Off Topic UK / EU Future

[yorkshirehornet]

1) Depends what you consider democracy to be. In this country we operate a representative democracy which entitles people to stand for Parliament and to vote whoever they are subject to age 18. There is nothing in that about what it produces but that is how it is
2) We have an unwritten constitution based on legal precedents and previous laws. The referendum was held according to that. You can state you own thoughts as to why the referendum was called and millions may agree or disagree - that is called democracy and free speech too.
3) Brexit is being enacted by Parliament not validated, a process that is simply legally necessary. The splits were obviously there - the result simply showed them.
4) The government was already legitimised so the GE was not called for that purpose. It was called to enable TM to carry out the brexit she wanted with minimum opposition - and it failed spectacularly.
5) Our Parliament is operating as it has for centuries - with agreements and disagreements and conflicts ongoing as part of the natural process. If you do not like this "mess" you, alongside every other citizen, are entitled to campaign for change.
6) It is of course democracy and if you do not like it then campaign for change.

I am not going to argue the points with you as on this thread it goes on and on and round and round...We can argue it all ways.

IMO the referendum and what followed should never have happened and only happened because of divisions in the Tory party

 

[yorkshirehornet]

With an undemocratic outcome. One that's already seeing us all worse off. One that's given undue credence to the uglier side of human nature. One that threatens peace in Ulster. One that has already cost thousands of jobs. One that will quite probably cost tens of thousands more. One that removes our influence from within the scientific community. One that may yet dissolve the Union.

Madness ............................

 

[Leo]

Whilst it seems (almost) obvious what those voting Brexit wanted to achieve,and this has been articulated clearly on this forum, nowhere in the last 2 years have I seen ANY description of the benefits that the people of the UK will get from these achievements. Could someone enlighten me please? So far the negotiations have not once mentioned what benefits leaving will bring us-and no professional body has suggested any benefits either yet. For this reason alone, it seems ludicrous not to have the chance , through Parliament or referendum,(however undermining of parliamentary authority a referendum is) for a (democratic) decision to be taken on the final outcome of the negotiations.
By way of comparison, suppose when Chamberlain returned from Munich we had a referendum which voted not to declare war on Germany. Did that mean that 12 months later the government or parliament would have been prevented from declaring war because the referendum said we shouldn’t? What would it take to overturn the result-German tanks in Whitehall ?

I agree with all this.
However can I try to argue for brexiters who seem too shy to tell us for themselves.
1 Some claim we will be better off economically as we will be free to do world trade deals. Whether or not they are correct cannot be determined absolutely. Almost all forecast and predictions suggest they are wrong.
2 We will not be compelled to take migrants. How many and from where will be our decision. Just how good that is remains to be seen - many of us did not see immigration as a problem so expect no benefit. Still if being able to set your own rules is important to you this would be e benefit even if you adopted exactly the same rules.
3 Sovereignty is cited as a beneift. Frankly I do notunderstandit as the concept is woolly and in an international world you share sovereignty when you interact with other nations in contracts.
4 We will not be bound by rulings of the ECJ. There have been few examples where we have "suffered" from ECJ rulings but if it bothers you then have the ECJ have less say over our affairs could be called a benefit. Given that international affairs will always need an independent "higher court" I am not sure how we will gain from this.
I struggle to even think of anything else and frankly do not personally see any benefit in those 4 points - but clearly some do.

On your comparison with Chamberlain I am inclined to agree. If Parliament thought we were acting in a way that harmed the UK then I do not see how it would not be legitimate to halt the process and say we are not doing it. Constitutionally it wold cause an uproar but who cares if it stops the country committing suicide.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

I agree with all this.
However can I try to argue for brexiters who seem too shy to tell us for themselves.
1 Some claim we will be better off economically as we will be free to do world trade deals. Whether or not they are correct cannot be determined absolutely. Almost all forecast and predictions suggest they are wrong.
2 We will not be compelled to take migrants. How many and from where will be our decision. Just how good that is remains to be seen - many of us did not see immigration as a problem so expect no benefit. Still if being able to set your own rules is important to you this would be e benefit even if you adopted exactly the same rules.
3 Sovereignty is cited as a beneift. Frankly I do notunderstandit as the concept is woolly and in an international world you share sovereignty when you interact with other nations in contracts.
4 We will not be bound by rulings of the ECJ. There have been few examples where we have "suffered" from ECJ rulings but if it bothers you then have the ECJ have less say over our affairs could be called a benefit. Given that international affairs will always need an independent "higher court" I am not sure how we will gain from this.
I struggle to even think of anything else and frankly do not personally see any benefit in those 4 points - but clearly some do.

