Vast Brexit thread merge part IV

[stephen bennett]

Forgot to add re the PR/AV referendum in 2012: the assumption made by me at the time, and I suspect most of the voters, was that Parliament would have enacted the result into law had PR/AV received the most votes.

But as we have since found out during our brexit journey and as instructed by the courts, Parliament has the ultimate authority/responsibility for making/changing UK law. So, if PR/AV had received the most votes, it seems unlikely to me that any Government from the two main parties who have been elected by FPTP would have seen it as advisory and thus not legislated to dilute their powers.

Just saying.

You don't need the 'PR' bit. AV is not PR, nor was it necessarily better than FPTP.

Stephen

 

[Steven Toy]

Please don't start that again, Roman. I've made my position very clear on this in other posts.

Binary thinking is not clever thinking.

Remember that Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are not members of the European Union.

The ballot paper in June 2016 asked whether the public wanted the UK to leave one particular European institution not all of them.

The UK was a founder-member of EFTA from 1960 to 1973. The ballot paper did not mention it or the EEA. Membership of these would not be contrary to the instruction on the ballot paper as they were not mentioned.

We still need a destination before we can set off.

This is a sensible Leaver position below:

https://t.co/iu5eHVfZ1G

 

[Steven Toy]

The result of the 2016 referendum was unanimous. 100% of the turnout voted for that which was promised by both sides of the argument: "continued free trade access to the EU’s single market”.

Continuity was obviously the Remain position, but here’s what Leave campaigners also said:
· “If we vote to leave we can maintain free trade” (Michael Gove, Andrew Marr show, 8/5/16)
· "As a minimum, we will seek continued access on free-trade terms to the EU’s single market.” (UKIP manifesto 2015, p71)
· “There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market” (Boris Johnson, 26/5/16)
· "FACT: After we Vote Leave, British businesses will trade freely with the EU." (Vote Leave website – it’s still there!)
· “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.” (Daniel Hannan, May 2015)
· “Only a madman would actually leave the [Single] Market” (Owen Paterson, May 2016)
· “It would be in the EU’s interest more than ours to have free trade access to the single market. A Leave Vote will let us have free trade, negotiation is not up to the European elite, businesses do business with businesses.” (Andrea Leadsom, 16/6/16)

The message was unequivocal. In the referendum no deal was not on the table:
"One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be rejected." (The Leave Alliance website.)
We would leave with a deal and the deal would mean "continued free trade access to the single market".

Since this was promised to the electorate by both LEAVE and REMAIN campaigns, that is what 33.5 million people voted for. That is the unequivocal result of the referendum. That is the irrefutable “will of the people” – not a mere majority but unanimity. The country was united. Everybody voted for continued free trade access to the EU’s single market.
If some people have changed their minds and no longer want free trade access to the EU’s single market, then we need to know exactly how many. We must have a second referendum. It’s not rocket science.

Continued membership of the single market was also specifically promised in the 2015 Tory Party manifesto along with the promise of a referendum on membership of the EU.

Ok, Theresa May dropped the single market pledge in the 2017 manifesto but look what happened to her majority....

 

[Stunsworth]

I don't recall 3 years of whinging by the losers in 1975 even though the "the type of remain" wasn't on the paper. Those that lost accepted it, which is a requirement for our system to function that hard-remainers have shown they have no respect for.

So what is the difference between 1975 and 2016?

The reason there was no 'type of remain' on the ballot paper is pretty straightforward. Remain meant continuing the current relationship with the EEC/EU. As we've seen over the last two years there are lots of different ways of leaving - and some of those you now say aren't really leave despite the public being told that they were before the referendum.

 

[Steven Toy]

I think I see 2 areas where you see potential for reform, paragraphs 3 and 18. But I am not sure. Can you confirm?

It is a shame you ended it with the crap about reading the wrong paper. I don't read any of them, as I am not a Tory but I do live in Strasbourg. I pass the building every day. In addition, I am surprisingly close to it on a social level, as my kids are educated in an international Baccalaureate program here. Very popular school with employees that work for the EU and associated bodies. Hence, some are people we hang out with. People talk about it much more frankly here than people on PFM are prepared to talk about it.

1) Yes I can confirm.

2) Apologies, the last sentence was based on an obvious assumption. It raised a laugh in a few quarters though.

Living in Strasbourg you will be aware of the French translation of the English word 'eurosceptic.'

