Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 57   Go Down

Author Topic: Brexit  (Read 292298 times)

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #620 on: October 23, 2016, 05:36:53 am »

It may be a relevant question to ask which mandate the government was given by the referendum? Is it a mandate to negotiate conditions for leaving the EU or a mandate to the leave the European Economic Area?

It’s worth pursuing, if we can, Erik’s question. As per the image below, the question put in the referendum was, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”. There are implied, arguably, the prefatory words, “In your opinion,”.

So is there a ‘mandate’ for anything in the ensuing result? In Switzerland, there is, controversially, much political decision making by referendum. But there is at least a very serious, intensive education process beforehand, giving detailed, accurate expositions of the arguments for and against the proposal/s in question, distributed (at least to Swiss abroad) in printed form. There are at least the makings of informed consent or dissent.

Considering ‘informed consent’ in the UK health care environment, no intervention can be made without this, given in writing, at least in the case of operative procedures. It would probably be a criminal offence in most situations to make an intervention without such informed consent.

Leaving the EU would be a massive intervention in the lives of British citizens, altering the whole political, economic, cultural and social landscape. So why ought there not to have been a similarly stringent process of informed consent/dissent, if a ‘mandate’ of any sort was to be the outcome of the referendum process? Instead, we were exposed to a charlatan’s parade of misinformation, lies and emotive propaganda from snake oil salesmen posing as responsible politicians, driven by either the interests of their own political careers or those of a jingoistic and most unpleasant assortment of far right Conservatives - surely a travesty of any notion of informed consent, whose perpetrators in other contexts requiring informed consent could be liable to criminal proceedings. Perhaps the point about informed consent should be more prominently voiced.

Considering the result, 51.9% of the 72.2% turnout, or 37.48% (if my maths are right) of the electorate voted to ‘leave’. Without a validated process of preliminary informed consent, and with such a small margin in favour of ‘leave’, that doesn’t look like a mandate for anything at all. An appropriate and certainly interesting response could have been to map the regional demographics of ‘leave’ versus ‘remain’ against regional indices of ethnic diversity, deprivation, unemployment, health, educational attainment and maybe others. Provisional conclusions possibly with remedial strategies might then emerge, to the overall benefit of the UK.

If UK regional inequalities are at all relevant to this discussion, it’s interesting to note that France has a department dedicated to this very issue, the CGET (Commissariat général à l'égalité des territoires) - what used to be DATAR (Délégation à l'aménagement du territoire et à l'action régionale), of Mission Photographique fame in the 1980s.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 09:08:05 am by MarkJohnson »
Logged
Mark J

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Brexit
« Reply #621 on: October 23, 2016, 05:57:55 am »

Good points, Mark, but our basic problem is that our politicians don't trust the people to think clearly, so they work on prejudice instead of on logic. Of course, were they to work on logic, then those same politicians would mostly be out of office.

Insider knowledge?

In Scotland it appears the Nats are still working to exactly the same rules as the English did. Do we, then, deserve what we get?

Rob C

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Brexit
« Reply #622 on: October 23, 2016, 12:38:16 pm »

Considering ‘informed consent’ in the UK health care environment, no intervention can be made without this, given in writing, at least in the case of operative procedures. It would probably be a criminal offence in most situations to make an intervention without such informed consent.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the remainder of your post (and I disagree with nearly all of it), this particular part is definitively untrue. English law does not recognise the concept of "informed consent", and never has; and on its true reading, the recent and much-publicised decision of the Supreme Court* has not altered that fact.

Consent to intervention need not be given in writing: the written document is evidence of consent, no more.

It is highly unlikely that any properly conducted and rationally justifiable intervention undertaken without consent would be considered a crime in any situation, and certainly "in most" is simply wrong.

I have no idea what qualification or knowledge you purport to bring to bear on the topic under discussion, but you would be well advised to steer clear of pontification on the law of consent.

