Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday September 13 2017, @07:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the returning-sovereignty-to-parliament dept.

A controversial motion that will grant the government the power to force through Brexit legislation has been passed.

[...] It means the Conservatives, despite not winning a majority at the general election, will take control of a powerful Commons committee, and grant themselves the power to force through legislation without it being voted on or debated in parliament.

With parliament needing to change, amend or import wholesale thousands of laws and regulation to prepare the UK for its exit from the European Union, the EU Withdrawal Bill has been designed to allow for new laws and regulations to be passed via controversial legislative device called a statutory instrument, which are debated in tiny standing committees.

But the government has now voted to give itself a majority on the little known Committee of Selection, which decides the make up of those committees, and in so doing has seized control of the whole process.

[...] Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael commented: "This is a sinister power grab by an increasingly authoritarian Prime Minister.

"The Tories didn't win a majority at the election, but are now hijacking Parliament to try and impose their extreme Brexit on the country.

"It is a bitter irony that Brexiteers who spent their careers championing parliamentary sovereignty have now chosen to sell it down the river.

Source: The Independent


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This discussion has been archived.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, Informative) by tonyPick on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:54AM (16 children)

    by tonyPick (1237) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:54AM (#567151) Homepage Journal

    The entire country had an open and democratic vote on it. And they chose to exit the European Union.

    Well they won by a vote so narrow (48% vs 52%) that the people who won it (but were expecting to lose) insisted that if it was that close there must be another vote [bbc.co.uk] before they found out they'd won and promptly abandoned that position.

    Plus the vote for exit was for the version sold by the exiteers during the campaign [indy100.com], which isn't what's going to happen.

    So yeah, the Exit campaign won a vote, but only narrowly and for something that they government isn't going to do. For the US-ians: It's more like voting for Obama, and getting Rick Santorum in the white house, and then being told that you voted for a politician, so it's all democratic.

    Arguing there's a democratic mandate for the "hard exit, regardless of the costs" line the current govt is pushing is not the case.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Disagree=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:40AM (11 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:40AM (#567159) Homepage

    Indeed.

    If 51% of the population voted that men should be the ones to have the babies, would that be a fair, democratic vote with an outcome that should be acted upon immediately as "the will of the people"?

    As far as I'm concerned, anything outside 60-40 minimum should be subject to a re-vote or - if it starts to cause voter fatigue - continuation of the status quo.

    We implemented a major economic and political change because 2% more people were for than against. Reintroduction of capital punishment would get better votes than that.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:57AM (7 children)

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:57AM (#567166)

      > As far as I'm concerned, anything outside 60-40 minimum should be subject to a re-vote or - if it starts to cause voter fatigue - continuation of the status quo.

      Remind me when we voted 60-40 minimum for the Maastricht treaty, or Lisbon for that matter?

      If the pre-Maastricht status quo (roughly, the "Common Market" not the EU) was on offer in the referendum, it would probably have won (bigly).

      Maastricht treaty was major economic and political change, and yet was approved by France with only 50.8% of their referendum vote. Can't have it both ways, if countries can go in for major change on 50.8% of the vote, they can clearly reverse out on 52%.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ledow on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:19AM (6 children)

        by ledow (5567) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:19AM (#567172) Homepage

        I'm not "either way", let alone "both ways".

        The vote should be both necessary and definitive or it's really just a waste of time.

        I'm a mathematician. Voting sucks. All voting sucks. I have many reasons for this, but though 50.000000001% may be a technical majority it should not be enough to act upon - for or against.

        I'd even contest that ALL elections should be run twice with the wording negated on the second run. If you can't get a consistent sizeable (10% will do) majority on the question when you word it the other way, it means people didn't know what they were voting for, didn't understand the question, don't care (a consequence of legally-required voting in some countries, without a "I turned up to vote as legally required but I don't want to vote for any of the above" option), or don't feel strongly enough that they can organise a campaign to convince others.

        25% of Americans believe the Sun goes around the Earth, but 50.1% of the populous is enough to decide to join / pull out of a complex economic market? I don't buy it.

        If you put out a vote to "remove all opposition party representatives from Parliament" and it gets 50.1% of the vote (which is incredibly likely in any two-party system), does that make it democratic? No.

        Don't even get me started on ministerial / presidential elections with constituency boundaries that play a role.

