|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK electorate had clearly and unambiguously voted for the course of action Mrs May is taking I would be unhappy with it, but would reluctantly accept that it is the will of the people. As it is I'm not going to shut up, because that isn't the case.
How is it helping? It is beyond doubt that the British government, as the Executive of the UK Parliament, has the power to invoke Article 50. The referendum wasn't binding, the simple binary question has been used as an unofficial mandate for the invoking, which wasn't legally necessary.
So how we got here now doesn't really matter. They lied, they cheated, they managed to persuade poor people to blame the other.
Yes, we know. Got it.
Why should it help? Or not?
I don't see how it helps to brush under the carpet the truth that Brexshit was achieved by deceipt, lies, cheating. Why shouldn't we stand up and say again and again that Mrs May is not acting with the support of the whole UK population, or even a majority of it? Will it stop Brexshit before it's too late? Almost certainly not, because Tory governments are well versed in ignoring what the electorate (excluding their wealthy friends) are saying. And, even when their wealthy banker friends are saying "this is nuts" they'll plough on regardless if it fits their fascist ideology.
I'm not going to stop saying that the UK government is acting in a foolish and rash manner, and they are not doing it in my name. Quite the opposite.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why should it help? Or not?
I don't see how it helps to brush under the carpet the truth that Brexshit was achieved by deceipt, lies, cheating. Why shouldn't we stand up and say again and again that Mrs May is not acting with the support of the whole UK population, or even a majority of it?
Who is brushing anything under the carpet? Who is even disagreeing with you? Nobody that I can see.
The difference is that some of us are resolved to try and make the best of a shitty situation, and some just want to keep on bleating out the same message - as if we haven't already heard it the other 50+ times you've posted it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us are resolved to try and make the best of a shitty situation
Yes, we do. And, the best is still if the UK government does a U-turn and either doesn't proceed with Brexit or at least seeks to retain full access to the single market (including the freedom of movement). So, I am resolved to do all I can, very small though that is, to try and make the best of the situation - by ceaselessly trying to get the UK government and people to see sense and stop acting like first-rate morons. And, when this fight is over and the Brexit agreement has been agreed by the UK government, the 27 other EU governments, European Parliament and anyone else that needs to ratify that then I will move onto the next fight in the battle to make the best of the situation - either for Scottish independence and entry into the EU, or for the UK as a whole to seek re-entry into the EU.
I don't see any reason why I should knuckle down and help the government lead the country, and the rest of the EU, to disaster. I'm not going to doff my cap to Mrs May as though she was in someway my superior. I'm not going to join the ranks of those who have followed what they knew to be stupid orders because it was their duty. I don't want to be in a position where there is a great injustice that I have not fought against because I was "following orders".
Sorry if you don't think trying to put that across here is something you don't want to read, there is an easy solution - I have no objection if you stop reading anything I write (excluding anything I write as an Admin here).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I don't know Alan, I'm as against Brexit and pro-Europe as it's possible to be. But I've given up, the people who wanted out have won by fair means or foul (foul imo).
If we, by some miracle, stayed in - the arguments would rumble and rumble as they have in the last few years with nothing much else getting done.
At least we know where we stand now, let's make the best of it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see any reason why I should knuckle down and help the government lead the country, and the rest of the EU, to disaster. I'm not going to doff my cap to Mrs May as though she was in someway my superior. I'm not going to join the ranks of those who have followed what they knew to be stupid orders because it was their duty. I don't want to be in a position where there is a great injustice that I have not fought against because I was "following orders".
I didn't say you should do anything of the kind.
But repeatedly doing the same things that made no difference in the past and/or repeatedly saying the same things to the same people who've heard you say it before is a road you don't want to be travelling on.
No problem, I'll scroll past you from now on. But do consider your mental health, please.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I agree with Alan (including the Scottish bit, given my ancestry), but I do understand Boogie's POV as well. We shall have to see how things pan out - there is always some hope....and the UK isn't quite a one-party state just yet.
