Brexit – you may have heard of it. For 40 years, since the UK joined the then Common Market, there has been a substantial ‘Eurosceptic’ mood in both main political parties and in the country. This has been influenced by a never-ending stream of misinformation in the tabloids, claiming the EU is responsible for every one of its readers’ many ills – including a few they didn’t even know they were bothered by until the papers told them – and spreading alarm that the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ means that it is becoming a federal Superstate, complete with army, president and anthem. To a proud ‘patriot’, this is anathema.
The rest of us simply don’t see it that way, and regard the visceral reaction to our ongoing membership with puzzlement. We value the notions of common cause and unity in a continent still bearing the deep scars of two World Wars that started here, while the requirement for 28 nations to agree policy, unanimously or by majority according to area of impact, offers some protection from the petty politics of the individual nations, whose negative aspects we are amply demonstrating to the world right now. Most law is made by the individual nations, and that will continue to be the case. The rest is voted on by elected delegates. The idea that the remaining 27 nations are willing parties to surrendering their nation status for fully centralised rule, with Britain alone seeing what is really going on … well, it looks a bit mad. Many people in Scotland want to both leave the UK, and remain in the EU as a separate nation. This would make no sense if the ‘death of nation states’ view of the future held any water. And equally proud nations like France, Germany, Italy, Spain … ? I mean, come on! When someone claims ‘Superstate’ as a reason for exit, I regard them as I might someone grabbing the steering wheel and shouting “ALIEEEEENSSSS!” (permissible, of course, when there really are aliens).
Due – it seems to me – to that relentless anti EU propaganda from billionaire-owned tabloids, the national mood has become increasingly Eurosceptic. A political party, UKIP, started with a sole aim in mind, to exit the EU, garnered a lot of support, particularly from what is still termed the ‘working classes’. Due in part to our peculiar constituency system of election, they were unable to gain any seats in Parliament, but ironically, in the EU Parliament’s Proportional Representation system, they gained several seats in order to harangue those on the EU ‘gravy train’ while collecting a fat paycheck, plus expenses and a £75,000 pension.
This drift of support from Conservative candidates to UKIP was a concern for Conservative leader David Cameron, then in a coalition government, and so in the 2015 manifesto, he offered a commitment to hold a referendum on the matter. Manifesto pledges are not really worth the paper they are written on, being honoured as often in the breach as the observance, but Cameron was true to his word, sadly, and on 23rd June 2016 we were offered a simple choice: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU (a question laughably naive, in hindsight, but adjudged by the independent Electoral Commission as least likely to confuse the plebs). To everyone’s surprise, including their own, Leave won, garnering 17,410,742 votes to Remain’s 16,141,241. Although a not-insignificant 1.3 million difference, the real margin, the number who would have to change their minds to wipe out the win, was just 634,750. We have been arguing ever since about what people meant when they placed their X in the ‘Leave’ column. It may seem obvious, but it isn’t – there are almost as many flavours of Leave as Leavers, from a cocky two fingers to the EU in its entirety, by midnight on referendum day if poss (oh, and can we negotiate a trade deal with you please, this powerful bloc we’ve just told to fuck off), to non-voting but expensive membership such as that enjoyed by Norway who takes all the rules and has no say in them, to full-blown NWO tinfoil-hatters.
Leavers were like the dog that caught the car, unsure what to do next. The great thing about referendums being of course that there is no accountability. You can say what you like, you’re not the one who will have to deliver. Eurosceptics were largely professional sideline snipers.
Cameron resigned immediately – my turd, you clean it up. Within a short period of time all three main parties lost their leaders. For the Tories, Theresa May emerged, eventually getting in unopposed when the other candidates wisely dropped out. In the UK, we do not directly elect our Prime Minister – ironically, given the ‘EU is undemocratic’ trope regularly trotted out. They are elected as MP by their constituency, in her case leafy Maidenhead in Berkshire. You don’t live there, you can’t vote for her. They then become PM by becoming leader of the party, elected by members (if anyone else stands).
For Labour on the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn, an old-school socialist, emerged. He had enthusiastic support, particularly among the young, and they were quite strident in their dismissal of ‘centrists’. “Why not just fuck off and join the Tories?” was a common taunt, which probably won’t be their opening line when they turn up on those same centrists’ doorsteps at campaign time asking for their support. To his supporters, he’s beyond criticism. To his detractors, he’s just a very naughty boy.