        Even Master of Orion understood this. 2/3rds majority or nothing happens.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by turgid on Wednesday September 13 2017, @12:10PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @12:10PM (#567188) Journal

          Stop talking sense. You're on the Intertubes now, sonny.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:18PM (4 children)

          by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:18PM (#567206)

          > 2/3rds majority or nothing happens.

          I agree, but that isn't the way it currently works. Who gets to decide _when_ we move the goalposts?

          If you look at the history of EU referenda a lot were decided by less than 2/3 majority, and some with similar margin to Brexit. If we seek to undo Brexit on the basis that it was 2/3 what do we also undo?

          - Greenland back in (went out with 53%)
          - But Denmark (and hence Greenland I think?) is out anyway - went in in 1973 with only 63%
          - Single european act is gone (denmark fails to ratify with only 56%)
          - Maastricht is gone - Denmark (56.7%) and France (50.8%) fail to ratify, but then Denmark never joined, see above, without that we probably never get TCE (rejected) or Lisbon - Lisbon would have failed in multiple member states anyway, if put to the vote
          - Finland (56.9%) and Sweden (52.3%) are out - failed to join in 1995

          And so on. Under your rules the EU in it's current state, and much of what the Brexiters disagree with, wouldn't exist - it simply wouldn't be there to Brexit from.

          If we accept that Maastricht is approved and Sweden and Finland are EU members, then we also have to accept the Brexit result.

          • (Score: 5, Touché) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:42PM (1 child)

            by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:42PM (#567217)

            We were wrong in the past so let's keep being wrong otherwise it's unfair!

            • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:02AM

              by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:02AM (#567686)

              Democracy is not about the decision being wrong or right, it is about how you make the decision.

              Saying you only need >50% to make a decision one way but >2/3 to reverse it is a pretty weird democracy.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:24PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:24PM (#567230)

            One possible solution - the same act that moves the goalposts also includes an "automatic sunset clause" for all acts in the last X years that wouldn't have passed according to the new standards: After Y years all sunsetted acts that haven't been reconfirmed under the new standards get repealed.

          • (Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 13 2017, @03:17PM

            by ledow (5567) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @03:17PM (#567243) Homepage

            Taking the votes as-were under different rules and then just extrapolating blindly isn't fair either.

            If, say, Denmark didn't get in because it would need a 2/3rds majority, would it stay out for ever more since 1973? No. They'd re-vote in the time between if they cared.

            If they knew you needed 2/3rds majority, they'd campaign harder and put across sensible cases (something which was at least partly responsible for Brexit which largely felt like an accidental vote!).

            And maybe limiting members would actually have worked for us too... can Greece get in/stay in? Can the former Russian states? Turkey? If they required 2/3rds majority in their own country to apply and 2/3rds majority to be accepted, maybe they wouldn't be in either and it would be a bit more stable today.

            What-if's that assume nothing else would ever change in 44 years in between are largely just useless.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:16AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:16AM (#567171)

      "Reintroduction of capital punishment would get better votes than that."

      We should be so fortunate.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 13 2017, @05:58PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @05:58PM (#567339) Journal

        There is very little evidence that capital punishment is ever a good idea. But it may be less socially destructive than long prison terms at slave labor.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:26PM (#567209)

      If 51% of the population voted that men should be the ones to have the babies

      Despite the current medical impossibility of that, why should I think of this as a bad thing? A lot of cisfemale privilege stems from having a womb. Once it becomes possible for men to have babies, a lot of cisfemale privilege crumbles.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:18PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:18PM (#567205)

    You are bound by the terms of the vote. A margin of 0.1% would have been binding and a margin of 4% is certainly binding.

    I agree with you, but not selectively. In other words, if you want to change the law such that laws must be passed with an 80% majority I would be the first to agree with you and help out in any way I can. However, as it currently stands that is not the law or what is understood. It's a similar thing to the US election. I, again, would be the first to support abolishing the electoral college and going for direct voting - even better if it was proportional instead of first past the post. But you don't change the rules after the contract has been signed, sealed, and executed. And for what it's worth I'd be saying this exact same thing had the 4% gone the other way and Brexit failed. If, after the UK exits from the EU, another organization wishes to try to rally a vote for rejoining the EU then that would again perfectly fine within their rights. And if they win that vote by 0.1% I'd again be the first to support their right to have that democratically decided action carried out.

    Democracy is not pleasant. The decisions may not be what we'd prefer, but it's vastly better the alternative of minority authoritarian rule. And as such, I view attempts at countermanding democracy as one of the most heinous of actions.

