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
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:50PM (69 children)
Delusions continue! It's amazing how delusions about "being great again" result in exactly the opposite. If you want to see the enemy, look in the mirror. Can't be more true for British .... or Americans these days.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:00PM (54 children)
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.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:06PM (21 children)
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)
> 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)
(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
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
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)
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]:
Or another take [theglobalist.com] on it:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
But it does matter to the point that freedom of movement is relative.
Because?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:09PM
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)
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)
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)
It still is micromanaging even if there is intent there.
After those other reasons you just gave? Like the "little middle ground" of either being a powerhouse or a moocher.
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)
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
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).
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)
Last I checked Britain wasn't part of Schengen anyway...
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday January 17 2019, @09:02AM
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
> 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 "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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:58PM (2 children)
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)
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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday January 18 2019, @12:12AM
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
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
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)
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
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)
"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
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:28PM
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Freeman on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:17PM (12 children)
Which country would you call great, then? China? Russia? India? The biggest countries will have an effect on the rest of the world. China, doesn't care about anyone, but China. Same for Russia. India, might be a bit more philanthropic, but I really don't know. The United States of America, like it or not, is one of the best countries to have as a world leader. China is still stuck in the past and they definitely have a more dystopian present and future outlook. Sure, they're massively better than a place like North Korea, but what country propped up and continues to support North Korea? What country was complicit in North Korea's acquisition of Nuclear Arms? Russia sure hasn't been much help in that regard, either. The delusion is that "America isn't great." America is great and I would definitely say Britain is as well. North Korea and any country that supports it are despicable. The only real news from North Korea comes from those who have escaped and they have Nothing good to say about it. In fact, I would say it's possible that what North Korea is doing to it's own people is possibly worse than everything Nazi Germany did to the world at large, including the Jews. You can take your delusions, I'll take my facts.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:13PM
But Kim Jung Un has great chemistry with Trump.
And North Korea agrees with Denuclearization showing how fantastical a negotiator Trump is.
North Korea's definition:
Denuclearization. We fire all our nuclear weapons at you. We have none left. Denuclearization.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:19PM (6 children)
Yes, if you live in the US; if you don't - then not so much. Some are worse than others, but finding the least bad is going to need some thought.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:57PM (5 children)
If you live in SE Asia, are concerned for the sovereignty of your nation, and are not Chinese, you're probably thankful that the USA is still a world leader and world naval power.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:24PM (4 children)
And If you live in Central or South America, are concerned for the sovereignty of your nation you probably wish you lived in SE Asia.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:15AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 17 2019, @09:31PM (2 children)
Ha! No, I was thinking more of Guatemala or Honduras, you know, the countries where everyone became a slave for the United Fruit Company, backed by the US Marines.
Or maybe Chile, where the democratically elected President was murdered by the CIA, because the CIA didn't like the cut of his jib.
I could go on, there's a long list.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @04:34AM (1 child)
You were thinking of those examples why? They're over 80 years old. Plus, it's a typical demonstration that weak and corrupt countries have trouble with foreign intrigue. That's the state Cuba and Venezuela are in.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday January 19 2019, @01:16AM
Over 80 years old? Come on now, that's so easy to refute:
This Civil War ended in 1996 [wikipedia.org]
Ending brutal labour practices? Dirty commies. Kill 'em all.
This Honduran coup was in 2009. [wikipedia.org]
The US sponsored that one too.
Once again, I could keep going.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:21PM (1 child)
I can't speak for the GP's opinion, but by a lot of measures the greatest country in the world today is Norway, with its closest competitors being Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Luxembourg. Their people are generally very happy with their lives, highly productive, on average well-off, have good access to health care, lots of political freedom, and they do an unusually large amount of scientific research given their size. Norway also gives out a great deal of foreign aid and charity to poorer countries.
It sure as heck isn't the USA if you're considering anything other than the ability to cause things in other people's countries to explode: They had a great run roughly between 1940-1970, and then managed to really botch things up quite badly, and then as things started going the wrong way their leaders mostly spent their time doing even more of the things they'd done to botch it up.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:54AM
Funny, https://www.thelocal.no/20180223/norwegian-emigration-higher-than-during-era-of-migration-to-usa [thelocal.no]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:22PM
I would say, a country that isn't interested in pointless dick-waving competitions like this word and just gets shit done.
"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 DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:31PM
The United States of America, like it or not, is one of the best countries to have as a world leader.
You should tell the Republicans that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:00PM
people who think a bunch of non-elected professional leeches and authoritarians are better than some semblance of democratically elected government are pitiful slaves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by XivLacuna on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:18PM (18 children)
The biggest mistake was Nigel Farage's decision to not lead the Brexit plan and instead let someone who didn't want to leave the European Union do it instead. Theresa May's Brexit plans were just "Stay in the EU while giving up our say in the EU."
