Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

... or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time.

Why do you think that leaving in 2009 (for example) would have had fewer consequences than now - the process is exactly the same. But there is a big difference - had we left in 2009 that would have been at the same time as the peak effect of the global economic crisis - the economic consequences would have been horrendous compared to now when we are at least leaving at a time when the global economy is pretty buoyant, even if our economy is stagnating due to brexit.

[Rhiannon]

Why do you think that leaving in 2009 (for example) would have had fewer consequences than now - the process is exactly the same. But there is a big difference - had we left in 2009 that would have been at the same time as the peak effect of the global economic crisis - the economic consequences would have been horrendous compared to now when we are at least leaving at a time when the global economy is pretty buoyant, even if our economy is stagnating due to brexit.

The wasn't my argument though.

[Udayana]

I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue -
...

I agree with this, however the issue is much deeper and reflects the inadequacies of both the EU and UK constitutions.

The UK constitution (or all the bits and pieces that are considered as one) does not require referenda to ratify international treaties, even those that fundamentally change it's democratic basis or sovereignty of the UK parliament.

The EU constitution treaty was an attempt to mash together various earlier treaties as the basis for the EU institutions - this was rejected in the countries that require referenda on international treaties. Then the changes it proposed were incorporated into the Lisbon treaty as a set of modifications to existing treaties, eventually accepted following some minor changes.
 
That treaties that change the constitution and sovereignty can be arranged and implemented without reference to the electorate must, imv, result in a democratic deficit - as eventually expressed in 2016.

If all EU (EEC) electorates had directly ratified the significant (constitution changing) treaties throughout we would now have a very different, much more democratic, EU. The fault is not directly that of the EU itself but of the governments and civil services of the member states. In our case, our own.

[Rhiannon]

I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.

[Udayana]

I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.

I think you are right in that if we had had a referendum in 2007 ( to ratify the Lisbon treaty - and earlier to ratify Maastricht)  and those treaties had been changed in response, we would not have had one in 2016.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.

Because they were on different issues - a 20076 referendum would have been on the narrow issue of the Lisbon treaty - it would have been irrelevant to those who frankly don't care how the EU operates, they want out - they existed well before 2007 (remember Jimmy Goldsmith's referendum party as long ago as 1997 and remember that UKIP existed long before Lisbon).

[ProfessorDavey]

The wasn't my argument though.

What was your argument?

[ProfessorDavey]

If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off.

I'm sorry - it wasn't a big issue at all. Sure there was some negative publicity in the right wing press, but did the public give a damn - nope.

https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1022468708210491392

This is the long standing Mori issue tracker - effectively those polled can name any important issue they think is facing the country, and this is unprompted. Note the complete lack of concern about the EU throughout the time of Lisbon negotiation and its signing by Gordon Brown in October 2007. Less than 5% of the public considered the EU to be an issue at the time. Why would you hold a referendum on an issue that 95% of the population don't think is, well, an issue.

[Rhiannon]

Because they were on different issues - a 20076 referendum would have been on the narrow issue of the Lisbon treaty - it would have been irrelevant to those who frankly don't care how the EU operates, they want out - they existed well before 2007 (remember Jimmy Goldsmith's referendum party as long ago as 1997 and remember that UKIP existed long before Lisbon).

If it wasn't of interest then Brown wouldn't have signed the Treaty in the way that he did and other countries wouldn't have felt that a referendum was needed. Frankly the way Brown behaved stank. Who was he trying to appease? The likes of Corbyn in his own party? The electorate? Note that Ukip's ascendancy happened after Lisbon. If we didn't agree to ratify Lisbon then something would have needed to happen - the Treaty needed to be changed or we would need to leave. Actually it would in effect have been a vote for or against the EU.

You are wrong to think that people didn't care about Europe back then. The nuts and bolts of how it worked may not have been that interesting (or, more likely, were too complex to get to grips with) but the bigger issues such as shared laws and courts, freedom of movement and the single currency were and are. It was something talked about in the pub quite a lot, and not just because this is a farming area. One thing I have always been against is us joining the Euro and one unintended consequence of voting Leave is that it makes joining the Euro more likely. If we ask to rejoin the EU post Brexit (and I think it highly likely that we will) then it will be on the EU's terms, and that will include giving up Sterling.