On your comparison with Chamberlain I am inclined to agree. If Parliament thought we were acting in a way that harmed the UK then I do not see how it would not be legitimate to halt the process and say we are not doing it. Constitutionally it wold cause an uproar but who cares if it stops the country committing suicide.

I find it odd Leo that you slam my posts and disagree strongly and then post something that is totally in accord with my views?

Your last point is something a lot of us have been going on on and about every since it happened...Parliament did NOT have to rubber stamp the referendum... and in fact many MPs have said this and voted accordingly. I think i am right in saying too that there is no legal binding to carrying out the result of a referendum...and we dont have a constitution anyway...

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Parliament has failed the people. This is an occasion when the people need to be saved from themselves.

 

[Leo]

I am not going to argue the points with you as on this thread it goes on and on and round and round...We can argue it all ways.

IMO the referendum and what followed should never have happened and only happened because of divisions in the Tory party

Fine. They were your points so I was doing you the courtesy of a response. If you are done with arguing that is not a problem.
You can of course hold the Tory party as the big bad wolf if that makes you feel good. We know you dislike the Tory party so that helps us judge your opinions. Personally I think that is ridiculously simplistic as everything about the EU has been debated and divisive in Labour and Conservative parties for decades - and if people start voting in millions (drawn from many sides of the political spectrum) for an anti EU party that to me is more complicated than "divisions in the Tory party". Still you probably do not want to go round and round on this either.

 

[Leo]

I find it odd Leo that you slam my posts and disagree strongly and then post something that is totally in accord with my views?

Your last point is something a lot of us have been going on on and about every since it happened...Parliament did NOT have to rubber stamp the referendum... and in fact many MPs have said this and voted accordingly. I think i am right in saying too that there is no legal binding to carrying out the result of a referendum...and we dont have a constitution anyway...

I don't "slam your posts" - I express my views on points you make in a calm polite manner- they are only my opinions and if you want to go round and round I am happy to debate them. You made sweeping statements about our democracy which I do not share. Both you and Cologne have criticised our democracy but I value and support it.
You and I both are remainers so we have that in common. Even so in answer to Bodbo I tried to see what brexiters see as a benefit - I of course see no benefit in brexit - neither do you so on that we share views.

My last point though is almost revolutionary - what I feel is I would almost abandon democracy to stay in the EU. If Parliament chose to go down this route it would be more than controversial. In arguing that though I am not saying our democracy is not functioning as it should - but that if push came to shove I might prefer to see it in crisis. Oh - and if you read my response to you I did say that if you disagree with our form of democracy - campaign to change it but do not say it is not operating as it always has.

 

[colognehornet]

I don't "slam your posts" - I express my views on points you make in a calm polite manner- they are only my opinions and if you want to go round and round I am happy to debate them. You made sweeping statements about our democracy which I do not share. Both you and Cologne have criticised our democracy but I value and support it.
You and I both are remainers so we have that in common. Even so in answer to Bodbo I tried to see what brexiters see as a benefit - I of course see no benefit in brexit - neither do you so on that we share views.

My last point though is almost revolutionary - what I feel is I would almost abandon democracy to stay in the EU. If Parliament chose to go down this route it would be more than controversial. In arguing that though I am not saying our democracy is not functioning as it should - but that if push came to shove I might prefer to see it in crisis. Oh - and if you read my response to you I did say that if you disagree with our form of democracy - campaign to change it but do not say it is not operating as it always has.

We know now that a transitional agreement will prevent a cliff-edge scenario for the UK. in 2019 but will still produce one in 2021 or 2022, by which time immigration may not be the pressing issue which it currently appears to be for many British people. just as parliaments are not held bound by the decisions of previous parliaments, so the same applies to the electorate - are they bound to the decisions they made nearly 5 years previously ? The smoothest course of action would be to see Article 50 through - dried and dusted by 2022, and then activate Article 49 the very next day, if that is the wish of the electorate by that time. Of course rejoining the EU. may not allow for the same opt outs as Britain enjoys now - however, whilst the EU. likes new members to join the Eurozone, it does not force the issue. Sweden and Denmark do not use the Euro, but have no opt out clauses either - they just don't use it, and the issue cannot be forced.