Jeremy

* Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
Logged

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #623 on: October 23, 2016, 01:14:16 pm »

Hi Jeremy, thanks for your advice. You say that 'English law does not recognise the concept of "informed consent"', however medical practice fortunately does, with written pre-operative consent from patient or appropriate representative being routine practice, as it is in other instances of intervention in medicine. Common sense and professional standards would not have it otherwise. And I don't see how the legalistic point you elaborate undermines my argument that for the EU referendum to be considered capable of generating any 'mandate', it would be at least desirable for there to have been a serious attempt completely to inform voters of the arguments for and against the options, and of the ramifications and implications of a 'leave' vote, that is, assuming one accepts it was appropriate in the first instance to put this 'issue' to a popular referendum in a parliamentary democracy, given its tremendous complexity and indeed importance, a complexity which purportedly left the present Foreign Secretary in doubt as to how to vote until rather late in the day.
Anyway, thank you again for your interesting detailing of the law of consent.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 01:22:44 pm by MarkJohnson »
Logged
Mark J

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Brexit
« Reply #624 on: October 23, 2016, 01:18:15 pm »

Sore losers.

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #625 on: October 23, 2016, 01:28:55 pm »

Slobodan, that's been said many times by others. I question whether a less than 4% difference with limited turnout makes for clear 'winners' and 'losers'. The country was more or less evenly divided, as it would have been if voters had tossed a coin. The (formerly) United Kingdom looks set to be the big 'loser'.
Logged
Mark J

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 974
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Brexit
« Reply #626 on: October 23, 2016, 02:25:30 pm »

. . . The (formerly) United Kingdom looks set to be the big 'loser'.

Many people have said this as well. I'm one of the few who think Brits will be better off without the unaccountable bureaucracy imposed by the EU.
Logged
~ CB

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Brexit
« Reply #627 on: October 23, 2016, 02:44:30 pm »

I question whether a less than 4% difference with limited turnout...

In modern democracies, both numbers are actually huge. 70+ percent turnout is huge. 4 percent difference equally so, when a more typical result is 50.something vs. 49.something. Bush vs. Gore was decided by 500-600 votes, against 300+ million population.

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #628 on: October 23, 2016, 03:38:35 pm »

Chris, I hope that at least in some measure you're right.

Slobodan - interesting facts from your side. Election outcomes can indeed turn on very small numbers, although there is a view that a really major and very far reaching proposed constitutional change, such as 'Brexit', ought to have an even clearer majority in favour, from an even greater turnout (should it actually be put to a popular referendum).
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 03:50:46 pm by MarkJohnson »
Logged
Mark J

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Brexit
« Reply #629 on: October 23, 2016, 03:44:16 pm »

Two bads don't make a good, Slobodan. It's not mathematics, you know, it's more important.

It was a mess from the moment it was conceived, a throwaway gesture that went wrong. It lost us some good politicos with vision, but then, those sorts are pretty much doomed in this day and age of constant warfare disguised as national politics, where what you do to the country doesn't matter, what matters is getting into power. You seem to be even more advanced into that on your side of the pond, but I'm only going by tv... maybe nobody, anywhere, has the slightest idea what's what, and by the time that they do know what's what it will be too late (as Saul has reportedly said).

Rob

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Brexit
« Reply #630 on: October 23, 2016, 04:15:16 pm »

I'd say this: whatever the circumstances of the Brexit vote and the possibly arguable validity of the result, the May government has made the political calculation that maintaining "traditionally English" (which is to say, white) cultural hegemony in England is worth whatever economic hit they'll have to take. Maybe even worth the breakup of the UK itself, should that come to pass. I simply don't take anyone seriously who claims the Leave vote was driven by economic issues.

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Brexit
« Reply #631 on: October 23, 2016, 04:39:53 pm »

I'd say this: whatever the circumstances of the Brexit vote and the possibly arguable validity of the result, the May government has made the political calculation that maintaining "traditionally English" (which is to say, white) cultural hegemony in England is worth whatever economic hit they'll have to take. Maybe even worth the breakup of the UK itself, should that come to pass. I simply don't take anyone seriously who claims the Leave vote was driven by economic issues.

