Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Even with a different party and different leader it would only be possible with the explicit consent of the people of NI, i.e. through a referendum result. There is no way that any party leader would cede NI to the Republic other than via a referendum agreement so to do.

[wigginhall]

Of course, the old joke in the South was, no, please, anything but that (absorption of the north).

[Robbie]

only Nixon can go to China.

Indeed, I saw him do it at the ENO many years ago.

[jeremyp]

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.

Because that is what your post implied. It’s the way the English language works. You say something with a meaning. I don’t have to quote it back to you exactly, I can use different words that mean the same thing.

[Udayana]

In which case step forward ... the UK.

...

If you read carefully you will see that my complaints were about the UK constitution rather than the EU's  (not that the EU's does not have significant problems)

I'm not arguing that every change requires a referendum but those that significantly change the role of government in society. If such changes are not understood, discussed and agreed then there is a critical weakening of the social contract. For most issues the result of the next general election should suffice.

Major international treaties affecting basic rights are likely to need ratification by separate referendum (imo).
 
   

[Udayana]

Because that is what your post implied. It’s the way the English language works. You say something with a meaning. I don’t have to quote it back to you exactly, I can use different words that mean the same thing.

Rhi's post did not imply "secret". Anyway even if you think it did, why persist on that point when it has been explained that that was not meant?

On the actual point at issue, the EU agreements are of-course long and complicated, and rather inaccessible to most of the voting population. If OUR government does not put in the effort to explain and get agreement on the important points, is it any wonder when a majority of the electorate decide they would rather put their trust in a bunch of snake-oil salesmen and flouncers?

 

[Nearly Sane]

Some interesting stuff in here.


https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

[Spud]

Re: the Irish border: England was conquered by the Normans in the 11th Century. Gaelic Ireland at this time comprised the whole island. But when one of its many native Irish kings (who ruled individual territories) sought help from Henry II to regain his territory, in return for allegiance to Henry, the English later conquered much of the island.

So since Britain and parts of Ireland were both conquered by the Normans, they share that in common. To go back to a unified Ireland would be turning back the clock to before its conquest by Norman England. Equally, Britain leaving the EU would turn back the clock to the time of its pre-Norman independence from Europe. So strictly speaking N. Ireland has the right to leave the UK, since the whole of Ireland was originally independent of Britain.

The second millennium AD would then be known as "the one with the Normans".

[Rhiannon]

Some interesting stuff in here.


https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

Cracking article, thank you.

[Shaker]

Agree. Long, detailed but a belter.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you read carefully you will see that my complaints were about the UK constitution rather than the EU's  (not that the EU's does not have significant problems)

I'm not arguing that every change requires a referendum but those that significantly change the role of government in society. If such changes are not understood, discussed and agreed then there is a critical weakening of the social contract. For most issues the result of the next general election should suffice.

Major international treaties affecting basic rights are likely to need ratification by separate referendum (imo).
 
 

Fair enough - I'm glad that you accept that the UK constitution is at least as bad as the EU treaties in lacking direct consent of the electorate via referendums.

That said I'm not convinced that all constitutional changes require a referendum provided you have a robust democratic system (and here again there are issues with the UK). The key, it seems to me, is whether changes are able to be reversed. And in my examples I can readily see that the representative democratic process is able to reverse abolishing hereditary peers (not that I can see much public appetite), repealing the FTPA etc. The ones that are more tricky are, of course, those that directly affect the democratic process to elect that representative parliament e.g. changing voting system for general elections and reducing numbers of MPs - those are perhaps the ones that really should require a referendum as they will fundamentally change the make up of the house that could repeal the changes.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the actual point at issue, the EU agreements are of-course long and complicated, and rather inaccessible to most of the voting population.

But again this isn't just the case for EU legislation - have you ever read any Acts of Parliament - they are usually (and necessarily) incredibly long, complicated and written in legalese.

I agree that the government needs to explain what is in all legislative instruments (whether UK or EU) but this doesn't extend to explaining the technical details line by line. We have legislative scrutiny processes for that. They key is to explain the basic aims of the legislation and in most cases this is relatively straightforward.

[ad_orientem]

Re: the Irish border: England was conquered by the Normans in the 11th Century. Gaelic Ireland at this time comprised the whole island. But when one of its many native Irish kings (who ruled individual territories) sought help from Henry II to regain his territory, in return for allegiance to Henry, the English later conquered much of the island.

So since Britain and parts of Ireland were both conquered by the Normans, they share that in common. To go back to a unified Ireland would be turning back the clock to before its conquest by Norman England. Equally, Britain leaving the EU would turn back the clock to the time of its pre-Norman independence from Europe. So strictly speaking N. Ireland has the right to leave the UK, since the whole of Ireland was originally independent of Britain.

The second millennium AD would then be known as "the one with the Normans".

Never liked the Normans. Always thought it was a shame they wone the Battle of Hastings.

[Rhiannon]

Never liked the Normans. Always thought it was a shame they wone the Battle of Hastings.

Although by heritage they were mostly from Viking stock.

