Post Brexit political issues within the UK

[Boggit]

Maybe, but I think the Scots still have a valid point for another Scottish referendum. I don't want to see it, but it does put the EU issue with Brexit to bed.

I have my doubts whether some member states of the EU will be delighted for them to join, or that the Scots will not later come to regret joining the EU for reasons (mentioned elsewhere) if they overcame the objections of other member states.

That all said, it's up to them as I see it. I wish them the best whatever they decide to do. :)

[ComradeP]

Quote from: ComradeP on Yesterday at 11:16:16 PM

    After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.

-

Boggit: I agree that strong political leadership is needed, given that a substantial number of people (but a minority all the same) wanted to remain in the EU, in order to set a clear road map for progress. I totally disagree that the general public doesn't care about this - unless you are referring to the impression on the Dutch population - we had an unprecedented turnout to vote at over 72%.

In the UK, the media is heavily politicised, with publicly funded television being biased to the left, and the newspapers being generally more disposed to the right. I think the businessmen are ultimately realists, and will know that nothing concrete will arise in the immediate future - we, still remain part of the EU, and there has been no structural change to the economy since Brexit. They will have plenty of time to adjust to whatever changes may result, and will have a far clearer idea of the long term economic prospects by the time the UK secedes from the EU.

The way I phrased it was confusing, I meant Dutch journalists and businessmen were getting worried and that the Dutch general public doesn't seem to care much at the moment.

-

As to Golden Dawn: calling it the third largest party is factually accurate, but misleading at the same time in terms of their real influence. Greece essentially has a two party system with some small parties on the side. Golden Dawn has taken a piece of the political pie, but it's nowhere near taking a big chunk of it.

-

I meant that I thought the decision to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, so not necessarily the Article 50 being carried out, was in my opinion a smart move from the remaining important EU leaders. It leaves less room for speculation and uncertainty.

-

I'm not a big fan of any referendum, for a few reasons.

One, like with any election, a large part of the electorate won't know precisely what they're voting for because party political programs are fairly vague and not read much, and most people still seem to vote based on a handful of issues that are important to them. That's valid for a political election, but for yes/no votes on single issues with other issues that are directly influenced by it, it's not ideal.

Two, there's a high chance it will get hijacked by charismatic politicians like Nigel Farage who normally have little influence, politicians with their own gains in mind like a number of the Conservatives who supported Leave, or people from organizations with an interest in the subject and their own agenda. When a man like Nigel Farage is involved in something, I am immediately intrigued by the option he isn't supporting.

Three, if the government is unpopular or the economy is a bit shaky, there's a high chance it will turn into a vote against the current government, which is also how the Dutch EU "constitution" referendum result can be explained. It was fairly clear afterwards most voters didn't really know what it was all about, but just had pro- or anti-EU feelings and pro- or anti-government feelings.

In the Netherlands, we had a referendum on whether or not the government should support a new treaty with the Ukraine. It was hijacked by people who have issues with immigrants, some populists and some fringe politicians. After the referendum was held, some of the organizers essentially proclaimed it was "just a bit of fun" for the summer.

There you have a fine example of the worst way a referendum can be held: false promises (like the Brexit referendum, it was advisory and unlike the Brexit referendum Dutch law only allows referendums to be held after a political proposal has come into being so not in the preparatory stage), in this case right wing individuals using the referendum for their own agenda, beating the drums to gather as much nationalistic support as possible through spreading fear of immigrants and the resulting poison was consumed to the last drop by a large part of the electorate.

In a democratic system, at least one with more direct votes so not the district system used in some countries, you should be able to rely on your politicians to make the decisions for you. That's the foundation of a democracy: you pledge your support to a certain political program by voting on someone, and he/she in turn indirectly pledges to support the program you voted for. Holding a referendum undermines that process.

I'm quite worried about the rise of populists on the left and right. Regardless of what you think about the current politicians, I'm surprised that people view men like Farage, Wilders or that Austrian pseudo-fascist who almost became president as a good choice to vote for. The same applies to left wing examples, obviously, but we just happen to have mostly right wing populists in Northwestern Europe who are successful at the moment.

