Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the Why-Not-Re-Referendum? dept.

Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?

With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.

There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.

See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:00PM (54 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:00PM (#787474)

    It isn't about being great - quite the opposite. It is about democracy at the expense of economic and political security. UK spent best part of 200 years fighting for parliamentary democracy. EU is very not-democratic with significant legislative power. Time to take it back, at some financial cost.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:06PM (21 children)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:06PM (#787477)

    Most of the "pro" rhetoric seems to be based around immigration, etc. As with the US, I'd suspect a bit of external influence on that one. Not all, but some.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:21PM (20 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:21PM (#787481)

      > Most of the "pro" rhetoric seems to be based around immigration, etc

      Let's say average brexit voter wants to limit the "freedom of movement" clause in the EU. What recourse do they have? Is there any way, apart from Brexit, to seek to limit the "freedom of movement" clause?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:35PM (2 children)

        by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:35PM (#787516)
        Yes, they can. They can raise the matter through their MEPs who can then raise it in the EU Parliament, or they can raise the matter through their MPs to escalate to their heads of state who can then take the matter to the EU as well. The latter is exactly what David Cameron was doing when he went to the EU prior to the referendum in search of more concessions. Unfortunately the timing sucked; Freedom of Movement was much more of a redline for the EU than it is now (and it's still pretty strong) despite the growing surge of nationalism and illegal immigration from outside the EU since making people think twice.

        (To be clear, the issue with illegal immigration and freedom of movement - Schengen in particular - is that it facilitates migrants to move freely across the EU rather than seek asylum at their point of arrival. Freedom of Movement by itself has no other bearing on arrivals from outside the EU.)
        --
        UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:20PM

          by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:20PM (#787866) Journal

          The inability to get an EU wide asylum system in place and well published is a failing of the EU. The UK takes a tiny number of refugees [businessinsider.com], being so far from the EU's borders, but that's not what people think

        • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:26AM

          by Sulla (5173) on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:26AM (#788928) Journal

          Like when Hungary or Poland said they didn't want there to be an EU army and Junkers told them to shut up because they were in the minority? There is no real recourse if you don't like an action being taken or directed by the EU unless you have the threat of leaving. The Germans and the French can push you around as they see fit. For a while I was watching the streams of the EU meetings, its going to end up as a United States of Europe with all of the problems we have but none of the protections.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:49PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:49PM (#787523)

        They could have chosen more competent representation, primarily at Westminster. For example, did you know that when the most Eastern-European nations joined in 2004, most EU member states imposed strict limits on the number of foreign workers they would allow [migrationpolicy.org]:

        During the accession negotiations, a transitional period of seven years was established so that each old Member State could determine when it was ready to open its borders to workers from the new Member States. The transitional measures were based on a "2+3+2 model," where the restrictions on labor market entry of new citizens had to be reviewed after two years, and again three years later. A final two-year phase of restrictions was permitted only in cases of serious disturbances within the individual labor markets of the EU-15
        [..]
        Only three Member States — Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom — decided to open their borders immediately, the former two mainly because their growing and relatively open economies needed labor, and the latter because its regulated labor market was believed to be able to maintain wages at the collectively agreed upon levels.

        Or another take [theglobalist.com] on it:

        Under Tory political rule at Westminster since 2010 when David Cameron took over in Downing Street No. 10, UK-based employment agencies acted as gang masters to bring in East European workers and renting them out to local British employers at extremely low wage rates. This was illegal under EU law, but British government officials deliberately turned a blind eye to these practices in order to maintain a flow of docile, low-pay workers for British firms.
        [..]
        A working class conveniently overlooked, as is often the case in the UK, eventually bites back. That is as understandable, as it is legitimate. But that has nothing to do with EU practices – and everything with UK politicians’ consistent disregard for sensible European registration practices.

        They could also have voted in European Parliamentary elections. Voter turnout [europa.eu] for the European Parliament has never been over 40% for the UK. So it's not like the UK population was deeply engaged with the political process in the first place.

        Finally, they could have stopped funding xenophobic pamflets such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, or The Telegraph. Take a look at this page [europa.eu], sample how many "myths" orginated in English rags, then tell me how "fake news" is anything new. Also realize that Boris Johnson [theguardian.com] used to write such drivel before becoming a politician.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:35PM (7 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:35PM (#787621)

          Let's say average brexit voter wants to limit the "freedom of movement" clause in the EU. What recourse do they have?

