Brexit

[pjknibbs]

Which is why the referendum shouldn't have been a binary "in" or "out" but should have specified what kind of Brexit the voter wanted.

[Bishop149]

I see thanks. However, I am still trying to wrap my head what is currently not working. All of that is totally weird, confusing and seems like a dead lock. I can see why Johnson tries to break the endless circle by eliminating the government out of the equation, which is undemocratic sure, but maybe the democratic system is just not working. I wonder if there are going to be any reformations to the UK government after Brexit.

Again, this perception of "the democratic system is just not working" is all due to the silly and ludicrously undemocratic way that the British political system is structured and the resulting bias in what we Brits think politics looks like.
What is happening now (a government failing to command the support of parliament) under most functioning democracies would be considered well within bounds of the of "business as normal" and would be resolved quickly and sensibly by the government having to change it's policy to align with the wishes of the ELECTED parliament.

So that brings us to something that needs to be made ABSOLUTELY clear because I've seen this misunderstanding come up again and again, and it's also at the core of why many (British) people voted to Leave the EU because they thought it was "undemocratic".
You do not vote for a government, you vote for a parliament
The parliament you vote for then decides who forms the government and what that government's policies should be.

Now, its ENTIRELY understandable that British people so often conflate these things and talk about "voting for a government" because under our system that IS what it usually boils down to, you vote for one of two main parties and the one that wins has absolute power to form the government without any input AT ALL from the other half of parliament and it's leader automatically becomes the PM.
Our government therefore is only EVER representative of less than half of the vote.
Yes, that's right LESS.
That's due to another stupid quirk of our electoral system. All votes cast that are NOT for a winning candidate are just ignored . . . . and because we usually have more than 2 options available for each seat, all the votes for those third parties are counted in the "Not in government" box.
Illustrated by following, the % of the popular vote that party of governance won in the last 3 elections:
2017: 42.4%,
2015: 36.8%
2010: 36.1%
Note the oddity of 2017, this is because the vote share of two of the largest third parties (Lib Dems and UKIP) had both collapsed.

This is also why a general election WILL NOT resolve the Brexit issue because as you can see it is entirely possible to win one of those with only ~36% of the vote, and the system in fact all but ENSURES the winner will have less than 50%.
So tell me how exactly would such a non-majority resolve this issue? Will that not, rightly, cause even more of a fuss? Amongst any one who understands the system at least.
But no, I'm sure there will still be more than enough Brexit idiots that will claim this as triumph of "democracy" that free's us from the "undemocratic" EU.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Anyway all of this patently anti-democratic nonsense, however, is a rather uniquely British way of doing "democracy".
It is far more usual that, rather than being a single parties autocracy, a government is basically a compromise position between the various parties that make up the parliament (which is usually more representative than ours as well), if the balance of opinion in parliament changes then the government must change its policy in order to keep it's power. This does not feel jarring because the government is already a compromise position, the compromise has just shifted. To the Brits however it looks like Armageddon.

The EU works largely via the system of compromise described but is actually more complicated because the "government" is formed of two parts. . . one chosen by the parliament, one chosen by the member states.
It is this last bit that is, in fact, the most "undemocratic" bit of the EU. An undue influence of the national governments, all of which selected by different democratic systems and some of which (like ours) are not as democratic as others, yet all are given equal weight.
But, funnily enough, this is never the bit Brexiteers pick on.

[pjknibbs]

But, funnily enough, this is never the bit Brexiteers pick on.

Really? I'm sure I recall many people bringing up how undemocratic the European Commission is as being one reason for coming out of the EU.

[Bishop149]

But, funnily enough, this is never the bit Brexiteers pick on.

Really? I'm sure I recall many people bringing up how undemocratic the European Commission is as being one reason for coming out of the EU.