[Boggit]

The way I phrased it was confusing, I meant Dutch journalists and businessmen were getting worried and that the Dutch general public doesn't seem to care much at the moment.

No worries. I thought you meant that, hence my comment. It is a much more charged issue here.

As to Golden Dawn: calling it the third largest party is factually accurate, but misleading at the same time in terms of their real influence. Greece essentially has a two party system with some small parties on the side. Golden Dawn has taken a piece of the political pie, but it's nowhere near taking a big chunk of it.

I agree, but the influence goes far deeper than at the parliamentary level, where they are actually providing help for Greeks where the government has failed. The popular support is far greater than the number of seats in government suggest. They follow the pattern of the Nazi's in the pre 1933 election stage.

I meant that I thought the decision to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, so not necessarily the Article 50 being carried out, was in my opinion a smart move from the remaining important EU leaders. It leaves less room for speculation and uncertainty.

Oh fine. I agree in the interest of certainty that should happen, but ...

My main concern was really on the fact that a 2 year limit doesn't really provide adequate time to fully resolve all the issues arising from a 40 year relationship. The trouble with the quick article 50 procedure is that it sets the process ticking when we have a government on both sides that has no precedent to follow. If Art 50 was derogated to say you can start the Art 50 process but that the 2 year negotiation period may be extended by either party applying if more negotiation is required to resolve any legal issues.

I'm not a big fan of any referendum, for a few reasons.

One, like with any election, a large part of the electorate won't know precisely what they're voting for because party political programs are fairly vague and not read much, and most people still seem to vote based on a handful of issues that are important to them. That's valid for a political election, but for yes/no votes on single issues with other issues that are directly influenced by it, it's not ideal.

Two, there's a high chance it will get hijacked by charismatic politicians like Nigel Farage who normally have little influence, politicians with their own gains in mind like a number of the Conservatives who supported Leave, or people from organizations with an interest in the subject and their own agenda. When a man like Nigel Farage is involved in something, I am immediately intrigued by the option he isn't supporting.

Three, if the government is unpopular or the economy is a bit shaky, there's a high chance it will turn into a vote against the current government, which is also how the Dutch EU "constitution" referendum result can be explained. It was fairly clear afterwards most voters didn't really know what it was all about, but just had pro- or anti-EU feelings and pro- or anti-government feelings.

In the Netherlands, we had a referendum on whether or not the government should support a new treaty with the Ukraine. It was hijacked by people who have issues with immigrants, some populists and some fringe politicians. After the referendum was held, some of the organizers essentially proclaimed it was "just a bit of fun" for the summer.

There you have a fine example of the worst way a referendum can be held: false promises (like the Brexit referendum, it was advisory and unlike the Brexit referendum Dutch law only allows referendums to be held after a political proposal has come into being so not in the preparatory stage), in this case right wing individuals using the referendum for their own agenda, beating the drums to gather as much nationalistic support as possible through spreading fear of immigrants and the resulting poison was consumed to the last drop by a large part of the electorate.

Oh I get entirely where you are coming from, but what you say about referendums applies equally for elections, and democracy in general. I agree with you that democracy is imperfect, but like Churchill said "it's better than the alternatives".

The danger is when we start to find reasons however valid they might be, to exclude the electorate from having their say, we reduce the democratic legitimacy of our decisions. Sure, you and I may be better informed than some of our compatriots, but does that give us the right to muzzle their voice? It's a very dangerous path you tread there.

In a democratic system, at least one with more direct votes so not the district system used in some countries, you should be able to rely on your politicians to make the decisions for you. That's the foundation of a democracy: you pledge your support to a certain political program by voting on someone, and he/she in turn indirectly pledges to support the program you voted for. Holding a referendum undermines that process.

In the UK we usually have a first past the post system that disenfranchises a significant number of voters in a "safe seat". It's different in marginal seats, but again all the votes across the country that did not result in a win for a seat become wasted. This gives rise to tactical voting, or people simply not voting or registering to vote because their vote will not be heard.

