom is questionable. If tuosr of the Remain party can always petition to rejoin the EU in another 20 to 30 years after the all the alleged old timers who voted to leave have died. But trying to nullify the Brexit vote by simply dragging their feet on exiting isn't right or ok. Note, there is the old saying 'what goes around comes around",and those who are trying to nullify Brexit by dragging their feet will find the same tactic being used against them on some other issue in the future..

    In a democracy, you don't always get your own way.
    The argument can be made the opposite way as well. If remain won 52/48, the situation would be very same, Farage and others campigning for yet another brexit vote. ;-) Point is, this result would suck no matter which option would win...

    In a democracy, you don't always get your own way.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  12. #1612
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Well yeah if Farage lost and demanded a second referendum using first the eupemism ‘final say’, and then ‘people’s vote’ he would frankly look like something of a sore loser.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  13. #1613
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Well yeah if Farage lost and demanded a second referendum using first the eupemism ‘final say’, and then ‘people’s vote’ he would frankly look like something of a sore loser.
    In fairness he did state though on the night of the referendum that he would seek another referendum when it looked like Remain was going to win by a similar margin. Though indeed he did not mention 'final say' in that sentence .

    However, this does feed more seriously into the point that while @Common Soldier and yourself are perfectly fair to call the 'hard remainers' sore losers or being anti-democratic from a moral perspective, it doesn't change the fact that within the UK's interpretation of democracy this is perfectly legitimate. I personally don't think of course a second referendum is anything to do with having a 'final say' or 'peoples vote'- that i suspect with i think good reason, is merely political rhetoric that the remainers orchestrating don't believe themselves, it is pure and simple being done because there is a fair chance a second referendum would see brexit cancelled, and indeed as mentioned earlier, there is 0 risk to remainers for doing this, and that is also absolutely legitimate under the Westminster interpretation of democracy (And i know this is more aimed at Common Soldier than you Aexodus, so bear with me ).

    But morally while noting democracy and its betrayal/upholding the 'peoples will' is fine. In practice we need to get over the arguments about democracy being intrinsically linked by some weird 'right' to the 'people' and thus such conceptions that as Common Soldier said 'in a democracy you don't always get your own way'- the implication being again the 'put up' part, as that simply is not how it works in practice alas. Its a very dare i say European interpretation of a democracy, and each state individually has its own very weird quirks, but (to really long ball this) with the rise of viable anti-democratic/less democratic centric systems of governance that for then first time since the early days of the USSR are percieved at least to actually 'work well/better' than 'Western Democracies' (China here for instance, which will never be 'democratic' or 'western', and who Hunt and the British government have both openly praised and tried to adopt elements of their model in Britain- see Snoopers and the increasing moves to regulate internet access), its important that we start looking at our own systems of government properly and technically, and not letting them get away with merely calling themselves (or others calling them) 'democracies' and assuming that 'people power' occupies a central place, when in most systems it does not at all.

    A key part of the brexit division in the UK (Dare i say indeed the sole cause) has been that 99% of the populace quite fairly assumes 'democracy=my say/peoples majority is the be-all, end-all' and has no idea that democracies are different the world over, and rarely embody that aspect. The blame also goes to the political establishment for not bothering (again i get why) to actually explain to people how things actually work, that even when Westminster decides to follow the result of the referendum, it is entirely constitutionally speaking, at their leisure, as is the form this takes. Indeed the political establishment has very little indeed that it needs to listen to the people to, Manifesto's are not remotely binding in practice, the PM who has become a head of state-esque style posting, we have no say in that, despite their personality featuring heavily in GE attitudes (Over indeed attention to policy- that's how 'distant' the British system is from people power), we do not even get to say how coalitions work, nor how our own MP votes... indeed we elect our own MP to lead us an exert their judgement on votes, but that too is nullified by the party system. While the US system has similarities, they also have a written constitution that assures the 'people' a legal place.

    Britain has no such permanent fixture by design. What has been fascinating is recently trapsing through the British constitution, it has ironically been EU membership that had started to 'force' a more permanent constitution onto Britain, both by us signing up to EU-wide rulings, but also the EU's empowerment of British courts to challenge government decisions (based on the policies relation to EU-wide law), which is a totally historic moment for Britain, the first time ever the British courts have had power over Parliament (1993 iirc was the landmark event for this with regard to fisheries- the British government being told by the House of Lords (at the time, essentially the supreme court) a protectionist policy would be its own and EU fishermen at an unfair advantage, and thus could not do it). Now that we're brexiting, it looks in terms of how the government is trying to centralize former court and EU powers, that it intends to roll this back to slap down the newfound constitutional role of British courts, and go back to being its own arbiter... which actually i think is a lot worse for a modern state.