 

[Leo]

We know now that a transitional agreement will prevent a cliff-edge scenario for the UK. in 2019 but will still produce one in 2021 or 2022, by which time immigration may not be the pressing issue which it currently appears to be for many British people. just as parliaments are not held bound by the decisions of previous parliaments, so the same applies to the electorate - are they bound to the decisions they made nearly 5 years previously ? The smoothest course of action would be to see Article 50 through - dried and dusted by 2022, and then activate Article 49 the very next day, if that is the wish of the electorate by that time. Of course rejoining the EU. may not allow for the same opt outs as Britain enjoys now - however, whilst the EU. likes new members to join the Eurozone, it does not force the issue. Sweden and Denmark do not use the Euro, but have no opt out clauses either - they just don't use it, and the issue cannot be forced.

Cliff edge will depend on whatever deal is done.
I do not like your idea of completing the exit process and then rejoining. I would prefer it if we came to a decision before then to stop brexit - providing the 27 accept it (which I think they would)
I do agree that a referendum is not binding for all time. However you have to decide what would be the reason to halt it, reverse it or hold another. I do not support the idea that opinion polls alone would be sufficient.
I am more inclined to believe the best way would be for Labour, LibDems and SNP to form a grand coalition - with dissenting members of the Conservatives and for them toargue that brexit is a disaster which must not be allowed to continue. Pressure for a second referendum should come from them. Polls might then tell us how much support they have but should not alone be the raison d'etre for it.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

Oh - and if you read my response to you I did say that if you disagree with our form of democracy - campaign to change it but do not say it is not operating as it always has.

I did note that... but didn't think it merited a serious response.... actually at any opportunity i have campaigned and supported movements for change.... from 1967 onwards.

Any democracy which has a first past the post binary one wins -one loses structure , for me is flawed. For me that is why we are in the mess we are in.

I am sorry you think I make sweeping statements. Most of my positioning is subjective and more philosophical than operational etc.... I do believe I as anyone has a valid view.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Cliff edge will depend on whatever deal is done.
I do not like your idea of completing the exit process and then rejoining. I would prefer it if we came to a decision before then to stop brexit - providing the 27 accept it (which I think they would)
I do agree that a referendum is not binding for all time. However you have to decide what would be the reason to halt it, reverse it or hold another. I do not support the idea that opinion polls alone would be sufficient.
I am more inclined to believe the best way would be for Labour, LibDems and SNP to form a grand coalition - with dissenting members of the Conservatives and for them toargue that brexit is a disaster which must not be allowed to continue. Pressure for a second referendum should come from them. Polls might then tell us how much support they have but should not alone be the raison d'etre for it.

What you describe is what I have suggested is a way out of this situation. A realignment of the political parties. There are enough sensible MPs prepared to put aside party loyalties for different reasons if they see the damage that will follow no or bad deal. It will probably not occur until the government presents the bad result of the talks, and asks for the Commons to approve them. How that would pan out afterwards is difficult to predict. The government would likely fall, but how an election could then be fought is impossible to imagine.

 

[Leo]

I did note that... but didn't think it merited a serious response.... actually at any opportunity i have campaigned and supported movements for change.... from 1967 onwards.
Any democracy which has a first past the post binary one wins -one loses structure , for me is flawed. For me that is why we are in the mess we are in.
I am sorry you think I make sweeping statements. Most of my positioning is subjective and more philosophical than operational etc.... I do believe I as anyone has a valid view.

I think you are being overly sensitive. Nobody suggests you do not have the right to a view - but I doubt you believe it must not be challenged. If we disagree on something we are allowed to hold different opinions. There is nothing wrong with sweeping statements but when a statement is made in broad terms then it is fair to describe them that way. My views are only my own and are not likely to be more right or wrong than yours - but I can only argue the opinions I hold - it does not make me arrogant or patronising as I have been recently accused.
You chose not to respond as you did not think it was merited - but then you admit you do believe in campaigning for democratic change - which can only be good. I am not sure if the point I made was the one you heard - I questioned your idea that our democracy is flawed in the ways you previously described - but have not pretended I think our system is perfect. I just disagree with the idea that a democracy is NOT a democracy because it either does something you do not like or alternatively does not do something you would like. There are dozens of nuances to democracy and there is no official body to rule on what is or is not. However I think a tiny majority would describe our system as not democratic - not PERFECT yes but not DEMOCRATIC - no.
There are arguments for and against first past the post and PR. To suggest either form is more or less democratic is wrong - to argue you prefer one is fair.