-Dave-


Hi Dave,

White England. It's far too late for that - at least by about seventy years. Check out the 'rivers of blood' speech by Enoch Powell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

He was talking about twenty or more years after the event. It's the price of Empire as, in the States, it's the price of slavery. You interfere with a huge number of people's lives and those chickens will come home to roost. Nobody can have it both ways.

Economic issues. I agree; very few Exiters could have given that serious thought: it's obvious that if you cut off the nose of your closest big customer, he ain't gonna be terribly pleased with you when you go back tying to sell him snake oil. He makes and can use his own, probably to be served from smarter bottles. Britain already has trade with non-European customers; what was stopping it from finding more? It's the same argument made in Scotland, where it claims to be under the English joke, and how it will magically find new markets if 'freed'... so why wait, why didn't you seek them out decades ago? England won't object if you create more business!

It's all lies, from all of them. The people finally have the politicos they deserve.

Rob

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Brexit
« Reply #632 on: October 23, 2016, 04:52:13 pm »

A fundamental problem with the way the referendum was done was to make it such that anything over 50% was enough to pass it.  The UK doesn't have a history of referenda, and that lack of experienced showed.  In Australia and the US, for example, two similar extrapolations of the basic concepts of English Law and two successful western democracies, referenda are passed by a super majority.  It's slightly varied in each place, but in Australia, for example, two-thirds of the votes in two-thirds of the states is the requirement for change.  It is deliberately difficult to change things to ensure there is genuine broad support from across the country.  Allowing a 50/50 call was unfortunate.

That said, there's little doubt that the process was valid and legal under UK law.  This discussion of informed consent for medical processes (which, as Jeremy pointed out has no real bearing at law) is a furphy.  The entire process of democracy is unfortunately subject to a great deal of ignorance and a lack of testing of competence.

Logged
Phil Brown

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Brexit
« Reply #633 on: October 23, 2016, 04:55:42 pm »

Nick Walker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
    • www.sportpicturelibrary.com
Re: Brexit
« Reply #634 on: October 23, 2016, 05:09:43 pm »

The country was  The (formerly) United Kingdom looks set to be the big 'loser'.

Only if it adopts a negative mindset.

FabienP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: Brexit
« Reply #635 on: October 23, 2016, 06:45:13 pm »

(...)

So is there a ‘mandate’ for anything in the ensuing result? In Switzerland, there is, controversially, much political decision making by referendum. But there is at least a very serious, intensive education process beforehand, giving detailed, accurate expositions of the arguments for and against the proposal/s in question, distributed (at least to Swiss abroad) in printed form. There are at least the makings of informed consent or dissent.

(...)

Incidentally, I wonder how many voters never bother to read this "official" documentation (hint: the vast majority). At least it gives voters a copy of the proposed amendments on constitution or current laws, which they can review with no interference/interpretation of third parties.

However, the Federal Council will also issue recommendations in the same document based on "estimated" outcomes of the proposed changes. This is where things can get awry. There were several cases in recent years where the information provided turned out to be very inaccurate, if not deliberately misleading. For instance, tax cuts for dividends payed to shareholders were once presented as funds that would have to be redirected to R&D spending. That turned out to be untrue (no such obligation) and lead to a yearly budget loss of 1.5 billion Swiss Francs.

The ensuing uproar never brought any revision to the text and journalists stopped bothering politicians after a few weeks. The next gift to businesses is scheduled for the coming months with a revision of tax on income of businesses that will bring us in close competition to Gibraltar with its 10% tax, since 13% is currently expected to be chosen by our Cantons.

Anyway, as I type this, I realise that this idea of "official" documentation given to voters might be a moot point in the case of Brexit, because no one could predict the outcome of the negociations with the EU at the time of the referendum. Hence, no valid documentation could have been supplied to the voters (beyond the information printed on Farage's and Johnson's bus, which turned out to be slightly inaccurate and incomplete ;)).

If this interseting case were to be happen in Switzerland, there would be another (optional!) referendum once the terms of the deal are known. Voters could either validate their previous idea, in full knowledge of what will happen, or reject the detailed terms, which should normally lead to a second round of negociations. At this point, this becomes science fiction, because I do not think that European treaties would allow a second negotiation run!