May was emboldened by the polls to try a ‘snap’ general election in 2017, to “strengthen my hand in EU negotiations”. Really, it was an attempt to smash Corbyn. The nation said “no thanks” and returned the Tories (having said “no thanks” to Jeremy too!) with a reduced majority. She had to rely on the Ulster Unionists, a group of 10 hard-line religious fundamentalists representing just 300,000 voters. Northern Ireland, I should mention, voted as a region to Remain (as did Scotland). I hope you’re keeping up; there will be a test. Now, Northern Ireland is an issue no—one had given much thought to. It’s long been a line of ‘Trouble’, but since we were both in the EU, and after long negotiations all parties had signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, a general, if uneasy, peace had returned.
However, the Border will now be a boundary between Britain and the EU. Since we have (maybe; ask me again on Friday) exited both the Single Market and the Customs Union, WTO rules (not EU rules) mean that there will have to be checks – a return of the hated ‘hard border’. There are naturally concerns, and the EU has offered a ‘deal’ that involves an extended Customs arrangement. This requires a far greater say of the EU in our affairs – the very thing Brexiteers were trying to get away from – while simultaneously removing us from a seat at the table that decides these rules. Genius. Eurosceptics hate it and so do Remainers. It is an utterly pointless move, both agree. But whaddyagonnado? The referendum was split close to 50/50, and no-one thought to put in supermajority safeguards, so a compromise that absolutely no-one wants seems the only way to, in the leaden phrase uttered by politician after politician, ‘respect the referendum’.
The ultras are having none of it. They want to crash out without a ‘deal’, a position most people with brain cells regard as absolutely insane, and not one to be inferred from any individual Leave ‘X’ with any confidence. Yet they act as if ‘the 17.4 million’ (another leaden phrase) all wanted, and still want, exactly that. Even the dead ones. Most Remainer MPs meanwhile dare not talk of cancelling Brexit altogether, but talk of something softer but still Brexit-y, with Customs this and Single that, without really coming up with anything concrete. The EU are understandably losing patience. They have been the soul of diplomacy and patience in my view. When Donald Tusk remarked that “there must be a special place in Hell for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan”, Brexiters were furious, missing the nuance that by resenting the slur they own up to having no plan…
“May’s Deal” has been soundly rejected by both sides in two record-breaking defeats in Parliament – and she wants to bring it back a third time! She’s convinced that if she plays chicken, and it’s that deal or ‘no-deal’, then her deal it is. This gives some flavour of the general unpopularity of no-deal, that it can be used as a threat – “if you don’t stop I’m going to turn this car right around!”. But now, the EU are saying if it’s defeated a 3rd time, you either go now or you have a longer extension and take part in European elections (did I mention that the EU is undemocratic?).
We aren’t ready. Not by a long chalk. In my area, IT, I know that it takes yonks (Google it) to put a system in place, and they haven’t even started – because they don’t know what we have to do! But May’s steely determination, with hardliners’ boots on her neck, has brought us to this ill-prepared impasse – a non-choice between two unpopular options that were not even on a ballot paper in 2016, and we HAVE to do it because … ‘it’s the will of the people’. Now where have we heard that before?
There is a febrile atmosphere. A pro-Remain MP, Jo Cox, was murdered in 2016, and all MPs who dare to retain Remain sympathies have received death threats (I am not aware of any such threats being made to Brexiteers). Even a lady who started an online petition to simply abandon the whole thing – more on which shortly – has received multiple death threats. The reasonable Leavers find common cause with racists, thugs and Nazi sympathisers. In this climate the Prime Minister took the extraordinary step on Wednesday of appealing directly to ‘the people’ and blaming MPs for the impasse, something one would imagine happening in some banana republic, not dear old Britain where our quaint system involves people donning ritual wigs and banging on a door with a big ceremonial stick from time to time. Given the recent assassination, she might be more careful how she whips up ‘the people’. The Government is making plans to impose martial law – martial law! – in the event of no-deal disruption. We’re hoping not to have to actually do it, they add, a little unnecessarily.