    • (Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 13 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)

      by ledow (5567) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @03:41PM (#567251) Homepage

      "I agree with you, but not selectively."

      Agreed. My position is all or nothing.

      Hence I have never voted except ONCE when we were proposing a slightly-more (but not much) mathematically-fair system.

      You don't formulate your methods to suit your outcome. You formulate your methods to produce a more accurate outcome. "Do the UK people want to leave the EU?" has roughly the same mathematical proportion in answer as implying that all humans are female. Slightly over 50%? Must be the truth, then. All humans are female.

      Trouble is, your example provides a problem, say as any such problem: "Should we nationalise or privatise?". The answer is basically mid-way and liable to bounce over otherwise insignificant changes. if the answer is 50% + small error, then almost every four years you're going to undo what happened last year, in perpetuity. There's an enormous cost to that, that's risky to the country as a whole. Surely it's more sensible to raise the barrier so we don't ping-pong between options at all but are certain that we know what the answer is? Otherwise we throw money away to join the EU and then do it again to leave it and then again to join it.

      A majority prevents ping-pong of the options, and I'm MUCH more concerned over wasting money going back and forth (and voting!) than whether we're actually in or out.

      The problems with democracy, however, are many. I'd like to vote for myself please. Oh. Only if I stump up thousands of pounds, only in one area, etc. etc. etc.? What about if I want to vote for my mate John? Or Stephen Hawking? Or someone else who doesn't want to run or can't because of the prerequisites? Oh, I can't. What if I want to vote for a convicted criminal (presumably reformed, but it's my vote). Or a policeman. Or a judge. Or a former bankrupt (banned categories of people who can't run for election). It's not a "free" vote as such. I can't even officially vote for "None of the above", I have to play games tinkering with the grey areas of spoiled ballots.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @07:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @07:08PM (#567392)

        I think there's an important difference here. You're framing this to be an abortion, gun rights, etc type issue. I think those issues have been carefully selected to be completely quixotic. Imagine all guns were banned tomorrow. With the vast amounts of guns in the country it would be unlikely to have any meaningful effect on gun crime. We might see a reduction in suicide rates, but these things are very invisible. Gun rights types would claim themselves unable to defend their families, and those against gun rights would claim it just needs more time. Both sides would probably be right.

        For things like leaving the EU, the 'stay' side critically hurt their political position by going from quixotic to real battles. They painted an image of catastrophe, economic ruin, and Britian left in an isolated agony. I think many people believed that. And those were obviously lies. The leave side painted a picture of less immigration which would ideally create better working conditions for UK citizens while also helping to stop things like what's happening in Birmingham. The goals (and fears) are not particularly quixotic. They're real and measurable in very short time frames. Who is right and who is wrong will not be ambiguous.

        And as a result here, I think we're going to see support for Brexit likely increase. In trying to find recent polls, I came across this. [theguardian.com] It gotten to the point now that only 60% of UK citizens even want to keep their EU citizenship after Brexit. That is almost unbelievable to me. I do support Brexit, but it's with some reservations. EU citizenship is enormously valuable, but mutually open borders but asymmetric nations pose many problems. That's another topic, but the fact that 40% are now happy to shed their EU citizenship, even when given the choice to exit and retain it, is incredibly telling.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @04:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @04:51PM (#567280)

    So yeah, the Exit campaign won a vote, but only narrowly and for something that they government isn't going to do. For the US-ians: It's more like voting for Obama, and getting Rick Santorum in the white house, and then being told that you voted for a politician, so it's all democratic.

    Arguing there's a democratic mandate for the "hard exit, regardless of the costs" line the current govt is pushing is not the case.

    In all fairness to both the voters and the current government, that's not a great analogy or explanation. There is a "mandate" for an exit, and no definition for what type of exit it is. There was no vote on the nature of Brexit, only whether or not it should happen. Your analogy implies a betrayal of the vote, rather than people voting on an ambiguous thing and then being surprised what they got.

    A better analogy would be if voters made a vote to put a "Republican" into office, and then being surprised and dismayed that the person who was elected was Donald Trump. The party did what they got a mandate to do ("put a Republican as president"); it's just that people didn't realize what they were voting for. If you really want to argue it, you could say that they had Jeb Bush as the figurehead and promised they would appoint him, but in the end the vote was "do you want a Republican as President?"

    Note: I'm completely ignoring the fact that the Brexit was meant to be a non-binding referendum, which throws a whole new layer of confusion into the mess.