Brexit

[Rob C]

Sounds like what's happening here in America during the run up to the Presidential election.  You're not alone.

Yeah, Alan, but that's not going to be what screws my and my family's relationships with Europe!

I'm not too worried about who wins stateside; as here, they end up under the thumbs of their party, and so not a lot gets done unless they make rash promises à la Cameron, with totally unexpected results.

This worries me a little, though:

“Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.”
― P.T. Barnum

It has travelled well.

;-)

Rob

[MarkJohnson]

Mark, would it be fair to infer that you are lamenting low voter turnout in democracies?

Not my main argument but yes, the democratic process ought not to be taken for granted or lightly dismissed. Voting is compulsory in some places, like Australia, my country of birth.

The point has been made many times by others, but as I replied to you previously in this thread, I think an issue like leaving the EU needs more than a simple greater than 50% mathematical majority, and with a rather high minimum turnout. That is, if such an issue ought to be put to a popular referendum. If it's in the 'too difficult' basket of our elected representatives whom we have elected to assess and decide upon large complex issues, I don't think there's any reason to believe the outcome of a popular referendum on the issue would give an answer that's likely to guide the country in a direction most likely to meet its overall needs and interests. Why have an elected parliamentary democracy? Why not put all the big issues to popular referenda? Anyway, it wasn't really in our lawmakers' 'too difficult' basket as most believed it was better for the UK to remain in the EU. The referendum was called in a capricious and ill-judged way purely to meet the internal needs of the Conservative party. There was an equally ill-judged expectation that a 'remain' vote would ensue.

[myotis]

I'm still not clear why so many fear Brexit. 

I can't speak for the "many" but I will mention two things that I fear, which I don't think have been raised so far in this long thread.  I have no great economic understanding of this, and its based on anecdotes from people working in local and national (Welsh) government.

I have worked in a few deprived areas of the UK, and there is a common story in these area of them being ignored by successive Westminster governments.  With any economic recovery they have now seen almost entirely down to Europe recognising them as being amongst the most deprived areas in Europe and giving them the funding that Westminster wouldn't.  I wonder how much of the UKs economic success has been a result of Europe direct "interference" in how we spend our money.  Ironically, the areas where Europe seemed to have helped the most, were some of the areas with the highest leave votes.

The second concern I have is the environment.

Britain had never showed any real concern about a sustainable environment, and I'm not talking about cute fluffy animals, I am talking about air fit to breathe, water fit to drink and food fit to eat.  Now this is something I do know a little about, and I have seen a massive change in attitude over the years, along with enormous improvements in the quality and availability of thes basic requirements for life. But only because of threats of financial penalties from Europe.

The crucial  link between a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy has been recognised by a UK government white paper https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf,  but as David "greenest government ever" Cameron said, "once we get the economy sorted out, then we can think about the environment" ignoring his own white paper that demonstrated that former relied on the latter.

Now nothing is just as straightforward as I have suggested in the above, and things change, but my fear from Brexit that we return to the bad old days when it seemed there was little interest in the developing the economy of the more deprived areas of the UK,  and no concern about looking after the environmental resources needed to sustain society and the broader economy.

For example, we seem to be relying on "market forces" (and money from Europe) to improve broad band services in rural areas, when the UK Government has recognised it as crucial for rural development. I live 17 miles from Bristol, just off an A road in a cluster of villages and small towns, and I have a download speed of 1.4Mb/s and an upload of 250kb/s, with an official line of "uneconomic to upgrade" unless we pay for it ourselves.

All the people I know who voted remain, were keen to see reform in Europe, but still feared what a UK government, without European influence, might do to the country.

Cheers,
Graham

 

[MarkJohnson]

Tremendously important points. Had successive UK governments prioritised some evenness of regional development, the referendum outcome would arguably have been quite different. Really important point about environmental quality also.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Why have an elected parliamentary democracy? Why not put all the big issues to popular referenda?...

And indeed, some countries do that (e.g., Switzerland). I think reasons boil down to size. What is possible in relatively small country becomes impractical in a large one, hence the representation. In other words, it is not because representative democracy is superior to a direct one, but rather more practical.

The illusion of the representative being superior lies in the misguided expectation that the electorate is voting in people "who know what they are doing" and that they will do it for the benefit of all. Nothing can be further from truth. Politics is a fight of interests, for the benefit of certain segments with those interests. There are very, very few common interests in a large group of people, let alone large countries. Survival in the face of enemy attack might be one. Everything else is up for grabs by interest groups. Political parties simply represent those interests. It is one of Marx' major tenets that only proletariat has no interest of its own and can therefore faithfully represent interests of the whole society.

[Chairman Bill]

Oh, dear Lord!

Perhaps that's how it starts: as a mass idealistic delusion. Ask the people of the Soviet block how it ends. They were free to stay, equal in poverty and with a fair chance of ending up in the Gulag.