I don't concur with mr cheesy's final sentence, though.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Meanwhile, some MP (can't remember which one) gets his soundbite on the BBC radio news about 'taking back control' because the Great Reaper Bill or whatever it's called will mean that the British government makes UK laws instead of EU bureaucrats. And he gets to spout these lies completely unchallenged.
Just to be clear
1) The UK has got to write and consult on all of the EU law.
2) The Great Repeal Bill means huge sections of UK legislation will be written by executive degree (what can possibly go wrong?)
and 3) In lots of areas, in order to maintain EU trade, the UK will copy EU regulations thereby changing only one fact - we no longer have any influence in writing these bits of laws.
It's all bollocks. That's what's so annoying.
AFZ
P.S. What Alan said.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
I was reading a book on Psychology the other day. The bit that interested me was 'Guess the Weight of the Cake'. Apparently if you average all the weights guessed you are usually spot on the real weight. The more guesses that are made the more accurate the average. Perhaps Brexit and Democracy is like that. No-one knows everything about it - or even a little - but maybe the sum total is spot on.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I was reading a book on Psychology the other day. The bit that interested me was 'Guess the Weight of the Cake'. Apparently if you average all the weights guessed you are usually spot on the real weight. The more guesses that are made the more accurate the average. Perhaps Brexit and Democracy is like that. No-one knows everything about it - or even a little - but maybe the sum total is spot on.
Nope. Because the debate can be totally captured and distorted by say, to pick an example at random, 20 years of lies an propaganda by the tabloid press...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dear me, can we stop rehearsing this argument now? Nobody knew the full ramifications of voting Leave, we all know that now. Move on, it is a broken record.
There are two issues. One is did we know the proposal that Leave was campaigning for? The second is what the ramifications of that would be. Of course the ramifications were, and still are, unknown. There's a slim chance that it will actually all work out quite well. Time will tell, and we can look back and analyse that in 10 years time.. .
If the UK electorate had clearly and unambiguously voted for the course of action Mrs May is taking I would be unhappy with it, but would reluctantly accept that it is the will of the people. As it is I'm not going to shut up, because that isn't the case.
The trouble is how the sort of complex questions to which you seek answers could have been put in a referendum.
Let's start with the basic proposition that the UK electorate does not accept preferential voting for the House of Commons. Now you suggest in one or other of your posts that some wanting to leave may have wanted the UK to join EFTA, some a Norway-type solution, and others to get back to UK alone - probably others as well.
The referendum paper puts these down as 3 choices, with Remain as the 4th. Remain ends up with the support of 40% of those voting; each of the other 3 gets 20%. Now clearly 60% want to leave, but there's no majority for any 1 of the ways of leaving. In any event, the first 2 require the agreement of other countries, and there's no certainty of getting that.
What's to happen?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The trouble is how the sort of complex questions to which you seek answers could have been put in a referendum.
I have said before that I would have prefered a combination of Parliamentary and direct democracy. An approach in which elected representatives, ideally in which a majority have been elected on a platform of "leave the EU", do the work of sifting through options to produce a clear definition of Brexit which is then put to the people in a referendum with a simple "do you agree or not?" question.
A referendum question which bypasses that process and puts multiple options to the electorate would by much more complex. For a start there would still need to be a process of reducing the vast range of options to a manageable number, there would need to be multiple campaigns for the different options (which isn't that big of a problem, it's essentially no different from an election with 3+ parties), and then there would probably be no clear answer anyway - it would provide the information that the Leave side would need to go through the process of defining Brexit to get the most popular support ... but, unless there was another referendum in 5 years that would be out of date by the time it goes to the electorate again.
I would think that there are actually three broad categories of options - Remain in EU, leave EU but remain in single market, leave both EU and single market. The third option is probably the one that can realistically be subdivided into different versions depending on what sort of subsequent trade deal with the EU that would be sought after leaving.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I have said before that I would have prefered a combination of Parliamentary and direct democracy.