I have gone on at far greater length than I intended about the background to this; I was merely intending to mention and show a few pictures from the march I attended yesterday in London, where over a million people *** – mostly middle-class, it must be admitted – came from all over Britain to make their voice heard, and demand a vote on the actual options available, which weren’t known in 2016 when the blank-cheque ‘Leave’ option was ticked (or crossed, I should say). Seems reasonable? You’d think so, but this is Britain. No end of Leavers, both in power and out, still insist that the referendum – that 634,750 excess – be ‘respected’, 3 years down the line. Many Remainers agree. But surely that phrase must have a sell-by date? 1.5 million people have died since, a similar number have attained voting age. That demographic shift alone favours Remain, because Leave is most heavily favoured in my g-g-g-g-generation (yes, Roger Daltrey is a Brexiteer).
It also seems a matter of basic fairness that Leavers should give their final assent to the preferred method of leaving, given they weren’t asked and the options differ markedly. If Remain happens to rank above any given Leave option available, they should be able to say so. Yet many – including our own Prime Minister – have explicitly stated that such a vote would be ‘undemocratic’. The irony of this was not lost on the crowd yesterday, many placards making mention of May’s three attempts to get her deal ratified while denying ‘the People’ any further say. Indeed, the placards and the general mood of the march made one swell with pride at the crazy Britishness of the whole thing. We stood in a 2-mile queue for an hour, then shuffled good-naturedly along, smiling apologies when feet got trodden on, with barely a policeman in sight (apart from Downing Street, where numerous officers stood in front of the gates, another 8 more behind brandishing submachine guns. “We only want to talk to her”, we might say, like an estranged husband trying to get past his ex’s mum).
A particularly clever brand of trolling has been invented by a group know as ‘Led By Donkeys’. This started as a chat in a pub by 3 mates. They decided to mock up a tweet of some genuine Leave-leader words, get it printed as a full-size billboard, and then stick it up guerilla-style in the dead of night. Subsequently they crowdsourced a bit of funding, rented legitimate space and hired a professional to do the pasting. When they got a bit more cash, they hired an ad van – ironically the same van used by UKIP founder Nigel Farage during referendum campaigning – and used it to follow Nigel about. The van was at the march yesterday, rotating some of their greatest hits – “If this is 52/48 Remain it’s unfinished business by a long way” (N. Farage); “It might make sense to have two referendums actually … ” (J Rees-Mogg); or the classic “A democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy” (D. Davis). The latter was also printed up on a sheet 100 yards across and held up for the news helicopters to film, a stroke of genius.
Contrast this with the behaviour at many Leaver events. The committed are really angry, without apparent dilution by the self-deprecating, ironic streak of the average Remainer. Many point to civil unrest as a reason to cave in – some violence is a virtual certainty, but one that should not faze a bulldog nation that stood up to Hitler, the IRA and ISIS, as patriots never stop reminding us.
In parallel with all this, the previously mentioned petition, on an official government website, suddenly blew up on Wednesday – moments after May had delivered her ‘you, the people’ speech. ‘I’m on your side’. she said. It got under everyone’s skin. Within a short period the petition was being shared far and wide, as people sought the only means available to distance themselves from the “hive-mind with but a single thought” this obsessive woman tries to portray us as. 1,000 signatures a minute, it crashed the site several times. 2 million a day at peak (Thu/Fri), and presently sitting around the 5.3 million mark and rising. That’s 5 million people who just want to say “Stop” – not even “put it to the people”; Stop. Leavers are falling over themselves to try and discredit it, one site with terrible journalistic standards but a seat on a BBC panel trying to make something of the fact that many signatures were from ‘foreign places’. The fact that citizens are still allowed out of the country from time to time may help to explain this sinister pattern! Or you’ll hear it’s bots, or it’s people with 10,000 email addresses each and a lot of time on their hands … I jokingly commented that most of the people on the march yesterday were robots or foreigners, plus a bunch running from end to end like a kid in a panoramic school photo to bulk the numbers. It was almost Trumpian in scale!
Now, will any of this make a difference? Perhaps not. As I write, we leave on Friday, with no deal. Please send blankets.
*** Intellectual honesty demands that I dial this figure down. Crowd experts say about half that figure. Fair enough. Nonetheless, my Facebook post saying I was going picked up 27 ‘likes’, none of whom went. I’ll assume their support, and multiply it. I’ll discount the one Brexiteer who was possibly confused which march I was talking about!
Thanks for that sobering (but also entertaining!) summary of the situation, Allan.
Between Trump’s election and Brexit, the “special relationship” between the US and UK is beginning to appear more like the special relationship between two siblings in an insane asylum.
