Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[JihadJane]

Which would suggest most of the people who didn't bother voting are quite happy with Brexit.

...

No it doesn't. That's a normal (+1%) turnout for EU elections in the UK. Half of 37% does not equal "Half of Britons". To claim otherwise would be a fantastical lie, equal to those of Johnson, and Farage et al!

 

[Lothian]

He has. In this morning's reports President Trump suggests a no deal Brexit with Farage in charge of the negotiations.

Farage should be in the negotiations, along with Johnstone and Gove and they should not come back until they deliver what they promised "free trade with the EU, no free movement of people, no role for the ECJ and zero £ contribution".

Brexiteers need to know whether the abject failure to deliver the promises so far is down to poor negotiators or false promises.

 

[Mojo]

Farage should be in the negotiations, along with Johnstone and Gove and they should not come back until they deliver what they promised "free trade with the EU, no free movement of people, no role for the ECJ and zero £ contribution".

Brexiteers need to know whether the abject failure to deliver the promises so far is down to poor negotiators or false promises.

I’m not sure that the scenario you propose would distinguish between them. Or exclude both being the case.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He also says Britain should refuse to pay any money owed to Europe until they give us what we want.

 

[GlennB]

He also says Britain should refuse to pay any money owed to Europe until they give us what we want.

All we really have to do is grab Europe by the pussy ...

 

[Information Analyst]

UK recently took part in elections for the European Parliament and the Brexit Party cleaned up. The "leave" vote total was higher than those voting to remain, even allowing for all Labour's votes as remain, which is not the case.

| No Deal | Deal | Remain
The Brexit Party | 31.60% | |
Liberal Democrat | | | 20.30%
Labour | | 14.10% |
Green | | | 12.09%
Conservative | | 9.09% |
Scottish National Party | | | 3.60%
Plaid Cymru | | | 1.00%
Change UK | | | 3.40%
UKIP | 3.30% | |
TOTAL | 34.90% | 23.19% | 40.39%

If Leave gets the Conservatives (majority Leave), and Remain Labour (majority Remain), that's 43.99% for Leave against 54.49% for Remain.

 

[Vixen]

One form of democracy, at least: mob rule.

***

The idea that democracy, as well as human rights, are based on principles of universal application is clearly dead in Western culture.

Under such principles, one might argue that governance finds its most effective and practical expression in the form of communities of shared interest (nation states), making governance practical and properly focused on local application of universals. These principles are by no means violated by any such communities, states or nations then banding together into larger aggregates (EU); there is no logical or ideological contradiction involved.

To support the notion that multi-level structures of governance are a bad idea ('evil EU empire'), one must also logically reject any such aggregation on home territory, as well as now question the legitimacy of governance itself. In its final form, say "hello" to the disaggregated, nation-less, state-less, ungovernable Avalon of Anarchy that Brexit ultimately argues for. No surprise that its denouement is likely to lead to the breakup of the UK itself.

In short, the arguments of Brexit are self-contradictory, a mish-mash of loose verbiage lacking any tether to principle or solid grounding: A pauper among political philosophies without any foundation beyond naked tribalism. The emotional catharsis it offers its adepts tingles invitingly, but does so by loosening the savage within, affording the same kind of cheap and easy "freedom" one gets, say, when loosening a girdle, or tossing garbage where once forbidden.

Brexit, as formulated by its proponents, is the clear rejection of any principles of recognizable universal application, and therefore consists of a frontal assault on democracy itself. To praise it in terms of its supposed democratic credentials relies on equating the denial of principle with its affirmation, an impossibility. That is the trap that the unwise, strident or Putin-adoring have fallen into, soon to discover the walls of that trap are steep, indeed.

But, but, Atheist and the Brexiteers will see Britain rise again out of the azure main at Heaven's command, Spitfires will be back in production against the theme music of the Dambusters and everybody will be queuing up in their little boats from Ramsgate to fetch ex-pat Brits home from Dunkirk as Merkel's Messerschmidts scramble over their heads only to be brought down by the Spitfires. Then I woke up to find I had been dreaming.