Like when the government calls a consultative referendum in which 72 per cent of eligible voters do vote, and there's a majority of more than 1.2 million in favour of leaving the EU, then both houses of parliament debate the resulting bill, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, with our elected representatives approving the bill, unamended, by 494 to 122, a majority of four to one.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, the other way round. The substantive Parliamentary debate (rather than the very perfunctory one we had) leading to a majority in favour of a defined government position on Brexit (a white paper with sufficient detail, rather than the short pamphlet we eventually got). And, then to take that to the people in a referendum - and, if that's a yes vote the PM writes a note to Brussels the following morning announcing that the UK is leaving the EU, paper clipped to the white paper which defines the UK government intent.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
Our elected representatives had plenty of opportunity to choose to do it the way you wanted, but decided not to, approving the European Union Referendum Act 2015 by 544 to 53, a majority of more than ten to one.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
ISTM that the essential problem with this whole wretched process has been that our elected representatives (with a few honourable exceptions) are a bunch of craven numpties who are more worried about their own careers than they are about ruining the country's future.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
ISTM that the essential problem with this whole wretched process has been that our elected representatives (with a few honourable exceptions) are a bunch of craven numpties who are more worried about their own careers than they are about ruining the country's future.
Richard Dawkins recently argued that the decision ought not to have been made by 'ignoramuses' (in which category he included himself) but by 'elite parliamentarians'. The trouble with this argument is that the 'elite parliamentarians' voted for both the Referendum and then, subsequently, for Article 50. In fact they did so in a much higher proportion than the ignoramuses did in the Referendum.
In any event, whatever the rights and wrongs of the process (mainly the latter, IMV) we are where we are. Personally, I think the whole thing is an unmitigated disaster but it won't be turned around by picking proceduralist holes in the way the Referendum was conducted. If I am right, hopefully buyers remorse will set in and hopefully some configuration of political forces will be able to exploit this and set the country back on the right track. I freely concede that I am whistling to keep my spirits up but it strikes me as a better choice than embracing some kind of latter day Stockholm Syndrome and asserting, in defiance of the available evidence, that the Fash-Powellite-Bennite axis currently running things are going to lead us into the new sunlit uplands.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
In general I don't see the problem with continuing to make the argument even after a vote has passed. I mean if we want to go down the road of accepting cliches ('elections are won from the centre') then we can adopt the approach of 'history is made by unreasonable people' - after all the EU referendum as the culmination of just that, if you squint slightly anyway.
That said, there's a case for adopting an approach that is more likely to yield benefits in the mid-term, both in terms of mitigating the extent and effects of a Brexit and scrutinising the Henry VII process (if you want to do this retrospectively look for governmental officials taking early retirement to work for the private sector and look at the legislation they re-drafted).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Henry VIII process - a Henry VII process might have much to recommend it for student's of GR Elton's Tudor Revolution in Government. Of course, as any fule kno, Elton rather overegged the case and much of it was actually an Edward IV process. I digress....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Whatever monarch we reference, it's still a right royal balls up.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
ISTM that the essential problem with this whole wretched process has been that our elected representatives (with a few honourable exceptions) are a bunch of craven numpties who are more worried about their own careers than they are about ruining the country's future.
Actually I think the biggest problem was that David Cameron, his government and Parliament all thought that a referendum would be a resounding victory for Remain. They underestimated the groundswell of public opinion on various issues (not all relating to the EU) that found focus in the referendum with a massive "Fuck You" to the political system. They underestimated the ability of minority political groups to create false fears in the population (in particular over immigration) and then offer Brexit as a solution to a non-existant problem.
The result was the feeling that they didn't need to do things properly, like define the Leave option, because the country would never vote Leave. An attitude of get the referendum over quickly, put those silly UKIP people in their place, and get on with the important things of government like denying the disabled welfare payments (after all, Stephen Hawking does OK and he can only move his eyes) and allowing rich bankers to ruin the economy and still get their massive bonuses (which can be invested in those off-shore accounts safe from the Treasuries thieving mitts).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I agree with you, Alan, but I think there was no excuse for the underestimation of the "Fuck you" factor, especially on the Labour side. Cameron was a twerp who considered himself Master of the Universe because he'd failed to win one election and scraped home in another, but Labour MP's particularly should have been in touch with constituents who would have told them which way the wind was blowing. Instead they tamely waved it all through. It was a racing certainty that leave would win from the day when the pig-fancier came back empty-handed from his totally bogus renegotiation fiasco.
