Brexit - the next steps

[Udayana]

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)

yes but cases are not comparable. Take the screw-ups over UC for example, people can pressure MPs to review and attempt to change the system,  (really whose bright idea was it to stop paying child-benefit to mothers rather than "the household"?) .. and bring issues to the fore in elections.

People do not have the same leverage in a union of 27 countries and a remote parliament, most of whose works are kept at a distance - and where local (national) government takes any credit due and assigns the EU the blame for failures.  And, where even the representatives, MEPs have less power and influence than the Commissioners and functionaries.   

In the main, the vote for leave was not on particular details of trade deals, day to day operation and so on, but on issues of sovereignty and feeling "a loss of control" - issues at a constitutional level.

Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?

[Udayana]

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.
.

Yes, or at least, at the root of the issue are the failings of our own systems rather than those of the EU which is constrained by other factors.

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes, or at least, at the root of the issue are the failings of our own systems rather than those of the EU which is constrained by other factors.

I completely agree.

[Nearly Sane]

yes but cases are not comparable. Take the screw-ups over UC for example, people can pressure MPs to review and attempt to change the system,  (really whose bright idea was it to stop paying child-benefit to mothers rather than "the household"?) .. and bring issues to the fore in elections.

People do not have the same leverage in a union of 27 countries and a remote parliament, most of whose works are kept at a distance - and where local (national) government takes any credit due and assigns the EU the blame for failures.  And, where even the representatives, MEPs have less power and influence than the Commissioners and functionaries.   

In the main, the vote for leave was not on particular details of trade deals, day to day operation and so on, but on issues of sovereignty and feeling "a loss of control" - issues at a constitutional level.

Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?

So changing the voting age, or allowing women to vote should have been referendums?

[Udayana]

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.

I don't think they were important issues, certainly not the most important in UK politics - because people had more immediate problems to deal with. But there was a build up of resentment - a in/out referendum at any time since  the  late 80's  could have given rise to the situation we have now.

Often it is all the little details that no-one pays attention to that end up causing the boat to sink.

[Rhiannon]

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.

No,you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or just aren't getting it. Just because people don't know that something is important, that doesn't mean that it isn't. For a long time most people said that climate change wasn't important to them personally. That doesn't change the fact that it was and is important.

Just because people may have thought or felt that the EU wasn't important, that doesn't make it factual that it wasn't. Actually the political classes should have explained over and over just how important the EU is, in terms of security, health care, food, jobs, the economy... All the things that people will have told MORI that they prioritise - the NHS, the economy, security, the environment - are now threatened by Brexit because the EU was the lynchpin for it all. Now do you see what I am saying? Whether people thought it was or not isn't relevant. It was and is vitally important, but Brown and the rest thought that they could just do deals without explaining why they were done or the benefits to Jeremy's ordinary people. It was so import, only people didn't know so they didn't prioritise it. And now that it is becoming apparent it is too fucking late.

[Sriram]

Sorry to intervene  in your discussions. I am not involved in this but I must say that the economy need not be the highest priority for everyone.   The economy is only one factor. There are many others factors such as identity, language, culture, personal security, bonding, social integration....and many other factors which could take precedence over economic issues.   

[Udayana]

So changing the voting age, or allowing women to vote should have been referendums?

hmm .. only if you can ensure a fair vote

[wigginhall]

I noticed the other day that Barnier said that 80% of the deal is done.  I am guessing that a big chunk of the 20% concerns Ireland, and probably the EU will be wary, as this seemed to be settled in December, but May pulled back, as DUP said no.   So I guess there are possible solutions.  I bet lots of people want a sketchy deal as then you get a two year transition, and the immediate panic is over.  Well, maybe.

[Nearly Sane]

hmm .. only if you can ensure a fair vote

Which is an issue with referendums. I take your point about constitutional change but given our nebulous constitution it isn't easy to know what that covers. In addition if you do have a clear constitution, such as the  U.S. then the method of change doesn't have to be referendums. Because referendums tend to be binary by default, they aren't good at complex issyes. Problem is most issues are complex.

[Stranger]

Keep seeing this - sorry if it's been posted before...

Danny Dyer calls David Cameron 'a twat' over Brexit

[Aruntraveller]

Sorry, not sorry Newsthump again:

http://newsthump.com/2017/01/06/iceberg-insists-it-can-thrive-on-its-own-after-winning-referendum-to-leave-antarctica/

[Rhiannon]

Keep seeing this - sorry if it's been posted before...

Danny Dyer calls David Cameron 'a twat' over Brexit

And he's related to the kings of England. Perhaps he should start a revolution.

[ProfessorDavey]

No,you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or just aren't getting it. Just because people don't know that something is important, that doesn't mean that it isn't. For a long time most people said that climate change wasn't important to them personally.