When you think that Tony Blair achieved an overwhelming majority in Parliament on 26% of the popular vote, and Cameron 36% for a clear majority (IIRC actually less seats than Tony Blair got on 26% of the vote!) you can see why the electorate don't feel properly represented. I'll put it another way... at the last election just over 1 million people voted for the SNP, just over 4 million voted for UKIP. The SNP got 56 seats in Parliament, UKIP got just 1. It's a broken and ultimately unrepresentative system.

For what it's worth the referendum with every vote of every voter counting was a breath of fresh air. That was democracy, not the twisted system we usually use. For the first time in my voting life my vote actually counted, and it meant a lot to me.

So you can see there is already a major disconnect between the voters and the politicians just at the ballot box. As many politicians are in safe seats, they can afford to ignore their voters and follow party lines in spite of voter concerns. So no I don't think there's much trust or legitimacy in the representation of voters by our politicians. And when you don't trust or consider the politicians represent your best interest, you don't invest legitimacy in their role as your representative as you suggest. Maybe you have a better, more representative, electoral system in the Netherlands, but we don't have a good one here.

I'm quite worried about the rise of populists on the left and right. Regardless of what you think about the current politicians, I'm surprised that people view men like Farage, Wilders or that Austrian pseudo-fascist who almost became president as a good choice to vote for. The same applies to left wing examples, obviously, but we just happen to have mostly right wing populists in Northwestern Europe who are successful at the moment.

I think the explanation above will go some way to answering this.

At the end of the day, when it appears to people that their concerns are not being listened to by the political establishment they look elsewhere. It is no different elsewhere in Europe. Is it the case that 25-30+% of the French people are naturally extreme right wing supporters? Not at all. They are ignored by the mainstream political élite, and they and Marine le Pen know this. Unless the establishment change the way they deal with citizens, there is a good chance that in the next election, or the one after that Marine le Pen will be President of France.

This is not some random accident. You mentioned Austria. In Austria's recent presidential elections, Alexander van der Bellen of the Greens got 50.3% of the vote, while Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria by a whisker lost at 49.7% of the vote. It really is approaching that critical level. When you consider that the FPO got 20.5% of the vote in the 2013 elections, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the political trends.

Make no mistake, the far right are on the rise because the mainstream political class are not engaging with the concerns of voters. Hitler after the 1924 Putsch realised that he couldn't seize power like that. He did it through the electoral process, and this is what we are seeing now. The complacent political élite of the UK, EU, and the member states need to wake up now and change their complacent 'Weimar Republic' ways... or it will just be too late. At that point to survive and prosper, whether you believe the dogma or not, you will need to sign up to join the Freedom Party, or whoever is ruling just like ordinary Germans, or Italians had to in the 30's. You are right to be worried. :(

[ComradeP]

Oh I get entirely where you are coming from, but what you say about referendums applies equally for elections, and democracy in general. I agree with you that democracy is imperfect, but like Churchill said "it's better than the alternatives".

The danger is when we start to find reasons however valid they might be, to exclude the electorate from having their say, we reduce the democratic legitimacy of our decisions. Sure, you and I may be better informed than some of our compatriots, but does that give us the right to muzzle their voice? It's a very dangerous path you tread there.

I'm not suggesting any voice should not be heard, provided it is within the boundaries of what society as a whole finds reasonable at the time, and I understand very little of the precise legal implications of either the Brexit or the treaty with the Ukraine I just voted for so I'm only slightly better informed than the majority of the electorate. However, limiting the number of referendums and elections does protect the system and the electorate against apathy and ignorance having a serious effect on the political process (aside from how the politicians themselves act).

For what it's worth the referendum with every vote of every voter counting was a breath of fresh air. That was democracy, not the twisted system we usually use. For the first time in my voting life my vote actually counted, and it meant a lot to me.

So you can see there is already a major disconnect between the voters and the politicians just at the ballot box. As many politicians are in safe seats, they can afford to ignore their voters and follow party lines in spite of voter concerns. So no I don't think there's much trust or legitimacy in the representation of voters by our politicians. And when you don't trust or consider the politicians represent your best interest, you don't invest legitimacy in their role as your representative as you suggest. Maybe you have a better, more representative, electoral system in the Netherlands, but we don't have a good one here.

I can see why it would feel like a breath of fresh air, I was already wondering what it must've been like for the British to actually have their vote directly registered and counting towards a certain result.

