U.K. Parliament Gives Theresa May Permission to Start Brexit(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
U.K. Parliament Gives Theresa May Permission to Start Brexit
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/may-set-for-late-march-brexit-trigger-as-parliament-clears-way
92 comments
I was strongly against Scottish independence the first time, because it seemed to be to be stupid nationalism playing out over pragmatism. This time though, I'm sympathetic to the cause. And very very sad.
Purely alt-history, hypothetical, might-turn-it-into-a-novel idea here - but what would happen if the UK 'occupied' Scotland post succession Crimea-style?
I'd pay to see that movie!
I'd pay to see that movie!
We have had that sort of thing. Look at Northern Ireland fifty or a hundred years ago, that is exactly what will happen.
And given that Scotland has thrice the population of Ireland, and an unpoliceable land border with England, you would see bombings in England like you haven't seen in 70 years.
And given that Scotland has thrice the population of Ireland, and an unpoliceable land border with England, you would see bombings in England like you haven't seen in 70 years.
What's their argument going to be, "we're sick of England deciding things for us, let's let Europe decide instead"? Scotland in the EU is a small fish in a big pond, I don't see the rational for wanting out of the UK but into the EU, Does everyone have to flip their vote from last time?
Scotland in the EU is a small fish in a somewhat bigger pond compared to the alternative.
It's tough on the Scotts no matter what, especially since during the previous referendum the main line to sell 'stay in the UK' was that otherwise they'd have to re-negotiate getting back into the EU.
It's tough on the Scotts no matter what, especially since during the previous referendum the main line to sell 'stay in the UK' was that otherwise they'd have to re-negotiate getting back into the EU.
Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion this is democracy in action. I didn't know that the queen has to sign bills though, but that's purely a ceremony and legacy process.
Actually I think Brexit is a demonstration of what happen when people don't understand democracy and the powers exploit that ignorance.
Here is what one of the Lords said today: > The Lib Dem peer Lord Taverne says that peers are entitled to refuse to back down on this issue because MPs have abandoned their commitment to representative democracy. They are now acting as delegates, not representatives, because they are giving primacy to the views of the people as expressed in the referendum.
Here is what one of the Lords said today: > The Lib Dem peer Lord Taverne says that peers are entitled to refuse to back down on this issue because MPs have abandoned their commitment to representative democracy. They are now acting as delegates, not representatives, because they are giving primacy to the views of the people as expressed in the referendum.
1. the MPs acted as delegate, the easy way out to protect their career
2. the referendum in was >2/3, while the referendum out was barely
>50%, you need a supermajority threshold on such a long-term issue
where the opinion can swing bellow/above 50%
3. most know a democracy needs a free and honest press to function so
that the people can be informed, which essentially is good
information, and not be deceived, especially for a referendum.
However after the referendum a number of leave voters were
disappointed to learn that one of the top promises of UKIP was a lie
1. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened, the UK voted to leave, and so the majority of MPs respected the will of the people and voted the bill through.
2. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met, I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people never said they wanted.
3. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what promise UKIP made you're referring to.
It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in the EU after the result of the referendum.
2. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met, I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people never said they wanted.
3. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what promise UKIP made you're referring to.
It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in the EU after the result of the referendum.
I suspect the promise was spending £350M on the NHS after Brexit, which everyone was quick to backpedal from as soon as the vote went through
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
Well, that was Vote Leave, not UKIP. And in fact, the pledge wasn't to spend the entire £350 million on the NHS, but part of it. The government is still looking to do just that, but it can't until we've actually left the EU (we're still paying them money).
I'm struggling to read the small print, fam. Can you help me out? http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png
"Let's fund the NHS instead" doesn't mean spending the entire amount. I don't think anyone seriously expected all the money to be used to fund the NHS.
Sure, the message written on the bus could have gone into more detail, but it would be a bit ridiculous to put small print on the side of a bus. The point is to have a short, snappy message that quickly gets a point across and can be read from a distance. Further details were available from the website, on leaflets, etc..
Sure, the message written on the bus could have gone into more detail, but it would be a bit ridiculous to put small print on the side of a bus. The point is to have a short, snappy message that quickly gets a point across and can be read from a distance. Further details were available from the website, on leaflets, etc..