IMO, the way the process triggered by Article 50 was designed was actually meant as a political scarecrow that no one would seriously attempt to come close to, given the inability to come back to a safe previous state once the process is started.

Cheers,

Fabien
Logged

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #636 on: October 24, 2016, 03:46:14 am »

This discussion of informed consent for medical processes (which, as Jeremy pointed out has no real bearing at law) is a furphy.

With all due respect, informed consent in health care provision is, briefly, a legal reality. It is off piste for this thread, so for those interested, these links outline: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138296/dh_103653__1_.pdf
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Consent-to-treatment/Pages/Introduction.aspx
In general, I think the principal of informed consent is a very good one, applicable in many situations.

Fabien, thank you for your insights into Swiss referenda.  The process of information there, although flawed, is surely a step in the right direction. It is becoming a destabilising process, with the requisite 100,000 signatures for a referendum being not so difficult to drum up using the internet. The narrow majority in favour of the 2014 Swiss federal popular initiative against mass immigration will have, unless reversed in another referendum, regrettable consequences, for instance in scientific research. The Swiss government had campaigned against the initiative.


« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 04:34:11 am by MarkJohnson »
Logged
Mark J

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Brexit
« Reply #637 on: October 24, 2016, 03:53:35 am »

Hi Jeremy, thanks for your advice. You say that 'English law does not recognise the concept of "informed consent"', however medical practice fortunately does, with written pre-operative consent from patient or appropriate representative being routine practice, as it is in other instances of intervention in medicine.

No, it doesn't involve informed consent. Medical practice is to obtain consent for all procedures, whether implied or express. (I've not yet ceased to be amused by the last two words of midwives' entries in obstetric records I see reading "Vaginal examination by consent"). Such consent, to the more significant interventions, is often bolstered by a signature on a consent form, but it's an essentially meaningless gesture. Attached is a screenshot of one of the slides from a talk I give from time to time on the law of medical consent. A signed consent form is necessary to get the patient past the guardians at the door of the theatre suite. Its presence doesn't mean that consent has been given, nor does its absence mean that consent has been withheld: it's just a piece of paper.

And I don't see how the legalistic point you elaborate undermines my argument that for the EU referendum to be considered capable of generating any 'mandate'

I didn't suggest that it did: I expressly didn't engage with you on that point. If you argue by analogy, however, and your analogy is fundamentally misguided, your main point must be rendered at least suspect.

Anyway, thank you again for your interesting detailing of the law of consent.

You're welcome.

Jeremy
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Brexit
« Reply #638 on: October 24, 2016, 04:45:05 am »

Seems, then, that medical ethics are as suspect as political ones; and to think I have a granddaughter in medicine and another in law...

But, some medics are wonderful: I had a appointment for the dermatologist at 9 a.m. which meant getting up in the dark at 7 a.m. Well, I was sitting on the bench waiting my turn when the nurse came out to collect the paperwork. She paused, looked at me and said today's the 24th, you are for the 25th... However, she told me to wait and she'd see if the dermatologist could take me as I was there (we agreed on that: it was an incontrovertible fact that I was). Twenty minutes later I was walking back out, liquid nitrogened where required, and my spirits high. Yeah, cool, and nothing signed, though the form does have a space for that, in fact for both patient and medic. Maybe the nurse fills them both in over coffee. Or tea, of she's French.

Works for me.

(Moral: keep out of the sunshine if you can; bronzed can kill you.)

Rob

MarkJohnson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Brexit
« Reply #639 on: October 24, 2016, 06:43:52 am »

I've not yet ceased to be amused by the last two words of midwives' entries in obstetric records I see reading "Vaginal examination by consent"

Jeremy, could you explain what you find particularly amusing here? It is simply recognised evidence of best practice, whereas your deriving inappropriate amusement from such confidential clinical records and citing them, even anonymised, in a clinically unrelated public forum is certainly not.
Logged
Mark J
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 57   Go Up