The Dutch political system isn't better in a literal sense, but it is more representative in the sense that your vote is always added to the total for a certain party and person belonging to that party (you're voting on a person and thus a party by extension). Of course, you don't directly influence who gets on the list unless you're a party member, and you don't directly influence the eventual coalition or the representatives in the First Chamber, elected by provincial representatives who are in turn elected by citizens again.

Make no mistake, the far right are on the rise because the mainstream political class are not engaging with the concerns of voters. Hitler after the 1924 Putsch realised that he couldn't seize power like that. He did it through the electoral process, and this is what we are seeing now. The complacent political élite of the UK, EU, and the member states need to wake up now and change their complacent 'Weimar Republic' ways... or it will just be too late. At that point to survive and prosper, whether you believe the dogma or not, you will need to sign up to join the Freedom Party, or whoever is ruling just like ordinary Germans, or Italians had to in the 30's. You are right to be worried.

One thing the European governments continue to fail to do is point out just how wealthy we still are compared to previous generations, at least in the Western Europe member states. Real poverty has been virtually wiped out. What we consider to be poor today is very, very different from what poverty is like in the 3rd World or what it was like in parts of Europe until the 1960's-1970's or so.

If there's one thing I blame the majority of the current electorate, born at a time when the welfare state was being formed or was up and running, is that they've taken every advantage the welfare state offered them, but the politicians of their generation are unimaginitive men and women who can't handle a crisis and the same people who were politically active in their youth now guard their privileges like their parents did. A lot of the bad decisions, like the problems immigration caused, were kept silent until they burst out into the open in the 00's.

There are days where I just can't comprehend how we got from "winning" the Cold War and the prosperity of the 1990's with its increase in industrial efficiency thanks to the computer and the effects of the economy becoming truly global reducing the price of luxury products considerably. A simple stereo cost 1000 bucks in the early 1990's, for example, and inflation was still fairly high. All of that has improved, but there are no ideals anymore worth propagating as the politicians see it. The darker side of capitalism and an ever expanding EU without a message or public support have dramatically altered the way society treats politics and the European Experiment since the start of the millenium.

[DoctorQuest]

Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?!   >:D

that's like asking how many Civil War gaming threads do we need?

Or Star Trek.

[Boggit]

I'm not suggesting any voice should not be heard, provided it is within the boundaries of what society as a whole finds reasonable at the time, and I understand very little of the precise legal implications of either the Brexit or the treaty with the Ukraine I just voted for so I'm only slightly better informed than the majority of the electorate. However, limiting the number of referendums and elections does protect the system and the electorate against apathy and ignorance having a serious effect on the political process (aside from how the politicians themselves act).

And what does "society" find reasonable? Who actually makes the decision, and what motives do they have for setting the limits as they do? It's a difficult one isn't it? I don't suggest we have elections or referenda every other week, but with my experience on Brexit they certainly should be more regular to engage the electorate, and encourage participation in civil life. After all the politicians are just the agents of the people if we give any credit to thought like Rousseau's social contract. It doesn't hurt for them to be reminded of the fact once in a while. ;)

One thing the European governments continue to fail to do is point out just how wealthy we still are compared to previous generations, at least in the Western Europe member states. Real poverty has been virtually wiped out. What we consider to be poor today is very, very different from what poverty is like in the 3rd World or what it was like in parts of Europe until the 1960's-1970's or so.

If there's one thing I blame the majority of the current electorate, born at a time when the welfare state was being formed or was up and running, is that they've taken every advantage the welfare state offered them, but the politicians of their generation are unimaginitive men and women who can't handle a crisis and the same people who were politically active in their youth now guard their privileges like their parents did. A lot of the bad decisions, like the problems immigration caused, were kept silent until they burst out into the open in the 00's.

There are days where I just can't comprehend how we got from "winning" the Cold War and the prosperity of the 1990's with its increase in industrial efficiency thanks to the computer and the effects of the economy becoming truly global reducing the price of luxury products considerably. A simple stereo cost 1000 bucks in the early 1990's, for example, and inflation was still fairly high. All of that has improved, but there are no ideals anymore worth propagating as the politicians see it. The darker side of capitalism and an ever expanding EU without a message or public support have dramatically altered the way society treats politics and the European Experiment since the start of the millenium.