    Anyway i've had a fair few Scotches while trying to get my head around how to write a 'spatial history' that is non-temporarily based (its hellish to my mind), so i hope this makes sense, but essentially British Democracy shouldn't feature heavily in the brexit debate in terms of 'will of the people' as it does not in practice really figure (beyond the very fair calls that morally we SHOULD have wider democracy- again in which case, of all of you need to get behind Parliamentary reform ), if the country at large understood that, we might be able to move on from brexit-based division based on two camps spouting 'will of the people', 'final say' blah blah and see that actually you need domestic political reform, a unifying goal to give any relevance to those terms and the arguments the electorate are using (instead of relying on MP's loaning out their sovereignty for a short time to you).
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 11, 2019 at 06:01 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  14. #1614

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing wholly here, just noting that for instance the campaign for a second referendum is entirely in keeping with democratic practice, and also to your (from a moral perspective fair) point about the UK establishment acting counter to what many factions of leave want, that in practice though the 'mandates' from the public actually mean nothing. They carry no political legitimacy on their own in the Westminster system, other than that which Parliament want to attribute to it (the only 'threat' being the government is replaced during the next GE- but given the time in election cycle, this isn't exactly a 'big' issue, plus of course a GE dilutes the issues, giving a great degree of protection from specific unpopular decisions...however if you've made many on many fronts then of course the party will be punished- but again at this point in the election cycle timeline its usually what happens to a government after 2-3 terms), which they can and indeed have arguably done, change, bearing in mind alas even Manifesto commitments are not actually binding (See Conservatives and their broken promises over rent and energy caps, alongside their failed commitment to maintain TV licences for pensioners), moreover the 2017 election indeed complicates the issue of mandate further, through no party having a sole majority, thus as we saw during the coalition, Manifesto commitments mean little. The British public for the most part are designed to be spectators to the political system after casting their vote into the ballot box, both in a GE context and a Referendum one.

    The issue thus isn't that the establishment has 'betrayed' anything, but its exerting its powers as it legitimately can, what its been met with is a realization on behalf of the electorate that British sovereignty and power does not lay with its people, and nor is it intended to be under the current system. This is why brexit has created something of a constitutional crisis. There have been similar events of course, Chartism has parallels in terms of the public outcry for greater democracy against an establishment that is not keen to grant it, though Britain's political establishment are historically expert at satisfying this through implementing the controls of a 'managed' democracy- whether we'll see this again in the coming years, we'll have to wait and see (Thatcher for instance in different context with similar parallels chose to protect and reinforce indeed Parliaments sovereignty vs a vocal section of the electorate calling for a democratization of power).

    The interesting thing going forward will be that essentially the calls for greater democracy which i'd be so bold as to suggest you epitomize here, in a member of the electorate who feels the political establishment should listen to the electorate to a far greater degree as opposed to the current system of Parliamentary sovereignty laying within itself, with the electorate purposefully kept at arms length, what will happen. I suspect currently either it'll change radically (probably coinciding with the break-up of the UK as it currently is), or it'll change not a jot as the political establishment cement themselves in place Thatcher style again and try and outlast any vocal elements of the electorate who want a more European style of direct democracy to be implemented to some degree (whether that be a constitution that is written, a reform of the Westminster system- though i would argue this would be merely the continuance of the managed democracy we currently have, or something like a radical overhaul, including a PR system and powers returned to the local level that since 1945 had been consistently centralized).
    Democratic legitimacy is predicated on trust: the argument that Parliament's technical authority to abuse the electorate invalidates its capacity to "betray" is insipid legalism at best. A governing institution which offers nothing but empty rhetoric and clandestine scheming is unfit for purpose.



  15. #1615
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Democratic legitimacy is predicated on trust: the argument that Parliament's technical authority to abuse the electorate invalidates its capacity to "betray" is insipid legalism at best. A governing institution which offers nothing but empty rhetoric and clandestine scheming is unfit for purpose.