[How many times have I told you not to end your compositions with,'I woke up and found it had all been a dream - Teacher]

 

[The Atheist]

No it doesn't. That's a normal (+1%) turnout for EU elections in the UK. Half of 37% does not equal "Half of Britons". To claim otherwise would be a fantastical lie, equal to those of Johnson, and Farage et al!

Nicely ignoring the current poll I posted.

If Leave gets the Conservatives (majority Leave), and Remain Labour (majority Remain), that's 43.99% for Leave against 54.49% for Remain.

And if pigs bred faster, bacon would be cheaper.

As of 22 May, YouGov shows a 1% majority for Brexit: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...he-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nicely ignoring the current poll I posted.



And if pigs bred faster, bacon would be cheaper.

As of 22 May, YouGov shows a 1% majority for Brexit: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...he-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

One poll shows a 1% majority (and what's the MOE on the polling usually +-3% or so) for the first time in about 2 years and that suddenly means people want Brexit?

 

[IanS]

Sorry, I keep forgetting about people who have been off the planet for the past few months.

UK recently took part in elections for the European Parliament and the Brexit Party cleaned up. The "leave" vote total was higher than those voting to remain, even allowing for all Labour's votes as remain, which is not the case.

Last weeks UK EU elections were not of course a vote on Leave or Remain in the EU (it was not a Brexit vote). Of course Nigel Farage's Brexit Party were offering that single issue for those who wanted to again register their wish for the UK to leave the EU ... but it was not a public referendum for voting to leave or stay in the EU.

I think it's obvious that many people voting for the two main parties (Labour and Conservative) probably voted for all sorts other reasons/issues (all the usual things that they would vote for in a General Election) ... because that's how the vast majority of traditional/older UK voters always vote in any election (they just vote for the party they have always voted for, whether it's a Local Election, an EU Election, or a General Election).

Of course this time, because of all the fuss about Brexit, many Remain voters voted tactically for the Lib Dem's (or other parties) just to show support for Remain and to oppose all those who were clearly going to vote for Farage and his Brexit aims.

I would not for one moment try to minimise the obvious success that Farage and his new Brexit Party had in getting 31% of the total vote. That's a worryingly huge number. But the actual fact is that this was not a referendum or a General Election, and depending on what Labour and the Conservatives actually offer and actually campaign for in any new referendum or Election, we may very well find that Farage and Brexit is convincingly beaten.

On the other hand it's just about possible (although imho it's pretty unlikely on the basis all the votes we saw a few months back in the HoC), that a new Conservative PM could somehow take the UK out of the EU with No Deal (very hard to see how he/she could get that voted through the HoC though).

 

[catsmate]

The Brexiters are saying exactly the same thing.



Sorry, I keep forgetting about people who have been off the planet for the past few months.

UK recently took part in elections for the European Parliament and the Brexit Party cleaned up. The "leave" vote total was higher than those voting to remain, even allowing for all Labour's votes as remain, which is not the case.

No, actually they didn't. And the Remain vote share was higher.

 

[Information Analyst]

And if pigs bred faster, bacon would be cheaper.

As of 22 May, YouGov shows a 1% majority for Brexit: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...he-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

So you basically claimed, "The "leave" vote total was higher than those voting to remain, even allowing for all Labour's votes as remain, which is not the case" about the EU election results, and - when pointed out you were wrong - you now shift the goalposts to a poll taken before the EU elections? A poll that isn't actually a YouGov one, and - as Archie points out - is the first after a year of many others showing Remain majorities.

 

[Samson]

Last weeks UK EU elections were not of course a vote on Leave or Remain in the EU (it was not a Brexit vote). Of course Nigel Farage's Brexit Party were offering that single issue for those who wanted to again register their wish for the UK to leave the EU ... but it was not a public referendum for voting to leave or stay in the EU.