Here's another poster, does this clarify what the actual intent was behind that message?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905...
That poster was worded horribly and was not correct. It does not represent what the pledge was. However, whenever representatives from Vote Leave were questioned about the pledge, they were always very clear they meant spending a portion of the £350 million on the NHS, not the entire amount.
I do wish that poster had been worded better. I'm sure it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to mislead.
I do wish that poster had been worded better. I'm sure it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to mislead.
I'm sure they could have simply corrected the amount and not waste any space with 'small print'.
But hey, anything goes when there are votes to be gotten, who cares about facts and accuracy anyway?
But hey, anything goes when there are votes to be gotten, who cares about facts and accuracy anyway?
The amount is correct — it's the gross amount we send to the EU. Perhaps it would have been simpler to just put the net amount — £250 million — which is still a huge amount. Even if they did that, though, people would claim they were promising to spend the entire £250 million on the NHS, which would not be correct either.
Whatever the pledge was, people would have nitpicked and claimed it was a lie. There's no way to succinctly provide enough details on the side of a bus to satisfy everyone.
Whatever the pledge was, people would have nitpicked and claimed it was a lie. There's no way to succinctly provide enough details on the side of a bus to satisfy everyone.
Judean People's Front, People's Front of Judea
I think parent was referring to the "let's fund our NHS" idea... The one on the big bus.
In my opinion the referendum was too simple to mean much. So much about leaving was not known. When a concrete deal is proposed and the terms and consequences are more clear, I think the public should have another vote on whether that specific deal passes muster. Leave voters surely did not all intend "leave in any way possible no matter what the conditions".
In my opinion the referendum was too simple to mean much. So much about leaving was not known. When a concrete deal is proposed and the terms and consequences are more clear, I think the public should have another vote on whether that specific deal passes muster. Leave voters surely did not all intend "leave in any way possible no matter what the conditions".
I think much about remaining was not known either. One thing that was clear was that a vote to remain was not a vote for the status quo.
But sure, it would have been nice to have been provided with more detail on what sort of Brexit we'd have. Perhaps the government at the time could have given greater clarity regarding that. Although, given the fact the government underwent a massive reshuffle, and the fact that the UK still has to negotiate terms with the EU, it might have been rather a challenge.
But sure, it would have been nice to have been provided with more detail on what sort of Brexit we'd have. Perhaps the government at the time could have given greater clarity regarding that. Although, given the fact the government underwent a massive reshuffle, and the fact that the UK still has to negotiate terms with the EU, it might have been rather a challenge.
I agree it would have a been a challenge, if not impossible, to truly give details on the meaning of Leave before those details were negotiated. The Leave vote has of course put the UK on the path to a specific deal. Does enough of the public want to pull the trigger on a specific deal that it would survive another vote is an interesting question to me.
I wasn't really close to this one (Irish, and living abroad at that) but I'm surprised to hear that Remain was not a vote for, approximately, the status quo.
I wasn't really close to this one (Irish, and living abroad at that) but I'm surprised to hear that Remain was not a vote for, approximately, the status quo.
What was unknown about remaining?
For one thing, how much further the "ever closer union" would go. There had already been chattering about an EU army, and it was only until after the referendum vote went through that we got concrete details on it. There was also the prospect of other countries joining the EU. Was that going to happen or not? We simply didn't (and still don't) know.
Your argument about democracy is based on the views of an unelected legislator, belonging to the party that less than two years ago demonstrated the biggest nationwide drop in popularity in modern British political history, in large part due to a loss of credibility after going back on a manifesto pledge once in power? I'm not sure he's any more qualified to comment on this subject than you or me. If anything, the reverse is true.
In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me.
The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions.
The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO.
We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.
In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me.
The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions.
The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO.
We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.
[deleted]
> Democracy is not simply about
> following the rule of the 50%
> 2. the referendum in was >2/3, while the referendum out was barely >50%, you need a supermajority threshold on such a long-term issue where the opinion can swing bellow/above 50%
There never was a referendum to join, there was a referendum to join a very different thing that evolved into the EU, don't pretend they're the same thing.