    Partly, but again that is a broad interpretation of democracy and legitimacy that in the UK context doesn't quite fit to have any significant practical meaning (again morally- i'm with you, you know how much i favour a greater democratization of Britain). Indeed Historically Westminster doesn't have a very good innings with 'trust' generally, beyond at various points in the immediate post-war era (The social consensus while not actually being a 'thing' was an era where the electorate were happy for the government to take on greater responsibility). But more particularly i would argue it relies on the electorates lethargy/not caring (hence why fewer people voting has never been a problem for the Westminster system, note that campaigns to get people to break their voting virginity, are always from parties who need the extra votes usually), trust isn't the key ingredient for the UK's 'democratic legitimacy'. There is indeed a valid argument that British politics is based not on voting for the party you support, but voting on the party you least dislike.


    For the Westminster system to work and be viable, it need only make sure certain key parts of the electorate are 'meh' with it, or not in outright conflict with it (See the divide and conquer tactics used against the Chartists, or indeed the Unions much later). If a segment of the electorate feels betrayed, it matters little to it. This is the issue with brexit- most leavers quite fairly state if the result does not go through, will never vote again. Very few people will take to the streets comparatively, fewer still will cause violence (and if violence happens- that is where Britain's managed democracy thrives alas). What's more though again the factionated nature of brexit comes into play, some leavers might be ok with a customs union (Que my parents ), other's might find it not a brexit at all, the issue being they are too factionated to make this into any kind of 'threat' to the Westminster's legitimacy in any real meaningful way. The same goes for remain too. We're essentially talking about two very vocal churches, consisting of a myriad of small factions in disagreement with each other and internally, but who overall are both a minority of the electorate and thus are not enough to rock it or proclaim that Westminster and its political structure has 'no trust'.


    To put it more specifically you (again morally fairly) note-
    A governing institution which offers nothing but empty rhetoric and clandestine scheming is unfit for purpose.

    Offers to who though? Which key faction of reaminers or brexiteers is it unfit for purpose for, and moreover why does it being unfit for that particular factions interpretation of brexit mean that the Westminster system has lost trust? Whose trust? What will they do about it? Leavers and reamainers have various interpretations of their own position and each others, for your statement to have any impact of the Westminster system, this has to hold true to all of them, and that is something though that the Westminister system is actively designed to prevent, a people's voice at a GE about it is diluted and their further factionated on other issues- so whose 'unfit for purpose?'- its not, because it was never designed to be for any particular electoral bodies purpose, the whole thing is meant to be so that it can and does act in whatever way it see's fit, and is protected from any fallout from this (unless its incredibly poorly managed- but not even May is at that level yet as their has been 0 clamour for Parliamentary reform, Parliament indeed has co-opted brexit into being about 'Parliamentary sovereignty' ironically, which secures it- as people who feel that was key to brexit are essentially voting/fighting for Parliament to be able to do this to them more effectively, especially against the increasing power of the British courts which were potentially in danger of undermining parliaments sole power and giving the British people some kind of constitution that is more permanent than current.


    So morally- i agree with your premise, but in practice this isn't being insipidly legalistic, this is how it actually works. Britain's 'legitimacy' is in no way yet under threat, mostly because 'trust' is not an all consuming factor for it as it does not need everyone, or even arguably the majorities trust, just their apathy and the engagement with certain sections- something that Brexit through its divisive nature (factions in factions) easily provides for (Indeed lack of will to push for change by a majority is what's needed, and even then- see the failure of Chartism or how Baldwin 'made Democracy safe for the world'). What are we going to do about it?

    EDIT: Any seeming narkiness caused by revolutionary angst in this post i apologize for Ep1c_fail, none of it is aimed at you but the British political system, which is both fascinating to me, and rather frustrating to live under, especially when the political elites who benefit from such a system are by and large currently so out-rightly incompetent and shambolic (not merely talking about the handling of brexit, but also more widely the domestic situation) that the fact they are 'insulated' from their -ups is just insulting really.
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 11, 2019 at 07:27 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  16. #1616

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    Partly, but again that is a broad interpretation of democracy and legitimacy that in the UK context doesn't quite fit to have any significant practical meaning (again morally- i'm with you, you know how much i favour a greater democratization of Britain). Indeed Historically Westminster doesn't have a very good innings with 'trust' generally, beyond at various points in the immediate post-war era (The social consensus while not actually being a 'thing' was an era where the electorate were happy for the government to take on greater responsibility). But more particularly i would argue it relies on the electorates lethargy/not caring (hence why fewer people voting has never been a problem for the Westminster system, note that campaigns to get people to break their voting virginity, are always from parties who need the extra votes usually), trust isn't the key ingredient for the UK's 'democratic legitimacy'. There is indeed a valid argument that British politics is based not on voting for the party you support, but voting on the party you least dislike.