[jeremyp]

If all EU (EEC) electorates had directly ratified the significant (constitution changing) treaties throughout we would now have a very different, much more democratic, EU. The fault is not directly that of the EU itself but of the governments and civil services of the member states. In our case, our own.

We live in a representative democracy. We don't have referenda to decide policy decisions except when the government is too cowardly to take responsibility for difficult decisions.

A referendum on Maastricht or on Lisbon would have descended into the same sort of shitfest that the Brexit referendum became. Ordinary people are just not equipped to understand the complexities of the changes that Maastricht or Lisbon introduced. There wouldn't have been a chance of making an informed vote for most people.

[Rhiannon]

We live in a representative democracy. We don't have referenda to decide policy decisions except when the government is too cowardly to take responsibility for difficult decisions.

A referendum on Maastricht or on Lisbon would have descended into the same sort of shitfest that the Brexit referendum became. Ordinary people are just not equipped to understand the complexities of the changes that Maastricht or Lisbon introduced. There wouldn't have been a chance of making an informed vote for most people.

Yes, the little people are just too stupid to know what's good for them.

[jeremyp]

Yes, the little people are just too stupid to know what's good for them.

Ordinary people is all of us i.e. not the politicians and lawyers that constructed the treaties.

[Rhiannon]

Ordinary people is all of us i.e. not the politicians and lawyers that constructed the treaties.

The problem is that by not giving anyone the Janet and John version you create an information vacuum perfect for the likes of Farage, Johnson, the Mail and other purveyors of fake news to fill.

[jeremyp]

The problem is that by not giving anyone the Janet and John version you create an information vacuum perfect for the likes of Farage, Johnson, the Mail and other purveyors of fake news to fill.

Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?

[Udayana]

Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?

They are not secret but deliberately over-complicated and obscured. Compare the EU constitution with that of the US.

If the treaties that reduced (or appeared to reduce) peoples rights had to be explained to the electorate before adoption they would be very different.

[Rhiannon]

Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?

Where did I use the word 'secret'?

If the way that a treaty is worded or organised isn't communicated effectively to the electorate (because they are too 'ordinary' to get it, perhaps) then that creates an information vacuum. The alternative is that the treaties and processes are deliberately constructed to be overcomplicated and obscure, as Uday says, in which case that makes a mockery of democracy and suddenly Leave seems to have a point.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are wrong to think that people didn't care about Europe back then. The nuts and bolts of how it worked may not have been that interesting (or, more likely, were too complex to get to grips with) but the bigger issues such as shared laws and courts, freedom of movement and the single currency were and are. It was something talked about in the pub quite a lot, and not just because this is a farming area.

Yet when Mori asked people (unprompted) to name issues facing the UK just 5% (or less) mentioned the EU. If it was important they'd have mentioned it when polled in far greater numbers.

The reality is that until the referendum the EU was a big issue for a tiny proportion of obsessives (most of whom wouldn't have been satisfied with a referendum on Lisbon as it didn't give the option to leave) while the vast, vast majority simply didn't see the EU as an important issue. Cameron changed all that, of course, by forcing people to see it as an issue, which is what happens when you call a referendum.

[Rhiannon]

Yet when Mori asked people (unprompted) to name issues facing the UK just 5% (or less) mentioned the EU. If it was important they'd have mentioned it when polled in far greater numbers.

The reality is that until the referendum the EU was an issue for a tiny proportion of obsessives (most of whom wouldn't have been satisfied with a referendum on Lisbon as it didn't give the option to leave) while the vast, vast majority simply didn't see the EU as an important issue. Cameron changed all that, of course, by forcing people to see it as an issue, which is what happens when you call a referendum.

Yet we've just had a load of posts on how the EU deliberately framed its treaties and processes in ways that most people can't follow. "not interested in' or 'cannot understand' is not the same thing as 'not important to'. Had this stuff been explained, had people been made to take notice before, we might not have the utter bollock-up we are now facing. Because it is important to people - isn't it? Because if it isn't then Brexit won't make any difference and all the fears about security, the economy etc are totally without foundation.

What you actually appear to be saying is that the European bureaucrats should be free to draw up treaties to which various governments sign up without putting the nuts and bolts of those treaties in their manifestoes or to the country to vote on. Is that democracy?