Brexit? It’s a hell of the thing…
Nice to hear from you Allan, though I have not much of dog in this fight right now. Thanks for taking the time to write about something other than ID vs. Evolution.
Ha, I know! It’s the foreign affairs section.
As an EU citizen who has been living long-term in the UK (28 years now) this Brexit thing affects me directly. I am not too worried about my right to stay (so far, nobody has yet suggested that people like me should be kicked out) but I do feel uncomfortable living in the polarised atmosphere where the ‘I’ word is never far away.
As to what the solution should be, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be better for both the UK and the EU if Brexit goes ahead, as long as they can find an economically sensible way to do it. For the UK, this boil needs to be lanced once and for all. Not leaving now would mean ever increasing resentment and might well lead to a dangerous political meltdown. There was a referendum after all, and it was won by Leave. I don’t think it can just be ignored without consequences.
As for the EU, the UK has been a valuable member over the years, but of course one that always insisted on opt-out, exceptions and special treatment. It has never fully subscribed to the goals of the project, and it it were to remain a member now it would be more as a saboteur from the inside. It would be easier for the rest of the EU to progress integration without the UK acting as a stuck brake.
As for a second referendum, seeing what the first one has done to this country I think only madmen would advocate another one. An issue that for most of the people lived just in the background most of the time has exploded into a major rift threatening the very survival of the United Kingdom. Populists and chancers have latched on to it to further their own agendas. Incredible amounts of energy, time and money are wasted on this futile exercise. Holding another referendum would double down on all this and could lead to very real violence and extremism I fear. The UK is a Parliamentary democracy and it is Parliament that should find a way forward and decide on what to do now.
Seeing that we can’t turn the clock back, the best way forward in my view would be to negotiate a way where the UK would leave the EU but remain in the EEA for the foreseeable future. This would both honour the referendum yet preserve the economic benefits of being in the Single Market. I believe that this solution would offer the best chance of healing and repairing a broken society, giving both sides at least some of what they desire. For this to happen though, the UK must leave the EU in an ordered fashion rather than crash-out and destroy all that is left of the remaining goodwill. After having wasted two years, the only way left to get this done is the WA, wretched as it is. I think MP’s should get over themselves, learn to compromise for once, and ratify Mrs. May’s deal. After that, there should be a national debate about where the UK wants to be in relation to the EU. I think there is a good case for the EEA and it might become the preferred option.
By the way, Brexit won’t be on Friday. If the WA does get approved the date will be May 20th. If it does not, Brexit will be on April 12th (although there is a small chance it would even get delayed further in that case).
Well, I speculate your are white. Some folks who have spent almost all their lives in UK found things not too congenial lately. The harsh treatment was instigated by T. May, who is implacably opposed to immigration into the UK.
Well, it ain’t gonna happen. Though today in Parliament will be interesting. And the polarisation and resentment will not lessen following a T May deal scraping through. It will get worse.
If only Charles de Gaulle hadn’t said “Non!”. Prior to that, UK could have been in at the very beginning. Such lack of vision, such short-term-ism… but that’s politics.
Remember the first referendum offered a simplistic choice. The campaign failed to address the real consequences of leaving and the real advantages of staying in. Disinformation ruled social media. Putin is still smiling and so must Trump be. May is trying to present her deal for a third vote. Another referendum on the actual available deal in all its glory versus staying in and still having an influence on events seems reasonable in comparison. And as Allan points out the votes were strongly split between young and old. My mother-in-law voted to leave. She had no idea why when asked. She’d just voted leave because a couple of coffee morning friends suggested it.
Let’s see what this week brings.
The benefits of not leaving far outweigh any other choice and that realisation is spreading. Fingers crossed!
If UK does leave, one good result will be an independent Scotland within the EU and a united Ireland, almost worth it just for that. And there will be no more United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just England and Wales. Serve us right.
faded_Glory,
I’m keeping my powder dry and watching events unfold.
Alan Fox,
An incident I wanted to work into the piece, but it was already way too long: as I was walking back across Trafalgar Square on my way to the Tube, a coloured guy grabbed my hand and said “Thank you”. I mention his colour only because I can think of no other reason he would do that. This has emboldened the racists, and to me, to assent to its implementation is to further embolden the racists, the ‘send-em-home’ brigade.
It’s also to agree that a 1.9% margin 3 years ago has exactly the same strength as 100% the day after. It’s not just the affront to politics, but to logic, that has fired me up!