There never was a referendum to join, there was a referendum to join a very different thing that evolved into the EU, don't pretend they're the same thing.
It doesn't matter how many votes there are or how many times it's done, it's not democracy if it's not the outcome you like.
There's a saying (I paraphrase): 'A good compromise is one where everyone is equally unhappy'.
Guess you could flip around your comment and say it's not democracy if it's the outcome you like!
Guess you could flip around your comment and say it's not democracy if it's the outcome you like!
This could be interpreted as a snarky comment, but is actually on point. A good democracy should function is such a way to afford for an outcome that maximize the satisfaction of each individual.
It's Representative Democracy (via a Constitutional Monarchy) in action, that's wildly more complicated than taking profound action on the basis of a simple majority referendum.
Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion, this is best described as an absolute aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K.
Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion, this is best described as an absolute aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K.
It's most likely representatives driven by the fear of voting against the outcome of that simple referendum. Sure it's absolutely OK technically but the whole brexit thing is still a major fuckup as nobody was remotely aware of the implications of that simple question, not even those who asked as it seems.
"This is a British Democracy" [1]
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs
There was a referendum and a parliamentary vote. What else would need to be done to not make it an aberration?
What part of the brexit process do you think is not best described as an aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K?
I'll give you one clue. It's extremely rare to hold a referendum of such huge consequence.
Heck, I'll give you a second clue. It's even more rare for politicians to then behave as if the result of a non-binding referendum is binding.
I could enumerate for you the remaining peculiarities, but if you're curious you'll find plenty for yourself.
I do understand that people often like to point to simple cases like this and say "That's Democracy!", inevitably those people don't have a great understanding of the meaning.
I'll give you one clue. It's extremely rare to hold a referendum of such huge consequence.
Heck, I'll give you a second clue. It's even more rare for politicians to then behave as if the result of a non-binding referendum is binding.
I could enumerate for you the remaining peculiarities, but if you're curious you'll find plenty for yourself.
I do understand that people often like to point to simple cases like this and say "That's Democracy!", inevitably those people don't have a great understanding of the meaning.
'The people have spoken - the bastards!'
Normally, in a parliamentary system, when the government loses a vote of confidence in parliament, the government resigns and a new election is held.
This referendum was more or less a confidence vote on the government. If British democracy were functioning properly, the government would have resigned, and the people would have had a chance to elect pro-brexit representatives.
But Britain adopted fixed election dates, copying the American electoral system. And referendums, for that matter, aren't very parliamentary.
This referendum was more or less a confidence vote on the government. If British democracy were functioning properly, the government would have resigned, and the people would have had a chance to elect pro-brexit representatives.
But Britain adopted fixed election dates, copying the American electoral system. And referendums, for that matter, aren't very parliamentary.
It's hard to know if it really is just ceremonial because the last few of monarchs have never tested how much power they actually have.
Best example is likely the dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by the Governer General: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
My understanding is that royal assent does not need to be granted, but that in practice there has to be clear evidence that granting assent would lead to a disaster. It's kind of an emergency protocol. I highly doubt the brexit would qualify.
Interesting quote from Wikipedia: In 1914, George V did take legal advice on withholding royal assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, a highly contentious piece of legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. The King decided that he should not withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time".
Interesting quote from Wikipedia: In 1914, George V did take legal advice on withholding royal assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, a highly contentious piece of legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. The King decided that he should not withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time".
I didn't know that the queen has to sign bills though
Countries like Canada that have the Queen as head of state still need her royal assent for all bills. Typically the Governor General plays that role as the Queen's representative. However, you are correct that it's more of a formality than anything.
Countries like Canada that have the Queen as head of state still need her royal assent for all bills. Typically the Governor General plays that role as the Queen's representative. However, you are correct that it's more of a formality than anything.
The youth will live with this, and only 36% of them voted.
Sad day for democracy.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...
Sad day for democracy.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...
The 36% turnout figure is completely wrong. It was extrapolated from turnout at the last general election. Post-referendum research showed that turnout in the 18-24 age group was 64%, against an overall turnout of 72%. Increased turnout among young voters would not have been sufficient to change the result, due to the top-heavy age demographics in the UK - young people are simply outnumbered.
