TBH I have mixed feelings on another referendum. On the one hand a public vote to forget the whole thing is our only plausible way out of this aside waiting out possibly decades of ruinous economic harm while we wait for the old people to die then beg to get back in on far shitter terms than we currently enjoy. On the other hand its far from a given a second referendum would produce a different result. The worst case scenario is we put "no deal" on the ballot to please the ERG, the vote is split between dealers and remainers and we end up with (either legally or defacto) a binding result forcing us to do the worst possible thing.
And yes, I know this is exactly the boogyman May is evoking to try and get her deal through parliament.
Reminder: Tomorrow (8am GMT), the Advocate General will present an opinion to the EUCJ relating to last week's Article 50 case. The EUCJ usually agrees with the opinion, far more often than not. So from tomorrow, we should have a clear understanding of how revoking an Article 50 notification works. It's expected to be confirmed that an A50 notification can be withdrawn, however it remains to be seen to what extent the EU27, among others, would have in such a process.
The debate then shifts. With the knowledge that our notification to leave the EU can be withdrawn, should the UK consider it? Stay tuned.
Reminder: Tomorrow (8am GMT), the Advocate General will present an opinion to the EUCJ relating to last week's Article 50 case. The EUCJ usually agrees with the opinion, far more often than not. So from tomorrow, we should have a clear understanding of how revoking an Article 50 notification works. It's expected to be confirmed that an A50 notification can be withdrawn, however it remains to be seen to what extent the EU27, among others, would have in such a process.
The debate then shifts. With the knowledge that our notification to leave the EU can be withdrawn, should the UK consider it? Stay tuned.
The Tories aren't going to call a general election off their own bat. The only way one happens is if a vote of no confidence is passed by the house, and for that to pass there'll need to be some Tories who vote to bring down their own government. Corbyn thinks this will happen somehow, but I don't know why he thinks this.
The Tories aren't going to call a general election off their own bat. The only way one happens is if a vote of no confidence is passed by the house, and for that to pass there'll need to be some Tories who vote to bring down their own government. Corbyn thinks this will happen somehow, but I don't know why he thinks this.
Haven't the duppers said the deal is off already?
They've said they won't vote for the deal, but they haven't officially withdrawn from the confidence and supply agreement, though they've been abstaining from certain votes.
TBH I have mixed feelings on another referendum. On the one hand a public vote to forget the whole thing is our only plausible way out of this aside waiting out possibly decades of ruinous economic harm while we wait for the old people to die then beg to get back in on far shitter terms than we currently enjoy. On the other hand its far from a given a second referendum would produce a different result. The worst case scenario is we put "no deal" on the ballot to please the ERG, the vote is split between dealers and remainers and we end up with (either legally or defacto) a binding result forcing us to do the worst possible thing.
It's easy for me to say so, seeing how I don't live in the UK, but I would consider a democratically legitimised "worst possible thing" less bad than where you seem to be heading now. Right now various flavours of Brexit can claim that they represent the Will of the People, none of them with good justification, while Remainers can point to polls and say the Will of the People has changed enough to warrant a second referendum. IMO the fact that no one knows what the majority really wants (due to how vaguely the referendum was designed) is one of the main reasons this is not just turning out to be a shambles but a supremely divisive shambles at that. I'd still hate the result if there'd been a clear definition of what the referendum should bring about, but I'd be able to accept that it represents what the majority wants. The democratic process as such wouldn't be as fundamentally broken as it has turned out to be.
The democratic system can produce bad results without being broken, but if the system is broken, it becomes pointless. IMO Brexit either broke the system or it showed that the system was broken to begin with - or perhaps rather that both the players and the umpires playing that particular game in the UK these days are really bad at it.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
TBH I have mixed feelings on another referendum. On the one hand a public vote to forget the whole thing is our only plausible way out of this aside waiting out possibly decades of ruinous economic harm while we wait for the old people to die then beg to get back in on far shitter terms than we currently enjoy. On the other hand its far from a given a second referendum would produce a different result. The worst case scenario is we put "no deal" on the ballot to please the ERG, the vote is split between dealers and remainers and we end up with (either legally or defacto) a binding result forcing us to do the worst possible thing.
It's easy for me to say so, seeing how I don't live in the UK, but I would consider a democratically legitimised "worst possible thing" less bad than where you seem to be heading now. Right now various flavours of Brexit can claim that they represent the Will of the People, none of them with good justification, while Remainers can point to polls and say the Will of the People has changed enough to warrant a second referendum. IMO the fact that no one knows what the majority really wants (due to how vaguely the referendum was designed) is one of the main reasons this is not just turning out to be a shambles but a supremely divisive shambles at that. I'd still hate the result if there'd been a clear definition of what the referendum should bring about, but I'd be able to accept that it represents what the majority wants. The democratic process as such wouldn't be as fundamentally broken as it has turned out to be.
The democratic system can produce bad results without being broken, but if the system is broken, it becomes pointless. IMO Brexit either broke the system or it showed that the system was broken to begin with - or perhaps rather that both the players and the umpires playing that particular game in the UK these days are really bad at it.
A no-deal Brexit is such an awful situation that there's no amount of any sort of legitimacy that can be applied to it that would make it better. Maybe the UK would be able to muddle through, muddling through is one of those things that people are good at, but at the least they'd be looking at a massive recession, if not a depression, and the knock on effects from that will wreak further harm across the world.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Honestly, if that's what the majority wants, even after it's been explained to them what it means, then I do think that's the preferable option - because then that majority can't keep passing the buck. Right now they can blame Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, the Conservatives, Labour, Leave voters, Remain voters, the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, Gary Linecker, Father Christmas, Wallace and Gromit etc. etc. I do think that there needs to be some ownership by the majority for whatever happens. Perhaps that's naive, but I do think that without at least a fighting chance that the majority says, "Yes, this is what we voted for, based on being told what it means", this will just go on and on and on.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The majority will only take ownership of brexit if it is a success. Otherwise it is "this isn't what we wanted", "betrayal" or "It's all the EU's fault".
Honestly, if that's what the majority wants, even after it's been explained to them what it means, then I do think that's the preferable option - because then that majority can't keep passing the buck. Right now they can blame Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, the Conservatives, Labour, Leave voters, Remain voters, the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, Gary Linecker, Father Christmas, Wallace and Gromit etc. etc. I do think that there needs to be some ownership by the majority for whatever happens. Perhaps that's naive, but I do think that without at least a fighting chance that the majority says, "Yes, this is what we voted for, based on being told what it means", this will just go on and on and on.
That's ridiculous, no one can explain the shitstorm in enough detail without starting every sentence with either "ceteris paribus" or "now, there are multiple scenarios possible". You can't expect everyone who is allowed to vote to understand the possible outcomes. The alternative is to dumb it down to a level anyone can understand, which does not work, because who is going to do the explaining and how impartial can they even be?
And all that while someone like BoJo is ziplining overhead hollering that no one should believe the explanations offered as all scientists are liars.
+5
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the strongest single predictor of somebody voting leave?
You're right, I can't expect everyone who is allowed to vote to understand the possible outcomes - but surely you can do considerably better than what happened in 2016, where there was pretty much zero understanding or definition of what was being voted for.
Though, frankly, if a better, clearer, more defined referendum isn't possible because of the electorate rather than because of the politicians and bureaucrats involved in designing the referendum, then I don't think the British deserve a democratic system.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
You're right, I can't expect everyone who is allowed to vote to understand the possible outcomes - but surely you can do considerably better than what happened in 2016, where there was pretty much zero understanding or definition of what was being voted for.
Though, frankly, if a better, clearer, more defined referendum isn't possible because of the electorate rather than because of the politicians and bureaucrats involved in designing the referendum, then I don't think the British deserve a democratic system.
I mean, there's a reason why we settled on what was intended to be a representative democracy...
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
You're right, I can't expect everyone who is allowed to vote to understand the possible outcomes - but surely you can do considerably better than what happened in 2016, where there was pretty much zero understanding or definition of what was being voted for.
Though, frankly, if a better, clearer, more defined referendum isn't possible because of the electorate rather than because of the politicians and bureaucrats involved in designing the referendum, then I don't think the British deserve a democratic system.
I mean, there's a reason why we settled on what was intended to be a representative democracy...
I see what you're saying. Nonetheless, my impression is that the more representative and the less direct a democracy is, the more it has shown itself to be hijackable by populist movements (UKIP, AfD, the Tea Party etc.). Switzerland's brand of democracy is highly (but not entirely) direct, and I would argue that while it isn't immune to populism, there is still more faith in the political system and the institutions, and while in theory direct democracy would lend itself to becoming a populist hell hole, in practice Switzerland has proven itself surprisingly resistant to sustained populist action. Talk of the elites in Westminster/Berlin/Washington etc. simply doesn't seem to be quite as compelling if the people get the last say on many of the big decisions.
Not that I think you can just go from a primarily representative democracy to one that is much more direct. Direct democracy takes practice, and the Swiss aren't consistently good at it, so to speak. Nonetheless, there's much more course correction in the results of Swiss referenda than you might think.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The majority will only take ownership of brexit if it is a success. Otherwise it is "this isn't what we wanted", "betrayal" or "It's all the EU's fault".
"It's all the fault of the $ETHNIC_SLURS!"
That's basically what got Brexit to happen, no reason not to quadruple down on it when it blows up in everyone's face.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
In other words, we could be left in limbo... forever. *thunder*
I realise people are stroppy about this now, but...how this would have to work was clear in the back end of 2016. It was even clearer when we literally signed it some time in 2017. People involved, including people even now saying it's terrible, signed it.
My one flicker of empathy for Theresa May comes after a difficult meeting, when I am tempted to shout "Have you got a better plan then, smartarse?" at particularly persistent nimrods.
Of course her problem is that "do nothing" serves as an excellent alternative plan for either set of opponents, depending on how it's read.
The problem, of course, was that really that while there was a choice, there was actually no choice. The political will and intellectual capacity to go through with Brexit just didn't exist and still doesn't.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
part of the wto brexit push is the essential recognition by much of the con brexit mps that this is the only chance they will ever get; this could never be voted on in a ge. the support for hard brexit is eroding 1 funeral at a time. they must strike while the, uh, will of the people is hot
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
In other words, we could be left in limbo... forever. *thunder*
But we knew this, right? Or is this one of those things where Brexiteers have convinced themselves of something that is not congruous with reality?
I am pretty sure this is one of those things the brexiteers thought would not be the case if they BELIEVED hard enough. But unless you want to light the powder keg in NI again something like this would need to be done and it will have to be forever or at least until the situation in NI changed enough to allow some other option.
I wish we had a few more good, smart politicians with guts worldwide.
Similarly in Germany, I kinda dread what's coming after Merkel. One candidate is practically Montgomery Burns.. Calling himself middle class while possessing a private jet..
TBH I think the problem right now is the people more than lack of smart leaders. The riots in France right now aren't because Macron lacks in smarts or guts or even decent policy. Trump didn't rise because of a lack of smarter, less heinous alternatives even in the GOP primary. It certainly is feeling precarious.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
In the UK, yeah OK the quality of leadership is lacking. But with a different voting base its hard to say who might step up.
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
In other words, we could be left in limbo... forever. *thunder*
But we knew this, right? Or is this one of those things where Brexiteers have convinced themselves of something that is not congruous with reality?
I am pretty sure this is one of those things the brexiteers thought would not be the case if they BELIEVED hard enough. But unless you want to light the powder keg in NI again something like this would need to be done and it will have to be forever or at least until the situation in NI changed enough to allow some other option.
I don't actually agree. There is a problem of leadership. There are very few genuinely good leadership figures coming out of the mainly technocratic political class that still dominates politics. One of the reasons I want to see more diversity in politics is because the traditional class right now is just turning out pretty useless Ministers.
+8
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I wish we had a few more good, smart politicians with guts worldwide.
Similarly in Germany, I kinda dread what's coming after Merkel. One candidate is practically Montgomery Burns.. Calling himself middle class while possessing a private jet..
TBH I think the problem right now is the people more than lack of smart leaders. The riots in France right now aren't because Macron lacks in smarts or guts or even decent policy. Trump didn't rise because of a lack of smarter, less heinous alternatives even in the GOP primary. It certainly is feeling precarious.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
In the UK, yeah OK the quality of leadership is lacking. But with a different voting base its hard to say who might step up.
its true there are a lot of duds out there, but i wouldnt say that there arent people who are at least credible hanging around. jokes aside, ed milliband has good instincts, an interest in policy and no serious skeletons. somebody like rory stewart - despite looking like an existentially despairing spaniel - or dominic grieve, ken clarke etc would all make perfectly acceptable con candidates.
theresa may is in some ways the worst of all worlds, inasmuch as she is somebody who appears credible but has terrible instincts, not least on immigration...
I mean, you complain about leadership but Brexit was a referendum. Right wing and racist/nativist parties are rising and left wing radicalism with little connection to reality is undercutting the institutions and liberal world order and the left center parties that are the only real opposition. That's especially true given those forces aren't that much weaker in places where stimulus (Germany, Austria, the US) as opposed to austerity occurred after the Great Recession. If it was quality of ministers at its core, there'd be a stronger correlation between government policy or economic conditions or even amount of immigration and radicalization.
At best you could say the world needs better leaders to convince the people to stop being such assholes. But its not like the the Nigel Farages of the world are these titans of rhetoric, charisma or persuasion. And the proximate cause is people being assholes. Unless we are willing to really embrace an extreme version of the Great man theory of history, the problem is the people.
I mean, you complain about leadership but Brexit was a referendum. Right wing and racist/nativist parties are rising and left wing radicalism with little connection to reality is undercutting the institutions and liberal world order and the left center parties that are the only real opposition. That's especially true given those forces aren't that much weaker in places where stimulus (Germany, Austria, the US) as opposed to austerity occurred after the Great Recession. If it was quality of ministers at its core, there'd be a stronger correlation between government policy or economic conditions or even amount of immigration and radicalization.
At best you could say the world needs better leaders to convince the people to stop being such assholes. But its not like the the Nigel Farages of the world are these titans of rhetoric, charisma or persuasion. And the proximate cause is people being assholes. Unless we are willing to really embrace an extreme version of the Great man theory of history, the problem is the people.
the fact the referendum happened at all was a failure of leadership. i would also note that the popularity of idiots like farage/rees-mogg etc is a particular british affliction, a combination of cap-doffing and a very specific deep-seated classism. do they have conventional charisma? not really. do they have a particular kind of aura that appeals empirically to the british populace? absolutely.
i would agree that broadly the uk has had a split between elite opinion and popular opinion on the eu - neatly demonstrated by the diff between % of mps who were remainers vs general population - and this was a very particular point in history where the vote would go a particular way. i would also comment, howevber, that eg british opinion on immigration has shifted vastly for the better since the referendum and shows far fewer of the public opinion drivers of bad right-wing populist policies than continental europe right now
one of the key strengths of british democracy was precisely that it was an elite-controlled stitchup that has gradually been relaxing ever since the early 1800s, and is still vastly less straightforwardly democratic than most other "democratic" systems.
Ken Clarke is too left wing to be a Tory leader. And hugely pro EU.
right, i just mean hes not an obviously from first principles raving lunatic. and obviously a bit old at this point
tory party has an odd inverted pyramid of talent where the youngest are the craziest...!
Even George Osbourne himself said it. The Tory party membership has been abandoned by by the mainstream public. It's occupied solely by the very old and the lunatic fringes of the young. It's in a terminal nosedive that may take a decade or two to complete but it seems unlikely anyone can pull them away from the crash and burn they have coming.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
geoffrey cox in parliament trying to defend not releasing the full legal advice
blustering and skipping between 3 different defences:
1) there is a formal constitutional requirement that privileged legal advice not be given out (this only binds him, not the government). if, however, he believes this was simply unconstitutional why did he not vote against it...
2) if the advice were given out this would be against the national interest
3) he is answering all questions posed to him by mps as fully and in the same manner as he did to the gov, and the question is ultimately a political not a legal one.
1 doesnt stop the gov itself producing the advice to shut up everybody up; 2 implies there is material in it that parliament would want to know and makes it more likely that parliament will want to see it, 3 is an obvious evasion that ignores that mps cannot ask questions about details of the advice that they do not know to ask about. it also ignores that the political judgement might hinge on details of the legal advice given, eg what bits of actually formally imply and so on
It doesn't help that Europe, as a group, has basically failed to deal with any of the big genuine concerns it has faced in the last ten years.
Internally, inequality between member nations and within member nations has increased and been highlighted by the situation in Italy now and Greece in the past, causing huge levels of upset in parts of the Union. Dissatisfaction with huge levels of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean due to the Syrian civil war has caused anti-immigration sentiment to skyrocket and the rise of the far-right, and the EU basically washed it's hands of that whole affair from the start. We can't do anything, not our business.
Russian belligerency has caused numerous crisis points where Europe has lacked the political or economic will to take real steps towards it's own security, we're basically reliant on the Americans for their support and that's increasingly unviable.
There has been nothing since the financial crisis that the EU has managed to seriously and proactively resolve. It has weathered them, but the future could not be as easy. I think the EU really does need to reform it's strategic policies, and internal structure.
Internal inequality within member states is probably the one they've done best on yeah. Although it's also still a massive problem in a lot of the EU.
Point of order, has anyone? Internal inequality between the member states of the United States of America is still a massive problem too. Heck, internal inequality between the different regions of the United Kingdom is a massive problem, and I don't think the EU can be blamed for that either.
It doesn't help that Europe, as a group, has basically failed to deal with any of the big genuine concerns it has faced in the last ten years.
Internally, inequality between member nations and within member nations has increased and been highlighted by the situation in Italy now and Greece in the past, causing huge levels of upset in parts of the Union. Dissatisfaction with huge levels of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean due to the Syrian civil war has caused anti-immigration sentiment to skyrocket and the rise of the far-right, and the EU basically washed it's hands of that whole affair from the start. We can't do anything, not our business.
Russian belligerency has caused numerous crisis points where Europe has lacked the political or economic will to take real steps towards it's own security, we're basically reliant on the Americans for their support and that's increasingly unviable.
There has been nothing since the financial crisis that the EU has managed to seriously and proactively resolve. It has weathered them, but the future could not be as easy. I think the EU really does need to reform it's strategic policies, and internal structure.
Internal inequality within member states is probably the one they've done best on yeah. Although it's also still a massive problem in a lot of the EU.
Point of order, has anyone? Internal inequality between the member states of the United States of America is still a massive problem too. Heck, internal inequality between the different regions of the United Kingdom is a massive problem, and I don't think the EU can be blamed for that either.
The EU's main tool against internal inequality is freedom of movement, which allows people to both follow the higher paying jobs across borders and send home money from them. The issue is that the EU doesn't have a reliable mechanism to prevent those who will not or cannot leave the home country from gravitating toward fascism as their fortunes decline.
It doesn't help that Europe, as a group, has basically failed to deal with any of the big genuine concerns it has faced in the last ten years.
Internally, inequality between member nations and within member nations has increased and been highlighted by the situation in Italy now and Greece in the past, causing huge levels of upset in parts of the Union. Dissatisfaction with huge levels of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean due to the Syrian civil war has caused anti-immigration sentiment to skyrocket and the rise of the far-right, and the EU basically washed it's hands of that whole affair from the start. We can't do anything, not our business.
Russian belligerency has caused numerous crisis points where Europe has lacked the political or economic will to take real steps towards it's own security, we're basically reliant on the Americans for their support and that's increasingly unviable.
There has been nothing since the financial crisis that the EU has managed to seriously and proactively resolve. It has weathered them, but the future could not be as easy. I think the EU really does need to reform it's strategic policies, and internal structure.
Internal inequality within member states is probably the one they've done best on yeah. Although it's also still a massive problem in a lot of the EU.
Point of order, has anyone? Internal inequality between the member states of the United States of America is still a massive problem too. Heck, internal inequality between the different regions of the United Kingdom is a massive problem, and I don't think the EU can be blamed for that either.
The EU has the problem of being much less top-down then either of those examples though. And thus lacking in a lot of the structures that hold those countries together better.
Posts
And yes, I know this is exactly the boogyman May is evoking to try and get her deal through parliament.
The debate then shifts. With the knowledge that our notification to leave the EU can be withdrawn, should the UK consider it? Stay tuned.
If polling is to be believed its more likely he won't.
Should. Won't.
There are idiots people out there with a small glimmer of hope left.
Haven't the duppers said the deal is off already?
They've said they won't vote for the deal, but they haven't officially withdrawn from the confidence and supply agreement, though they've been abstaining from certain votes.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The democratic system can produce bad results without being broken, but if the system is broken, it becomes pointless. IMO Brexit either broke the system or it showed that the system was broken to begin with - or perhaps rather that both the players and the umpires playing that particular game in the UK these days are really bad at it.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
A no-deal Brexit is such an awful situation that there's no amount of any sort of legitimacy that can be applied to it that would make it better. Maybe the UK would be able to muddle through, muddling through is one of those things that people are good at, but at the least they'd be looking at a massive recession, if not a depression, and the knock on effects from that will wreak further harm across the world.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
That's ridiculous, no one can explain the shitstorm in enough detail without starting every sentence with either "ceteris paribus" or "now, there are multiple scenarios possible". You can't expect everyone who is allowed to vote to understand the possible outcomes. The alternative is to dumb it down to a level anyone can understand, which does not work, because who is going to do the explaining and how impartial can they even be?
And all that while someone like BoJo is ziplining overhead hollering that no one should believe the explanations offered as all scientists are liars.
supporting the death penalty
Though, frankly, if a better, clearer, more defined referendum isn't possible because of the electorate rather than because of the politicians and bureaucrats involved in designing the referendum, then I don't think the British deserve a democratic system.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I mean, there's a reason why we settled on what was intended to be a representative democracy...
Brexit Legal Advice
Whilst it's only a summary, and threatens action from Labour who won a binding motion for the publication of the whole thing, there is enough information to further suggest the vote may be doomed next week:
Tom Newton Dunn is Political Editor for The Sun
In other words, we could be left in limbo... forever. *thunder*
Not that I think you can just go from a primarily representative democracy to one that is much more direct. Direct democracy takes practice, and the Swiss aren't consistently good at it, so to speak. Nonetheless, there's much more course correction in the results of Swiss referenda than you might think.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
"It's all the fault of the $ETHNIC_SLURS!"
That's basically what got Brexit to happen, no reason not to quadruple down on it when it blows up in everyone's face.
I realise people are stroppy about this now, but...how this would have to work was clear in the back end of 2016. It was even clearer when we literally signed it some time in 2017. People involved, including people even now saying it's terrible, signed it.
My one flicker of empathy for Theresa May comes after a difficult meeting, when I am tempted to shout "Have you got a better plan then, smartarse?" at particularly persistent nimrods.
Of course her problem is that "do nothing" serves as an excellent alternative plan for either set of opponents, depending on how it's read.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
But we knew this, right? Or is this one of those things where Brexiteers have convinced themselves of something that is not congruous with reality?
I am pretty sure this is one of those things the brexiteers thought would not be the case if they BELIEVED hard enough. But unless you want to light the powder keg in NI again something like this would need to be done and it will have to be forever or at least until the situation in NI changed enough to allow some other option.
TBH I think the problem right now is the people more than lack of smart leaders. The riots in France right now aren't because Macron lacks in smarts or guts or even decent policy. Trump didn't rise because of a lack of smarter, less heinous alternatives even in the GOP primary. It certainly is feeling precarious.
In the UK, yeah OK the quality of leadership is lacking. But with a different voting base its hard to say who might step up.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Or, obviously, Blockchain.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
its true there are a lot of duds out there, but i wouldnt say that there arent people who are at least credible hanging around. jokes aside, ed milliband has good instincts, an interest in policy and no serious skeletons. somebody like rory stewart - despite looking like an existentially despairing spaniel - or dominic grieve, ken clarke etc would all make perfectly acceptable con candidates.
theresa may is in some ways the worst of all worlds, inasmuch as she is somebody who appears credible but has terrible instincts, not least on immigration...
right, i just mean hes not an obviously from first principles raving lunatic. and obviously a bit old at this point
tory party has an odd inverted pyramid of talent where the youngest are the craziest...!
At best you could say the world needs better leaders to convince the people to stop being such assholes. But its not like the the Nigel Farages of the world are these titans of rhetoric, charisma or persuasion. And the proximate cause is people being assholes. Unless we are willing to really embrace an extreme version of the Great man theory of history, the problem is the people.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
the fact the referendum happened at all was a failure of leadership. i would also note that the popularity of idiots like farage/rees-mogg etc is a particular british affliction, a combination of cap-doffing and a very specific deep-seated classism. do they have conventional charisma? not really. do they have a particular kind of aura that appeals empirically to the british populace? absolutely.
i would agree that broadly the uk has had a split between elite opinion and popular opinion on the eu - neatly demonstrated by the diff between % of mps who were remainers vs general population - and this was a very particular point in history where the vote would go a particular way. i would also comment, howevber, that eg british opinion on immigration has shifted vastly for the better since the referendum and shows far fewer of the public opinion drivers of bad right-wing populist policies than continental europe right now
one of the key strengths of british democracy was precisely that it was an elite-controlled stitchup that has gradually been relaxing ever since the early 1800s, and is still vastly less straightforwardly democratic than most other "democratic" systems.
Even George Osbourne himself said it. The Tory party membership has been abandoned by by the mainstream public. It's occupied solely by the very old and the lunatic fringes of the young. It's in a terminal nosedive that may take a decade or two to complete but it seems unlikely anyone can pull them away from the crash and burn they have coming.
blustering and skipping between 3 different defences:
1) there is a formal constitutional requirement that privileged legal advice not be given out (this only binds him, not the government). if, however, he believes this was simply unconstitutional why did he not vote against it...
2) if the advice were given out this would be against the national interest
3) he is answering all questions posed to him by mps as fully and in the same manner as he did to the gov, and the question is ultimately a political not a legal one.
1 doesnt stop the gov itself producing the advice to shut up everybody up; 2 implies there is material in it that parliament would want to know and makes it more likely that parliament will want to see it, 3 is an obvious evasion that ignores that mps cannot ask questions about details of the advice that they do not know to ask about. it also ignores that the political judgement might hinge on details of the legal advice given, eg what bits of actually formally imply and so on
it will not work, i think.
Point of order, has anyone? Internal inequality between the member states of the United States of America is still a massive problem too. Heck, internal inequality between the different regions of the United Kingdom is a massive problem, and I don't think the EU can be blamed for that either.
The EU's main tool against internal inequality is freedom of movement, which allows people to both follow the higher paying jobs across borders and send home money from them. The issue is that the EU doesn't have a reliable mechanism to prevent those who will not or cannot leave the home country from gravitating toward fascism as their fortunes decline.
The EU has the problem of being much less top-down then either of those examples though. And thus lacking in a lot of the structures that hold those countries together better.