The UK and EU exit

[Annoying Twit]

I'm still watching the news. Things seem to be getting even more bizarre. This is a huge mess, and it isn't going to be easily/simply cleared up.

[Annoying Twit]

I think this thread is a better place to discuss the referendum result than the What's Going On In Your Life thread.

This is a complex topic, and it's hard to do justice to it in a thread post. However, there are some thoughts.

It's undeniable that there were many lies told during the campaign, and that whole papers gave a completely unrealistic view of what would happen. Now that the vote has happened, some papers are being more realistic, and their readers are not happy. See e.g.: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/art...d--Z1772TI4aNW

It's very interesting to see who is pro-exit. Donald Trump, European far-right political groups and of all people ISIS are very pleased about the exit result. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7109781.html I do think it's telling to see exactly who is pro-Exit.

There have been criticisms that the remain side didn't put their case properly. Personally I think that there were many (e.g.) news articles that did put the case for remain, but people and organisations (e.g. newspapers) who were pro-Leave simply labelled these articles 'Project Fear' and they were seemingly discounted as excessively negative scaremongering. Some of these have been proved true already (e.g. loss of value of the pound, already we're seeing a stop in inward investment, David Cameron stepping down, financial service companies and car manufacturers etc. preparing to the leave the UK or scale down their operations.) Some are being shown to be more realistic than people originally thought (Scotland devolving.) In hindsight, it didn't matter how well or otherwise remain supporters made their case, the simple label 'Project Fear' was used to discount everything. I do think this is a major problem for our society (over and above the vote itself) is an anti-intellectualism in our society, where people decide that they know better than true experts and simply discount expert opinion. The same happens in other areas: medicine, climate change, etc. It seems that sloganeering is more important for many people in the UK than facts, figures, and what experts, even true experts, say.

At the moment the UK and the EU are dancing around each waiting for the other to move first. There will clearly be trade in the future, but how much trade and what will be the conditions placed on it. It is important for the EU that the UK suffers as a result as the exit, otherwise other countries may follow the UK out of the EU. What is quite likely to happen is that we'll get 'All Pay, No Say' which will mean that the UK has to accept EU laws and rules, but has no say in the creation of these rules and laws. Norway is in a situation like this. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...orwegian-model BTW: Norway warned us about this, but again this was dismissed as 'Project Fear'. One consequence of this is that what the leavers thought we had (an undemocratic EU) is what we're going to get if/when we leave. At present, the EU is democratic. We can directly vote for MEP (members of the European Parliament) who form the parliament. The European Council and some other bodies are filled with people appointed by elected governments, or ministers from elected governments. So, our votes in elections decide (even if indirectly in some cases) who makes the EU rules. If we're outside the EU, but having to follow it's rules, we will have no democratic say in these rules and the 'undemocratic EU' that people believed we had will come about as a consequence of the vote.

It's clear that what many people who voted leave expected to get isn't going to happen. The hottest topic for many leave voters is immigration. They want immigration to stop and for 'Johnny Foreigner' to go home. This isn't' going to happen as trade with the EU is most likely to be based upon retaining freedom of movement. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683...ion-vote-leave Remember that it's useful for the EU for the UK to suffer, and for the leave group (who will effectively be the next government) to be discredited. That's going to colour negotiations with the EU, and the EU knows what it is doing.

Legally, the UK parliament does not have to follow the result of the vote. It's only advisory. However, 17 million people voted for it. It's going to be very difficult to just ignore it. It's possible that there will be an election before the UK actually exits. In this case, the election may be cast as a second vote on exiting the EU, with some parties campaigning to leave, some to stay. The party that wins would then have a mandate for implementing or ignoring the leave vote. Certainly those in charge of the leave campaign who are likely to lead the government (Johnson, Gove) are in a difficult place, and seemingly in no hurry to actually leave. http://indy100.independent.co.uk/art...ue--bJhqBql0VZ Unlikely many people who voted, they understand the consequences of leaving.

[UndertheWire]

Thanks for the summary. I'll add that at a time when we need strong leadership, the only party showing any unity is the Scottish Nationalist Party. With the Conservatives having to choose a new leader and the official opposition, Labour, having even more serious leadership problems, instead of focusing on the country, they are looking inward within their political parties.

This is a big problem of democracy. What do you do if your electorate makes what you consider to be a bad decision? If you think you know better and ignore the vote, then it is no longer democratic.

This Conservative government was elected with a mandate to hold a referendum on EU membership and they have delivered on that. Possibly without that, they wouldn't have been elected. What I find shocking is that Cameron and his cabinet went ahead with the referendum without making plans for what to do if they didn't like the outcome. For a Prime Minister to resign after just 15 months because he didn't like the result of a referendum that he promoted in order to get elected is a disgrace.

Hopefully, while the political parties are scrambling, the civil servants are busy working out what needs to be done.