In my opinion, the Brexit vote reflects a fundamental political division in the UK and much of the developed world. Older Britons have, in a profound an systematic way, pulled the ladder up behind them. A multitude of factors have skewed society in favour of the old, from housing costs to student fees to ironclad pensions.
Pensioners have the lowest rate of poverty of any age group and are nearly half as likely to be poor than children. Pensions continue to grow above inflation, while wages have barely recovered since the financial crisis. Rampant growth in house prices coupled with a chronic shortage of social housing have effected an unprecedented transfer of wealth from young to old. On the balance of evidence, the term "kleptogerontocracy" does not seem entirely unjustified.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml
http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research
In my opinion, the Brexit vote reflects a fundamental political division in the UK and much of the developed world. Older Britons have, in a profound an systematic way, pulled the ladder up behind them. A multitude of factors have skewed society in favour of the old, from housing costs to student fees to ironclad pensions.
Pensioners have the lowest rate of poverty of any age group and are nearly half as likely to be poor than children. Pensions continue to grow above inflation, while wages have barely recovered since the financial crisis. Rampant growth in house prices coupled with a chronic shortage of social housing have effected an unprecedented transfer of wealth from young to old. On the balance of evidence, the term "kleptogerontocracy" does not seem entirely unjustified.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml
http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research
ZIRP and NIRP have been very damaging to many retired and retiring, when buying annuities and attempting to live off savings interest.
This sort of mentality and pretending to stand on the podium of social righteousness is the problem. Things didn't go how you wanted, so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, xenophobist, and racist right?
> Things didn't go how you wanted
> so therefore it must be wrong, hateful,
> xenophobist, and racist
The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".
I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't.
Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them:
- The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen.
- The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes.
- The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit.
- The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole.
- Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem.
- A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened.
As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.
Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them:
- The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen.
- The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes.
- The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit.
- The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole.
- Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem.
- A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened.
As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.
> Playing devil's advocate for a minute
> Another financial crisis is possible,
> or even likely, within the next few
> years, and the recovery could be even
> harder if it does happen
> The EU takes billions of pounds in
> funding from the UK every year
> yet has a track record of not producing
> any properly audited accounts to show
> where the money actually goes
a) The UK doesn't get £8bn of value from being part of the EU. Given the size of the tax basis from financial services (£66bn/annum), and that the UK is the EU's defacto financial and service center, and that passporting rights will likely evaporate when we leave the EU, this seems faintly ridiculous.
b) UK politicians would be able to better distribute this £8bn than EU civil servants. Evidence to support this is scant on the ground.
Both presuppositions need to be true for the argument to hold.
> The power structures of the EU are
> cryptic and there are legitimate concerns
> about democratic deficit
> The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively
> Being a member of the EU limits our ability to
> make independent trade deals with the rest of
> the world
> A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for
> ever closer union
Thankyou for taking the time to write all these out.
OK, I'll play along one more time (with the same disclaimer that this entire post is in devil's advocate mode).
It's unclear to me how one gets from there to "the UK would be better equipped to handle EU-originating recession from outside the EU", especially as it's not yet Euro-using.
One reasonable point I heard was that if you're voting to stay in on economic grounds, you're essentially betting that the benefits of closer trade with EU partners will outweigh the costs from restricted trade with non-EU partners. If the ability of those EU partners to trade effectively is significantly reduced, for example because they're dealing with a new Eurozone financial crisis, then the cost/benefit ratio could change significantly.
Another is that with almost everyone else in the EU either already in the Eurozone or planning to join it, EU policy would inevitably be built around protecting the interests of the Eurozone if crunch time arrived, but that wouldn't necessarily be in the economic interests of the few remaining non-Euro member states.
Isn't the EU budget available easily online?
I think it's the "not audited" part, and evidence suggesting various dubious "redirections" of the funds, that upset people here.
The UK doesn't get £8bn of value from being part of the EU. Given the size of the tax basis from financial services (£66bn/annum), and that the UK is the EU's defacto financial and service center, and that passporting rights will likely evaporate when we leave the EU, this seems faintly ridiculous.