[wigginhall]

Very good article above.  One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically.   Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building.   So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment.   But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.

[Rhiannon]

Very good article above.  One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically.   Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building.   So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment.   But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.

And also decrease the welfare state. I saw a programme years ago in which young men in Peterborough were interviewed about why they didn’t take agricultural jobs and they said life on the dole was easier and more fun. So based on that in order to make local people take the jobs traditionally filled by migrants you have to give them no other options.

[Udayana]

Very good article above.  One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically.   Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building.   So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment.   But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.

That is a problem really. Though the article nicely collects all the reasoning and emotions behind the brexit vote, even if we leave with the hardest of hard brexits, there is no real reason to think this would resolve any of our underlying problems and reduce discontent. 

[Rhiannon]

That is a problem really. Though the article nicely collects all the reasoning and emotions behind the brexit vote, even if we leave with the hardest of hard brexits, there is no real reason to think this would resolve any of our underlying problems and reduce discontent.

Yes. It's funny how one forgets things. I'd forgotten the sense of unease when Blair opened our border believing that ten thousand people from Eastern Europe would arrive, but instead it was in the hundreds of thousands. What a betrayal of working people. But I don't feel that unease now because I like my Eastern European neighbours, I like what they bring to me locality and it still remains a very 'English' place to be in terms of its identity. Yet the schools don't have places and the maternity unit is dangerously overstretched. And this isn't about the dispossessed but affluent people living in an affluent area who can no longer get access to services, or have seen those services decline.

I think that the nationalist movement in Scotland really poked a stick at the sense of English nationalism that the article mentions. It may not have been intended but I think the English felt a lot of hate directed in their direction. It made the country want to put up its walls and self-isolate. And whatever happens with Brexit, the mistrust between the Scots and the English will be a toxic problem for decades.

Career politicians are a real bugbear of mine. And it really isn't just the Tories; I could weep at the ineptitude of the show cabinet who tend to justify their suitability for office with 'I served on my local authority'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes. It's funny how one forgets things. I'd forgotten the sense of unease when Blair opened our border believing that ten thousand people from Eastern Europe would arrive, but instead it was in the hundreds of thousands. What a betrayal of working people. But I don't feel that unease now because I like my Eastern European neighbours, I like what they bring to me locality and it still remains a very 'English' place to be in terms of its identity. Yet the schools don't have places and the maternity unit is dangerously overstretched. And this isn't about the dispossessed but affluent people living in an affluent area who can no longer get access to services, or have seen those services decline.

I think that the nationalist movement in Scotland really poked a stick at the sense of English nationalism that the article mentions. It may not have been intended but I think the English felt a lot of hate directed in their direction. It made the country want to put up its walls and self-isolate. And whatever happens with Brexit, the mistrust between the Scots and the English will be a toxic problem for decades.

Career politicians are a real bugbear of mine. And it really isn't just the Tories; I could weep at the ineptitude of the show cabinet who tend to justify their suitability for office with 'I served on my local authority'.

What is interesting is that there is a negative correlation between proportional Brexit vote and numbers of migrants - in other words places with tiny numbers of migrants voted most heavily for brexit and vice versa. So the issue of migration wasn't one of reality (people in consitutencies 'over-run' with migrants voting leave) but perception - people in constituencies where migrants were as rare as hen's teeth voting leave because of a perceived problem of migration, which clearly didn't affect their locality.

[Rhiannon]

What is interesting is that there is a negative correlation between proportional Brexit vote and numbers of migrants - in other words places with tiny numbers of migrants voted most heavily for brexit and vice versa. So the issue of migration wasn't one of reality (people in consitutencies 'over-run' with migrants voting leave) but perception - people in constituencies where migrants were as rare as hen's teeth voting leave because of a perceived problem of migration, which clearly didn't affect their locality.

Do you have the stats for that?

I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?

Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.

I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.

[wigginhall]

Noticeable in London, 50% foreign or thereabouts, and most boroughs voted remain.  In fact, I think most big cities.  Presumably also a correlation with left/right, i.e. Tories voted leave?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you have the stats for that?

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/

Scroll down to Figure 2. There is a clear negative correlation between % Brexit vote and proportion of non-UK born residents.

[Rhiannon]

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/

Scroll down to Figure 2. There is a clear negative correlation between % Brexit vote and proportion of non-UK born residents.

What I think it happening is that areas where there hasn't been a lot of migration in the past got scared by EU migration. I've described where I live; there are few minority groups living here, therefore the Eastern Europeans are noticeable. In areas with high migration and minority groups, not so much. And a lot of Europeans have ended up in traditionally white areas, particularly rural places, which are more conservative anyway.

[wigginhall]

Interesting story going around that May's Chequers plan was so unlikely to be accepted by the Ultras and by the EU, that she must have known this.   After that, many theories about that, e.g. she doesn't know what she's doing, she's hoping for an emergency waiver from EU, she's resigned to crashing out, she has a cunning plan, she wants to cancel the whole thing, etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

And a lot of Europeans have ended up in traditionally white areas ...

And what race are non UK Europeans, other than ... err ... white.