          They could have chosen

          They could also have voted

          Finally, they could have stopped

          Hearing a lot of "could have" and not any "can" here. Artful dodge of the question, Mr. +5 Informative.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:43AM (5 children)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:43AM (#787689) Journal

            Huh?

            The tense is past because -- short of some political miracle very soon -- Brexit will happen (in an orderly or disorderly fashion).

            British voters COULD HAVE done these things, but they can't now if they are no longer part of the EU.

            If by some miracle they remain in the EU, they still CAN do such things. No dodging of the question here, Mr. Nobody Modded Me Up For Complaining About Modding, Because I Haven't Bothered To Think About Why The Grammatical Choice Makes Sense Here.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:06AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:06AM (#787703) Journal

              The tense is past because -- short of some political miracle very soon -- Brexit will happen (in an orderly or disorderly fashion).

              It's not the past tense which is the problem but the hypothetical, tentative nature of "could". I don't think the problems of the EU will be addressed until there are more departing parties.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:12PM (3 children)

                by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:12PM (#787861) Journal

                the majority of people in europe, and indeed in the UK, consider freedom of movement to be a great thing.

                Many brits living in europe voted to leave because their arrogance didn't make the connection that they benefited from freedom of movement. I relish them getting kicked out of their homes.

                Spaniard in Britain? Immigrant. Brit in Spain? Ex-Pat.

                • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:36PM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:36PM (#787870) Journal

                  the majority of people in europe, and indeed in the UK, consider freedom of movement to be a great thing.

                  Then why can't Syria and North Africa just move freely into Europe? Answer: just dumping tens of millions of poor immigrants is highly disruptive - thus, there isn't freedom of movement from those regions. Let us recall that a large number of immigrants just showed up throughout the EU due to a single country, Greece, deciding not to enforce that restriction on movement. Higher levels of immigration are apparently a concern to pro-Brexit voters and here, we have an example where a single country decided immigration policy for the EU and let a bunch of people in.

                  Many brits living in europe voted to leave because their arrogance didn't make the connection that they benefited from freedom of movement. I relish them getting kicked out of their homes.

                  Sorry, Brits living in the rest of the EU aren't going to suck down society resources like poor immigrants from North Africa who haven't paid a dime to the EU before their move. It's dishonest to equate the two.

                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:48PM (1 child)

                    by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:48PM (#787929) Journal

                    Freedom of movement in the EU has nothing to do with "poor immigrants from North Africa". When Poland and several other eastern european countries joined the EU there were limits put on freedom of movement. Before that happend, Poles were already in the UK, working illegally, cash in hand, not paying any taxes. Since Poland joined, they have paid taxes -- EU immigrants make a net contibution.

                    Sadly I've recently found that one of our friends voted leave, and would again. Her son has just moved to Croatia to work there, she doesn't seem to grasp the idea that when we leave the EU, he won't be able to do that.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @04:21AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 18 2019, @04:21AM (#788134) Journal

                      Freedom of movement in the EU has nothing to do with "poor immigrants from North Africa".

                      But it does matter to the point that freedom of movement is relative.

                      Sadly I've recently found that one of our friends voted leave, and would again. Her son has just moved to Croatia to work there, she doesn't seem to grasp the idea that when we leave the EU, he won't be able to do that.

                      Because?

          • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:09PM

            by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:09PM (#787860) Journal

            Let's say average London voter wants to limit the "freedom of movement" in the UK to stop people from Manchester working in London and paying taxes. What recourse do they have?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17AM (#787667) Journal
          And they could have left the EU which obviously isn't progressing well, but further along than the rest of the "coulds". I think we're seeing the problem of too large a government here. For example, the UK shares the EU with Germany which is desperate for young, warm bodies to drive the social programs and reverse some of the population decline. At that point, you have countries with long term differences in their interests in an important area (important enough that the entire EU is having political trouble with it).