So now we are to spend 10-15 years inflicting on ourselves an act of national self-harm that will not solve the problems that set it in motion. Forgive me if I don't join in with the dancing in the streets.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I agree with you, Alan, but I think there was no excuse for the underestimation of the "Fuck you" factor, especially on the Labour side.
Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg
So essentially Labour did about as well in pushing their voters to vote Remain as the SNP did.
You can argue that they should have done more to stop the referendum to start with (which I assume is the point of the rest of your post), but this is on par with the argument that they should do more to resist Brexit now (i.e if you assume it's not a viable tactic now for electoral reasons, why would you assume that resisting a referendum would have been a viable tactic previously).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually I think the biggest problem was that David Cameron, his government and Parliament all thought that a referendum would be a resounding victory for Remain. They underestimated the groundswell of public opinion on various issues (not all relating to the EU) that found focus in the referendum with a massive "Fuck You" to the political system. They underestimated the ability of minority political groups to create false fears in the population (in particular over immigration) and then offer Brexit as a solution to a non-existant problem.
Indeed.
However sympathy for Mr Cameron et al. is extremely limited by one factor: he used those same false fears and half-truths for his own political gain. One reaps what one sows after all.
Unfortunately it is not Mr Cameron or even Mrs May's current crop of government ministers who will pay the bigger costs.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Analysing the vote by professed party allegiance doesn't tell the whole story. Many of the people who voted Leave were people who don't usually vote, but who were motivated by the prime opportunity which Cameron gave them to stick two fingers up at politicians generally. This component of the Leave vote were largely the working (and non-working) poor, the struggling, the systemically pissed-off. Those who, rightly or wrongly, feel that they've had a raw deal and it must be someone else's fault. Tory MP's like to pretend they don't exist, but Labour politicians certainly should have been aware of the strength of feeling and the breadth of alienation. I was, and I'm only peripherally involved in politics.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Analysing the vote by professed party allegiance doesn't tell the whole story. Many of the people who voted Leave were people who don't usually vote, but who were motivated by the prime opportunity which Cameron gave them to stick two fingers up at politicians generally.
Well quite, but if they generally had a poor opinion of politicians, they were likely to be fairly immune to persuasion by a bunch of politicians. Furthermore, removing their ability to cast a protest vote wasn't likely to be particular popular either.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I agree with you, Alan, but I think there was no excuse for the underestimation of the "Fuck you" factor, especially on the Labour side.
Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg
So essentially Labour did about as well in pushing their voters to vote Remain as the SNP did.
You can argue that they should have done more to stop the referendum to start with (which I assume is the point of the rest of your post), but this is on par with the argument that they should do more to resist Brexit now (i.e if you assume it's not a viable tactic now for electoral reasons, why would you assume that resisting a referendum would have been a viable tactic previously).
This is pretty much the reasoning that led Harriet Harman to abstain on the welfare bill in 2015.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Analysing the vote by professed party allegiance doesn't tell the whole story. Many of the people who voted Leave were people who don't usually vote, but who were motivated by the prime opportunity which Cameron gave them to stick two fingers up at politicians generally.
Well quite, but if they generally had a poor opinion of politicians, they were likely to be fairly immune to persuasion by a bunch of politicians. Furthermore, removing their ability to cast a protest vote wasn't likely to be particular popular either.
It would have been more constructive to actually address their grievances, some of which are real and are related to the relentless austerity policies which have been pursued for the last 7 years, despite plenty of evidence that they are not succeeding even in reducing the budget deficit, their stated objective.
Offering a referendum on Europe, which is an issue irrelevant to most of these people's circumstances, was only ever a piece of political sleight of hand. Leaving the EU will achieve nothing as it was never intended to achieve anything - it was never going to happen. The fundamental problems in our society are still not being addressed. We are storing up huge troubles for the future.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It would have been more constructive to actually address their grievances, some of which are real and are related to the relentless austerity policies which have been pursued for the last 7 years, despite plenty of evidence that they are not succeeding even in reducing the budget deficit, their stated objective.
