Merged Now What?

[CapelDodger]

UK politicians always resist the notion of binding referenda because it removes power form parliament and hands it right back to the voting public. This is anathema to the political class, who, in the UK have a visceral horror of having actual democracy take hold.

We know why now, don't we?

This much-vaunted democracy could result in the UK is ending its 40-year membership of the EU on the basis of a protest vote. Not a protest against the EU, a protest against "the elites". So much for direct democracy.

This why the populace can't have nice things. I'm sorry, but there it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, but I predict that ignoring it will be politically disastrous, and that it will have consequences for the future constitutional order in the UK. For that reason I don't think that in practice the government can afford to set it aside.

In practice no government may be able not to set it aside one way or another. We can't carry on like this, and "like this" is all that's on offer for the foreseeable future.

 

[MikeG]

We know why now, don't we?

This much-vaunted democracy could result in the UK is ending its 40-year membership of the EU on the basis of a protest vote. Not a protest against the EU, a protest against "the elites". So much for direct democracy.

This why the populace can't have nice things. I'm sorry, but there it is.

Do you just want this to be true, or do you have any evidence in support of your assertion? Careful, because there is good evidence out there, and you are wrong.

 

[angrysoba]

Where is that written as law? In the UK, nowhere. It devolves into overpaid legal eagles arguing at enormous expense over a constitution which neither side can put their finger upon. Because it is not encoded and enshrined into law in any meaningful way.

The so-called British Constitution does not exist in any meaningful way because it simply does not exist at all. All that actually exists is precedent, which is subject to wild interpretation, legal argument, which is subject to the relative ability of the legals on either side, and appointed judges whose rulings are often called into question.

Ideally, the UK claims to have a constitution. Nobody has ever seen it or read it.

If you disagree, feel free to point out the UK constitution.

This type of argument is similar to the argument that gold standard advocates use to say that money only has value of it is ultimately backed up by gold. However, it is demonstrably false. If people agree on what the constitution is - which is true for the most part in the UK - then it has a constitution. Even countries that do have written constitutions have exactly the same problems of interpretation that are ultimately decided by legal rulings just like in the UK.

If you don't believe me then point out where the Supreme Court derives its power in the US for overturning legislation and also where the president and the Congress are obliged to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court.

 

[quadraginta]

Where is that written as law? In the UK, nowhere.........

Wrong. Go to History.

From your link;

The bedrock of the legislative British constitution since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 has been described as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: that is, the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament.[4]

Doesn't this mean that if your Parliament says it's constitutional then it's constitutional?

 

[Craig B]

From your link;

​

Doesn't this mean that if your Parliament says it's constitutional then it's constitutional?

Yes, mad as it seems. Any alternative constitutional doctrine is simply laughed at. See http://laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/2015/03/16/constitutional-statutes/. This applies even to the legislation that brought
Great Britain into existence.

Dismissing what may have been thought of as one contender for higher status with a degree of mockery, he argued that “neither the Act of Union with Scotland nor the Dentists Act 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law” (ibid., p. 145).​

Mockery indeed. Dicey lived to see the establishment of the Irish Free State, and he deplored it.

 

[McHrozni]

Your political solution? Enact Brexit. Simple........end of crisis.

Earth is getting too polluted to live on? Colonize Mars, simple.

The comparison is flawed in that we have a significantly better idea of how to colonize Mars than UK does to leave the EU. Still, I think the comparison catches the problem with your reasoning quite well.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Do you just want this to be true, or do you have any evidence in support of your assertion? Careful, because there is good evidence out there, and you are wrong.

Then please present it.

Although there were people who voted Brexit from an economic perspective (James Dyson ) and those that did so based on an in-depth analysis of the (alleged) gradual loss of sovereignty or the transfer of powers to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, many commentators are suggesting that it was a protest vote. This Independent article is an example:

So why did they do it? Was it about money, or rather the lack of it? Some new research by the labour market economists Brian Bell and Stephen Machin, seen by The Independent, suggests the Leave vote tended to be bigger in areas of the country where wage growth has been weakest since 1997. This would seem to support the popular theory that this was essentially a giant protest vote against the political class by people who feel economically “left behind” in modern Britain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ople-vote-leave-immigration-nhs-a7104071.html

I'm sure that it is, as Ben Goldacre would put it "a bit more complicated than that". There were some individuals who were motivated solely by racism and xenophobia, the subsequent rise in "hate crimes" is testament to that. There are parts of the country where immigration, and its impact were the overriding factors and no doubt there were people who made their choice because they wanted the 1960's back but I don't think that the protest vote element can be ignored.

IMO it's the same dynamic which has brought Donald J Trump to the brink of the U.S. Presidency. People are so dissatisfied by the status quo as represented by the mainstream of the two major parties that they will consider any seemingly viable alternative that comes along.

Of course if you have evidence that an anti-establishment protect vote was not a significant factor in the Brexit referendum then I'd be eager to read it.

 

[angrysoba]

Of course if you have evidence that an anti-establishment protect vote was not a significant factor in the Brexit referendum then I'd be eager to read it.

I think this unfairly places the burden where it doesn't belong. How would anyone prove that people didn't vote as a protest?