          The EU is micromanaging a lot of the business of its member countries. I doubt any of your coulds are feasible except for a handful of issues just due to the complexity of lobbying and campaigning at that level. Even then, it just takes an opposing group with contrary interests and larger size somewhere else in the EU to nix a "could".
          • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:36AM (3 children)

            by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:36AM (#787764) Homepage Journal

            I don't think EU is micromanaging anymore than what it was intended to. EU is a mouthpiece of its economic workhorses - Germany and France. This leaves little middle ground - either you are able to bargain by becoming an economic workhorse yourself, or you benefit from them like Italy and Spain.

            I think the issue is simply bad management. For example, Germany wants young men for labor but actively discourages educated immigrants for reasons I won't comment on. It has worked before actually when it invited Turkish immigrants just after WW2 so maybe they want to repeat that experiment? But a large number of uneducated immigrants will cause disruption to existing system. May be it worked last time because Germany was in shambles after WW2 unlike now.

            The same is true for France, for example, which accepted African immigrants from its colonies, and Afgan immigrants in the Netherlands, and Pakistanis in UK.

            AFAIK UK wants to restore itself to its former glory, and EU is a scapegoat.

            Also, I mentioned elsewhere, Britain was never part of Schengen so it never had the actual problems of immigration.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:16PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:16PM (#787863) Journal

              I don't think EU is micromanaging anymore than what it was intended to.

              It still is micromanaging even if there is intent there.

              AFAIK UK wants to restore itself to its former glory, and EU is a scapegoat.

              After those other reasons you just gave? Like the "little middle ground" of either being a powerhouse or a moocher.

              Also, I mentioned elsewhere, Britain was never part of Schengen so it never had the actual problems of immigration.

              Schengen isn't a necessary condition for having problems with immigration. For example, despite not being part of Schengen (the "border-free" part of the EU), the number of foreign born residents of the UK has doubled recently over a twenty year period (from 1991 to 2011 [wikipedia.org] - roughly 6.5% to over 13% in 2011).

              As recently as 1993, there was zero net migration [migrationwatchuk.org]. That has since changed to a net immigration of roughly 300k people per year over the last few years (around 0.4% increase in population from immigration each year). Substantial changes in demographics will see substantial changes in public attitudes both from the new immigrants and from the reactions of the old ones.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)

                by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:50PM (#788021) Journal

                the number of foreign born residents of the UK has doubled recently over a twenty year period (from 1991 to 2011 [wikipedia.org] - roughly 6.5% to over 13% in 2011

                Roughly the same increase occurred in the USA [migrationpolicy.org]...which as you may be aware, is not part of the EU. 8% in 1990 to 14% in 2010. This change could also be due to cheaper travel, globalization, corporate fucks and their constant demands for more exploitable labor...lots of possible causes.

                If you wanna claim this is due to the EU, you're going to need some actual evidence of that...

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @01:39PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 18 2019, @01:39PM (#788223) Journal

                  Roughly the same increase occurred in the USA

                  The "same increase occurred over a time period of 25-30 years, ending in 2017, not 18 years, ending in 2011, and ignores that the UK had a bunch of huge years of immigration after 2011 (which were the highest levels of immigration since at least 1975).

                  If you wanna claim this is due to the EU, you're going to need some actual evidence of that...

                  Like large scale net immigration after the EU was formed in 1993, but not before? The graph I cited above shows almost no net immigration prior to 1993 and a substantial climb in immigration after. Further, let us note that I wasn't claiming that immigration was due to the EU, even though that's probably substantially true in light of this substantial correlation over time, but rather addressing the claim "Britain was never part of Schengen so it never had the actual problems of immigration".

      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:16AM (1 child)

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:16AM (#787747) Homepage Journal

        Last I checked Britain wasn't part of Schengen anyway...

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday January 17 2019, @09:02AM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday January 17 2019, @09:02AM (#787824)

          That just means they need to check passports at the border. That doesn't mean anything about who is allowed to work in uk.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:07PM

        by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:07PM (#787857) Journal

        They can petition the UK parliament via their MPs, who control the UK government who make up the EU Council, who appoint and control the EU government
        They can petition the EU government via their MEPs, who control the EU government (the commission)

        Given that most brexit voters seem to have voted brexit to "stop the pakis", or "stop the muslims"

        One leaflet drop from brexit during the referendum was a statement that Turkey was going to join the EU, 60 million people were going to "swamp" the UK, and Iraq and Syria were next. This swayed a lot of people.

