Brexit...

[Matt]

 

I agree that the single market analogy is not a good one. A better one would have been the absence of democracy.

absence of democracy is very annoying....

 

Luckily, there's a challenge going on to make sure it's applied

Edited December 17, 2016 by Matt

[johnh]

absence of democracy is very annoying....

 

Luckily, there's a challenge going on to make sure it's applied

Yes, overturn a democratic vote, very democratic.

[Cornish Steve]

Yes, overturn a democratic vote, very democratic.

 

Well, semi-democratic. Keep holding votes until the establishment's desired result is achieved. Then proclaim that the people have spoken and the matter is settled.

[MikeO]

Yes, overturn a democratic vote, very democratic.

 

We're run by a parliamentary democracy though otherwise we'd have a referendum on everything; new lane for the M25? Referendum. Third runway at Heathrow? Referendum. Raising the penalty for using your phone while driving? Referendum. Treading on the cracks in the pavement? Referendum. I've no doubt that that democracy will carry out the will of the people in this instance, but Matt is quite right when he says they're not legally bound to do so.

[MikeO]

 

Well, semi-democratic. Keep holding votes until the establishment's desired result is achieved. Then proclaim that the people have spoken and the matter is settled.

 

So you'd speak out against another Scottish independence vote would you Steve? They've had the poll, the result's in so that's set in stone for good and all.

 

How about if a vote for Cornish independence went marginally against your wishes ? Would you just say, "Oh well the people have spoken" and forget what you believe in?

[johnh]

 

We're run by a parliamentary democracy though otherwise we'd have a referendum on everything; new lane for the M25? Referendum. Third runway at Heathrow? Referendum. Raising the penalty for using your phone while driving? Referendum. Treading on the cracks in the pavement? Referendum. I've no doubt that that democracy will carry out the will of the people in this instance, but Matt is quite right when he says they're not legally bound to do so.

But the reality is, we don't have a referendum on everything. We had one to join the EU so what is wrong about having one to leave? Don't remember complaints about the undemocratic nature of referendums back then.

[Palfy]

On the subject of Scottish independence I believe once we start the process of leaving the E.U, we actively encourage Scotland to hold another independence vote and keep our fingers crossed that they vote leave, because our economy is going to shrink and it would help us if we didn't have to keep bailing out there 15 Billion deficit.

And I'd even go as far as to say if N.Ireland and Wales wish to follow suit let them go with our blessings it's money in the bank for us.

Cornwall can't go we'd miss there Pasties and cream teas to much plus there very dog friendly.

[Matt]

Yes, overturn a democratic vote, very democratic.

except it wasn't completely and it's not how our country works.

[Matt]

[Bailey]

 

I appreciate what you're saying but I think that lie was without doubt the biggest and most most blatant I've ever come across; most of the other stuff is people just massaging figures to support their argument, being selective with their stats and optimistic with their predictions.

 

This was something different which was dropped like a hot potato the moment the result was in. Shameless.

I watched a lot of build up and there were shocking lies from both sides. Most politicians really aren't fit for purpose and that is why I didn't vote because how can you trust what they say?

 

Personally if you did believe that slogan you were an idiot. Mind you I don't know a leave voter that used that as a reason for voting leave. Furthermore did they say it would definitely go to the NHS or is it a suggestion that it could, because if it's the latter then theoretically it can still come true.

 

The one thing I am most glad of is that the bullshitters like Boris, Farage and Gove to some extent have nothing to do with it. Again how could anyone believe what they say could come true when they have no actual power of governance over the country?

 

I have no doubt that long term, leaving the EU will be a benefit to the UK although I expect the short term to be a hard. The EU drastically needs to reform and strip back down to what it started as and not the United States of Europe it is trying to become.

 

In the long term though, stay or go, it's up to the people of the UK to make a success of the country. Change breeds opportunity, some people will struggle, some people will thrive. The ones that sit and whinge blaming others for their problems will be the ones that struggle whereas those, who may not agree, but adapt and look forward instead or back will be the ones that thrive.

[holystove]

http://www.euronews.com/2016/12/20/theresa-may-s-brexit-problem

 

British politics as viewed by an outsider.

 

Interesting passage which re-inforces the argument against referenda:

 

"every year, Leave-voter deaths will exceed those of Remain voters by 150,000, while new Remain voters entering the electorate will surpass those of Leave by 150,000 (after adjusting for differential turnout between young and old). This generational dynamic alone will tip the balance in Remain’s favor by about 300,000 voters each year, and it will eliminate Leave’s majority by 2020"

 

So a referendum in 2020 might have a different result, one in 2030 might result in Leave again. Before long, the UK will be holding both exit-negotiations as accession talks at the same time.

[Cornish Steve]

 

So you'd speak out against another Scottish independence vote would you Steve? They've had the poll, the result's in so that's set in stone for good and all.

 

How about if a vote for Cornish independence went marginally against your wishes ? Would you just say, "Oh well the people have spoken" and forget what you believe in?

 

It's an interesting topics, isn't it? What should the rules be for holding referenda? Here's my suggestion...

 

1) Only the electorate can request referenda, not parliament. This provides us with an option when MPs choose to ignore popular opinion for years or even decades.

2) In order to have a referendum, at least 1m people must sign up for it online.

3) Each referendum will be funded by a one-time tax - maybe 1 UKP per person. This ought to stop trivial topics.

4) As referendum on the same topic may not take place within 5 years.

 

What would you suggest?

[Matt]

 

It's an interesting topics, isn't it? What should the rules be for holding referenda? Here's my suggestion...

 

1) Only the electorate can request referenda, not parliament. This provides us with an option when MPs choose to ignore popular opinion for years or even decades.

2) In order to have a referendum, at least 1m people must sign up for it online.

3) Each referendum will be funded by a one-time tax - maybe 1 UKP per person. This ought to stop trivial topics.

4) As referendum on the same topic may not take place within 5 years.

 

What would you suggest?

• For something that affects citizenship, all people of voting age should be allowed to vote, not just those still in the country.
• Have a minimum percentage limit to avoid close encounters.
• No vote can be opened until both sides have continuity plans in place in case of loss or win.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Matt

[pete0]

Mandatory voting

[MikeO]

I think a major difficulty, as has been pointed out before, is that a significant amount of people (not all of course) have their minds made up for them by the paper they read; and the only people in the country who lie and misrepresent facts more than politicians are journalists acting in the interests of their bosses (estate agents are in there also but that's not relevant here). That applies to general elections also of course.

 

I have no idea what the answer is.....apart from possibly leaving all decisions down to me. That'd work .

[johnh]

 

It's an interesting topics, isn't it? What should the rules be for holding referenda? Here's my suggestion...

 

1) Only the electorate can request referenda, not parliament. This provides us with an option when MPs choose to ignore popular opinion for years or even decades.

2) In order to have a referendum, at least 1m people must sign up for it online.

3) Each referendum will be funded by a one-time tax - maybe 1 UKP per person. This ought to stop trivial topics.

4) As referendum on the same topic may not take place within 5 years.

 

What would you suggest?

Re no. 2. 1m is too low. With social media these days it wouldn't take long to rustle up 1m, we'd be having several per year. I would say 10% of the electorate.

[Cornish Steve]

I've sometimes thought that, with technology available, we should be able to direct where our tax money goes. For example, if I pay 10K in taxes each year, I may decide to direct 4K be spent on healthcare, 3K on education, 2K on welfare, and 1K on defence. If the government wishes to spend more on defence, then they must make their case in the public forum for a greater allocation. Should they fail, then they must spend less in that area - full stop. Also, we should allocate taxes on our birthday and not all on the same day, so there's not, in effect, a campaign at the end of each year.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Cornish Steve

[Matt]

I've sometimes thought that, with technology available, we should be able to direct where our tax money goes. For example, if I pay 10K in taxes each year, I may decide to direct 4K be spent on healthcare, 3K on education, 2K on welfare, and 1K on defence. If the government wishes to spend more on defence, then they must make their case in the public forum for a greater allocation. Should they fail, then they must spend less in that area - full stop. Also, we should allocate taxes on our birthday and not all on the same day, so there's not, in effect, a campaign at the end of each year.

brilliant idea with 1 flaw, and the same flaw that's effected the referendum; people deciding on their opinion, often mislead or misinformed, because of personal interest and not that of the greater good

[Cornish Steve]

brilliant idea with 1 flaw, and the same flaw that's effected the referendum; people deciding on their opinion, often mislead or misinformed, because of personal interest and not that of the greater good

 

Always a danger when non-TT members are allowed to participate in the democratic process. Mind you, part of the brilliance of capitalism is that, in effect, it's bridled selfishness. It assumes that we all act selfishly and strives to take advantage of that. I don't necessarily agree, but there's a certain pragmatism to that approach.

[holystove]

I've sometimes thought that, with technology available, we should be able to direct where our tax money goes. For example, if I pay 10K in taxes each year, I may decide to direct 4K be spent on healthcare, 3K on education, 2K on welfare, and 1K on defence. If the government wishes to spend more on defence, then they must make their case in the public forum for a greater allocation. Should they fail, then they must spend less in that area - full stop. Also, we should allocate taxes on our birthday and not all on the same day, so there's not, in effect, a campaign at the end of each year.