So yes (to fg) there will be “consequences”, but since there are consequences either way, I choose the option I consider better for the country.
In an interview on his book “Say Nothing” on a famous Irish murder, Keefe said he thinks the initial effect of BrExit will be a return to the “troubles” in Ireland, possibly without the violence though. Why do you think Northern Ireland will agree to unite this time?
I read recently that, since the referendum, more than a million old, mostly yes-voters had dies and roughly a million mostly-no young voters had become enfranchised. I don’t recall the source; likely the Guardian. The article did not speculate whether the aging of those voters in between had changed their likely vote.
Yes, this was lazy journalism on my part. I already knew that, but was sticking to the situation as at the day before, for dramatic effect!
Before the Referendum I was a remainer, but after two years of watching this country ripping itself apart I have come to the view I posted above. After all the discussions and debates there still is an almost even split between Leave and Remain, according to most of the polls. Sure, the Leavers have it wrong, I do believe that too. Still, they have their views, they are entitled to them, and they cannot simply be brushed aside as if they were a tiny minority. Giving one half of the population all they want and the other half nothing is extremely unwise in my opinion, and an affront to democracy.
Leaving the EU is not going to be good, I totally accept that. However, the choice now isn’t between a good option and a bad option anymore. It is a choice between a reluctantly agreeing to a poor compromise or disenfranchising half of the population (either way).
I am fairly confident that a way would be found to keep the UK in the EEA. It would prevent economic damage on both sides and the EU are quite good at finding clever solutions. At the same time, the Leavers would have what they voted for (leaving the EU) so they cannot legitimately complain. Then, over time, the UK might move closer to the EU again, or drift further apart. Those discussions would then take place in a climate without the hard deadlines that are now imposed and that cause so much angst.
You might even see a political landscape that re-aligns itself again along the main axis of disagreement. I can see Labour being in favour of an EEA solution and the Tories in favour of casting loose all bonds. The electorate would have a real choice again, unlike now where neither party has a clear position out of fear to lose some of their voters.
It would clear the air and offer a chance to move forward out of this mess.
That is all anyone of us can do.
BruceS,
The numbers come from polling, so should be taken with a pinch of salt, but the splits are something like 70% Leave among my cohort; 70% Remain among the rising 18’s. Someone calculated that, assuming people don’t get more Leave as they age, and only last-time voters vote this time, the graphs had already intersected, and Remain is now the majority.
A big issue, though, is that turnout among the young was poor – if they were better mobilised, that would also help. Many of the older voters claim to be doing it ‘for the kids’. I’m sure they are very grateful. A couple of placards said something along the lines of “I’m here because my grandad voted Leave”.
A general election might be the least worst option.
faded_Glory,
Which is why I favour another referendum, on the deals now known. Voting is hardly an affront to democracy. Going ‘no-deal’ without anyone ever specifying that option on any ballot is the very opposite of democracy, also. Remainers have been pretty much ignored in all this. A slim majority of 600,000 does not justify that steamroller.
God, no! We already had two Leaver manifestos in 2017, and hence no voter choice in most constituencies.
Lots of reasons. Carcassonne is well-served with fights to and from Dublin so there are many Irish people having second homes and having moved permanently here. A couple of good friends are from the North of Ireland (proddies) and have nothing but disgust for the DUP reactionaries. Nobody in their right mind wants to see a resurgence of the Troubles. A hard border in Ireland will be an economic disaster for the North. The Good Friday Agreement guarantees a referendum on unity if there is enough support and demographics are changing in its favour.
Old folks voted strongly to leave, young folks the opposite. It’s inevitable.
Don’t worry, nobody listens to me! It won’t happen just because I say so.
Allan Miller,
I love the way you point out a million votes is only half a million people changing their minds!
The issues with another referendum are twofold – what should be the question(s), and what will happen if the outcome is on a knife edge (either way)?
As I said, the referendum has caused untold damage. Another one would simply multiply that damage, in my view. What would you do if Leave won again, with a 10,000 majority?
Accept the result. What else?
Well, I guess that is the hope of the stayers who want a second referendum and who see the demographics shift.
The Quebec experience might apply. Young people used to be strongly separatist. Now they don’t seem to see any point in separation, given the progress Quebec has made to becoming a Canadian-French (not France-French!) and global-looking society.
So the opinion of the young segment can change. But maybe it always changes to be more cosmopolitan?
Agreed on turnout. Maybe the parade is indicative of whether they can be mobilized.