Ain't it funny how people who never actually experienced socialism sing praises to it?

Ah. I see your mistake. They called it socialism, therefore it was socialism. Presumably, North Korea calling itlself a democratic republic, makes it a democracy.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Ignoring the xenophobic undertone, not only is English my first language but, judging by the above, my command of it may well be somewhat more extensive than yours.  And, to save you asking, I am equally fluent in another four.  I'm in Milan next week so that should also save you puzzling over my time stamps. Finally, if you're going to resort to thinly disguised put-downs, do try to be original – that's at least the third time you've used the same line.

There's nothing xenophobic about my language: I was charitably offering you an excuse for your curious understanding of English idiom, and  I have no difficulty in accepting that you are "equally fluent" in many other languages. I hadn't given a moment's thought to your time stamps.

Your comments generally indicate a willingness to pontificate on legal matters with at best a superficial knowledge of the facts and certainly without adequate legal understanding. I found both skeleton arguments both understandable and persuasive. It's a shame that Her Majesty's Attorney General and the eminent Silk who argued on the Government's behalf didn't have the benefit of your insightful, and commendably terse, analysis: no doubt they would have been able to see the error of their ways had you been on hand to point it out to them.

I have had enough of trying to remedy your ignorance. I shall henceforth ignore your "contributions" to this thread.

Jeremy

[MarkJohnson]

And indeed, some countries do that (e.g., Switzerland).

The Swiss 2014 immigration referendum may need to be revisited due to consequences (e.g. in scientific research) presumably not anticipated in the popular vote. We've touched on this earlier in the thread.

Politics is a fight of interests, for the benefit of certain segments with those interests.

Sure, we vote for the party representative we think will best represent our own interests and hopes for our society.

There are very, very few common interests in a large group of people, let alone large countries. Survival in the face of enemy attack might be one.

UK's membership of the EU might be another, at least as perceived by the majority of UK parliamentarians. Parliamentary bipartisanship in matters of national interest does happen and was in place, pre-referendum, regarding UK membership of the EU.

(I think we're now going around in circles in this thread.)

[jfirneno]

And indeed, some countries do that (e.g., Switzerland). I think reasons boil down to size. What is possible in relatively small country becomes impractical in a large one, hence the representation. In other words, it is not because representative democracy is superior to a direct one, but rather more practical.

The illusion of the representative being superior lies in the misguided expectation that the electorate is voting in people "who know what they are doing" and that they will do it for the benefit of all. Nothing can be further from truth. Politics is a fight of interests, for the benefit of certain segments with those interests. There are very, very few common interests in a large group of people, let alone large countries. Survival in the face of enemy attack might be one. Everything else is up for grabs by interest groups. Political parties simply represent those interests. It is one of Marx' major tenets that only proletariat has no interest of its own and can therefore faithfully represent interests of the whole society.

Slobodan:
I shouldn't praise you because it will only lessen your reputation here but it's good to see a few people don't use orwellian double-speak.  It should be interesting to see if the Tories have the brains and the guts to give their constituency what they have asked for.  If they do then I'll have to award them the advantage over the republicans on our side of the Atlantic.  They were too stupid and/or cowardly to know what their constituency wanted.  Or they didn't care.  Either way it took a character that might have walked in out of central casting for a P. G. Wodehouse short story to understand the zeitgeist.  He may be a caricature of a playboy billionaire but he was at least better attuned to what the working class wants than JEB!  Should be interesting to see if the polls on our side of the Atlantic are just as skewed come Tuesday.  Either way they comedy value has been sensational.  I haven't enjoyed an election this much since Reagan/Carter.

[myotis]

Tremendously important points. Had successive UK governments prioritised some evenness of regional development, the referendum outcome would arguably have been quite different. Really important point about environmental quality also.

I obviously, think so, but what puzzled me was that I never really heard them raised during the brexit debates I heard the greens go on about global warming, and I heard  a member of the public in Cornwall explaining how much Cornwall owed to Europe, but was still voting leave because she also blamed Europe for destroying the fishing industry, but no good solid arguments from the remain lobby.

But then I don't think I heard any solid arguments from either side, who both performed dismally.

Graham

[Rob C]

I suppose that part of the problem is that no politician wants to confess that, in the end, there's safety in mumbers. Most seem to want to pretend that their country can do everything by itself. Not so, I'm afraid.

Every country can be a niche player, if it's small enough, but Britain is not. The same holds in business: I never wanted to become an employer of photographers or of anyone else. As consequence, I sort of turned myself, much by design and hope, but also just as much by circumstance, into a unique kind of player: I ended up doing pretty much what I wanted to do and very little else. The other studios in my area could not go there: they had to have continuity of work just to pay staff, where I did not. It was an intention, at first, but also became a sort of trap. But I did outlast several of the big setups. However, for a country, I see it as too risky a ploy. And especially now, in the face of a shrinking world ever more global in its concepts.

Rob

[Rob C]

Just thought: disputes here are becoming more sophisticated: gone the cutlasses and in the rapiers. Classy stuff, lovely flow of acids; much to learn and appropriate!

Rob

[Alan Klein]

I suppose that part of the problem is that no politician wants to confess that, in the end, there's safety in numbers. Most seem to want to pretend that their country can do everything by itself. Not so, I'm afraid.

No one is suggesting Great Britain become an island economically.  But they don't have to give up their political sovereignty to do so.  America and other countries have made all kinds of trade agreements without turning over their law to foreigners.  It's bad enough to have to trust politicians to do the right thing who are your compatriots .  Why would you want to trust some unelected gnomes in Brussels to do right by you?  They're going to disappoint even worse.  For a country that stood up to the Nazis in "your finest hour", certainly you can handle a couple of trade issues.  Stand up for yourself, man.

[Rob C]

No one is suggesting Great Britain become an island economically.  But they don't have to give up their political sovereignty to do so.  America and other countries have made all kinds of trade agreements without turning over their law to foreigners.  It's bad enough to have to trust politicians to do the right thing who are your compatriots .  Why would you want to trust some unelected gnomes in Brussels to do right by you?  They're going to disappoint even worse.  For a country that stood up to the Nazis in "your finest hour", certainly you can handle a couple of trade issues. Stand up for yourself, man.

If that's personal rather than part of the Brexit scenario: I did; I went to Spain.

Sovereignty. What a delightful concept, did it mean anything. The rest of Europe alignes itself with the 'rules' and simply goes on right ahead and does exactly what it wants to do. The UK's problem is in believing that rules are to be followed, I suppose it's the Queensbury syndrome. The street fighter laughs, and wins. Britain still has to learn about that. Unfortunately, only the traders know this, which is why they are looking for new homes the rest of Europe is falling over itself to offer.

Of course other agreements for trade can be negotiated, but why lose what we already held? This all or nothing stuff is so unreal that I wonder if its proponents have ever, in their entire working lives, gone out looking for a customer. Sitting on one's ass in an office, employed by somebody belse, is not the same experience - never will be. Forget the sinecure and hit the street every day looking for a gig, and then whoever you are, come back tell me about the world and it owing you a living and hoping to strike contracts with you.

Rob C

[myotis]

The rest of Europe alignes itself with the 'rules' and simply goes on right ahead and does exactly what it wants to do. The UK's problem is in believing that rules are to be followed,

From what I understand from a couple of people I know who have worked at Brussels, Britain has a trouble maker reputation for still getting changes and amendments made to draft EC Directives and Regulations long after everyone else is happy for them to go to the vote. But as you say other countries are less concerned because they carry on regardless, where as we Brits actually try to implement them.

Cheers,

Graham

[MarkJohnson]

Sovereignty. What a delightful concept, did it mean anything(?)

Or did it mean too much? Have we heard more than enough about 'sovereignty'? Might it be a cloak for an almost jingoistic nationalism? Might we profit from a more regional collective approach, pooling ideas and resources, embracing rather than alienating our neighbours and friends?

[Manoli]

I shall henceforth ignore your "contributions" to this thread.

Thank you.

[eronald]

Manoli,

Oh so many years ago, I took a lady for dinner to an NY Chinese in the then still cheap Village.

We didn't develop chemistry. Come the end of the meal the owner's little girl, age 7 it seemed, brought us the cookies which muttered some oriental wisdom. A few minutes later she came back with another pair, and gracefully deposited a single one in front of each of us.

Mine said:  "You never stop trying".
Hers: "You should have been a lawyer."

Edmund

[Rob C]

Or did it mean too much? Have we heard more than enough about 'sovereignty'? Might it be a cloak for an almost jingoistic nationalism? Might we profit from a more regional collective approach, pooling ideas and resources, embracing rather than alienating our neighbours and friends?

" What a delightful concept, did it mean anything."

I wasn't posing a question, Mark; more I think I was saying it means nothing, the concept. It did once, but those times are long gone and we are in a world of almost total interdependency, if not for trade, at least to avoid WW3. Which I gather was a major part what the whole European Unification business was supposed to encourage: avoid more internecine slaughter and slimming camps in Poland. Instead we are getting another sort of camp springing up willy-nilly all over the continent.

Rob

[Rob C]

Manoli,

Oh so many years ago, I took a lady for dinner to an NY Chinese in the then still cheap Village.

We didn't develop chemistry. Come the end of the meal the owner's little girl, age 7 it seemed, brought us the cookies.

Mine said:  "You never stop trying".
Hers: "You should have been a lawyer."

Edmund

Shoulda eaten Italian!

Rob