It is 'europhobe' and this is simultaneously an accurate and inaccurate translation. It is accurate for it captures precisely what so-called eurosceptics really are. They really are europhobes for their position is derived from fear and loathing not rational misgivings. It is a position rooted in sentiment not reason.

Euroscepticism, in the true sense of the word, is taking a critical yet rational view of European institutions. It is not a case of binary acceptance or rejection but of considering where changes or improvements could be made as well as identifying potential pitfalls of pursuing any current trajectory.

In this true sense, we are both eurosceptics.

 

[Bob McC]

Forgot to add re the PR/AV referendum in 2012: the assumption made by me at the time, and I suspect most of the voters, was that Parliament would have enacted the result into law had PR/AV received the most votes.

But as we have since found out during our brexit journey and as instructed by the courts, Parliament has the ultimate authority/responsibility for making/changing UK law. So, if PR/AV had received the most votes, it seems unlikely to me that any Government from the two main parties who have been elected by FPTP would have seen it as advisory and thus not legislated to dilute their powers.

Just saying.

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made the result a binding one.

 

[TheDecameron]

irrelevant.

It was a simple enquiry. I’m sure they won’t ask British immigrants how they voted in the referendum.

 

[Bob McC]

Actually a lot more than 25 million. As the forum is reminded regularly, the population is ~68 million and that’s what counts. That means well over 50 million did not vote for FPTP.

twaddle.
The electorate isn’t 68 million.
Children don’t vote.

 

[Tony L]

Brenda is sounding a bit tired and bored by the bollocks she’s currently articulating. I guess she knows this speech likely won’t see the day out...

 

[thebigfredc]

The reason there was no 'type of remain' on the ballot paper is pretty straightforward. Remain meant continuing the current relationship with the EEC/EU. As we've seen over the last two years there are lots of different ways of leaving - and some of those you now say aren't really leave despite the public being told that they were before the referendum.

Au contraire. The relationship has changed in many ways through the Single European Act, enlargement to the east nearly quadrupled in size and a single currency for many.

 

[glancaster]

Brenda is sounding a bit tired and bored by the bollocks she’s currently articulating. I guess she knows this speech likely won’t see the day out...

The debate on it, before they get a vote, usually lasts 5 days. Thus parliament will be kept busy until around 19 October, at which point something will happen.

 

[Steven Toy]

Brenda is sounding a bit tired and bored by the bollocks she’s currently articulating. I guess she knows this speech likely won’t see the day out...

Lolz

(And I haven't even seen/heard/read the bloody thing.)

 

[richardg]

1) Yes I can confirm.

2) Apologies, the last sentence was based on an obvious assumption. It raised a laugh in a few quarters though.

Living in Strasbourg you will be aware of the French translation of the English word 'eurosceptic.'

It is 'europhobe' and this is simultaneously an accurate and inaccurate translation. It is accurate for it captures precisely what so-called eurosceptics really are. They really are europhobes for their position is derived from fear and loathing not rational misgivings. It is a position rooted in sentiment not reason.

Euroscepticism, in the true sense of the word, is taking a critical yet rational view of European institutions. It is not a case of binary acceptance or rejection but of considering where changes or improvements could be made as well as identifying potential pitfalls of pursuing any current trajectory.

In this true sense, we are both eurosceptics.

Regarding the 1st point, well it may be in the post. Regarding the 2nd, that is a common Brexiteer position I think. And Brexit may never have happened were it perceived to be just that. But it will never happen. And I guess it s not that important for you , otherwise you might be more brexit-sympathetic?

Regarding the French lesson, whatever.

As you are happy going off on tangents, you won't mind my minor digression...wasn't there another taxi drive on here a few years back...but he was a Tory?

 

[TheDecameron]

I think Guy Verhorfstadt had it when he mentioned a two-speed Europe but why only two speeds? It could be three, four or even varimatic.

It is likely that the original six member states would want closer integration, perhaps to the point of being a federal state. Others might be less keen and want a looser relationship. There is essentially a continuum between absolute autonomy/sovereignty at one end of the scale and completely pooled sovereignty with all its associated benefits at the other. I'd like to think that all nations can either individually or collectively find a sensible point between those two extremes, especially the UK, where the debate is binary and extreme. The essential is that greater benefits come with greater commitment and you cannot have one without the other.