Yes you're right but I think you got them mixed up.
The EU Commission is the bit that is appointed by national governments, via the council and then, crucially, has to be approved by the EU Parliament. It's head Jean-Claude Juncker, is also directly elected by the EU parliament. He is the figure that Brexiteers tend to hold up as the EU bogie man.
The EU Council is the bit that appointed by member states with no input from the elected parliament and also does not function by simple majority voting. It is only rarely pointed to as an example of a failure of democracy.

Its not too hard to see even from this brief (a likely at least partially inaccurate) summation that the national government might have a little too much influence in comparison to the elected EU parliament.

Edit: I reminded myself how it all worked and clarified some things

[Tamina]

The EU works largely via the system of compromise described but is actually more complicated because the "government" is formed of two parts. . . one chosen by the parliament, one chosen by the member states.
It is this last bit that is, in fact, the most "undemocratic" bit of the EU. An undue influence of the national governments, all of which selected by different democratic systems and some of which (like ours) are not as democratic as others, yet all are given equal weight.
But, funnily enough, this is never the bit Brexiteers pick on.

You are right, this is the "undemocratic" part a lot of people criticise (from a veeery high standpoint, really).
On the contrary, there are many more people critizizing the EU having too much power over the national governments due to the EU parliament, for the very same reasons. The EU goes two routes, mixing national government representatives AND the directly elected parliament. One would think there should be no difference in a democracy...

It's one of many problems of the EU. Cowards leave, dreamers fight. I guess, in the future, the parliament is going to gain more power, but at the moment neither the national governments nor other political parties are ready to give up their national governments influence.

[Chips]

It's one of many problems of the EU. Cowards leave, dreamers fight. I guess, in the future, the parliament is going to gain more power, but at the moment neither the national governments nor other political parties are ready to give up their national governments influence.

Do you mean national Governments will eventually disappear and it's just a centralised EU Government that rules the entirety of Europe?

[Tamina]

It's one of many problems of the EU. Cowards leave, dreamers fight. I guess, in the future, the parliament is going to gain more power, but at the moment neither the national governments nor other political parties are ready to give up their national governments influence.

Do you mean national Governments will eventually disappear and it's just a centralised EU Government that rules the entirety of Europe?

No. Imagine all mayors of your country having a 50% vote on the elections of your national government and even have a major influence on national governments decisions. Good? Bad? Many people critizise this being undemocratic. Citieists (Nationalists) on the other hand fear the soverignity of their local city government.
That's the EU, kind of. Back in the day, people had no voting right for EU parliament which had nearly no influence, anyway. This changed drastically over the years but nationalists still try to regain power over the EU up to the point of simply leaving it. I don't think and I don't hope national governments are ever going to vanish. That would be stupid imho.

[Mightysword]

Which is why the referendum shouldn't have been a binary "in" or "out" but should have specified what kind of Brexit the voter wanted.

Do you think that would have helped?

In hindsight most of the "options" talk popped up after the vote, during the negotiation. It didn't seem clear at the time "what" choices would be available. Also seeing how murky it was with all the contradicting information flying around, it's doubtful the voters would be provided what the 'options' really are with any clarity. If the population was already misinformed with only two options, how bad you think it would be with more?

And, even if somehow that was achievable, I don't think it would help changing the current situation. let's say we go with a minimalist approach and only add 1 more choice:

- Hard Brexit.
- Soft Brexit.
- Stay.

What would happen, say one of them secured just a simple minority? Like ... Hardbrexit got 36%, and Soft Brexit + Stay got 32% each? I don't think that would make the Hard Brexit option any more attainable than it is now. If the last 2 years had anything to go by, the losing side don't accept defeat gracefully, sort of like "if I dont get my cake you ain't getting yours". It's quite possible (kinda already happening now) the 2 options that lost would team up and torpedo whatever the effort put forward by the one that won and legitimize it with something like "you may have got 36% but that means 64% didn't want what you are doing!"

And yes, I know a 3 way split like that is not optimal, it's still 2 option for out and 1 option for in. But the point is, any addition option you want to table up will just gonna make it worse, not better. Unless one particular argument secured a super majority (like 60%-70%), you will end up in the same technical debate you're having now. And if such super majority exists, it would have happened even with a simple binary choice.