On which point you would get no argument from me whatsoever, but these are largely the policies of the present government and your original comment was about what *Labour* parliamentarians should have done to engage the economically/socially left behind.
As to your other point - you are completely correct. Leaving is unlikely to 'fix' any of the problems that might have lead to the Leave Vote.
I've talked to a number of people who voted Leave - and a few who were old enough to have voted lasted time around and who voted Leave this time related a tale of how the ECC caused British industry to fail because it was suddenly exposed to competition and because the introduction of VAT caused British goods to rise in price and thus become un-competitive.
Missing in all this is that the imported goods were similarly subject to VAT, that British industry had been heavily subsidized in the late 60s to keep it running, and these subsidies were removed when Britain entered the ECC largely on the initiative of the British government.
I suspect the contemporaries of those who suffered then are unlikely to do any better under the low-regulation/low-cost economy that the right wing of the Conservative party are in favour of.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
My main beef with Labour politicians is that they should have made all the above points, forcefully, throughout the campaign-referendum-trying-to-decide-what-the-fuck-to-do process. It may have cost them politically in the short term (no doubt they would have been branded "enemies of the people" by the Daily Wail). They might not have stopped Brexit, but they might have managed to build a consensus around achieving the softest Brexit possible, and in the long term saved their party.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The zeal with which the Labour Party leader has been trying to keep Britain in Europe is well-known.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is any politician dealing with Brexit sensibly? On the Tory side, you have the Ultras, who seem to want a complete split with the EU. Presumably, ex-Remainers are going along with May, hoping that something will be muddled through. I'm not sure how many of them really understand customs rules, convergence, third countries, and so on.
On the Labour side, total confusion. I suppose Starmer is making a fist of sounding coherent, but then Labour policies are not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The mantra "no deal is better than a bad deal" has drawn a mixture of praise and horror, depending on where one is on the political spectrum. But today we see an example of why it may be necessary. The bureaucratic weasels of the EU have allowed Spain to insert a clause which allows it to harass Gibraltar into switching sides. Gibraltar voted by 96% for Remain. If that had pushed it in the direction of seeing its future with Spain, that would be democracy at work. But it hasn't.
Today, the First Minister, Fabian Picardo said that, post Brexit, Gibraltar's ties with the UK will be more important than ever. But included in the wording of the EU response to the PM's Article 50 letter, Spain has the chance to exclude Gibraltar from any trade deal agreed between the UK and the EU, because the clause says “no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.
It's quite obvious, I hope, that the UK Government will reject out of hand, Spain's attempt to gain joint of full sovereignty of The Rock by using Brexit as a pretext for this action. The Guardian doesn't name the "EU official" who said “The union will stick up for its members, and that means Spain now." But the implication is that now that the UK is no longer going to be a member, the EU will side with Spain in the more than 300 year dispute between Spain and the UK over Gibraltar. We should, and I trust we will, side with the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be. In that event Spain can, and probably will, veto any deal between the UK and the EU, as could any of the 27 members who doesn't get what it wants.
This is a perfect example of why no deal is better than a bad deal and why hard Brexit is on the cards.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But included in the wording of the EU response to the PM's Article 50 letter, Spain has the chance to exclude Gibraltar from any trade deal agreed between the UK and the EU, because the clause says “no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.
This seems like a problematic stance for the EU to take, since the whole point of the EU is that its individual members don't negotiate side deals regarding trade. We discussed the difficulties associated with some kind of special arrangement along the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border (the only other place besides Gibraltar where the EU and UK share a land border) about five months ago.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We should, and I trust we will, side with the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be.
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
This argument is nonsense.
Yes, 96% of Gibraltarians voted for the UK to stay in the EU, and most voted to remain British in 2002.
That option is no longer possible. Gib can't stay in the EU by itself, and its votes are no more and no less important than those of any UK voters.