The City is a major international centre for financial services, providing them to both EU and non-EU consumers. This demonstrates the demand for those services from around the world and the UK's ability to provide competitive services whether or not the consumer is also in an EU member state. This in turn suggests that businesses in other EU member states would continue to want to use the services regardless of the UK's membership.
UK politicians would be able to better distribute this £8bn than EU civil servants. Evidence to support this is scant on the ground.
But at least the UK politicians are then accountable for how they spend the money, and UK reporting standards will apply so the facts will be known.
There are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit within the UK, as well.
Certainly, and many who voted Leave also advocate electoral reform at home. But two (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
The EU parliament represents an effective third chamber, but only the second in the UK that's directly elected. I don't see how one can reasonably claim that a democratic deficit is being reduced by decreasing the proportion of lawmakers who are elected.
In the UK, the Commons has primacy over the Lords. This is enshrined in law and the power is actually used occasionally.
In the EU, there is no such primacy of the European Parliament over the Commission or Council, and even after the Lisbon Treaty the real power is concentrated in the latter parts of the EU administration.
When asked for examples, people tend to come up with bendy bananas
On the contrary, when Remain advocates criticise this point all they ever seem to come up with is something about bananas that was debunked long ago. However, there are countless other regulations that are real and just as silly. (I've seen many extensive discussions about this area, and giving my personal opinion for a moment I actually have a lot of sympathy with this particular argument.)
There's also absolutely no evidence that UK politicians would come up with better or less onerous regulation.
But what evidence would anyone reasonably expect there to be at this point? As long as the UK is part of the EU, it's subject to the EU regulations anyway, so in many cases there is neither the need nor the power for the UK government to act unilaterally. No-one knows what would happen if that changed, but it doesn't make the existing problem any less. And again, at least UK politicians would be directly accountable to the electorate for whatever regulations they did or didn't make.
Reducing the size of our negotiating power is unlikely to result in better trade deals.
The EU is trying to negotiate a trade deal on behalf of more people, but it's also trying to negotiate a trade deal in the interests of 28 member states at once, even though sometimes those member states will have very different goals or priorities.
In any case, given that the EU managed to take 7 years to complete a trade deal with Canada, and has repeatedly failed to produce a useful trade deal with the US after many years and huge costs trying, the EU's competence in making trade deals at all is suspect.
Baseless scaremongering.
That's not really a counter-argument. Many of the influential national leaders within the EU and obviously the EU's own leadership have openly advocated greater integration on economic, diplomatic, defence and other matters. Even if the UK has theoretical safeguards such as veto powers, its position will not be tenable if it is repeatedly a thorn (possibly the only thorn) in the side of the other member states, and its bargaining position could be significantly weaker after a Remain vote because the threat of leaving would be gone. You don't normally join a club if you don't agree with its principles and you object to many of its rules, but this could increasingly be the situation the UK found itself in.
It's unclear to me how one gets from there to "the UK would be better equipped to handle EU-originating recession from outside the EU", especially as it's not yet Euro-using.
One reasonable point I heard was that if you're voting to stay in on economic grounds, you're essentially betting that the benefits of closer trade with EU partners will outweigh the costs from restricted trade with non-EU partners. If the ability of those EU partners to trade effectively is significantly reduced, for example because they're dealing with a new Eurozone financial crisis, then the cost/benefit ratio could change significantly.
Another is that with almost everyone else in the EU either already in the Eurozone or planning to join it, EU policy would inevitably be built around protecting the interests of the Eurozone if crunch time arrived, but that wouldn't necessarily be in the economic interests of the few remaining non-Euro member states.
Isn't the EU budget available easily online?
I think it's the "not audited" part, and evidence suggesting various dubious "redirections" of the funds, that upset people here.
The UK doesn't get £8bn of value from being part of the EU. Given the size of the tax basis from financial services (£66bn/annum), and that the UK is the EU's defacto financial and service center, and that passporting rights will likely evaporate when we leave the EU, this seems faintly ridiculous.
The City is a major international centre for financial services, providing them to both EU and non-EU consumers. This demonstrates the demand for those services from around the world and the UK's ability to provide competitive services whether or not the consumer is also in an EU member state. This in turn suggests that businesses in other EU member states would continue to want to use the services regardless of the UK's membership.