I agree with you. Unless politicians rediscover ideals, like actually representing the interests of their constituents, then all they do is perpetuate the status quo, the disconnect between the people and the political process. Nothing will change and the people will find government ever more remote and irrelevant to their daily lives. Laws will be obeyed not for their legitimacy, but only because of the consequences of not doing so.

It becomes a race to the bottom. :( Politics and the European experiment have failed. It is time to learn from the mistakes of the past, start afresh and build a new future. I remain hopeful. :)

[Boggit]

Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?!   >:D

that's like asking how many Civil War gaming threads do we need?

Or Star Trek.

;D

[JasonPratt]

Wait, was I supposed to write a massive post about Brexit?

...

...........


...um, I've got nothing.

(About Brexit. I've got a scathing rant about Harvard and the Smithsonian knowingly trying to fob off a forgery for ideological interests and maybe some cash down the line... ;) )

[Boggit]

Wait, was I supposed to write a massive post about Brexit?

...

...........


...um, I've got nothing.

(About Brexit. I've got a scathing rant about Harvard and the Smithsonian knowingly trying to fob off a forgery for ideological interests and maybe some cash down the line... ;) )

Feel free... ;D

[Boggit]

I looked at the UK Bookies line a couple of days before the vote.  About 10 - 1 against leaving.  Why were they so wrong?

This morning I was thinking about what effect EU investment in various areas outside of London might have had in the vote.

A while back, I was in Dublin (Ireland) for a family wedding and there were EU projects being done almost everywhere I looked. The level of investment was staggering, to the point that Granny O'Grady's new back fence was an EU structural project. ;) Joking aside, I was taken aback, as in comparison I've never seen such heavy EU investment within the UK.

So were there any parallels that might explain remain voting patterns in areas outside of London that could be linked to EU patronage, either financially, or even on an EU cultural basis?

The UK cities, as part of the European Capitals of culture program sprang to mind, as they involve urban regeneration, and usually an increase in tourism. This program is generously funded by the EU, and is a positive thing, but only a few areas were benefiting. This obviously is a benefit to the prosperity of an area. Could any conclusions be drawn where the local people might conclude a benefit from their association with the EU? The results were interesting, but not entirely conclusive....

The European Capitals of Culture in the UK were -
Liverpool
Glasgow

Interestingly, both these cities substantially voted to remain in the EU, having seen substantial EU investment in their areas. Am I surprised? No. These cities had a clear benefit from being in the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture
http://europa.eu/pol/cult/index_en.htm  On EU funding for Capitals of Culture

Moreover, in 2013 inspired by the EU program the idea was taken further in the UK - though lacking EU funding - to the idea of UK cities of culture.
Londonderry/Derry was the first, with Hull cited as the next for 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_City_of_Culture

Londonderry voted as with much of Northern Ireland to remain, although see point 3. in my first post of this thread for perhaps more persuasive reasons as to why they voted the way they did. http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17285.msg454836#msg454836

The interesting result is Hull who voted heavily to reject the EU. They weren't recipients of EU money, although they did receive money from the UK (and from a pro-EU government). http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/eu-referendum-result-in-hull-overwhelmingly-backs-brexit/story-29439076-detail/story.html

So my conclusion, is that areas that have benefited from substantial EU funding reflected their appreciation of the EU in the Brexit referendum, while those left out of EU funding generally did not.

Geek's observations about the net beneficiaries of EU funding may be significantly insightful into why the voting patterns outside of Scotland, Northern Ireland overwhelmingly reflected perceived economic benefits from the EU. http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17285.msg454980#msg454980

[Sir Slash]

I wish we got more detailed facts like this in the news about Brexit and everything else. Instead of the superficial headlines that even the talking-head newsies can't understand.

[Boggit]

I wish we got more detailed facts like this in the news about Brexit and everything else. Instead of the superficial headlines that even the talking-head newsies can't understand.