I think it's obvious that many people voting for the two main parties (Labour and Conservative) probably voted for all sorts other reasons/issues (all the usual things that they would vote for in a General Election) ... because that's how the vast majority of traditional/older UK voters always vote in any election (they just vote for the party they have always voted for, whether it's a Local Election, an EU Election, or a General Election).

Of course this time, because of all the fuss about Brexit, many Remain voters voted tactically for the Lib Dem's (or other parties) just to show support for Remain and to oppose all those who were clearly going to vote for Farage and his Brexit aims.

I would not for one moment try to minimise the obvious success that Farage and his new Brexit Party had in getting 31% of the total vote. That's a worryingly huge number. But the actual fact is that this was not a referendum or a General Election, and depending on what Labour and the Conservatives actually offer and actually campaign for in any new referendum or Election, we may very well find that Farage and Brexit is convincingly beaten.

On the other hand it's just about possible (although imho it's pretty unlikely on the basis all the votes we saw a few months back in the HoC), that a new Conservative PM could somehow take the UK out of the EU with No Deal (very hard to see how he/she could get that voted through the HoC though).

I would surmise Brexiters are generally more militant in their thinking than remainers. They are in New Zealand, and not interested in the thoughtful concerns of remainers. It also appears they are worried they are seeing death by a thousand cuts, so 31% of 37% may not mean what it appears.

 

[McHrozni]

I would surmise Brexiters are generally more militant in their thinking opinions than remainers. They are in New Zealand, and not interested in the thoughtful concerns of remainers. It also appears they are worried they are seeing death by a thousand cuts, so 31% of 37% may not mean what it appears.

FTFY

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I find it hard to agree with that idea.

Half of Britons still think Brexit is a great idea, even now they have access to all the data.

Fact is, you live on an island on which a slim majority doesn't want to be part of Europe. Brexit is the purest form of democracy you can get.

Modern Democracy does not operate on 50% plus one vote rule. In fact, it considers the approach undemocratic, because under the term "Democracy" we think of far more than just "popular mandate".

The highest and most important power in any Democracy (I'll use capital D to denote modern democracy) is actually the rule of law. A majority of people, no matter how large, can not change law at their whim. They can use existing law to elect representatives who will enact changes to legislation, even constitution if needed be, but they will have to follow the proper procedure. UK has these covered, even with Brexit (even if only just), it gets complicated one notch down.

Even that is not enough yet, you need at least one more component: checks and balances. You need a functional jurdicary branch that oversees the other two (or more) branches of the government, this still works in UK, but you also need a functioning opposition that ensures the government doesn't stray too far. You need regular elections with at least occasional changes of those in power. You also need free press and free speech, to ensure all opinions are heard. UK has no funcioning opposition, the largest opposition party is AWOL or complicit on the most important constitutional question. Right-wing press shouts down dissenting views. The fault of British Democracy is that it failed to ensrine these in law and relied too much on emergent patterns of human behavior.

If you have all of that you can say you have Democracy, with capital D. Several countries in EU do not - Poland, Hungary and now UK. They have the institutions for Democracy to work, but don't have Democracy because they lack a functional opposition and, in the case of Hungary, a functional free press. Croatia is another problematic state, because it lacks functional opposition, but that's not due to any nefarious activities by the government, but a result of mass emigration from the country since 2013. They're a "maybe", I think.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

Modern Democracy does not operate on 50% plus one vote rule. In fact, it considers the approach undemocratic, because under the term "Democracy" we think of far more than just "popular mandate".

The highest and most important power in any Democracy (I'll use capital D to denote modern democracy) is actually the rule of law. A majority of people, no matter how large, can not change law at their whim. They can use existing law to elect representatives who will enact changes to legislation, even constitution if needed be, but they will have to follow the proper procedure. UK has these covered, even with Brexit (even if only just), it gets complicated one notch down.