[ProfessorDavey]

Note that Ukip's ascendancy happened after Lisbon.

Actually way later than Lisbon - there is no credible evidence that the signing of Lisbon in 2007 resulting in a big surge in UKIP support. It is easy to check by looking at the closest election results before and after the signing.

So for the general election we are comparing 2005 and 2010 - the UKIP % vote went up by just 0.9%, hardly a surge in anyone's books.

Ah, I hear you saying, but general elections isn't where UKIP were strongest - it is the European Parliament elections. So let's compare UKIPs 15.6% in 2004 (before Lisbon) with their 16.0% in 2009 (after Lisbon). Hardly evidence that Lisbon was somehow instrumental in UKIP's ascendency.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet we've just had a load of posts on how the EU deliberately framed its treaties and processes in ways that most people can't follow. "not interested in' or 'cannot understand' is not the same thing as 'not important to'.

If is was important then when polled (unprompted) people would have said so regardless of why it was important - but they didn't. Or rather 95% didn't.

If you ask someone 'what are the most important or other important issues facing Britain today', completely unprompted so they can say anything they like and you can mention as many issues as you like, and they fail to mention something I think you can conclude that it isn't important to them. That's how the Mori issues tracker works. And the fact that it is unprompted is critical as it doesn't push people into thinking something is important when it isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you actually appear to be saying is that the European bureaucrats should be free to draw up treaties to which various governments sign up without putting the nuts and bolts of those treaties in their manifestoes or to the country to vote on. Is that democracy?

But isn't that exactly what happens all the time in parliament - just change European bureaucrats to Civil Servants - how many changes in the law etc, etc go are proposed by the government, drafted by civil servants and are enacted without a vote in the country in a referendum.

And don't forget the following.

1. Only one country (Ireland) actually had a referendum on Lisbon
2. Ratification by the UK followed a vote in Parliament
3. Support for what ultimately became the Lisbon Treaty (which was significantly watered down from the earlier proposed constitution) was in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto and Labour won that election (on that manifesto)

[Rhiannon]

If is was important then when polled (unprompted) people would have said so regardless of why it was important - but they didn't. Or rather 95% didn't.

If you ask someone 'what are the most important or other important issues facing Britain today', completely unprompted so they can say anything they like and you can mention as many issues as you like, and they fail to mention something I think you can conclude that it isn't important to them. That's how the Mori issues tracker works. And the fact that it is unprompted is critical as it doesn't push people into thinking something is important when it isn't.

But Jeremy has already said that ordinary people don't understand the EU then and still don't. 'Not understanding' is not the same thing as 'not important to', and nor is 'not interested in'. People might not have been given enough information to actually realise that it was and is important, but if that was a deliberate act then that is a subversion of democracy. Because if Brexit isn't important to each and every one of us then it will have no impact, right?

[Rhiannon]

But isn't that exactly what happens all the time in parliament - just change European bureaucrats to Civil Servants - how many changes in the law etc, etc go are proposed by the government, drafted by civil servants and are enacted without a vote in the country in a referendum.

And don't forget the following.

1. Only one country (Ireland) actually had a referendum on Lisbon
2. Ratification by the UK followed a vote in Parliament
3. Support for Lisbon was in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto and Labour won that election (on that manifesto)

Did Labour spell out what Lisbon meant? We've already been told that nobody outside of politics and the civil service can understand it.

[ProfessorDavey]

'Not understanding' is not the same thing as 'not important to', and nor is 'not interested in'.

How many times?!?

If the EU as an issue was 'important to' the British people, then when asked by Mori:

1. What is the most important issue facing Britain today

2. What are other important issues facing Britain today

then they'd mention EU, brexit, single currency, common market etc etc (all are bundled into the same category) at the very least in Q2. Yet from 2005 until after the 2015 general election typically only about 5% of people mentioned it. Incredibly just after Cameron was elected in 2010 the survey recorded that just 1% polled mentioned EU, brexit, single currency, common market as an important issue.

So in effect you seem to be saying that it was an important issue, so important intact that the vast majority failed to mention it when asked.

[Harrowby Hall]

They are not secret but deliberately over-complicated and obscured. Compare the EU constitution with that of the US.

And then compare the EU and US constitutions with that of the UK.


And before anyone replies that there is no British Constitution, yes there is.   It has never been codified.
.