[Annoying Twit]

This is a big problem of democracy. What do you do if your electorate makes what you consider to be a bad decision? If you think you know better and ignore the vote, then it is no longer democratic.

There is more than one type of democracy. Most if not all 'democratic' countries are representational democracies. We vote for our representatives, and they then rule on our behalf. This works quite differently from direct democracy (of which referendums are examples) where people vote on laws/issues directly.

When Churchill said that it wasn't that democracy is good, but that it is the best that we have, he was discussing representational democracy.

While direct democracy would give 'the people' more power, there is a question of whether that would work. E.g. if we had people being able to propose laws and then the people voted on them, what would happen if someone proposed a law abolishing all speed limits? I could see it passing and what would be the results. What about issues that the typical person in the street doesn't really understand properly, like medical issues. For medicine, not only the general populace but even MPs don't really understand. In a representational democracy, representatives will generally take advice from experts and committees populated with knowledgeable people, so that reasonable decisions can be made. We've seen that the general populace doesn't. Read some comments sections on newspapers and ask yourself if you think it would be a good world if those commenting were effectively ruling directly with no filter through a representational government. Would the populace vote to abolish all taxes? Destroying the country as there would be no money to run it. In my opinion, full direct democracy would be a disaster.

The problems the Labour party are having is IMHO because over time we have moved from a situation where our representatives represented us (or even the members of their own parties) but have become members of a ruling class. Jeremy Corbyn is, for all his faults, a man of the people not a member of the political elite. And the political elite and establishment don't like it. We have Labour politicians in tears as they ask Corbyn to quit, but how much of this is genuine emotion and how much is an act coordinated by PR companies? (I'm not suggesting that I know.) Jeremy Corbyn is extremely popular among Labour party members. That he is so unpopular among Labour MPs shows the disconnect being the PLP and the members. This, IMHO, scares the establishment and they are desperate to get rid of him. If he goes, are we back with "Tory-lite" Labour, or is there someone who could replace him. Jo Cox looks as if she could have done this, but she's gone. Who else is there in Labour who could become a true leader for the people? I would guess that there probably is someone; if she hadn't been murdered, I don't think many people would know of Jo Cox right now.

[UndertheWire]

I see your point about representative democracy. I know I don't feel competent to make decisions about the economy, foreign policy, defence and so on, but I am capable at looking at the people who want to make those decisions and see if they have the background and qualifications that suggest they might have the competence.

[Annoying Twit]

There's one thing I forgot to specifically address in your previous post. You said:

This is a big problem of democracy. What do you do if your electorate makes what you consider to be a bad decision? If you think you know better and ignore the vote, then it is no longer democratic.

That's tricky. It depends on what sort of democracy you have. Elected representatives can make decisions about what can and can't be followed and it's still representative democracy. It only stops being democratic if the people cannot choose their representatives.

[UndertheWire]

It feels like I've been deprived of my democratic rights. Every 4-5 years, we elect a new government and nothing much changes because parliment is set up in a way that maintains a balance. If I don't like it, I know that it may change next time. Then suddenly, we have what must be the biggest change in the last 40 year based on a margin of less than 4%. And it has effectively brought down the government that was elected only last year.

[sodascouts]

I've moved all relevant posts to this thread.

[sodascouts]

On another note, I've been reading this thread with interest, although I am hesitant to weigh in as someone who is only concerned indirectly. I am also a member of a Doctor Who forum where there are literally THOUSANDS of posts on the topic. The vast majority are Remainers, but there are some posting who voted "Leave" and they don't sound like the ignorant old bigots they're being painted as by so many Remainers. I'm not saying the decision was a good one, but I do think the Remainers might be going overboard in their sweeping condemnations of 52% of the voting public.

[Annoying Twit]

It feels like I've been deprived of my democratic rights. Every 4-5 years, we elect a new government and nothing much changes because parliment is set up in a way that maintains a balance. If I don't like it, I know that it may change next time. Then suddenly, we have what must be the biggest change in the last 40 year based on a margin of less than 4%. And it has effectively brought down the government that was elected only last year.

There are a lot of quotes that suggest that people considered this their first real opportunity to have political power. And if the decision of the referendum is ignored or (more likely IMHO fudged), then people are going to be outraged.

Where the political parties are at the moment is an odd place, where they have become an elite. In some cases it appears that local candidates are put in place by the parliamentary party, and the local activists have to support them because - well what is the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn is also seen by some (including myself) as a chance to get a real person of the people into a central role in our democracy, and should he be forced out ... well I'm not a member of the Labour party so I can't complain that my democratic will was overruled, but I won't feel happy about it.

I'm reminded of something that Michael Moore wrote. I think that MM is a pretty smart guy who has some very important things to say. He said that even if people were disillusioned with their party (I think he was talking about the Democrats) that they should still join, as only by joining can they influence the party. And that's probably a more effective way of having a democratic say than just by voting in elections. But, my local MP is Liz Kendall