 

I actually think "technology available" is a big problem to make your idea work. You imply that you get an informed populace that make decisions either for the common good or in their own best intrest.

 

1. people are mis-informed through fake news which through new technology is delivered right on your doorstep

2. there is so much information out there that re-inforces your existing opinion that you won't be subjected to another point of view and just get more entrenched in an unnuanced opinion.. (most people only watch either Fox News or MSNBC; in an ideal world you'd watch both).

 

Consequently I don't think people know what their own best intrest are (a lot of Trumpeteers would have been better of with Bernie-policy; UK regions which benefited most from EU voted out; ...) or can see what the common good is beyond the fear they have for "outsiders".

 

I actually really like the idea of an Electoral College. People can't even be trusted when choosing their representative. There needs to be an extra check through an Electoral College to make sure they haven't chosen an idiot. (In practice this doesn't really seem to work, but the idea in itself is not bad).

 

Way forward imo:

1. constitution with bill of rights

2. checks and balances on a strong executive branch

3. direct democracy for parliament - indirect democracy for executive positions

4. oversight by judicial branch (rule of law)

(5. international oversight).

 

On a side note: I assume you're an older man (you have out-of-house kids), and I must say I applaud your belief in the (intellectual) abilities your fellow man. It won't take many more years with the way things are going now to turn me into a hardened cynic.

[Palfy]

The position of you can only hold a referendum every 5 years, isn't possible with the rules of membership with in the E.U.

You can leave on your own accord, but you can't return on your own accord, you could hold a vote in ten years time asking the country would they like to 're-join the E.U, you could a yes majority of 80%, but you have to gain yourself an invitation to apply or reapply, so in this instance out his out with not much hope of a return if things go wrong.

It does make you wonder though if there was a small percentage of people who actually thought I'm voting out and if it doesn't work we can vote to go back in.

And to allow a referendum every five years on any issue is far too soon you need to have time for voting demographic to change I would say a minimum of twenty five years, so that it makes people really think about choices by the fact they can't back track in a few years time.

[holystove]

The position of you can only hold a referendum every 5 years, isn't possible with the rules of membership with in the E.U.

You can leave on your own accord, but you can't return on your own accord, you could hold a vote in ten years time asking the country would they like to 're-join the E.U, you could a yes majority of 80%, but you have to gain yourself an invitation to apply or reapply, so in this instance out his out with not much hope of a return if things go wrong.

It does make you wonder though if there was a small percentage of people who actually thought I'm voting out and if it doesn't work we can vote to go back in.

And to allow a referendum every five years on any issue is far too soon you need to have time for voting demographic to change I would say a minimum of twenty five years, so that it makes people really think about choices by the fact they can't back track in a few years time.

 

Rest assured, if at any point in the future the UK would decide to re-join the EU, the EU would let them in in a heartbeat.

 

The re-integration of the 7th biggest economy would make the EU the biggest economy in the world again, 65m extra citizens would give the EU a bigger voice, would be a huge political win if the UK asked to re-join, .. I don't see any down side.

[Cornish Steve]

 

I actually think "technology available" is a big problem to make your idea work. You imply that you get an informed populace that make decisions either for the common good or in their own best intrest.

 

1. people are mis-informed through fake news which through new technology is delivered right on your doorstep

2. there is so much information out there that re-inforces your existing opinion that you won't be subjected to another point of view and just get more entrenched in an unnuanced opinion.. (most people only watch either Fox News or MSNBC; in an ideal world you'd watch both).

 

Consequently I don't think people know what their own best interest are.

 

Are you fooled by fake news, misinformation, and the likes of Fox News?

[Cornish Steve]

 

Rest assured, if at any point in the future the UK would decide to re-join the EU, the EU would let them in in a heartbeat.

 

The re-integration of the 7th biggest economy would make the EU the biggest economy in the world again, 65m extra citizens would give the EU a bigger voice, would be a huge political win if the UK asked to re-join, .. I don't see any down side.

 

The downside is that the EU boffins would gloat and completely override UK sovereignty. We'd be treated as an example to scare off any other defections. And we'd face all the problems, probably exaggerated and exacerbated, that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

[Cornish Steve]

 

I actually think "technology available" is a big problem to make your idea work. You imply that you get an informed populace that make decisions either for the common good or in their own best intrest.

 

1. people are mis-informed through fake news which through new technology is delivered right on your doorstep

2. there is so much information out there that re-inforces your existing opinion that you won't be subjected to another point of view and just get more entrenched in an unnuanced opinion.. (most people only watch either Fox News or MSNBC; in an ideal world you'd watch both).

 

Consequently I don't think people know what their own best intrest are (a lot of Trumpeteers would have been better of with Bernie-policy; UK regions which benefited most from EU voted out; ...) or can see what the common good is beyond the fear they have for "outsiders".

 

I actually really like the idea of an Electoral College. People can't even be trusted when choosing their representative. There needs to be an extra check through an Electoral College to make sure they haven't chosen an idiot. (In practice this doesn't really seem to work, but the idea in itself is not bad).

 

Way forward imo:

1. constitution with bill of rights

2. checks and balances on a strong executive branch

3. direct democracy for parliament - indirect democracy for executive positions

4. oversight by judicial branch (rule of law)

(5. international oversight).

 

On a side note: I assume you're an older man (you have out-of-house kids), and I must say I applaud your belief in the (intellectual) abilities your fellow man. It won't take many more years with the way things are going now to turn me into a hardened cynic.

 

Britain's equivalent to the electoral college (a mechanism to protect people from themselves) is the House of Lords.

[Bailey]

And what a piss take they are. So far removed from the "people". It's an old boys club and if they really want to make savings that should be the first bunch of cronies to go.

[Matt]

And what a piss take they are. So far removed from the "people". It's an old boys club and if they really want to make savings that should be the first bunch of cronies to go.

apply that to most politicians too

[holystove]

 

Are you fooled by fake news, misinformation, and the likes of Fox News?

 

If you go individual case by individual case you can never make a general statement. In general, people don't look for multiple news sources, etc.. so any political system is going to have to take that into account. In general, I do believe fake news and information-overload on either side of the political spectrum pose a big threat to an informed public debate.

 

 

 

The downside is that the EU boffins would gloat and completely override UK sovereignty. We'd be treated as an example to scare off any other defections. And we'd face all the problems, probably exaggerated and exacerbated, that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

 

This to me is the biggest problem with the popular view of the EU in the UK. Most view the EU as "them", while in reality they should view it as "us".

 

Right now with the UK part of the EU, the treaties and legislation are drafted by UK ministers/experts/civil servants. There's a lot of British people working for EU institutions. Basically the British civil servants and experts are part of everything that goes on in the EU. Because of the size of the UK it is very unlikely that the UK gets outvoted in any major decision taken by the EU (you only need about 3 allies of decent size). Of the some 2.500 EU-approved regulations, the UK only voted against 40... (I stole the 2.500 number from something I read on the guardian comments section, so I don't have an official source).

 

Over the last decades, the UK has been a very influential member of the EU. If at some point in the future the UK is out of the EU and wishes to re-join, the UK will once again take its important seat at the table. The only hope is that it is perceived that way in the UK, rather than the German-Franco alliance the UK-media has made it seem.

 

It's sad really to read that you fear the EU would be so vindictive .. presumably the UK would only re-apply if they see the EU as a positive story, something the UK wants to be part of.

[Bailey]

Is anyone on here from a European non EU country?

 

What do you think about the EU and would you want your country to join up if you had the chance?

[holystove]

One of the things that I have the most difficulty understanding is the fact that David Davis, Liam Fox and others think that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals from outside the EU versus inside the EU.

The way I understand it: right now the UK is one of the biggest members of the biggest economic bloc in the world. Everyone wants to do trade deals with the EU and with the UK a prominent voice at the table, they're going to get deals that are directly beneficial to the UK economy. By leaving, they are a much much smaller economy so they don't have the same appeal to third parties or the same bargaining power.

Secondly, the EU already has a lot of trade deals with the countries that Davis and Fox point to as future trading partners. The UK on itself wouldn't have gotten as good a deal as the EU so they can't improve on those deals. Quite to contrary, if those countries say that they want a new deal with the UK because the EU deal was based on access to a bloc of 28 countries (which is no longer the case), the UK will get a worse deal than it has now.

 

This article by a Canadian professor finally clears some points up. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/david-davis-muddled-understanding-of-trade-policy/

 

One benefit for the UK might be that David Davis has said the EU is clumsy at negotiating those deals and that the UK would be more efficient at it. I find that hard to believe because the EU-deals are negotiated (amongst others) by British experts, and as Ivan Rogers wrote in his letter to his staff, the EU Commission has a lot of experience negotiating those deals, whereas Whitehall doesn't. Also the article I posted states the EU is rarely the difficult partner in trading negotiations.

 

I've been looking online for peer-reviewed articles that support the thesis that the UK will get better trade deals when negotiating on its own but can't find one; I'd be very interested if anyone has a link to one. I say peer-reviewed because every time I read something by 'Change Britain' that sounds interesting to a non-economist like me, it gets debunked the next day.

 

To me it would make more sense if Davis and Fox just said that they're going to try to get the best trade deals they can, that they will probably be worse than what the UK would have gotten as a member of the EU, but that's just the price the UK is willing to pay for being able to control its own borders.