The United Kingdom just needs trade agreements with their neighbors for things they can't produce themselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
> Nigel Farage's decision to not lead the Brexit plan
The british system doesn't work like this. One needs to command a majority in the houses of parliament to do business, which Farage did not have (by a couple orders of magnitude).
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:58AM
To command a majority Farage would have to get elected. He tried. 7 times. He lost every time. One time he lost to a man dressed as a dolphin.
Despite what Fox News may suggest, he's a nobody electorally, however the potential threat of his party (they got 1 in 8 votes in 2015) caused both Tory and Labour to lurch to extremism
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:37PM (14 children)
The big mistake was David Cameron's decision to call for the referendum in the first place, fully confident that "No" would win resoundingly. Nigel Farage and the UKIP has never had the votes needed to lead the UK government either inside or outside of Parliament, and thus is not entitled to lead Britain in any direction at all unless they've decided to throw out that whole democracy thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:32PM (13 children)
To be fair, the "democracy" you're throwing out is one that still requires a hereditary monarch's seal of approval on all laws and has half of their electoral body be just whatever dumbasses were born into rich families.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:44PM (4 children)
In this case, the post I was responding to was suggesting that someone who has never had the support of the majority of Commons nor the majority of British voters should be in charge of Brexit. This definitely isn't a case where either the House of Lords nor Royal Assent has gotten in the way: Royal Assent hasn't been withheld by a British sovereign in centuries, and all Brexit plans have been hatched and voted down in the House of Commons.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:52PM (3 children)
Sure yeah, but "democracy" doesn't mean "one nation wide referendum every 40 years"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:04AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:05AM (1 child)
Yes, but as I said, those elections are subordinated by the fucking queen. I don't want to get into a loop of defending the idea of republicanism, pointing out that exceptions are exceptions, then having to point out I'm defending the idea of republicanism ad infinitum.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:18AM
I can't speak for the Queen's sex life, but there's not much opportunity for her to subordinate any elections since she has no effect on them. Nor the House of Lords for that matter. The only reason those institutions still exist is that they dole out status symbols and I guess there's a bunch of people accustomed to having them around.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:20PM
No. Since they reformed it some years ago, the House of Lords has only 92 of 785 peers that are hereditary, or a little under 12% of its membership. If you include the House of Commons, 6.4% of all Members of Parliament are hereditary.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "electoral body," as neither the King/Queen nor the Prime Minister (who apparently the monarch picks also) is elected.
"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 theluggage on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:57PM (6 children)
The Queen is constitutionally bound to shut up and sign whatever Parliament puts before her, and the elected House of Commons can always invoke the Parliament Act to force a bill through the House of Lords (but apart from the Bertie Woosters, a lot of the Lords have a metric shitload of legal and political experience between them and are no longer concerned with shinning up the greasy pole or getting re-elected, so if they point out that there's a flaw in new legislation its usually worth the government listening).
The Royal Family may be as rich as Croesus at the taxpayer's expense, but whatever other problems you may have with them, their role in government is purely ceremonial (which is probably why the Bloody Tower is not currently full of politicians).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:10AM
So you are arguing that their role should not be purely ceremonial?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:54AM (4 children)
Actually, if a budget isn't passed and the government refused to resign, she can fire the government and force an election or invite the opposition to attempt to pass a budget. No government shutdowns due to no funding possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:46AM (3 children)
No she can't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22PM (1 child)
I speak here a bit as a monarchist (because I actually believe democracy has many failings that may be slightly alleviated by involving a hereditary peer), but it is not true that the UK queen has no power _if she is willing to use her resources_. Yes, she cannot flat-out refuse signing things, but she is far more involved in dealings of the government (they have weekly meetings for example) than "normal people" and certainly more than what some here are suggesting.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:09PM
I believe that power is called the power to advise and warn. As you say, she regularly talks to her PM and I'm sure the PM listens closely to her advice. Doesn't have to take it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:06PM
Thanks, I didn't realize the Fixed term was that fixed. Here, the Queen, or rather her representative, still has the power of dissolution and the power of refusing dissolution. Happened the last Provincial election where the Legislature voted down the Crown speech, government resigned and requested an election and instead the Lieutenant-Governor invited the opposition parties to attempt to govern. With the next bye-election, She may be called on to make a similar decision. Our fixed term election acts (4 years) are not as strict though our Constitution is clear about the maximum of 5 Parliaments or roughly 5 years.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:30PM
Who wants to trade for haggis or spotted dick? no one. That's the UK's main economic problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:23PM (9 children)
As noted in the article just now:
"The government has survived a vote of no confidence, tabled by Labour"
"The motion was defeated by a 19 vote margin of 306 to 325"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:49PM (5 children)
Which is how we discover that the pro-Brexit mob do not have the courage of their convictions.