I agree that the punitive agenda associated with keeping member states in the tightest of orbits has to go and I fail to see why Cameron's demands in February 2016 were not met as they were perfectly reasonable. The UK taxpayer should not be liable for welfare payments to the dependents, living in their home country, of EU nationals working in the UK The ECJ agreed with his position in early June 2016 but that piece of news was buried under the noise floor of the referendum campaign.

Regarding the EU budget we have to have a sense of proportionality. The UK's contribution is less than 0.5% of its GDP (or just over 1% of fiscal revenue) and less than its voluntary budget for overseas aid (0.7%). Administration represents about 6% of the EU budget total.

Every year HMRC provides PAYE taxpayers with a breakdown on how their taxes were spent. Our EU contributions are at the bottom of the list with things like social security and the NHS at the top. A person on a modal average income pays about 80p a week to the EU.

Not paying that 80p isn't going to make any difference to your quality of life but losing the benefits associated with it will definitely have an adverse impact.

If you travel to the continent on holiday each year, your travel insurance alone will increase by more than your annual contribution to EU funds with the so-called 'clean break' from the EU.

Is it possible/worth it to streamline the workings of the EU? Can savings be made?

I could save £450 per year by not renewing my vehicle and driver licences to be a taxi driver. I would be free from all the bureaucracy, rules and regulations imposed by my local authority. I would then have a choice between plying for hire illegally or delivering fast food for £30 a night minus expenses but at least I'd be free.

Perhaps my local council could be more efficient and reduce my fees. They are not permitted by law to make a profit. I could get licensed by Wolverhampton Council and pay £225 per year and work for U*** 10 or 20 miles from where I live. I'd be working 90 hours per week just to keep my head above water but at least I'd be free to work any 90 hours I chose instead of working to a fixed rota of 40 hours determined by agreement with my local firm.

If the European Parliament didn't move between Strasbourg and Brussels, how much would that save in percentage terms?

What would the political cost be?

If we cut the salaries of MEPs and Commissioners, how much would that save?

Would we still be able to recruit the brightest and best to ensure competence? We need EU legislation which is fit for purpose.

I'm sure with efficiencies we could bring that 6% down to 5. The same could be said for Whitehall but that doesn't seem quite so controversial because it is waste by our own pen pushers and not by Johnny Foreigner.

We could have austerity in the EU and cut structural funds to the poorest regions. Some of those regions are in the UK....

Surely, if these poorer regions are inside the same internal market as ourselves, it benefits us in the long run to bring them up to the same level. If our partners are more prosperous they become a bigger market for our goods and services and we theirs. Former Eastern Bloc countries will not be net beneficiaries for ever. Have you seen their growth rates over the last 20 years?

In terms of political reform I'd like to see the role of the European Commission reduced to that of a civil service. I'd like to see the European Parliament become a bicameral legislature instead. This may cost more but it could be worth it. What price democracy?

The lower house could sit in Strasbourg and the higher in Brussels, or vice versa. Select committees of elected MEPs could be formulating policy at the the behest of the European Council instead of their appointees at the Commission.

The possibilities are endless. The problem is that greater democratic accountability and closer integration go hand in hand. British eurosceptics back in the 1980s and 90s objected to increasing the role of the European Parliament. The same eurosceptics today complain of lack of democracy. This is a contradiction.

Would you rather a law imposed on you that you didn't like by your own government or one that you did like agreed in cooperation (collaberationl) with Johnny Foreigner?

Move away from the sphere of the institutions within the EU, whatever form they may take now and in the future, and you either lose the benefits or a say in those benefits.

The cake either goes in your mouth or it stays on the plate.

One last thing: if you really are bothered by perceived profligacy in Brussels/Strasbourg, stop reading the Express/Mail/Telegraph. I guarantee that in time you will stop giving a shit.

Neatly put. The attacks on EU administration by Farage and Co, the DM and Telegraph have echoes in the Trump administration’s evisceration of the State Dept with the aim of sidelining it while he and purchasers of ambassadorial roles run their own partisan foreign policy. We hear the same threats made against the civil service here from Farage- Whitehall as the Deep State where the establishment tries to disobey the will of the people.

 

[Brian]

Lets be honest Brian, most of us are going around in circles, yourself included.

I consider the questions valid.

They apply to me too:

1) Much has changed and most of us have learned rather a lot. Whatever your stance it's not exactly panning out as promised or expected is it?