+1  O0

We have had some truly excellent contributors to the debate, on both sides of the argument.  8)

Toonces pointed out my posts were unusually long, and he is right. I've discovered a deep interest in politics I never had before, and plan to get more involved in it now. I am currently involved in disability activism, but want to get involved in wider politics now.

The trouble with the media is that while they might report events, they are (being generalists jumping from story to story) generally not informed enough about specific areas, or are limited by editorial control. It means events are not given much more than a surface analysis. OK, occasionally that is different with documentaries, but generally that is the case with many news reporters.

It was a political crisis, now beginning to start settling down as the politicians adjust to the new reality.

It isn't an economic crisis. It was a political crisis all along. Despite all the doom and jittery markets due to uncertainty and the shock of being completely wrong last week, the underlying economy is much the same as it was a week ago. The jitters are beginning to settle, as people get over the 'surprise' result. When you look at all the underlying factors, was Brexit actually such a surprise? Honestly? The EU are now being much more reasonable about Brexit than they were, and Cameron is keen to keep things amicable too. It's in the best interest of everyone to be reasonable with each other.

Neither Norway, Switzerland, nor Canada are economic basket cases within the EEA, so why should the UK as the 5th largest world economy (2nd largest in the EU after Germany) be down and out for long? If you look at share trading today you will see that the market is making a significant recovery:

International Markets

Index       Value       Change

FTSE 100  6,137.48  +155.28 Up
FTSE 250  15,519.69  +551.83 Up
FTSE 350  3,378.25  +91.13 Up
FTSE All-Share  3,325.87  +88.33 Up
FTSE AIM UK 50  3,837.85  +116.90 Up
FTSE AIM 100  3,271.08  +82.31 Up
FTSE AIM All-Share  688.80  +11.84 Up

All data delayed at least 15 minutes

Source http://www.londonstockexchange.com/home/homepage.htm as at 16:27hours GMT
       
Even if a worst case scenario arose that the EU would not trade with us, I am quite sure that the void would be filled with countries wanting to replace the EU share of the market. Business is business. They would be nuts not to. We are Germany's largest market for cars. If the EU prevents them from trading who will step in? For the US car industry Brexit is a potential Godsend, same for China and Japan, as EU intransigence would be a body blow to the German, French and Italian car industries. It is economic insanity for the EU to be tough on trade with the UK post Brexit. They have much more to lose given the trade deficit, and their global competitors have everything to gain.

Frankly, while I understand the initial EU reaction to Brexit, I think it is in their own interest as much as anything, to be realists and settle this divorce generously. They have more to lose otherwise.

Politically, Brexit is quite rightly a worrying bellweather for the EU. If anything, Brexit creates a flash that will spark other independence referendums in the EU. It would be good for the long term future of the EU for them to listen. If these referendums take place then it is an endorsement, or otherwise of the citizens within the EU. The EU will derive unity of purpose from those who wish to remain, and can still maintain good relations with those countries who see their federal model as incompatible with their values, as people will see the EU had the grace to let them have their say (and respect it).

If they don't permit referenda, the rising Euroscepticism within Europe will demand a voice that is listened to. If only the far right engage with this, then the EU faces a worrying future as this is reflected in elections, in the government of member states, and ultimately their Commission appointees. In turn this will contribute to transforming the EU eventually into a far right, or at least heavily influenced far right state. It's not what the present EU will want, and they can only address it by giving the people their voice one way, or the other. And unlike the past, the EU now needs to respect these referenda not ignore, or otherwise circumvent them.

[Atilla60]

Farage speaks to the European Parliament

Based on the reaction to his speech, I'll say they still don't get it

[ComradeP]

That speech, and a man like Farage in general, is an insult to everything that European cooperation has achieved.

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can support these nationalists, who are all part of the political elite and yet people believe them when they make it look like they do it all for the common man instead of their personal gains.

Regardless of whether or not you're frustrated or not by things which may or may not have been caused by the EU, supporting a man like Farage or a party like UKIP is dangerous on the long term.

[Atilla60]

Regardless of whether or not you're frustrated or not

Hold on there, what makes you think my stance may come from frustration?

Have you ever given it a thought that maybe, just maybe, I could have an informed opinion?

And frankly, I don't even bother to relate to the rest of your post. It's nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo.