Brexit

[Rob C]

"Only journalists think that issues are black and white."

But never in politics, Jeremy. In politics they lie and play situation ethics every bit as well as do politicians.

Boris weighing up the pros and cons of Brexit? Indeed, but from the perspective of his own promotion up the ladder. I would rather have a general election and risk having the Conservatives lose if only to have those two-faced wobblers, Boris and May, thrown on the scrap heap. They don't have a principle to share between them other than blatant self-advancement. At least Cameron fell upon his own sword. But then, as with Maggie, he was a rare one worthy of the space. Which still gives the Conservatives a very slim advantage, even if in the past tense.

Funny how the Nissan honcho says one thing on tv and the politicians quite another; just watched both parties a few minutes ago on Sky, then switched off when Clinton began to pour syrup all over Mrs Obama. It was too sickly even for Americans to watch, I'd hope... However, I saw just enough to make me wonder if Mrs Obama will not have a very serious dog in the fight next time elections come around... Now that would be fun; it would make internecine former Tory and Labour 'friends' very civil by comparison!

Watch this space; you heard it here first.

Rob C

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Johnson considered the issue to be balanced. He thought about it, carefully. He wrote articles both for and against, in an attempt to clarify points in his own mind, and he decided in favour of Leave. What on earth is wrong with that?

Well, Boris was just aiming at David's position, so he ultimately had to take a different position. He did spread his bets, so whatever the outcome, he would not become an impossible alternative if Remain had prevailed. The fact that Leave was the outcome was as much a surprise for him as for most cautious people, hence his 'disappearing act' for a number of days, waiting for the public's reaction. He is just an opportunist, relatively a 'light weight' in a middle to heavy weight category of players.

Harris's article about May is along the same lines. She campaigned, weakly, for Remain. The public voted for Leave, so she's going to do what an elected politician ought to do, and work to ensure that the best outcome is obtained, given the will of the people.

Yes, while not in favor, she'll try and do justice to the outcome the best she can. And it will be an ugly process ..., with an unsure outcome.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. The fact that the referendum was an Advisory one, not legally binding, doesn't make much difference once it was stated that it would be followed either way.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The will of the people is not very well know, brexit yes, but at what conditions?

Referendums are dangerous, no one can predict the outcome.

Well there is the Swedish way. Back in Sweden we had a referendum, but we had three options, "no", "no, but a responsible no" and "even more responsible no". We still have nuclear power, although two of the older plants were shut down some years ago for political reasons and four more will be shut down shortly for economical/technical reasons. Energy prices crashed in northern Europe and a lesson we learned from Fukushima is that electric supply needs to be more diversified than believed before.  But the newest and largest plants will still go ahead.

We had two other referendums since… We joined the EU, with a very small margin. We opted out of the Euro, with a very small margin. In those referendums there were only two choices.

Best regards
Erik

The public voted for Leave, so she's going to do what an elected politician ought to do, and work to ensure that the best outcome is obtained, given the will of the people.

Only journalists think that issues are black and white.

Jeremy

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Referendums are dangerous, no one can predict the outcome.

Hi Erik,

Well, that's not the issue I think. If the outcome were clear from the onset, then why even waste the money to organize it, to begin with. The bigger problem is with the low turnout that will effectively turn it into a minority vote decision.

As an example, in the Netherlands, we had a referendum (as the only European country) on the trade agreement with Ukraine. The people who took the initiative for the referendum (in my country the population can, under certain conditions, initiate a referendum), had the goal of disrupting the European union. They didn't care one iota about the Ukraine trade agreement, they just wanted to throw a spanner in the works.

The lowish turnout turned the referendum into a No vote, based on (not exclusively, but) mostly irrational (having nothing to do with the agreement) arguments and thus an over-representation of anti-European sentiments. That was not what the referendum was about. Yet, we will soon probably become the first country to attempt to torpedo a unanimous European decision, that will be implemented anyway due to a majority vote (1 against versus 27 countries 'in favor').

Popular votes of this kind, lead to populism.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Which, again, is why super majorities for referenda are a better way.  Even with a low turnout, you shouldn't have a significant decision decided by a genuinely small minority.  If the change is significant enough to warrant a referendum, then it's significant enough to say you need more than just a single vote to make the decision to change.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Which, again, is why super majorities for referenda are a better way.  Even with a low turnout, you shouldn't have a significant decision decided by a genuinely small minority.  If the change is significant enough to warrant a referendum, then it's significant enough to say you need more than just a single vote to make the decision to change.

I fully agree, referenda on such complex issues with potentially conflicting effects should require a 67% (or rather even 75%, which is 37.5% of all potential voters) of eligible voter turnout, as a minimum requirement.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

52 percent for Brexit, at 72 percent turnout = 37 percent of voters.

67 percent to enter EU, at 62 percent turnout = 41 percent of voters.

Neither provided even a simple majority of eligible voters.

Asking for a super majority in order to leave also means the same at the time of voting to enter.

Voting to enter was based also on having no clue what the future might bring, just hope.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

52 percent for Brexit, at 72 percent turnout = 37 percent of voters.

67 percent to enter EU, at 62 percent turnout = 41 percent of voters.

Neither provided even a simple majority of eligible voters.

Indeed, if those (50%+1 vote) were the rules from the onset. In the case of getting in, versus getting out, one could e.g. state that (as one of the minimum requirements) the getting out votes would require more than the the getting in votes, prior to both the decisions. Of course not all votes (over time) are as binary.

Asking for a super majority in order to leave also means the same at the time of voting to enter.

Probably yes, although e.g. the issue of progressive insight is not covered by such simple math. Things (in a continually changing playfield) may turn out better, or worse, than initially anticipated. However, requiring a higher threshold would somewhat address that issue.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Good comments above and, Slobodan, quite right - there should have been a stronger requirement for entry into such formal arrangements in the first instance.  Unfortunately, the UK, specifically, has almost no previous history of referenda and chose not to look at its former colonies for guidance.  Australia, Canada, and the US, for example, all require super majorities and also make use of regional majority requirements (i.e. states or provinces).  Simple, first past the post, with voluntary voting, is always open to a significant minority decision.  Super majorities pretty much remove any room for complaint, even if the absolute numbers are still short (for example, in the Brexit, 67% of 72% would have been 48% of eligible voters but still far less controversial or arguable than what resulted).

Voluntary versus mandatory voting is another discussion (and typically everyone argues in favour of the arrangements under which they live :-) ).

[Alan Klein]

I fully agree, referenda on such complex issues with potentially conflicting effects should require a 67% (or rather even 75%, which is 37.5% of all potential voters) of eligible voter turnout, as a minimum requirement.

Cheers,
Bart

In America, during the fight over Obamacare national health plan,  many complained that the proposed law needed more time to be studied before Congress voted on it.   The Democrats were keeping the full extent of the law secret to push through an affirmative vote.  At the time, the Speaker (leader) of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and third in-line to take over the Presidency in case the President and VP die, told everyone to not worry about it.  "We will all learn what's in the law after it's enacted."

Now the law is a mess and we did learn about that afterwards. 

So much for analysis of complex issues.  Why do you think the public could do better than American or British law makers or vice versa?

Does anyone think the American electorate will be voting for the next President based on the complex and very real issues they will face in the future? Or are we being influenced by the hyperbolic headlines in our media that we'll mostly forget about after the vote? God help us all.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So much for analysis of complex issues.  Why do you think the public could do better than American or British law makers or vice versa?

I do not think that (most of) the public could do better. That's why we elect representatives, in the hope that they do know what they are talking about. That system is not perfect, but probably better than letting populism take over, or a dictator.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.

That the political persuasions of our Brexit 'leaders' are as variable as a weather vane: short on conviction, long on opportunism.

Johnson considered the issue to be balanced. He thought about it, carefully. He wrote articles both for and against, in an attempt to clarify points in his own mind, and he decided in favour of Leave. What on earth is wrong with that?

As spin, nothing.

Thank you, by the way, for the link to the newlawjournal.co.uk article - refreshing to read an accurate summary of the proceedings.
M

Edit:
... not withstanding that it was written by an Emeritus Professor at a 'rabidly' left-wing University.
[/levity]

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Northern Ireland court rejects Brexit challenge: "Brexit can happen without lawmakers giving it final approval, a Northern Irish court ruled on Friday..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKCN12S12B

[Jeremy Roussak]

Northern Ireland court rejects Brexit challenge: "Brexit can happen without lawmakers giving it final approval, a Northern Irish court ruled on Friday..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKCN12S12B

That's going straight to the Supreme Court, where I would assume it will be heard with the appeal against the JR decision (whatever it might be) from the English High Court.