        Turkey could only join the EU if the UK government (and every other government, including Cyprus, which is militarilly occupied by Turkey) agreed to it.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:26PM (19 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:26PM (#787486)

    If the main concern were that the EU was undemocratic, then why did so much of the rhetoric center around immigration?

    Also, if the problem was undemocratic institutions, why was the proposed solution to cut off all connections to the continent rather than, say, a concerted push for more power going to the elected European Parliament at the expense of the unelected Council of the EU or the unelected European Commission?

    Because the impression I get is that a lot of the concern was "We need to stop those damn foreigners coming here to Britain, changing our culture, and taking our jobs!" Which is no more informed or intelligent than the "Dey tuk er jerbs!" rhetoric in the US, even if it's said in a classy-sounding British RP accent.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:37PM (8 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:37PM (#787491)

      I believe that the lack of democracy is an underlying cause. I don't think that anyone in the British government has identified this problem, but that it is key underlying issue that causes all of the other issues surrounding Brexit.

      For example, no one is arguing against the lage UK aid budget (1% GDP IIRC), but the EU money is a big deal.

      For example, no one is arguing to limit immigration from Asia or Africa, but immigration from EU is a big deal.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:56PM (6 children)

        by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:56PM (#787559)

        I believe that the lack of democracy is an underlying cause. So you would prefer rule by Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson to rule by elected Euro-MPs? You want longer working hours, higher roaming charges, and bring back the lb weight and pounds, shillings and pence?

        The EU money is big, but its tiny compared to what it buys in benefits. Immigration from the EU is large numbers, but so is migration from the UK to Europe.

        One real problem is people whose last visit to Europe was in 1945, or who have never been, but heard about it from an uncle who was there on D-day (in his dreams).

        The main advantage of Brexit is that we will starve until people come to there senses. Not great in my opinion.

        The main cause for people voting for Brexit is abject poverty, brought about by kow-towing to to "financial institutions" which are largely criminal gangs, and operating the social security system as a Ponzi scheme for the last 70 years. The fact that both major political parties are hell bent on causing housing scarsity - the conservatives because their voters want house prices to rise, and Labour because their voters want social housing has not helped anyone. Giving more "sovereignty" to this kind of scum will help no one but them.

        --
        Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17PM (5 children)

          by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17PM (#787865) Journal

          > The main advantage of Brexit is that we will starve until people come to there senses. Not great in my opinion.

          If (nodeal) brexit is as bad as predicted, we'll be rejoining the EU in 2022, with a LibDem/Green landslide with EU membership as a manifesto commitment. This will allow us to benefit from Schengen too

          That's based on
          1) The population has already changed it's mind and no longer wants to leave, which is why quitters don't want a "are you want to continue"
          2) People starving will be the old and poor, who were more likely to vote brexit, they won't be able to vote when they've died
          3) Rationing will be tiresome by then

          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:10PM (3 children)

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:10PM (#787991) Journal

            By "we" you might mean just England and Wales. By then Northern Ireland could have made its escape from the disaster by reunifying with the Republic (and hence rejoining the EU) and Scotland may be independent and in the process of joining the EU as a sovereign state. I'm sure the EU would assist financially with Irish Reunification.

            • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:58PM (2 children)

              by isostatic (365) on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:58PM (#788008) Journal

              Northern Ireland likely doesn't want to reunify, but in any case even if it did on the whole, a large number (those that voted DUP for instance) certainly don't, and that's not a good thing to be happening.

              The Good Friday agreement was an amazing pan-spectrum solution to the problem. Sadly Theresa May is determined to throw that away for political gain, and will hopefully get her comeuppance in the Hague fairly soon.

              • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:48PM (1 child)

                by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:48PM (#788020) Journal

                The last time I spoke to people from Northern Ireland they were far more open to the idea of reunification now as a result of the Brexit farce. BBC Newsnight also traveled across Northern Ireland and spoke to many people. The hard-core DUP types are a very small minority now. Things have moved on.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday January 18 2019, @12:12AM

                  by isostatic (365) on Friday January 18 2019, @12:12AM (#788083) Journal

                  It’s possible. If brexit occurs the sensible thing would be to have a referendum for independence in Scotland and test the waters on one for unification in NI.