The options available to Gibraltar now are to remain British and leave the EU, or to ask to be annexed by Spain and remain in / rejoin the EU. There really isn't a realistic third option. But either one of those is clearly possible, and it should be up to the Gibraltarians which choice they prefer.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
For those who want the source documents, the draft guidelines PaulTH* mentioned can be found here [PDF]. The bit about Gibraltar is point #22 (on p. 8). Other territory-specific references deal with Ireland (#11) and Cyprus (#12), both on p. 6.
This is, of course, only a draft document.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus. Exactly how does a scenario where Gibraltar leaves the Single Market and the Customs Union work out in practice?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus. Exactly how does a scenario where Gibraltar leaves the Single Market and the Customs Union work out in practice?
Different parts of a democracy can and do vote in different ways. I voted Remain, not because of any love for the EU, but because I feared that Brexit would break up the UK and destabilise Ireland. I didn't think much about Gibraltar at the time, but it's hardly surprising that they overwhelmingly wanted to Remain. I have no idea how leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union will work out for any of us, not just Gibraltar, but I do know that the people of The Rock would much rather suck it in than lose their sovereignty to Spain. That's a principal the UK must defend.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus.
Everyone got thrown under. Some pitched in and helped throw themselves, but everyone will be mashed by the wheels.
None of this was thought of beforehand because the architects did not wish the thing to happen. That the were the first rolled over is of no comfort.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
De Gaulle was right 55 years ago, when giving his famous "Non!"* he said that the British did not want to recognise that they were European. He was right then and has been ever since. There was a small group around Edward Heath, and a similarly small group voting Liberal, who did make that recognition, but opinion polls in 1975 showed that most of those voting to join did so because they could see a benefit for the UK in trade etc, rather than a commitment to Europe.
Alan Cresswell, you're now introducing for the first time your idea of decision making shared between a parliament and direct public participatio through referendums. That may get you out of trying to deal with the questions I raised, but it still seems impractical to me. Has that been trialled anywhere?
The closest I can think of is the 1967 referendum here which amended the Constitution so as to allow the Federal Parliament to legislate for Aboriginal people. Having been given the power by ths direct process, the exercise was a matter for the Parliament. But that's still a long way from the sort of thing you're talking of.
*trans: No!
[ 31. March 2017, 22:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, you're now introducing for the first time your idea of decision making shared between a parliament and direct public participatio through referendums. That may get you out of trying to deal with the questions I raised, but it still seems impractical to me. Has that been trialled anywhere?
[mr cheesy look away because I'm going to bang a drum I've banged a lot recently]
No, it's not the first time I've raised that concept. The example I've been repeatedly citing, because it's one I'm familiar with and passionate about, is the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. Where the sequence of events was:
- A political party dedicated (some might say obsessed) with Scottish independence with decades of electoral campaigning keeping the discussion on independence running in the public sphere, and always producing a respectable result at all levels (local government, Westminster, European - and post devolution at Holyrood) since the 1970s.
- The 2007 Scottish Parliamentary election returned the SNP as the largest party, forming a minority government. Though there was a referendum commitment in the SNP manifesto, this government didn't push for it. Instead they produced a draft referendum bill included in the August 2007 "National Conversation" consultation. A white paper on the proposed referendum in Nov 2009 (with four options outlined - no change, two forms of further devolution, and independence), and a further draft version of the bill in Feb 2010 (by which time this was down to 3 options, with a single "devo max" option) and invitation for public feedback.
- When the SNP won a landslide victory in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election they immediately announced a plan for an independence referendum. This initiated political debate in Holyrood (and beyond) leading to the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 passed by the Scottish Parliament in June 2013 and the Scotland's Future 670 page white paper in November 2013.
- The referendum itself was, of course, held in September 2014
So, in summary a process in which an independence party with significant electoral success reaching a position of government, then spends six years in Parliamentary debate discussing and refining the options for independence and further devolution, with the final Parliamentary position defined 18 months before the referendum, with the public consulted throughout the process and left with an extended campaign period before the referendum (which had an 85% turnout, so very conclusive result).