UK politicians would be able to better distribute this £8bn than EU civil servants. Evidence to support this is scant on the ground.
But at least the UK politicians are then accountable for how they spend the money, and UK reporting standards will apply so the facts will be known.
There are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit within the UK, as well.
Certainly, and many who voted Leave also advocate electoral reform at home. But two (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
The EU parliament represents an effective third chamber, but only the second in the UK that's directly elected. I don't see how one can reasonably claim that a democratic deficit is being reduced by decreasing the proportion of lawmakers who are elected.
In the UK, the Commons has primacy over the Lords. This is enshrined in law and the power is actually used occasionally.
In the EU, there is no such primacy of the European Parliament over the Commission or Council, and even after the Lisbon Treaty the real power is concentrated in the latter parts of the EU administration.
When asked for examples, people tend to come up with bendy bananas
On the contrary, when Remain advocates criticise this point all they ever seem to come up with is something about bananas that was debunked long ago. However, there are countless other regulations that are real and just as silly. (I've seen many extensive discussions about this area, and giving my personal opinion for a moment I actually have a lot of sympathy with this particular argument.)
There's also absolutely no evidence that UK politicians would come up with better or less onerous regulation.
But what evidence would anyone reasonably expect there to be at this point? As long as the UK is part of the EU, it's subject to the EU regulations anyway, so in many cases there is neither the need nor the power for the UK government to act unilaterally. No-one knows what would happen if that changed, but it doesn't make the existing problem any less. And again, at least UK politicians would be directly accountable to the electorate for whatever regulations they did or didn't make.
Reducing the size of our negotiating power is unlikely to result in better trade deals.
The EU is trying to negotiate a trade deal on behalf of more people, but it's also trying to negotiate a trade deal in the interests of 28 member states at once, even though sometimes those member states will have very different goals or priorities.
In any case, given that the EU managed to take 7 years to complete a trade deal with Canada, and has repeatedly failed to produce a useful trade deal with the US after many years and huge costs trying, the EU's competence in making trade deals at all is suspect.
Baseless scaremongering.
That's not really a counter-argument. Many of the influential national leaders within the EU and obviously the EU's own leadership have openly advocated greater integration on economic, diplomatic, defence and other matters. Even if the UK has theoretical safeguards such as veto powers, its position will not be tenable if it is repeatedly a thorn (possibly the only thorn) in the side of the other member states, and its bargaining position could be significantly weaker after a Remain vote because the threat of leaving would be gone. You don't normally join a club if you don't agree with its principles and you object to many of its rules, but this could increasingly be the situation the UK found itself in.
>> It's unclear to me how one gets from
>> there to...
> One reasonable point I heard
> evidence suggesting various dubious
> "redirections" of the funds
However, again, there's a presupposition here that British politicians / civil-servants will be more rigorous, more diligent, etc etc.
> This demonstrates the demand for those
> services from around the world
> UK reporting standards will apply
> In the EU, there is no such primacy
> of the European Parliament over the
> Commission or Council
> countless other regulations that are
> real and just as silly
> No-one knows what would happen if
> that changed
In summary:
Every single one of these eventually comes down to "British people are better than the wider EU", at its base. Sometimes there are one or two steps to get there, but it's always there lurking. British people are more competent, so they'll do better than the EU.
Combine this with relentless scaremongering about letting The Other from inside the EU into the country (gotta watch those Bulgarians with their premium quality dairy produce and funny foreign ways!), and you come back to the original point:
> therefore it must be wrong, hateful,
> xenophobist, and racist
Brexit voter here. Reasons? The treatment of Greece; the craven slavery of the EU to Neocon coup-instigating in Ukraine (and general Russia-baiting - yes, I realise that is unlikely to change short-term in UK with Brexit, but have hopes for the future); and a general belief in the superiority of smaller polities.
> the craven slavery of the EU to Neocon
> coup-instigating in Ukraine (and general
> Russia-baiting
Wow. Defensive. Where did I write... any of that?
And what does that say about you?
And what does that say about you?
how is that a sad day for democracy? Young people had plenty of opportunity to vote but didn't bother. Non-participation in the democratic process is turning down your chance to back your stance.