Even that is not enough yet, you need at least one more component: checks and balances. You need a functional jurdicary branch that oversees the other two (or more) branches of the government, this still works in UK, but you also need a functioning opposition that ensures the government doesn't stray too far. You need regular elections with at least occasional changes of those in power. You also need free press and free speech, to ensure all opinions are heard. UK has no funcioning opposition, the largest opposition party is AWOL or complicit on the most important constitutional question. Right-wing press shouts down dissenting views. The fault of British Democracy is that it failed to ensrine these in law and relied too much on emergent patterns of human behavior.

If you have all of that you can say you have Democracy, with capital D. Several countries in EU do not - Poland, Hungary and now UK. They have the institutions for Democracy to work, but don't have Democracy because they lack a functional opposition and, in the case of Hungary, a functional free press. Croatia is another problematic state, because it lacks functional opposition, but that's not due to any nefarious activities by the government, but a result of mass emigration from the country since 2013. They're a "maybe", I think.

McHrozni

Of course there are other sources than the print press.There are regulations to ensure impartiality of broadcast media, but much as you may like it legislating for impartiality in print media would be regarded as undemocratic and restricting freedom of speech.

The real problem as you say is that there is a leftist argument for leaving the EU, the reason why Corbyn was pro-Brexit; as well as a rightist. This has led tp paralysis of the parties of the left and right. I blame Corbyn for failing to lead a proper opposition to Brexit.

 

[Nessie]

No, actually they didn't. And the Remain vote share was higher.

I do not think that is the issue. That the Brexit Party went from 0 to 31.6% of the vote, 0 to 29 MEPs and became the largest single party is what is really significant.

If there really had been a sea change then the likes of the Lib Dems or Change UK would have swept the board.

Then, the turnout was only 37%. That means we do not the voting intentions of 63% of the voters.

Maybe, if there was another referendum, there would now be a remain majority, but all the signs are it would not be huge.

At the European election opportunity for the UK to show if it really has turned against Brexit, the answer has to be no, it has not.

Are we to be condemned to a series of referendums which end 48% to 52% and the loser wanted another?

 

[Tolls]

I do not think that is the issue. That the Brexit Party went from 0 to 31.6% of the vote, 0 to 29 MEPs and became the largest single party is what is really significant.

It's only significant if you treat this "party" as any different to the previous Farage party, UKIP.

It's the same backers, and financing, and front man.

In which case the Faragists gained 6 MEPs, which is not to be sneezed at, but not quite a miracle.

Anyone know when the investigation into the financing of the Brexit Party happens?

 

[McHrozni]

Of course there are other sources than the print press.There are regulations to ensure impartiality of broadcast media, but much as you may like it legislating for impartiality in print media would be regarded as undemocratic and restricting freedom of speech.

Under "press" I mean all forms of media. Print press, broadcast press, internet press and whatever other forms you can think of.

The real problem as you say is that there is a leftist argument for leaving the EU, the reason why Corbyn was pro-Brexit; as well as a rightist. This has led tp paralysis of the parties of the left and right.

There is no leftlist argument for leaving the EU in the UK. There are arguments that are being made in the name of leftlist causes, but none of them are remotely lined with reality. I want an actual argument to have that trait before I consider it more than a wiff of wind. Before you can make a leftlist argument for leaving the EU you must be in line with the most left-leaning states of the union and want to leave in order to be able to tilt even further left. This is manifestly not happening.

The UK is one of the most (if not the most) right-leaning member and wants to leave the EU so it can lean further to the right.

Other members of the Union - just about all of them, plus some non-members like Norway and Iceland - attest UK can easily lean further to the left within the confines of the Union if and when it wants to. If Britain doesn't want - or isn't able to do so politically - to shift to left within the EU it won't do so outside of the Union either.

I blame Corbyn for failing to lead a proper opposition to Brexit.

He is the key actor in "lack of functional opposition" point.
Also, "proper" is redundant. He supported Brexit all along.

McHrozni

 

[Ian Osborne]

I blame Corbyn for failing to lead a proper opposition to Brexit.

Buy that man a drink. And make it a large one.