Merged Now What?

[The Don]

Assuming the emergency payment was 500 quid or so, this is not due to these people being poor, but because they're horribly poor at planning ahead and prefer to spend what they have immediately.

I have a sister like that. Her income and regular expenses match mine from about five or six years ago, but I was able to put money aside monthly from that wage, but she's broke all the time. In most cases it has nothing to do with income, wealth, situation or anything other than being Bad with money.

McHrozni

No doubt, but it doesn't stop them feeling poor - and telling everyone who will listen. My sister in law and her husband both have good paying public sector jobs but due to their poor financial management they have regularly missed their mortgage payments and have had to be bailed out by Mrs Don's parents.

They are in the U.S. and are strongly pro-Trump because they are convinced that he will make all their financial worries go away. At the time of the bank bail outs in 2008 they were strongly anti-bail out because they thought that if their bank went under they wouldn't have to pay off the rest of their home loan (18 years into their home loan they owe substantially more than when they bought the house).

IMO they are typical of the kind of people would absolutely support any move that would "stick it to the bankers".

 

[McHrozni]

No doubt, but it doesn't stop them feeling poor - and telling everyone who will listen. My sister in law and her husband both have good paying public sector jobs but due to their poor financial management they have regularly missed their mortgage payments and have had to be bailed out by Mrs Don's parents.

They are in the U.S. and are strongly pro-Trump because they are convinced that he will make all their financial worries go away. At the time of the bank bail outs in 2008 they were strongly anti-bail out because they thought that if their bank went under they wouldn't have to pay off the rest of their home loan (18 years into their home loan they owe substantially more than when they bought the house).

IMO they are typical of the kind of people would absolutely support any move that would "stick it to the bankers".

Sure ... but they don't represent a majority of the electorate, I would think. They're a small, but extremely vocal minority.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

I find it quite annoying to keep hearing about the 52% who voted leave, when they are only just over half of the people who actually voted, which is about 12 million less than those entitled to vote, isn't it?

Come on Susan. Do the same figures with 48%. Make the same argument with the Remain figures.

Sorry, but that's the way democracy works.

 

[Belz...]

The passport-issuing level moved down a rung, from the UK to, finally, the Republic of Ireland. But the level of national collectivity with which they identified themselves did not change. And that identification is what we have been discussing.

Yeah but since I've been saying that the identification is irrelevant, I'm still waiting for the argument that it's not.

Because it's manifestly relevant, and I choose to bring it up. I hope that answer is sufficiently uncondescending.

I'm sure you brought it up because you think it's relevant. I'm asking you HOW it's relevant. I can't answer unless I know, because it wasn't phrased in a way that I can answer. Stop dancing around the issue and clarify this, please.

 

[angrysoba]

The present situation is a plain crisis in which the general legitimacy of the current system has been brought into question, and in my belief it calls for a renewal of popular mandate as soon as may be. If the PM holds office (ex officio as Party leader) by the will of the MPs and not the electorate, then he should not be removed, let alone seek to remove himself, as party leader, in consequence of an act of the electorate. But he has done exactly that.

He did not lose the confidence of Tory MPs, but of the electorate in a popular referendum. This is an anomalous situation, which has NOT occurred twelve times in the last century, or whatever.

On the other side: Corbyn was appointed Labour leader in consequence of a vote of the membership of his party, NOT of Labour MPs. He has not seen fit to resign but is resisting removal. In that case it seems subversive of the LP constitution for the MPs to assert that they, and not the members of the party, should have the power to remove him. Why then have a membership vote at all?

In short, the circumstances of the present situation are highly unusual; and they call for a renewal of the legitimacy of the incumbent political establishment.

I think it's perfectly consistent of Cameron to resign after having made a balls up of putting his referendum to the public and for there to be no requirement of a general election. If, on the other hand, there was a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election forced by parliament that would be another matter. But you seem to be in the realm of making up when a government has a mandate or not just as Theresa May did when Gordon Brown became PM.