2)I'm afraid of the tory party, especially in its current hard right guise. I'm afraid of Brexit; Im afraid of our right wing press and I'm afraid of our 'special relationship' with the USA.

oops, just need to add putin.

I wouldn’t argue.

 

[matthewr]

I don't. But as long as we now agree that both referendums provided binary choices, then consider the nit unpicked.

Yes if we look at the referendums from a purely procedural POV they were both simple binary choices. In any meaningful view they were very different.

And this is far from nit picking because the whole difficulty of Brexit has, obviously, been how we were voting for a multiplicity of outcomes. Which we might describe as non-binary.

 

[eternumviti]

I could shake this Brexiteer's hand

https://t.co/iu5eHVfZ1G

The result of the 2016 referendum was unanimous. 100% of the turnout voted for that which was promised by both sides of the argument: "continued free trade access to the EU’s single market”.

Continuity was obviously the Remain position, but here’s what Leave campaigners also said:
· “If we vote to leave we can maintain free trade” (Michael Gove, Andrew Marr show, 8/5/16)
· "As a minimum, we will seek continued access on free-trade terms to the EU’s single market.” (UKIP manifesto 2015, p71)
· “There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market” (Boris Johnson, 26/5/16)
· "FACT: After we Vote Leave, British businesses will trade freely with the EU." (Vote Leave website – it’s still there!)
· “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.” (Daniel Hannan, May 2015)
· “Only a madman would actually leave the [Single] Market” (Owen Paterson, May 2016)
· “It would be in the EU’s interest more than ours to have free trade access to the single market. A Leave Vote will let us have free trade, negotiation is not up to the European elite, businesses do business with businesses.” (Andrea Leadsom, 16/6/16)

The message was unequivocal. In the referendum no deal was not on the table:
"One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be rejected." (The Leave Alliance website.)
We would leave with a deal and the deal would mean "continued free trade access to the single market".

Since this was promised to the electorate by both LEAVE and REMAIN campaigns, that is what 33.5 million people voted for. That is the unequivocal result of the referendum. That is the irrefutable “will of the people” – not a mere majority but unanimity. The country was united. Everybody voted for continued free trade access to the EU’s single market.
If some people have changed their minds and no longer want free trade access to the EU’s single market, then we need to know exactly how many. We must have a second referendum. It’s not rocket science.

The article, and Kontebos's subsequent post fall over on one essential of a sovereign brexit - continued oversight and legal supremacy of the ECJ over the CU/SM and participants within them

A respected German thinktank last year floated the concept of a formal institution separate from and outside the EU and the non-EU sovereigns upon which matters relating to the CU/SM and external trade deals would be agreed. The EFTA/EEA countries and the UK as well as the EU would be represented on this forum, which would agree on matters relating to its remit, which would then be legally enshrined within this institution and in such a way as to circumnavigate the direct supremacy of the ECJ over those sovereign countries that were outside the EU but within the CU/SM.

On the matter of the four freedoms, the same thinktank pointed out that there is no practical necessity whatsoever for the freedom of movement of people outside of a monetary union, whilst the other 3 are essential to the CU and SM. It pointedly remarked that FOM was merely an ideological red line of the EU, and that for there to be any progress on brexit that retained the UK within the SM and CU, that specific red line would need to be withdrawn.

Naturally this entirely sensible and practical possibility was never explored by the EU because the EU is a doctrine, a theology, that will brook no dissent from its ultimate goal of a European Imperium, and by consequence any dilution of its institutions to progressively ratchet power inwards.

 

[tuga]

 

[Stunsworth]

Au contraire. The relationship has changed in many ways through the Single European Act, enlargement to the east nearly quadrupled in size and a single currency for many.

As I said, what was being voted on in either referendum was the current relationship.

 

[gingermrkettle]

On the matter of the four freedoms, the same thinktank pointed out that there is no practical necessity whatsoever for the freedom of movement of people outside of a monetary union, whilst the other 3 are essential to the CU and SM. It pointedly remarked that FOM was merely an ideological red line of the EU, and that for there to be any progress on brexit that retained the UK within the SM and CU, that specific red line would need to be withdrawn

That freedom is about the relative importance of people to money fundamentally. FOM says that you are at least as important as JRM's cash and that of his trust fund, but you have voted otherwise.