 

[colognehornet]

I think you are being overly sensitive. Nobody suggests you do not have the right to a view - but I doubt you believe it must not be challenged. If we disagree on something we are allowed to hold different opinions. There is nothing wrong with sweeping statements but when a statement is made in broad terms then it is fair to describe them that way. My views are only my own and are not likely to be more right or wrong than yours - but I can only argue the opinions I hold - it does not make me arrogant or patronising as I have been recently accused.
You chose not to respond as you did not think it was merited - but then you admit you do believe in campaigning for democratic change - which can only be good. I am not sure if the point I made was the one you heard - I questioned your idea that our democracy is flawed in the ways you previously described - but have not pretended I think our system is perfect. I just disagree with the idea that a democracy is NOT a democracy because it either does something you do not like or alternatively does not do something you would like. There are dozens of nuances to democracy and there is no official body to rule on what is or is not. However I think a tiny majority would describe our system as not democratic - not PERFECT yes but not DEMOCRATIC - no.
There are arguments for and against first past the post and PR. To suggest either form is more or less democratic is wrong - to argue you prefer one is fair.

I think you very definitely can argue that the one is less democratic Leo. If you are electing majority governments based on only about 40% of the vote then the majority in the country are always against the government in power. If you have 60% of the country scratching their heads saying 'I didn't vote for this' every time after an election then, eventually, political inertia will set in.

 

[Leo]

I think you very definitely can argue that the one is less democratic Leo. If you are electing majority governments based on only about 40% of the vote then the majority in the country are always against the government in power. If you have 60% of the country scratching their heads saying 'I didn't vote for this' every time after an election then, eventually, political inertia will set in.

It is possible to argue black is white of course.
However more or less democratic is like more or less pregnant.
If you know and accept a system where the party that gains the most votes forms the government then it is equal and fair for all.
PR often produces coalitions that give nobody what they want and are unstable - is that a better democracy? In a coalition only the parts of policy that are joint to both parties would have an absolute majority and there would not necessarily be any. Say 48% voted Labour and 26% voted Conservative and 26% Lib Dem and a Con/LibDem coalition was formed - is that good democracy? In that instance up to 74% may be scratching their heads at any one time.

 

[colognehornet]

It is possible to argue black is white of course.
However more or less democratic is like more or less pregnant.
If you know and accept a system where the party that gains the most votes forms the government then it is equal and fair for all.
PR often produces coalitions that give nobody what they want and are unstable - is that a better democracy? In a coalition only the parts of policy that are joint to both parties would have an absolute majority and there would not necessarily be any. Say 48% voted Labour and 26% voted Conservative and 26% Lib Dem and a Con/LibDem coalition was formed - is that good democracy? In that instance up to 74% may be scratching their heads at any one time.

In the normal course of events the party with the largest percentage would be asked to form the next government (in most cases a coalition) - only if that failed would the second biggest party take on this role. In reality your scenario is a very unlikely one. It is also not always necessary for something to be on the programme of both parties in a coalition for it to be adopted as policy - because there would be a certain amount of horse trading taking place. I agree that coalitions can be dangerous if done blindly - but most parties would have polled their members first to see which coalitions were acceptable. As long as you have a first past the post system in the UK. then the 2 main parties will remain together whereas the risks of break away parties forming grows with PR. This is why the 2 big parties are so afraid of it - Labour may occasionally call for it whilst in opposition, but change their minds once in power. This is one of the biggest tradodies - Blair had a long time in which to reform the British voting system which would have prevented there ever being another tory majority, and consequently prevented the Brexit referendum, but he didn't do it.

 

[Deleted.......]

The member for Broxtowe is in trouble with her constituency members for going against those that voted locally and nationally, she is an oddball that has ignored others views. Thankfully she is amongst a very small minority. If the MP's priority is to serve the nation then most respect their own collective decision to be led by the referendum result.