 

[McHrozni]

I think I more or less agree but with one caveat. By the time the effects hit them in the pocket they may well have forgotten what caused it. Especially if politicians are telling them a different story.

For examples of this I refer you to the UKIP/Leave arguments that blame immigrants for the results of Tory cuts and blame difficulties for skilled Non-EU migrants on the EU rather than Theresa May's policies.

There's probably also not much political capital in highlighting the effects of Brexit for Labour since May will quite rightly be able to point out that she was against it personally but it was the will of the majority of the people. Maybe Farage will be blamed and then we all move on.

It's was the will of a plurality of those who voted, at the time of voting. It's not entirely clear that's still the case. It never was the will of the majority of the people, seeing as less than 40% of those entitled to vote actually voted to leave.

That said, yes, it is possible to hide the effects of Brexit from a large proportion of the voting public by blaming someone else. However if the results of Brexit are laid bare, and blamed on Brexit, then there is no need for hiding at all.

It basically boils down to whether this small referendum victory is sufficient to doom the UK, or can the results of the decision be used to avoid the doom - i.e. is the will of the slim majority sacrosanct, even when it's achieved through outright lies, or can such clear errors be corrected.

If the results would be 60-40 or better in favor of Leave, it would be a given. With this result however essentially anything is possible.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Come on Susan. Do the same figures with 48%. Make the same argument with the Remain figures.

Sorry, but that's the way democracy works.

There is a tad more to democracy than achieving a simple majority in a public vote, then obey the result whatever it is, regardless of how circumstances change.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah but since I've been saying that the identification is irrelevant, I'm still waiting for the argument that it's not.

I'm sure you brought it up because you think it's relevant. I'm asking you HOW it's relevant. I can't answer unless I know, because it wasn't phrased in a way that I can answer. Stop dancing around the issue and clarify this, please.

I think it's pretty obvious from the example you are discussing why identity is important.

If the Irish identity was irrelevant once they held British passports then there wouldn't have been any push to change. There was. Because it is not irrelevant.

At the moment there isn't a strong European identity and national identities tend to top it.

 

[Francesca R]

If the PM holds office (ex officio as Party leader) by the will of the MPs and not the electorate, then he should not be removed, let alone seek to remove himself, as party leader, in consequence of an act of the electorate.

As already pointed out to you, Alex Salmond removed himself as party leader and First Minister "in consequence of an act of the electorate" following the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

He did not lose the confidence of Tory MPs, but of the electorate in a popular referendum. This is an anomalous situation, which has NOT occurred twelve times in the last century, or whatever.

And Salmond "lost the confidence of the electorate in a popular referendum" also.

Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister in a government that had lost the condicence of the electorate in a popular referendum no less, was appointed unhindered by even a leadership contest, and held office for the next year and a half "by the will of M(S)Ps"

In short, the circumstances of the present situation are highly unusual; and they call for a renewal of the legitimacy of the incumbent political establishment.

Scotland in 2014 looks highly analogous, were you calling for a snap Scottish parliamentary election post IndyRef?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it's perfectly consistent of Cameron to resign after having made a balls up of putting his referendum to the public and for there to be no requirement of a general election. If, on the other hand, there was a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election forced by parliament that would be another matter. But you seem to be in the realm of making up when a government has a mandate or not just as Theresa May did when Gordon Brown became PM.

It's certainly within the rules but it seems to go against the 'take our country back' ethos of the Leave campaign for a Remain supporter to be appointed PM more of less by default following some internal Tory party machinations.

At the very least I think it provides an opportunity for an election and that opportunity might actually give one last chance to stay in the EU if a pro-Remain majority could be assembled.

If May is more concerned for the UK than for herself or her party she might consider taking that opportunity

It's was the will of a plurality of those who voted, at the time of voting. It's not entirely clear that's still the case. It never was the will of the majority of the people, seeing as less than 40% of those entitled to vote actually voted to leave.

That said, yes, it is possible to hide the effects of Brexit from a large proportion of the voting public by blaming someone else. However if the results of Brexit are laid bare, and blamed on Brexit, then there is no need for hiding at all.

It basically boils down to whether this small referendum victory is sufficient to doom the UK, or can the results of the decision be used to avoid the doom - i.e. is the will of the slim majority sacrosanct, even when it's achieved through outright lies, or can such clear errors be corrected.

If the results would be 60-40 or better in favor of Leave, it would be a given. With this result however essentially anything is possible.

McHrozni

If a 60/40 vote was needed then this could have been included BEFORE the vote was held. Not after. Otherwise, yes it pretty much is sacrosanct. Sadly.

There is a tad more to democracy than achieving a simple majority in a public vote, then obey the result whatever it is, regardless of how circumstances change.

McHrozni

I think it's hard to argue that circumstances have changed significantly in the past few weeks since the vote other than the result going against Remain. The argument then would seem to be that only a Remain vote would be acceptable. Which kind of invalidates the entire idea of the referendum.

 

[Francesca R]

Considering the implications of the referendum, there is a case to be made for that, yes.

There was a case to be made for that. It is pretty politically impossible now, because it wasn't then.

 

[Francesca R]

I think the only legitimate way that someone could now overturn the decision would be after a general election if they stood on the ticket of remaining in the EU and were elected.

Per my post 1440, that seems highly unlikely to work (and therefore highly unlikely to be tried, should circumstances even permit)

 

[Francesca R]

Come on Susan. Do the same figures with 48%. Make the same argument with the Remain figures.

Sorry, but that's the way democracy works.

Indeed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As already pointed out to you, Alex Salmond removed himself as party leader and First Minister "in consequence of an act of the electorate" following the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

And Salmond "lost the confidence of the electorate in a popular referendum" also.

Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister in a government that had lost the condicence of the electorate in a popular referendum no less, was appointed unhindered by even a leadership contest, and held office for the next year and a half "by the will of M(S)Ps"

Scotland in 2014 looks highly analogous, were you calling for a snap Scottish parliamentary election post IndyRef?

I think I agree with your broader point but there are some differences. For a start, FM of Scotland is not a role appointed by the Party. It is a role voted for by the Parliament.

Possibly a difference that makes no practical difference but still a difference.

I think you could also make an argument that the system in Scotland also means that the electorate determine who is FM. Or at least they have a more direct influence on it than for the UK PM.

 

[Francesca R]

It's certainly within the rules but it seems to go against the 'take our country back' ethos of the Leave campaign for a Remain supporter to be appointed PM more of less by default following some internal Tory party machinations.

Disagreed, in fact May's sentiment on this is correct--being PM of the UK is about rather more than prior advocacy on a single issue, even if that issue is Brexit. Were she seeking to set aside the vote, I guess that would be pretty different however.

At the very least I think it provides an opportunity for an election and that opportunity might actually give one last chance to stay in the EU if a pro-Remain majority could be assembled.

As above I suspect the likelihood of a pro-remain electoral plurality is vanishingly small. not that political parties would organise themselves into remain versus leave, and if the big parties were all remain, such an election could very easily be argued to have no validity at all in overturning the EURef result.

If May is more concerned for the UK than for herself or her party she might consider taking that opportunity

Oddschecker has a Tory majority almost even with a hung parliament on the same. Labour majority is 5:1. (My speculation is that if the Tories campaigned out and Labour in, those odds would probably skew further, but I dunno)

 

[Francesca R]

Possibly a difference that makes no practical difference but still a difference.

A nit-pick probably.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Disagreed, in fact May's sentiment on this is correct--being PM of the UK is about rather more than prior advocacy on a single issue, even if that issue is Brexit.

It would appear that David Cameron, for one, disagreed with this position. The way this was done certainly does nothing for the argument that the EU was undemocratic compared to the UK.

As above I suspect the likelihood of a pro-remain electoral plurality is vanishingly small. not that political parties would organise themselves into remain versus leave, and if the big parties were all remain, such an election could very easily be argued to have no validity at all in overturning the EURef result.

Oddschecker has a Tory majority almost even with a hung parliament on the same. Labour majority is 5:1.

When it would appear that Tory policy is that Brexit should be implemented so they are no longer Remain. Nobody seems very clear what Labour policy is. SNP Green and Lib Dem seem to be for Remain regardless of the referendum result (or in the SNP case, BECAUSE of the result).

It doesn't seem impossible that an Eagle led Labour Party could come out for Remain Anyway as a position. Then I think you'd have a decent shout at a pro-Remain majority in Parliament.

If the Tories won the GE then they would of course go ahead with Brexit. They could also take the opportunity to define what Brexit meant for them and prepare the electorate for out-lite if that's the plan.

Hell May could even do a Corbyn and campaign somewhat half-heartedly to win the election - taking one for the UK team and allowing Labour to do the dirty work of ignoring the referendum result.

I'm not expecting this to happen but it certainly could be one way out of the current mess.

 

[The Don]

Hell May could even do a Corbyn and campaign somewhat half-heartedly to win the election - taking one for the UK team and allowing Labour to do the dirty work of ignoring the referendum result.

It could be argued that she already has "done a Corbyn" on the grounds that reportedly she was lukewarm on Remain. Perhaps now she has the perfect situation, nominally a Remainer, sympathetically a Leaver, she gets to negotiate the terms of Brexit.

If it turns out well she can take the plaudits. If it goes wrong, she can blame the Leave campaign and the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

If a 60/40 vote was needed then this could have been included BEFORE the vote was held. Not after. Otherwise, yes it pretty much is sacrosanct. Sadly.

It's a basic principle of legitimacy. If the decision was made by a clear majority it could well be sacrosanct, but if the result was close, or if it was reached through dishonest means - both was the case here - then the decision can not be held sacrosanct, regardless of whether what the rules initially said.

I think it's hard to argue that circumstances have changed significantly in the past few weeks since the vote other than the result going against Remain. The argument then would seem to be that only a Remain vote would be acceptable. Which kind of invalidates the entire idea of the referendum.

Circumstances have changed in that it became clear no one, especially not the most ardent supporters of Leave, had any clue of what kind of a relationship with the EU and the world they envisioned for UK. In other words, they had made no analysis and no planning - all of their claims are to be considered suspect. Assuming their false claims convinced 4% of the population to vote Leave instead of not going to the polls, that's already enough to make the result of referendum illegitimate.

That's the reason why I said a result of 60-40 would probably be rightfully sacrosanct. I find it hard to believe 20% were swayed by that red lie of a bus, but 4% is entirely believable. If it peeled supporters from Remain to Leave, numbers are half that, obviously.

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that some of the vote was made in protest against the establishment, not to actually leave the EU. Again, it's hard to believe this was a massive effect, but you don't need a massive effect to change a referendum this close.

What is more illegitimate, ignoring a referendum that went the "wrong" way, or holding the results of a non-binding referendum sacrosanct, even though the results were obtained through dishonest means? Both options are illegitimate to an extent, and you can't say one is significantly more legitimate than the other. Given the implications of the result, and the devastating effects this would likely have on the country, having a tad more than a 52-48 victory with 72% participation is necessary if you want to play the legitimacy card, let alone the "will of the people" card.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A nit-pick probably.

Not really. It's a different system.

Nicola was not appointed unopposed as you suggest. She was elected by a majority of MSPs and stood against Ruth Davidson who opposed her but wasn't able to get enough support to be the FM.

She's FM currently because she won a vote against Willie Rennie despite not having a majority of MSPs.