Jeremy

[jfirneno]

Northern Ireland court rejects Brexit challenge: "Brexit can happen without lawmakers giving it final approval, a Northern Irish court ruled on Friday..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKCN12S12B

I'm very interested in how the British government proceeds with the Brexit from the point of view of regaining its sovereignty.  For instance, they need to review all the EU laws/rules that no longer apply and decide how they will go forward.  Nullify them in toto or legislate replacements on a case by case basis?

In theory they should revert to the pre-EU status quo but there are many cases where old structures will need to be resurrected.  For instance, EMA is the current pharmaceutical regulatory body for the EU.  Will the UK leave its authority in place or supersede it with a British agency.  Pretty complex stuff.

My guess is they will gauge each based on the impact to trade.  Leave a lot of the commerce standardizing stuff in place and remove the ones that impact local British life.

[Rob C]

It looks lke Brexit is actually going to be the de facto break up of the old UK. It would be nice if both Irelands forgot bigotry and became an entity; that would encourage Scotland to forget religious divides too, which are probably not based on religion but on the pub to which you are beholden, the crummy team you support. Chickens, eggs? If Ireland (N) does get its rights recognized, which I hope that it does, ain't nuttin' gonna hold back Scotland from doing it too.

That will make for an interesting balance of power in the region.

Rob

[eronald]

In the end Brexit happened because the politicians of both parties were only listening to the City, and because Germany effectively ran the immigration policy for the rest of Europe. I was in Peterborough a few months ago, and basically half the people there (no exageration) were direct imports from ex-soviet block countries. The mood of the locals was ugly. Brexit puts MPs back at the mercy of the voters - not a bad thing; the EU has been run by a majority of one -Germany - for too many years, and even if their intentions are good their one-size-fits-all-Germans solution has not worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even France and the UK when you look away from the 1%.

Edmund

It looks lke Brexit is actually going to be the de facto break up of the old UK. It would be nice if both Irelands forgot bigotry and became an entity; that would encourage Scotland to forget religious divides too, which are probably not based on religion but on the pub to which you are beholden, the crummy team you support. Chickens, eggs? If Ireland (N) does get its rights recognized, which I hope that it does, ain't nuttin' gonna hold back Scotland from doing it too.

That will make for an interesting balance of power in the region.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, come on Edmund, don't spoil this ideological whining with inconvenient observations

[jfirneno]

In the end Brexit happened because the politicians of both parties were only listening to the City, and because Germany effectively ran the immigration policy for the rest of Europe. I was in Peterborough a few months ago, and basically half the people there (no exageration) were direct imports from ex-soviet block countries. The mood of the locals was ugly. Brexit puts MPs back at the mercy of the voters - not a bad thing; the EU has been run by a majority of one -Germany - for too many years, and even if their intentions are good their one-size-fits-all-Germans solution has not worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even France and the UK when you look away from the 1%.

Edmund

Sounds very familiar.  Apparently the globalists on both sides of the Atlantic may have boiled the frog a little too quickly to get away with it.  Time will tell.

[Rob C]

In the end Brexit happened because the politicians of both parties were only listening to the City, and because Germany effectively ran the immigration policy for the rest of Europe. I was in Peterborough a few months ago, and basically half the people there (no exageration) were direct imports from ex-soviet block countries. The mood of the locals was ugly. Brexit puts MPs back at the mercy of the voters - not a bad thing; the EU has been run by a majority of one -Germany - for too many years, and even if their intentions are good their one-size-fits-all-Germans solution has not worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even France and the UK when you look away from the 1%.

Edmund

Well, Mallorca has thousands of foreigners living in it; never heard of a "Go home Foreigner" campaign, never ran into local animosity... the locals know perfectly well that through the work we create for them here they enjoy a prosperity the likes of which never existed before. Foreigners supply/supplied the difference between owning a car and the classy alternative of the burro cart. Ditto housing. That some foreigners try to run businesses is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things: they pass totally unnoticed. And on top of that, there is a genuine friendliness in the people, a willingness to help you out when you need it and ask, that has zero to do with personal gain or economics. It just is. And being old is not yet considered an infectious disease.

In Britain you need but go to a hospital or a hotel to realise that without the very people being pilloried, there would be no hospìtals or hotels still working.

And where you live: where would Paris be sans its tourists? The effects of terrorism have made measurable differences to prosperity already - except perhaps to your quoted 1%.

Movement and variety makes this world go around; Slobodan should know and be aware of that too...

;-)

Rob