[pjknibbs]

I think it would have helped because it would have forced people to actually think about the issue beyond "Europe bad, Europe good". If they'd actually considered the difficulties involved in leaving I don't think Remain would actually have achieved a majority in the first place and we wouldn't be in this mess. Oh, I'm sure Farage and his ilk would still have been whinging away, but we would be in a better position to just ignore him.

[Bishop149]

So last night our Prime Minister got up and openly told parliament that he would not respect the rule of law.
That he intends to break the law.
That he intends undermine the very basis upon which our entire society and democracy rests.

That's quite the thing, huh?

[Alan Phipps]

@ Bishop: Well it will at least demonstrate 'premeditation' for any later judicial review after the fact.

[felter]

It's a pleasure to meet you now ....

[BugMeister]

after spending years subsuming all regional powers, the Tories now face a situation
where they must now take the reins of office for ENGLAND only..
With the breakdown of the UK, where is the democratic representation, in this promised Brexitland..??
shouldn't power return to rest in the hands of local councils - from whence it has been wrenched, over time - certainly since WW2..??

- what happens when Boris makes deals with every single evil power-hungry right-winger in the land, and continues his London-centric views..??

[felter]

So lets see what happens now:

it was "nonsense" to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy.

But

Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

There have now been calls to recall Parliament, a call which the current Government are ignoring saying they will not be doing that. The way things are going Boris is going to end up in the Jail before too long.

BBC

Boris Bop

So Farage wants to make a pact with the Tory party but what did the Tory party leaders have to say about it:

Mr Farage was "not a fit and proper person" and "should never be allowed anywhere near government".

My big gripe against Farage, he has said after Brexit has come around he is moving to America. The A-Hole isn't even going to stay around once we leave the EU. He knows the UK will be a mess and does not want to live in that mess, a mess of his own making.

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

The Yellowhammer report has been published:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ns_CDL.pdf

[felter]

That yellowhammer report reads differently from what dippy Johnson and his buddies have been spouting. I wonder what the redacted part says or talks about. It's also interesting that some parts of it says it will take years to recover, now that's not what we have been getting told by lying Johnson and his selfish buddies. I like the fishing part as it talks about EU fishing boats entering UK waters from day 1, here's the thing, where are the UK fishermen going to sell their catch anyway, they will be able to catch fish but with nowhere and no one to sell them too. It's been well established and mentioned that people will die due to a no deal, as there will be a medicine supply issues but ignorant Johnson and his obnoxious friends say that's not true, but there is is in black and white in their very own report. and there is more but sod it.

[RegisterMe]

I wonder what the redacted part says or talks about.

Almost certainly this:-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... exit-times

[Observe]

I wonder what the redacted part says or talks about.

Almost certainly this:-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... exit-times

I am guessing that food, medicine, etc., and various financial disruptions were predicted and recognized by all? Even with a "soft" Brexit, how could it be otherwise? Surely no one has thought that a no-deal exit will go smoothly without pain?

[felter]

I wonder what the redacted part says or talks about.

Almost certainly this:-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... exit-times

I am guessing that food, medicine, etc., and various financial disruptions were predicted and recognized by all? Even with a "soft" Brexit, how could it be otherwise? Surely no one has thought that a no-deal exit will go smoothly without pain?

It's not that no one has thought about it, but since Johnson became the so called PM he's been standing up and shouting out that everything is great, there will be no problems, everything has been sorted and taken care of. They have even went so far of verbally attacking a doctor who warned that people will die, and that paper kind of verifies what he said, but Dippy Johnson and co said he was telling lies while holding onto that paper.

[pjknibbs]

I honestly don't understand why BoJo is so darned popular. My mother thinks he's lovely. Yet, even among politicians (a job not known for their honesty) I think he's a particularly slimy example.