I think what you actually mean is "sad day for my political viewpoint".
I think what you actually mean is "sad day for my political viewpoint".
That the majority of young people don't participate can be sad for democracy.
that anything less than a considerably majority participate in the vote could be considered a bad thing. Young people don't have a unique hold on political insight over older groups.
No, but they are the ones who have to live with the decision the longest and on whose lives it will have the most impact.
Older people also have more life experience and maybe even some wisdom. We need a diverse mix of views for democracy to be strong. Instead of penalizing one group we should try to get people more excited about voting. Things like your vote only mattering in a handful of states and there really being only two viable parties because the system suffers from the spoiler effect are obvious obstacles that most be resolved.
Weighting votes based on lifespan you can reasonably be expected to live with the outcome would lead to a different world.
A better world :)
Maybe our societies will shift to seeking longer-term gains.
Maybe our societies will shift to seeking longer-term gains.
Do you think my comment implied otherwise?
Your comment, however, dismissed that low voter turnout was sad at all, because they could have voted. And here you are saying the opposite -- that you understand it can be sad.
Your comment, however, dismissed that low voter turnout was sad at all, because they could have voted. And here you are saying the opposite -- that you understand it can be sad.
I was reacting differently to your sentiment (that low turnout is generally bad) and to the OP's (that the brexit vote was a "sad day for democracy" because their side lost and younger voters didn't bother to turn out). I think that broadly, low voter turnout is bad for representation, but that if people can't be bothered to represent their side then it's not a collapse of democracy when the other side does in fact turn up to vote.
In other words, bemoaning the result of a democratic referendum as a sad day for democracy, and attributing it to your side not showing up on the day, makes no sense and plays into a long-running theme that when the left wins it's a success for democracy and when the right wins it's a failure of democracy.
In other words, bemoaning the result of a democratic referendum as a sad day for democracy, and attributing it to your side not showing up on the day, makes no sense and plays into a long-running theme that when the left wins it's a success for democracy and when the right wins it's a failure of democracy.
They did vote. They selected the "we don't care one way or the other" option. They made the decision and now they get to live with it.
If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.
I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
I really don't get it.
Really?
In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going.
You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
Really?
In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going.
You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
"You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going.
You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win."
That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?
That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?
Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.
Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late).
The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different.
EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters?
I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
they might have voted in favor...
If Scotland were to have a referendum, and if they elected to leave the UK, would it be a possibility that, instead of Scotland leaving the UK, and then having to rejoin the EU, it was England, Wales, and Northern Island who left the UK, forming their own independent country, leaving Scotland as the "UK", and a member of the EU, and saving a lot of trouble for everyone?
Last Scottish referendum, the EU was playing hardball, largely because other countries have restive separative regions. I suspect a region wanting independence because its parent country wants to leave will play out rather differently this time.
Technically possible, but that would probably also require referendums in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave the UK, and I don't think there's much appetite for that.
Interesting idea all the same, but it's just not going to happen.
Interesting idea all the same, but it's just not going to happen.
Follow the money (and power): Who benefits from a dramatic cutback of the 'administrative state"?
I'm not sure I know the answer. Industries that are regulated may think they benefit (but a regulatory and legal framework also provide stability that attracts investors and allows businesses to focus on productive work). Those interested in fraud benefit, but that's far too broad to be meaningful and I'm not sure it's a large number of people. Wealthy and powerful people benefit: Essentially the withdrawal of the power of voters (government) leaves a vacuum at the top; but again, that is very broad.
I'm not sure I know the answer. Industries that are regulated may think they benefit (but a regulatory and legal framework also provide stability that attracts investors and allows businesses to focus on productive work). Those interested in fraud benefit, but that's far too broad to be meaningful and I'm not sure it's a large number of people. Wealthy and powerful people benefit: Essentially the withdrawal of the power of voters (government) leaves a vacuum at the top; but again, that is very broad.
A lot of private companies stand to profit for things which were done by the government. In the US for instance we pay Intuit for tax prep software, private prisons to run detention centers, and insurance companies for healthcare.
booh(5)
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-392551...