The MP for Brent North represents a constituency that voted 60/40 for remain. Presumably you think he also deserves to be castigated for ignoring us and consistently voting in favour of Brexit legislation.

 

[colognehornet]

It is possible to argue black is white of course.
However more or less democratic is like more or less pregnant.
If you know and accept a system where the party that gains the most votes forms the government then it is equal and fair for all.
PR often produces coalitions that give nobody what they want and are unstable - is that a better democracy? In a coalition only the parts of policy that are joint to both parties would have an absolute majority and there would not necessarily be any. Say 48% voted Labour and 26% voted Conservative and 26% Lib Dem and a Con/LibDem coalition was formed - is that good democracy? In that instance up to 74% may be scratching their heads at any one time.

As you have said Leo - unfortunately there isn't a rulebook for what a democracy should look like (and they don't want there to be one). This means that lots of different countries claim to be a democracy whilst having completely different systems for choosing who their governments are. For politeness sake we refer to our 'friends' as democratic and our enemies as not being so. However, if we set the bar really low the simplest definition would be: When most of the people in a country get to choose who most of the government is.

The UK. does not pass this test !

Usually it takes 35% of the vote to win a majority government. Based on an average turnout of 65% this represents the views of just 22.75% of the population - keep them happy and you've got it made. The other 75.25% will have to wait another 5 years to get asked again - unless they become one of the 763 Lords, or are one of those 21 Royals with the HRH Prefix. Of course nobody actually knows what ''Royal Prerogatives'' are until the PM. uses them without asking Parliament. The problem is that British democracy (which I agree did have a lead in the 18th Century) stopped developing before most others cottoned onto the idea.

 

[Deleted.......]

On a lighter note, last Friday someone at work asked if the DUP favours a green Brexit. After stopping giggling and pointing out their hatred of all things green I suggested that their members are unlikely to believe in climate change as it isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. I think they have the impression that I don't really like the DUP...

 

[Leo]

In the normal course of events the party with the largest percentage would be asked to form the next government (in most cases a coalition) - only if that failed would the second biggest party take on this role. In reality your scenario is a very unlikely one. It is also not always necessary for something to be on the programme of both parties in a coalition for it to be adopted as policy - because there would be a certain amount of horse trading taking place. I agree that coalitions can be dangerous if done blindly - but most parties would have polled their members first to see which coalitions were acceptable. As long as you have a first past the post system in the UK. then the 2 main parties will remain together whereas the risks of break away parties forming grows with PR. This is why the 2 big parties are so afraid of it - Labour may occasionally call for it whilst in opposition, but change their minds once in power. This is one of the biggest tradodies - Blair had a long time in which to reform the British voting system which would have prevented there ever being another tory majority, and consequently prevented the Brexit referendum, but he didn't do it.

As an anti_tory you do not mind what you have just said in bold and blue. So Tory voters who could represent anything upwards of 40% of the vote would never form another government. But minnows - like the SDP - would have massive sway. As I have said some prefer PR; others FPTP - but both are valid democratic systems.

As you have said Leo - unfortunately there isn't a rulebook for what a democracy should look like (and they don't want there to be one). This means that lots of different countries claim to be a democracy whilst having completely different systems for choosing who their governments are. For politeness sake we refer to our 'friends' as democratic and our enemies as not being so. However, if we set the bar really low the simplest definition would be: When most of the people in a country get to choose who most of the government is The UK. does not pass this test !.

"they" - there had to be aconspiracy theory somewhere !!
Believe that paragraph if you like - sorry but I view it as nonsense - we do not just define our friends as democratic. And yes the UK broadly passes that test - the party with the most voters gets to be the government - even if that is not over 50% it is still the most" The tories polled over a million more votes than Labour so get to do most of the government. PR means the tiniest minority gets the biggest say - not surprising for someone who supports a minorty party to want that -it makes sense but not good government.

 

[superhorns]

The MP for Brent North represents a constituency that voted 60/40 for remain. Presumably you think he also deserves to be castigated for ignoring us and consistently voting in favour of Brexit legislation.

No, because the priority is to respect the national outcome in a national poll. How the individual constituencies, or indeed countries within the UK voted is secondary, as the PM keeps reminding everybody.