    For the Westminster system to work and be viable, it need only make sure certain key parts of the electorate are 'meh' with it, or not in outright conflict with it (See the divide and conquer tactics used against the Chartists, or indeed the Unions much later). If a segment of the electorate feels betrayed, it matters little to it. This is the issue with brexit- most leavers quite fairly state if the result does not go through, will never vote again. Very few people will take to the streets comparatively, fewer still will cause violence (and if violence happens- that is where Britain's managed democracy thrives alas). What's more though again the factionated nature of brexit comes into play, some leavers might be ok with a customs union (Que my parents ), other's might find it not a brexit at all, the issue being they are too factionated to make this into any kind of 'threat' to the Westminster's legitimacy in any real meaningful way. The same goes for remain too. We're essentially talking about two very vocal churches, consisting of a myriad of small factions in disagreement with each other and internally, but who overall are both a minority of the electorate and thus are not enough to rock it or proclaim that Westminster and its political structure has 'no trust'.

    To put it more specifically you (again morally fairly) note-

    Offers to who though? Which key faction of reaminers or brexiteers is it unfit for purpose for, and moreover why does it being unfit for that particular factions interpretation of brexit mean that the Westminster system has lost trust? Whose trust? What will they do about it? Leavers and reamainers have various interpretations of their own position and each others, for your statement to have any impact of the Westminster system, this has to hold true to all of them, and that is something though that the Westminister system is actively designed to prevent, a people's voice at a GE about it is diluted and their further factionated on other issues- so whose 'unfit for purpose?'- its not, because it was never designed to be for any particular electoral bodies purpose, the whole thing is meant to be so that it can and does act in whatever way it see's fit, and is protected from any fallout from this (unless its incredibly poorly managed- but not even May is at that level yet as their has been 0 clamour for Parliamentary reform, Parliament indeed has co-opted brexit into being about 'Parliamentary sovereignty' ironically, which secures it- as people who feel that was key to brexit are essentially voting/fighting for Parliament to be able to do this to them more effectively, especially against the increasing power of the British courts which were potentially in danger of undermining parliaments sole power and giving the British people some kind of constitution that is more permanent than current.

    So morally- i agree with your premise, but in practice this isn't being insipidly legalistic, this is how it actually works. What are we going to do about it?
    I claimed that attempts to justify Parliament's behaviour were predicated on insipid legalism not that the structural mechanisms of Westminster were. I have no interest in revolutionary fantasies which envisage Parliamentary annihilation; all that's needed here is the capitulation of the Conservative and Unionist Party.



  17. #1617
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    @Dante, you know and have previously said, British parliamentarianism unlike the more rules-based(?) American way, relies a lot more on goodwill to function and MP autonomy to decide for themselves. In this way we can’t judge this simply by the dry practicality of whether or not, democracy has been betrayed in either a legal or de jure sense.

    Yes, parliament has unlimited sovereignty, but what Epic is getting at is that if Westminster doesn’t honour the result of a referendum, any referendum, then that’s a de facto betrayal of democracy.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  18. #1618

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    The argument can be made the opposite way as well. If remain won 52/48, the situation would be very same, Farage and others campigning for yet another brexit vote. ;-) Point is, this result would suck no matter which option would win...

    In a democracy, you don't always get your own way.

    Yes, but the Remain people did not win, they lost, that is the main point. As to what would have happened if the Exit people lost is irrelevant since it didn't happen, and we can never know what would have happened, just speculated. and it is time for them to suck it up and live with the results. The Exit people won the vote, not the Remain. If the roles had been reversed, then the Exit people would have had to suck it up, but the Remain people lost.

    You are right, in a.democracy you don't always get your way, but you have to honor the process. It is seems that the Remain people truly don't believe in democracy, since they appear to believe their wishes and policies should prevail no matter what, that their will should prevail even though they lost the vote. That is not democracy, when the Remain people insist that if the vote goes their way, it should be followed, but if it goes against them, it should be ignored.


    If Remain people don't honor the fact they lost, and don't allow the UK to leave, then even if the vote were reversed, the Exit supporters would have the right to remain out of the EU despite a re-vote to rejoin, since the Remain people ignored the vote to exit. What the EU should do if they haven't already s that when a country voluntarily leaves, is have rules to allow a country to rejoin after a couple decades or so. After 20, 30 years you have a new generation and I am not sure that completely new generation should necessarily be bound for all time by a couple previous generations. But obviously, you can't have a country join one year, exit the next, then rejoinin just a couple years later. By the same token, a country that rejoins should have to commit itself for a set amount of time, such as a decade or 2.