                  In Scotland especially the facts have changed since 2014, a major reason for the no vote was the uncertainty of remaining part of the EU

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:15PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:15PM (#787994) Journal

            But will the UK still meet the economic criteria for joining the EU?

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:06PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:06PM (#787597)

        When someone is complaining about a lack of democracy, they usually mean that the democracy isn't doing what they want it to do. For example, in the UK democracy, pro-Brexit MPs have never even come close to holding a majority, ergo the problem isn't a lack of European democracy, it's either a lack of UK democracy or it's that the ideas of the pro-Brexit folks just aren't that popular.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:30PM (9 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:30PM (#787614)

      Because we're talking about democracy at a scale that makes sense. I'm sure if put to a simple majority vote in the U.N., "Should the United States divide a couple trillion dollars between the rest of the world's countries?", that question would easily pass.

      Or for your example, let's instead phrase it "Should a bunch of people in mainland Europe decide our immigration policy instead of us?"

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:32PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:32PM (#787619)

        Whether that's the real reason people are pro-Brexit is a different matter, but widening the scope of democracy doesn't solve all problems.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22AM (7 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22AM (#787680)

        "Should a bunch of people in mainland Europe decide our immigration policy instead of us?"

        "Should a bunch of people in London decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Lincolnshire?"
        "Should a bunch of people in Lincoln decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Scunthorpe?"
        "Should a bunch of people in city hall decide our immigration policy instead of us here in this particular neighborhood?"
        "Should a bunch of people in a neighborhood council decide our immigration policy instead of us here on this block?"
        "Should a bunch of people in a block council decide our immigration policy, instead of just me doing whatever I feel like to immigrants?"

        At some point, somebody, ideally chosen via a method that shows signs that most of the governed consent to what's going on, has to make the decision. My experience is that complaining that the wrong bunch of people are making the decisions is in direct proportion to the level of disagreement with the decisions being made.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 3, Disagree) by julian on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:13AM

          by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:13AM (#787710)

          This is the best comment here.

          People complaining that the EU isn't "democratic enough" always conveniently demarcate democracy at a level which would happen to produce the result they prefer. Imagine that. Democracy doesn't mean your preferences are always reflected in policy at all levels.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:50PM (#787884)

          Indeed. And in this specific case: in Scotland a majority doesn't want to leave the EU but is overruled by England.

          Around the time of the referendum I read the suggestion somewhere that the UK shouldn't leave the EU but England and other parts that want to leave the EU should leave the UK. I don't think the English would accept that, but to me it seems to be one of the most sensible suggestions I heard during this mess.

        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:22PM (4 children)

          by acid andy (1683) on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:22PM (#787897) Homepage Journal

          My experience is that complaining that the wrong bunch of people are making the decisions is in direct proportion to the level of disagreement with the decisions being made.

          That might be true for most people that are busy being preoccupied with their own lives and so only pay attention when politics affects them in a direct (usually negative) way. If you care about improving democracy, then not so much.

          At some point, somebody, ideally chosen via a method that shows signs that most of the governed consent to what's going on, has to make the decision.

          Yes, but the larger the number of people they preside over, the less power over their society each of those people has. Their vote becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the total in an election as the population rises. This effect can be mitigated somewhat by having more seats in a parliament but then each seat has less influence when they vote also. In the case of the EU, the effect is magnified because citizens of any one member state can only elect a small number of MEPs and citizens cannot vote for European presidents, so the people have very little control over any legislation that may get imposed upon their state. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM (#787919)

            the larger the number of people they preside over, the less power over their society each of those people has.

            True. Which is why we have national governments, regional governments, municipal governments, etc.

            More to the point, what's your alternative method of making things work well enough that the national governments and their citizens more-or-less get along? We've tried what amounts to anarchy, where each nation answers to none of the others in a constantly shifting set of alliances, treaties, etc and the end result of that was a couple of worldwide wars. We've tried what amounted to near-monarchy over the whole of Europe (the monarch being that Buonaparte upstart), and that was another big mess that got a lot of people killed. We've tried a theocratic feudal structure where the Pope more-or-less functioned as an overlord of the various rival kings and the end result of that was the Protestant Reformation and a lot of people killed.

            I'll take a trans-national government in charge of the approximately 525 million European citizens and at least somewhat answerable to those citizens over any of those options any day of the week. I'm sure there will be grumbling and complaining about that government's decisions, because there's grumbling and complaining about every government's decisions, but I'd much rather that than see another Battle of Verdun. Like all democracies, as Winston Churchill put it, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)

              by acid andy (1683) on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:49PM (#787930) Homepage Journal

              The problem is overreach. Your goal of preventing wars is an important one and it would be great if the EU was only involved in actions that were strictly necessary to achieve that aim. It's probably impossible to identify exactly what is and is not necessary for that. Ideally organizations like the UN and NATO should be responsible for that but maybe that's a case of too much stick and not enough carrot?

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:58PM (1 child)

                by Thexalon (636) on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:58PM (#787958)

                Your goal of preventing wars is an important one and it would be great if the EU was only involved in actions that were strictly necessary to achieve that aim. It's probably impossible to identify exactly what is and is not necessary for that.

                So take the freedom of movement issue: Is it strictly necessary to prevent wars? No. But it sure is extremely convenient for EU citizens who want to be able to travel around, take on new job opportunities in another country, do business, date somebody across national borders (this doesn't even have to be a long-distance thing: there are cities in Belgium less than 30 minutes from cities in the Netherlands, for instance), or otherwise interact with other Europeans. And while it's not strictly necessary to prevent wars, it does help, because it's hard to believe nationalistic propaganda about another country when you were just there a few months ago and it's nothing like what some power-hungry maniac said.

                --
                The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:53PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:53PM (#788006)

                  So take the freedom of movement issue: Is it strictly necessary to prevent wars? No.

                  Do not be so sure. When the subjects have the option of just getting up and walking away from a local crazy-in-chief, converting them into cannon fodder is MUCH harder than when conveniently trapped within national borders.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:14PM (#787503)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:28PM (#787511)

    So the English now know how the peoples in Scotland & Waled have felt for awhile now. If only they were that introspective or self-aware...

    We seem to like (need?) some form of representstive governments. Some prefer that representation to be only in one person (monarch/authoritarian), and at the other end of the loop is anarchy (aka "sovereign citizens").. The different republic styles are in places on that loop.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:35PM (5 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:35PM (#787517)

    None of that is true.

    The UK has spent 200 years (and more) fighting for the interests of the UK. (Ask the people of India for example).

    The pro-Brexit bunch are, without exception, the privileged few that feel they are born to rule, and want to regain that. Do a quick search to find out how many of them have moved their money and homes to Europe. They also lied to con people into voting for Brexit. The NHS is not getting £245 million extra per week for example.

    The EU has a parliament, which sets the rules. The members of that parliament are elected, just like any democracy.

    Those points you make are the same discredited talking points the pro-Brexit people have been trotting out since 1973. They were lies then and they're lies now.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:59PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:59PM (#787530)

      My impression was that pro-brexiters are mostly victims of gentrification and growing economic inequality and other people who for whatever reason think that current government doesn't represent them.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Dr Spin on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:12PM

        by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:12PM (#787568)

        You are right about the bulk of them. That does not undermine the claim that the pro-Brexit masses are sheeple led by deceitful but cunning lame wolves.

        --
        Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:04PM (2 children)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:04PM (#787637)

      You're missing the point with your strawman, and being purposely dense while knowing the real answer. First, the parliament is not the only body that makes the rules, and oh boy do you have a surprise coming when you find out how many of the real rule makers are not elected. Second - guys from Bucharest, Riga, and Warsaw are electing those parliament people too. The British are then forced to take more immigrants they don't want, and sending an insane amount of aid to Eastern Europe while in return getting thieving uneducated Polaks in London. Right or wrong - they don't want this, and the EU forces it. EU elected people making rules for British people to follow, which the British do not like, is non-democratic. The definition of it. While this is not taxation without representation, as the British do get a vote for EU leaders, it a country is not the same as a USA state - all of which are under federal rule.

      EU is more like a homeowner's association. You have other assholes telling you what you can and cannot do in your house. Guess what - the homeowners don't like that.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:21PM (#787648)

        Nice bunch of assertions.

        Thanks for your input Boris. Care to provide some links to back it up?

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:33AM

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:33AM (#787672)

          no, I don't care to provide you with anything but more shit for your open mouth. I've been to every EU country, lived in several. I don't have to prove shit to you - I just need you to open wide that sexy mouth of yours.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:12PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:12PM (#787877)

    If ever you see an actual intelligent person talking about Brexit (or anti-EU in general): this is where the criticism is most sound.

    The EU is seen as undemocratic because it is big and bureaucratic. It is naturally so that if you are in a bigger group of people, you and your neighbors have less impact on the whole. The bureaucracy is worse in some mainland EU countries compared to the UK, and naturally the EU is a mix, and being big and dealing with far more variation easily tens to grow the bureaucracy. All valid points.

    It is very sad that this type criticism still completely misses the point. First of all it assumes that the UK is somehow more democratic than the EU. I doubt that (the UK uses a very indirect system and has many failings worse than the EU (FPTP, hereditary peers, and even the queen wields actually some power). Some of these are obvious watching the whole politics unfold in parliament recently). It is also sometimes assumed that the power that current "undemocratic" aspects of the EU wield is greater than the power wielded by the executive branch the individual countries (the EU commission, which for all its failings, is mostly a lapdog of individual governments, who would pull exactly the same shit, but now at least controlled by the fact that their are multiple governments to deal with)

    The more important point is that a true democracy does not really work well at higher levels. They are mostly popularity contest (populism) or they slowly change into a stagnant bureaucracy. Despite failing at the federal level, the US has a big advantage there in that individual smaller states can be (not always are) reasonably good democratic units where people participate and make a difference. What happens above these smaller units is I think badly suited for a functional democracy. I think there is nothing wrong with having indirectly chosen EU leaders, I do think however their power should be severely limited and a much stronger democratic system needs to exist far _below_ the current country level.

    See how idiotic it is that Scotland and Catalonia (and many other areas actually) want to leave the UK/Spain but want to stay in the EU? There are many areas where people are not actually happy with their government, but they do see sense in belonging to a super-state when it comes to development, defense or trade-agreements etc.

    There is this idea that indirect voting is somehow undemocratic and bad. It may be undemocratic, but it does make sense for a manageable system that is beneficial for society. Most people are simply not very capable of seeing beyond their own garden. It may be undemocratic to not to allow them to decide on the bigger things, but honestly, it would be better for society if they actually did not. The idea that if you do not vote, or vote 3rd party or whatever is a lost vote is a good example of what's wrong with our thinking. We actually believe we are worse off when others decide _even if we absolutely do not know or have no opinion on it_. Its like I would grade my students papers without reading them and maintain it would be better like that than not grading them at all.

    Trusting someone to take decisions is seen as bad. We should be able to do, know and have opinions on everything! Well, here's news: we actually do not. We suck at that (see UK referendum, not the outcome, but statements of people on why they voted in a certain way) Instead we should focus more on designing a system that makes sure good people end up at the top and limit the power that such top-people/systems have.

    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)

      by acid andy (1683) on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:11PM (#787938) Homepage Journal

      Instead we should focus more on designing a system that makes sure good people end up at the top and limit the power that such top-people/systems have.

      Great, but how do we do that? What chance is there of that ever being achieved for the EU? Democracy is the only system I know of that can reliably prevent tyranny. You talk about limiting power but it seems to me that the power wielded by those in charge of the EU and the economic / trade organizations that preceded it have tended to increase over time.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @04:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @04:49AM (#788143)

        Well, I want decentralised power. My state should only be concerned with criminal law and infrastructure. The rest should be handled by my local municipal government. Of course the line is not as clear, but decentralisation of power. Plurality. Diversity. Please decentralise.

  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM (#787918) Journal

    We're so darned democratic in the UK.

    We have a hereditary monarch as our head of state.

    We have a hereditary and appointed mixture in our House of Lords (senate) which is a direct result of the Norman conquest of 1066.

    We have an elected House of Commons for all four countries in the UK where the MPs are elected using the archaic First Past the Post system that effectively results in a two party state with other voices all but suppressed.

    Contrast that with modern European democracies including the EU itself and you can see why many Conservatives are so keen for us to leave the EU.