Besides, the assumed terms of the referendum were pretty clearly given that whichever side won by a bare majority would get its way. In this game you get what you vote for even if your vote is a protest.

 

[McHrozni]

IMO it's the same dynamic which has brought Donald J Trump to the brink of the U.S. Presidency. People are so dissatisfied by the status quo as represented by the mainstream of the two major parties that they will consider any seemingly viable alternative that comes along.

Yeah, I agree - Brexit and Trump go in the same category. Neither would stand a snowballs' chance in a volcano in hell if there wasn't a general dissatisfaction with the way things were going for the past several years. A good deal of their support is not due to thinking they're good options for the future, but rather many of the votes for them would be votes against the establishment.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

This analysis suggests it was more of a liberal vs. authoritarian issue, for example:

"By contrast, the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20 per cent for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70 per cent for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain."

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not pretending there isn't a lot of economic turmoil right now, or that we won't end up in a recession. Leaving the EU is a massive change, and such things cause a significant shock to the system. The vote was very recent and it'll take a while for things to settle into a new normality.

That's a rose-tinted view if there ever was one. The next shock will come when (if) the UK invokes article 50, then another one when it negotiates the deal which will certainly disappoint some. If the deal doesn't come quickly enough (six months to a year), there will be another shock when the finance industry starts to move out of London.

You're in for a couple of very rough years economically - and that's before we consider possible external shocks to aggravate the situation. I can name about several that aren't all that unlikely: Trump winning, Chinese banking crisis explodes, Greece does something stupider than usual, the instability in ME takes a drastic turn to the worse, Kim Jong Un does something very stupid involving fissile material, Putler acts up again in a much more severe way than usual, etc.

McHrozni

 

[Lothian]

Yeah, I agree - Brexit and Trump go in the same category. Neither would stand a snowballs' chance in a volcano in hell if there wasn't a general dissatisfaction with the way things were going for the past several years. A good deal of their support is not due to thinking they're good options for the future, but rather many of the votes for them would be votes against the establishment.

McHrozni

Nicky Morgan on R4 this morning agreed that the referendum showed dissatisfaction with the recent UK political landscape.

 

[Darat]

I've read an advisory note from a bank that is estimating 75,000 financial sector jobs lost or transferred out of London over the next 3 years. And that does not take into account all the "support" jobs, coffee shops and sandwich shops.

 

[McHrozni]

I've read an advisory note from a bank that is estimating 75,000 financial sector jobs lost or transferred out of London over the next 3 years. And that does not take into account all the "support" jobs, coffee shops and sandwich shops.

In case anyone is wondering why I'm so adamantly and consistently stressing the supporters of Brexit have below average intelligence that remains that way even when you factor in the great apes, monkeys and most farm animals, there's your reason.

There's a lot of talk how Europe will negotiate a good deal with the UK and how it won't punish the UK and so on. Perhaps, but irrelevant - the uncertainty will do the bulk of the damage anyway, and this damage is essentially unavoidable, short of negating results of the referendum somehow.

McHrozni

 

[Lothian]

I've read an advisory note from a bank that is estimating 75,000 financial sector jobs lost or transferred out of London over the next 3 years. And that does not take into account all the "support" jobs, coffee shops and sandwich shops.

If the economy starts going downhill with no sign of improvement then it makes total sense for the Government to take another look rather than continuing lemming-like towards the cliff. I understand we can pull the plug before the 2 years is reached.

 

[McHrozni]

If the economy starts going downhill with no sign of improvement then it makes total sense for the Government to take another look rather than continuing lemming-like towards the cliff. I understand we can pull the plug before the 2 years is reached.

There are a couple of problems there. First of all, it is not clear this can be done, article 50 is not explicit enough. Furthermore, it is the uncertainty that would come after invoking article 50 that would cause the most damage by far, and pulling the plug later might actually aggravate that. It could leave the UK with the worst of both worlds.

If UK invokes article 50, it must secure a deal that keeps it's banking sector in London, and secure it within months. A deal like that would likely inflame the passions of Brexitards, leading to further problems.

McHrozin

 

[The Don]

I think this unfairly places the burden where it doesn't belong. How would anyone prove that people didn't vote as a protest?.

If it didn't appear towards the top of list of reasons people voted Leave.

It's the same way that commentators can say "Subject X was not a significant factor in this year's election"

 

[funk de fino]

Remember the Scottish Independence referendum? "Where is plan B?" "Where are your guarantees on post Yes EU membership?" blah blah blah

Seems pretty ironic now considering Brexiteer numpties don't even have a plan A written on the bag of a fag packet. And the figureheads have jumped overboard.

If there has been a more embarrassing political event in my lifetime then I am pretty much unable to recall it.

 

[angrysoba]

This analysis suggests it was more of a liberal vs. authoritarian issue, for example:

"By contrast, the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20 per cent for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70 per cent for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain."

Isn't that a bit confusing if you are putting two factors in there at once?

I take it you are not saying that wealthy people support the death penalty and poor people oppose it. I think if anything the opposite is likely to be true.

We are comparing people who are wealthy and support the death penalty with people who are poor and oppose it. Right?