In any normal world, a wounded Prime Minister would be rolled by an ambitious rival from her own party, but as we see, they won't vote for her Brexit "plan" but they won't take the bull by the horns and take over to try to implement whatever Brexit plan that faction wants.
Boris Johnson would have been PM for months by now if he really thought Brexit is a good thing, but he is completely aware it's going to be a total shit-show, and doesn't want to get his hands dirty.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:45PM (2 children)
Sounds like the Republican Party in the US. When they were the minority party during most of the Obama years, they were very loud and vocal with all the things he was doing wrong and how horrible everything was being run. Then they got the majority on the House side and they were very good at opposing everything and how everything is wrong and horribly run. Then they basically ousted their leader, John Boehner, because he did manage to do a thing or two, but it involved working with the other side. However, when Boehner said "hell with this" and left, suddenly NOBODY wanted that job. All the Boris Johnson-types sure as hell didn't want the job because they would have actually had to try to govern! Then they took control of both houses and the presidency and they found out that they couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.
It is a hell of a lot easier to cry "NO" and hold your breath and pout than it is to actually be a leader and try to get shit done.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Dr Spin on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:07PM
a leader and try to get shit done.
All to many of our leaders get shit done. As for decent policies, not so much.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:18PM
That
strategytragedy doesn't seem to be working out [image.ibb.co] very well so far.To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:48PM
Of course, why would a Tory Brexiteer want to take the reins now? They had a chance of that when Cameron stood down and they had a completely clean slate to start with, but instead they ran for hills and left it to May - a Remainer who has zero ability for compromise, great when you need a firm hand, shit when you need to compromise and make a deal - to pick up the reins and - more importantly - any blame. Now they've seen the cards, it's pretty obvious they know it's a bust and just want May to fall on her sword and stand down so they can try and seize the prize.
Labour's a different matter - the prospective PM would currently have to be Corbyn because of the way the Labour party works and, quite frankly, I can't recall a UK party leader that has been so reluctant to commit to any specific course of action, again hardly a trait that you want in negotiations. Not that there's going to much negotiation left at this point; at best he might have to sort out a few tweaks to the deal or just opt for something like Norway+. I doubt either option is going to overcome the furore over the inevitable delay to Brexit required, swing 230 MP's votes to support it, and avoid the public backlash either option will generate from those who don't agree.
At this point it's just like a version Game of Thrones, only with intrigue and backstabbing levels of tea and biscuits instead of magical swords and dragons, and a lengthy queue instead of a giant wall.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:52AM
This was actually already tried - the PM recently survived a vote of no confidence by her party MPs and now can't be ousted for a year - she would have to resign
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:53PM (2 children)
Bit of a squeaker shows the level of confidence and disarray in parliament.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:24PM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday January 18 2019, @12:16AM
Quite, it’s the exact same result that would have happened the day after the 2017 election, or 6 months ago. Corbyn winding down the clock as usual.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dltaylor on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:13PM (5 children)
The Republic of Ireland is a member of the EU; the "ruling" party of Northern Ireland wants to stay in the UK, but somehow not have a customs border with the EU on the island (which the Republic also opposes) or the sea. Those are mutually exclusive, except in some sort of delusional fantasy.
Either the UK has to substantially conform to EU rules or there has to be a border, PICK ONE.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:10PM
Sounds like a great excuse to have another 20-year civil war. Those are so much fun!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:35PM
Of course, a border would substantially violate the treaty that ended the troubles...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:37PM (2 children)
I've often thought that the Queen of Great Britain should sell Northern Ireland back to Ireland for one gold coin. The rest of Great Britain could walk away from the whole mess, and whatever happens in Ireland happens (hopefully good things; I wish no one in either place ill will). Sure, that would be not nice to those in Northern Ireland, but when did the rest of Britain ever give a damn about the Irish?
Of course, I've also often thought I'd love to see the Queen march into Parliament at the head of a squad of whichever military units would be appropriate, declare that Parliament was dissolved, and further that the current MPs were to be hogtied, dragged off to the Tower, and have their heads lopped off.
None of this will ever happen. What a pampered uselessness being Queen must be, to have power and be afraid to use any of it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:44PM
Power? Hmm.. King Charles tried that.. Helped start a civil war. Now they have a ceremony [wikipedia.org] that exists because he didn't like some MPs [wikipedia.org] and wanted to "deal" with them..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday January 18 2019, @04:27PM
NI is not in a great place economically right now, and is only surviving because of welfare from Great Britain. The Republic would not be in a position to support the state of affairs in NI and the place would deteriorate greatly (unless EU supports them...). Right now, the lads in the Republic would not be in favour of a unified country.