You probably don't need the contrast to the 2016 EU referendum. But, the main points are: no political party with decades of electoral success on an anti-EU platform, no landslide victory for a party on such a platform (or, even close), no Parliamentary debate with public consultation of the issues, no government supporting Brexit, no white paper, severely curtailed campaign (there was barely a year between the 2015 GE and the referendum, much less time for an 18 month referendum campaign).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, the question on the paper was "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Not all that different to the question asked on the EU referendum. And recent posts on this thread iare the first time you've raised wthe question of working in tandem, as it were.
You still need to deal with the point I raised about putting the mulltiple reasons for leaving on the referendum paper.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I don't think anybody doubts the integrity of the process which led to the 2014 Scottish referendum. This is one of the reasons why many people, even in Scotland, don't believe that another bite at the cherry is appropriate for some considerable time. But Alan speaks as if there was some democratic deficit in the 2016 EU referendum and I don't see it. David Cameron promised, in 2013, that if he won the next General Election, he would deliver an in/out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017. Of course it was a miscalculation. He didn't expect to win the 2015 election. He figured that, at best, he would be in a coalition with someone like the Lib Dems who would never agree to a referendum, or he would be in opposition.
After winning in 2015, Cameron sought urgently for the EU leaders to give him a fig leaf which he could take to the British people to assuage the perceived problem of uncontrollable EU immigration. He was shown the door. But his 2015 manifesto had promised the vote and that his government would implement the choice of the British people. Parliament voted by 6 to 1 to allow the referendum. So we knew from 2013 that it may be coming. We know that the Tories were committed to implementing the result and parliament overwhelmingly endorsed his call for the vote. What more democratic authority is required?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There's the fact that nobody was counting on the tories winning the 2015 election, the fact that during the 2014 referendum the loss of EU membership was repeatedly touted as a reason to vote "no", the fact that only one constituency in Scotland returned a tory MP in 2015. Scotland emphatically rejected the promised EU referendum, and emphatically voted to remain in the EU when it took place. In 2016 the SNP government were elected with a pledge to hold another referendum if there was a material change in circumstance, and nobody can claim that leaving the EU is not a material change. In short: leaving the EU was not a choice that Scotland was interested in making, and yet has been forced into it by Westminster. Scotland must now decide whether it's willing to go along with this nonsense any more, and it's deeply undemocratic for May to insist we stay in the doomed building with her until she's finished pouring the petrol and lit the match.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
If Gibraltar has a democratic right to self-determination that overrides the interests and wishes of the majority of the UK when the majority of the UK votes differently from them then the UK wouldn't be leaving the EU.
If the majority of the UK can vote differently from Gibraltar on this and Gibraltar doesn't have a veto then Gibraltar doesn't have a veto on the final deal either.
Of course I do not doubt that hard-line Brexiters will take this up in their continual attempt to blame the EU for the consequences of their own xenophobia and impossible promises. But it's still hypocrisy on their part.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Dafyd, I'm really missing something from your reasoning here. The 30 thousand inhabitants of Gibraltar can never have a veto over a UK wide vote. Had the UK vote pushed the people of Gib to look to Spain for their future, then the UK would have to respect the change in Gibraltar's democratic status and allowing m. it. But Gib is as sure as ever that it's British, and yes I do blame the EU if this becomes an issue in Brexit
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Sorry I forgot to add. Do I take it from what you say, Dafyd, that you think Spain should be given a veto on allowing Gibraltar to have the same deal as the UK? I apologise for my typos. I'm doing this on a phone which I don't usually.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But Gib is as sure as ever that it's British, and yes I do blame the EU if this becomes an issue in Brexit
Sure. The UK chest beats for months about what a good deal the EU will be forced to give them, appoints a trio of unqualified and undiplomatic buffoons to head the negotiation, talks about people as bargaining chips, but it's all the EU's fault.
For all the complaints about the left encouraging victim mentality, they have nothing on the right's actual efforts.
Couple of things; what is the rate of corporation tax in Gibraltar ? How many people cross the (for now internal) border for employment every day ?
Oh, and incidentally, Gibraltarians have been concerned for some time that informal talks between the FO and Spain presaged a willingness to try and use them as a means of separating Spain from the rest of the EU.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