In the Mori issues index people aren't asked about issues that are important to them personally, they are asked about important issues facing Britain.

Really is a bankrupt argument when you are trying to equate those concerned about the EU (over decades the preserve of a small number of idealogical hard right fanatics) and those concerned about climate change (scientists using evidence). Of course the better comparison is eurosceptic fanatics and climate change deniers - they are the bed fellows of course.

[Rhiannon]

In the Mori issues index people aren't asked about issues that are important to them personally, they are asked about important issues facing Britain.

Really is a bankrupt argument when you are trying to equate those concerned about the EU (over decades the preserve of a small number of idealogical hard right fanatics) and those concerned about climate change (scientists using evidence). Of course the better comparison is eurosceptic fanatics and climate change deniers - they are the bed fellows of course.

I give up.

[jeremyp]

Where did I use the word 'secret'?

I didn't say you used the word "secret", it was implied by your post.

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.

The EU treaties are not constructed to be overly complicated. They are necessarily complicated thanks to the fact that the EU is a complex organisation and you cannot reasonably expect anybody whose job is not related to the EU organisation in some way to have the time to fully understand them. The same applies to pretty much any complex issue of government which is why we don't do referendums on everything and instead pay a body of elected officials to run the country.

[Rhiannon]

I didn't say you used the word "secret", it was implied by your post.
The EU treaties are not constructed to be overly complicated. They are necessarily complicated thanks to the fact that the EU is a complex organisation and you cannot reasonably expect anybody whose job is not related to the EU organisation in some way to have the time to fully understand them. The same applies to pretty much any complex issue of government which is why we don't do referendums on everything and instead pay a body of elected officials to run the country.

What the fuck is it with everyone thinking that by making a statement I'm 'implying' something that isn't there? What happened to the need for evidence round this place? FFS.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?

In which case step forward ... the UK.

In the past few years the following constitutional changes have been made or are in the process of being made (and these are just examples, there are many others):

Abolition of hereditary peers
Alternation in accession rules for our head of state
Reduction in number of MPs to 600 (currently going through)
Fixed term parliament act

Some I agree with, some I don't - that isn't the point. The point is that not one has been put to a referendum. All have been passed purely by parliament, so my only way to block them is to try to change the makeup of parliament (but I only have a vote in one of 650 constituencies) or to campaign more widely to get parliament either to take my stance or to put the constitutional change to a referendum.

And before you claim that this is still different to the EU, well you are wrong. Constitutional changes in the EU are still all subject to requirement of unanimous approval by all member states, i.e. each country has a veto. So if there is a major constitutional change in the EU my options to influence are identical to that for the UK (see above). Although I do have one further option - if I oppose an EU constitutional change and it is clear that the UK government is going to approve, I can also campaign to persuade another country to block it (e.g. Ireland) and therefore have rather more option to influence constitutional change in the EU than in the UK.

[wigginhall]

I'm still wrestling with the Irish issue.  As far as I can see, the first agreement (December), was that NI would remain in the single market - initially, May agreed to this, but it was nixed by DUP.  It would mean in effect, no Irish border.

The problem then is that if NI withdraws from single market, there is automatically a hard border with the South.  This might go against Good Friday agreement, and create security fears.  You might have an emergency waiver also, whereby goods and people move freely, a kind of bodge.

Any other offers?

[Rhiannon]

I'm still wrestling with the Irish issue.  As far as I can see, the first agreement (December), was that NI would remain in the single market - initially, May agreed to this, but it was nixed by DUP.  It would mean in effect, no Irish border.

The problem then is that if NI withdraws from single market, there is automatically a hard border with the South.  This might go against Good Friday agreement, and create security fears.  You might have an emergency waiver also, whereby goods and people move freely, a kind of bodge.

Any other offers?

A united Ireland?

[ProfessorDavey]

A united Ireland?

Hmm - the DUP are really likely to go for that aren't they. And of course they are all that hold's the May government together.

[Rhiannon]

Hmm - the DUP are really likely to go for that aren't they. And of course they are all that hold's the May government together.

I wasn’t being serious, but it’s another solution on paper.

As a thought experiment I wonder if May could give up NI in exchange for goodies.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wasn’t being serious, but it’s another solution on paper.

As a thought experiment I wonder if May could give up NI in exchange for goodies.

No - the leader of a different party perhaps (although unlikely) but not the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party.

[Rhiannon]

No - the leader of a different party perhaps (although unlikely) but not the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party.

Yeah, I get that. But if we did have a different PM, I wonder if it'd be possible. In a sense it'd solve a lot of problems.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, I get that. But if we did have a different PM, I wonder if it'd be possible. In a sense it'd solve a lot of problems.

only Nixon can go to China.