Then why not accept the result of the first referendum that was won by Leave with a majority of 1.3 million votes?
It’s a pity such considerations weren’t in play during deliberations for the first one! But of course – as made crystal clear in briefing papers – it was only ‘advisory’. It didn’t need safeguards, because Parliament would use its wisdom. Turns out it has none. Cameron promised it would be implemented – a constitutionally unprecedented binding of all future governments, in action if not in law.
As to the question, it should be transferable preference-ranking:
Remain
No-deal
The negotiated deal.
I just can’t see anything wrong with that. The previous ref placed all possible Leave options above all possible Remain ones, when we didn’t even know what the terms would be. If a Leaver honestly wanted EEA, they had no means to make that declaration. They just had to stick their X in Leave. So now they find out they have (quite possibly) voted for a no-deal crashout, and Leavers and resigned Remainers are telling them: “tough. And thank you for your support”.
Talk about giving one side all they wanted!
Like I say, it would take a swing of just 650,000 to reverse.
faded_Glory,
What Allan said.
And what David Davis (twat) said:
Unfortunately I disagree that leaving without a deal doesn’t honour the referendum. Nothing was specified about how to leave, or where to go in case of leave – a fatal omission that is a direct cause of the current mess. Leaving with the WA, leaving with no deal, leaving towards the EEA, all these are outcomes that would honour the vote.
There are many ways to leave, and there could even have been some reasonably sensible ways to leave (such as a Norway option) if Mrs. May hadn’t imposed her very restictive red lines all by herself. Now, very belatedly, perhaps Parliament can do something about these red lines that they were not consulted on before. They too should understand the difference between voting to leave, which has been done, and voting for a future option, which still needs to be done.
If they can’t sort something out this week, they should accept their impotence and at least prevent leaving without a deal, which would be disastrous. Simply revoking Article 50 would unleash a shitstorm from the Leave side, and frankly I wouldn’t blame them.
Another referendum, well, good luck with that. Even trying to agree on the questions would be virtually impossible.
The obvious problem is that you don’t see anything wrong with that, but that most Leavers would. This is why another referendum will cause even more division and problems than the first one.
The 2016 referendum was a colossal mistake. Doubling down won’t help one little bit.
Really? 🙂
How many is ‘most Leavers’, proportionately? Only one way to find out!
Many of the hardliners are unreachable. Do I throw away all logic and political fairness in order to appease them and their poor understanding of democracy and percentage?
Even a hardliner might prefer Remain to May’s deal. That is precisely why it has repeatedly been voted down, by Remainer and Leaver alike. Many in the ERG have expressed that exact sentiment. But, the people are being denied the opportunity to express it.
Whatever we end up with, as long as we are not members, it’s “what people voted for”. Which is a nonsensical position, because the Leave options currently available are very different beasts from each other. Very few people voted for ‘either of the above’. If they would still put Remain at the bottom, let them say so.
I don’t think that is correct. Ultra leavers such as the ERG vote against the WA because they would prefer to crash out without a deal at all – not because they would prefer Remain!
These people will not accept any solution that maintains ties with the EU.
Thanks for your summary, Allan. I think what happened shows the limits to initiative petitions. While the vote undertaken was called a referendum, it wasn’t, since those have to indicate agreement or disagreement with some position the government has taken. I think referenda are salutary, myself–though maybe more necessary in non-parliamentary places like the U.S. than where it is relatively easy to throw one or more bums out. But voter initiatives are a very bad idea, not only because there is too much to know for the average voter to make an intelligent choice, but because (as you note), there’s a good chance that what they’ll be voting on (and can’t be amended by them) is something incomplete–or even stupid.
One other thing I’ll note is that I don’t think dependence on super-majorities is ever a good idea: it just gives a minority the ability to rule. But having repeated votes, with time in between to think about what you’ve done is always a good idea for structural changes. Even the most democratic legislatures require multiple readings of bills.
The UK referendum on EU membership was supposed to be advisory. (That was why the nefarious activity on social media has not been investigated.) It was also simplistically phrased. I was unaware at the time how the UK’s membership of many other institutions would be compromised by leaving the EU. The electorate were both poorly informed and misinformed.
Kind of an interesting result of direct democracy and majority rule.
Imagine a world where everything is decided by the majority.
I’m busy trying to imagine a USA where at least some things are.
The latest political philosophy podcast is a two-hour exchange between a Brit political philosopher (the host) and a Republic of Ireland political philosopher. Most of the issues covered were familiar to me, but the historical and political-philosophy background was not.
The Irish guest has some interesting things to say about referendums in Ireland versus those in UK. Specifically, referendums happen much more often in Ireland but only after both alternatives are completely detailed for the referendum question so that the referendum result is immediately transferable to law. The UK question*, OTOH, was similar to “do you want to stay home or do you want to go out”, with where to go out not specified. (faded_Glory also notes this issue, as does Walto indirectly, I believe).
There is also an interesting glass-half-full optimistic characterization of the current situation in Britain, at least when compared to the situations in France, Italy, and Greece.
https://www.politicalphilosophypodcast.com/season-2
————————
* We had a similar issue with our last Quebec referendum where the question was “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
Apparently not a preview of post-Brexit world. Or so claim the pilots anyway.
Airline flight lands in Scotland instead of Gremany
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-british-airways-flight-lands-in-edinburgh-scli-gbr-intl/index.html
Several have indeed said that the WA is ‘worse than Remain’. I can only go by their words. Of course their top choice is no deal, but it’s not all about them. This is the problem: there absolutely is not a majority for ‘no deal’. There isn’t a majority for the WA or Remain either (for all we know; no-one dare ask). So we have to rank them, transferable vote, and put it back to the people with greater clarity this time.
A notion has arisen that 17.4 million people voted for that specific option, no deal, and they did not. I know personally people who voted expecting a deal, or an EEA or some such, and would have voted Remain if they had realised they would end up with this situation. But they are stuck with having voted for the only option available: “Leave (manner tbc)”. And they are not allowed to change in light of the crystallised situation because the hardliners need to hold on to every vote they can get – the racists, the Rothschild fantasists, the bent banana people, the misled, the mistaken, welcome one and all, now shut up … what we have right now is the tyranny of the majority.
To overcome the tyranny of the majority one needs to find a compromise, otherwise all that happens is that the tyranny of this majority gets replaced by the tyranny of that majority.
The country is split right through the middle. A few percent this way, a few percent that way, maybe just depending on who is awake and who is asleep. Only an outcome that gives both sides some of what they want and no side all of what they want will in the long run stand a chance of re-uniting the people.
Unfortunately in British politics compromise is a dirty word. Well, all I can say is, have fun with it.
And we’re not at all sure there is still that majority!
In our political system, minorities generally rule – in the sense that governing parties rarely have more than 50% of the vote. But of course that’s because there isn’t just A vs not-A in a multi party system, nor proportional voting.
In the case of a binary question like ours though, not having a high bar means that you get deep divisions when the vote is close and there is no compromise position. You are also hostage to statistical fluctuation. It can’t be sensible for a majority of (say) 50.1% to force a major constitutional change on everyone. How you slice the poll matters too. Scotland was nearly 2/3rds Remain, but their 5 million souls no match for the 50 million English, in this pool of all nations. We don’t pool like that on any other question. Cities don’t get to decide everything.
I think it’s safe to say that both sides think Remain would win, in a runoff against the WA and crashout. It makes the Brexiteer banging of the democracy drum a tad hypocritical (I was going to say hollow, but then drums kind of are 😃).
faded_Glory,
There is no real middle ground, though. Neither Brexiter nor Remainer would be remotely content with a Norway setup. It’s not merely us being typically awkward!
Ooh! Letwin amendment passes!
Nuclear is all the rage these days.
I don’t follow brit politics and have no idea what this thread was about? who is complaining about what?
Is it about the decline of Rock music in bBritain?
Poor old england. Once they rejected christ they just declined into being regular eiropeans or earthlings and not the best , along with North America, civilization in human history.
It shows again England’s rise was from evangelical protestantism influence on the rest morally and intellectually.
Without that they just will become a obscure Island on a less important european civilization.
Three times the charm.
Unless i’m wrong did you not have on UD a separate blog for a while.
I remember it there and think it was you.
on one of the last threads there was a thread about Greenlands bedrock.
i have tried to find this everywhere but can’t.
is there any way to get this blog history or any direction at all.
As I mentioned, I don’t think the solution to the small majority problem is to turn things over to a minority: It’s to require multiple votes and sufficient deliberation time. And again, initiative petitions are a bad idea in the first place. This decision should be made by Parliament, with the electorate given the opportunity to overturn only.