    Thanks is how.one outsider sees.thr issue. I rather think Breixt is a bad idea for Britain, but in a democracy people.have the right to make bad decisions.
    Xx
    Last edited by Common Soldier; May 11, 2019 at 08:13 PM.

  19. #1619
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I claimed that attempts to justify Parliament's behaviour were predicated on insipid legalism not that the structural mechanisms of Westminster were. I have no interest in revolutionary fantasies which envisage Parliamentary annihilation; all that's needed here is the capitulation of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
    The same points remain still in that case though- a justification for Parliaments behavior is not required simply because some groups feel it 'ought' to be a certain way. It's alas of little overall relevance to it, the questions i asked are still relevant- who is upset? (Factions within larger but still electorally minority factions), what can they do about it? (Nothing once that brexit voting card was put in the ballot). You stated it was about trust, but my point is that's irrelevant to brexit overall as we're talking about in these various scenario's trust being broken with very small groups of the electorate who in a GE will have have a hard time being heard (i.e. sure the Tories may lose the next GE, but as i mentioned in terms of election cycles, its 'that time' anyway, even considering the domestic front). A conservative capitulation to what too? What type of brexit (of the myriad) and for remainers its what does remaining mean? If its a WTO brexit, that's not likely to happen given the inability to remove May until after a deal have been agreed, will the Conservatives be punished for this? I'm sure they will, will it be meaningful though, not particularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    @Dante, you know and have previously said, British parliamentarianism unlike the more rules-based(?) American way, relies a lot more on goodwill to function and MP autonomy to decide for themselves. In this way we can’t judge this simply by the dry practicality of whether or not, democracy has been betrayed in either a legal or de jure sense.

    Yes, parliament has unlimited sovereignty, but what Epic is getting at is that if Westminster doesn’t honour the result of a referendum, any referendum, then that’s a de facto betrayal of democracy.
    It does, but the second part of this 'good-will' is that the electorate have a very limited means of punishing their constituent MP if they break that good-will of course, which is relevant to the point i think you guys are getting at. It might be a betrayal of a perception of democracy sure, but i'm arguing that this perception people typically have of democracy is too flawed to be actually relevant in any meaningful way. A 'de facto betrayal' as you fairly put it, doesn't have any real meaning behind it, it begs the question so what? and to who?

    The referendum not being honoured by the Conservatives pushing through May's deal? That upsets a faction within the brexit voting electoral faction. The Referendum not being honoured by a second referendum? Again only certain segments will be annoyed at the outcome, A betrayal by outright remaining after a GE or as Parliament can do, merely cancelling brexit? Again a perhaps larger section of the brexit voting public will feel betrayed and quite rightly- what impact does this have though? Very little honestly.

    My point is that talking about betrayal is subjective in this context as some will see it as a betrayal of democracy, others that its a 'win'. Further to this, i'd add its not actually helpful to couch the issue on terms of democratic betrayal, because it has a subjective moral meaning- depending on which faction you ask, and has no relevance to the de jure, legal or generally practical running.

    So i do see what you guys are getting at, i'm just questioning how you see it as relevant overall, when a 'betrayal' would only be perceived by certain groups within one of the broader camps, and its actual consequence will mean nothing to brexit or the political system (Given that we're stuck with brexit in our politics for the next decade at least anyway ). The argument of betrayal meaning a as Ep1c put it-

    A governing institution which offers nothing but empty rhetoric and clandestine scheming is unfit for purpose
    Isn't really relevant- it does not make the governing institution 'unfit for purpose' in any practical way, or indeed in a way that would get the majority to see it that way too(Again different brexiteers all hold very different views, the same is true for remainers)- brexit just isn't that rallying point for this perspective to be 'true' in any practical sense of the word- beyond being a fair comment morally (Much as i for instance argue that Conservative austerity was moronic in 2010, much of the electorate didn't care, or had different opinions for the anti-austerity faction to not have any real weight in practice).
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 11, 2019 at 08:25 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  20. #1620
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    it begs the question so what?
    (Dont take the short reply as irritation)

    Parliament is morally bound to respect the result, regardless of the fact that the referendum was legally non binding.

    and to who?
    The electorate.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •