FREEDOM!!!! [4]

Who knows... trade isn't as simple as that. If they aren't trading now as part of the EU, why aren't they? No demand? Existing trade relationships to compete with? Worse profit margins?

That's a good question! I remember seeing several good commercial seaports along the east coast of Scotland, but I never thought to ask if those ships were outbound for England or elsewhere. I'd assumed they were going to and from the rest of the world. Maybe Petty can answer?

The reality may be that they don't trade because that demand is taken up by the rest of the UK and this will open it up a bit. I don't know how the trade is split across industries and what the potential demand vs economics of doing it are.

Yeah it's hard to say, but in this modern global economy where my cranberries are ending up everywhere from the EU to China to Australia to South America, it's hard to imagine that a good businessman with a good product couldn't find a market somewhere, whatever happens.

{{Firstly Scotland doesn't get to make trade deals- we dont even get a Scottish Minister representative on the UK board that negotiates the fish markets, despite us having nearly all the UK fishing fleet and waters.
So one of the reasons we dont trade as much as is potentiality available with the EU is that its solely done through Westminster and the UK government. It is not devolved.

Secondly the NI situation should shed some light on matters.
The proposal there is that NI would remain in the UK outside the EU, but continue to also trade across the border with Southern Ireland tarriff free who would be in the EU.
In short they keep trading over the border and with the UK.

As this is what the Westminster government advocates for NI there is no reason it cannot be applied to the Scottish English border- in which case it s not a choice between EU or UK market but rather no reason why not both- and that definitely would be a boost economically. }}

Mrs Figg wrote:"rather than being constantly stuck in a past of hundreds of years of harsh English oppression."

how is that remotely true? no more of the old English evil empire rubbish please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:"rather than being constantly stuck in a past of hundreds of years of harsh English oppression."

how is that remotely true? no more of the old English evil empire rubbish please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings

Ok... other than us talking about Scotland, do you know any of the history of Ireland before you go posting that?

I brought up the point of Ireland, Figg responded so I did the same in kind.

And yes, I do know a bit about the history of Ireland, from the Oliver Cromwell and the potato famine, the  brutal suppression of 1798 uprising and the United Irishmen, to preserve the rule of the British imperial crown, at a time many other liberal democracies were formed by similar groups around the world, the suppression of Irish language and culture, on pain of death in the British navy, which contained a large number of Irishmen,  to the rule of the country by a small english backed elite for many centuries.

For more examples see the link

My claim was however not one of revolution, rather that Ireland as an island can solve its issues as a whole better without the ghost of the English still hanging over their shoulder. That is living in the past.

The same in my opinion applies to Scotland, England and the UK is at this point only a distraction for the Scottish to solve internal and external issues for themselves.

This may be completely wrong, but you seem to have quite a dislike for the English.

If we are going to judge the merits of things like this then recent history should be the focus. Reading Figgy's response it seemed to me she was focussing on any decision people take now as getting them away from 'harsh English oppression.'

I assume you know that the Irish government in the 70s and 80s asked us not to bring the idea of handing back Northern Ireland because they thought it would erupt on to civil war and that the majority of the territory was populated with protestants who did not want to have Catholic doctrine forced upon them.

Similarly in Scotland... there was a vote to end this brutal, harsh oppression you speak of. They decided not to.

It also seems that whenever we speak of Brexit you attack the decision of the majority as some kind of insular, ego-centric lunacy made by a bunch of racist imbecciles.

I voted to stay in, but I know lots of people who didn't and they have genuine concerns over the ineptitude of the EU and it's seeming inability to reform to any great extent.. which I agree with, just that we should have been helping the reform not running away.

It was a similar attitude toward Trump voters, lumping them all in to the same insular, rascist, flag waving, gun toting, homophobic pot when the reality is a lot more nuanced than that.

I don't agree with Petty on this independence thing as I think it creates further divisions that are not in anyone's interests but I respect his views. I am not sure from some of your posts that you are able to see it from the other many and varied view points.

{{{Lance, don't forget that Blue is trained to think like a lawyer. Once he's chosen one side of a discussion he can't help trying to convict the other side. It's what they do. }}}

{{I think its Blue's lawyer passion- he gets passionate when he sees perceived injustices and those who would subvert the idea of the rule of law in favour of their own gain- not a bad attribute that sort of passion for justice in a lawyer.
Ireland has always been a touchy subject though to us Brits and horrendously complicated.}}

Lancebloke wrote:This may be completely wrong, but you seem to have quite a dislike for the English.

I don't personally have anth against anyone english, and I don't have anth against the english per se, as I am not sure there is actually such a thing as "the English".

I do however have a strong distaste for the english government's obsession with getting involved in other countries, a prominent quality of the english empire which ruled the world with similar attitudes, and how these attitudes seeps into modern day UK politics. (Weirdly Spain has the exact same nationalist obsession, another former great empire. And the US and Russia, the two superpowers of the cold war.)

Coming from a country that went through a similar, alth less violently oppressive, thing with two "bigger brothers", all I can say is that Norway was lucky as fuck to get away when we did.

Want to known what we call the 600 years Norway spent ruled from Copenhagen? The 600 year night. We only got a University in Oslo under Danish rule, because the country was ready to rebel about it.

Lesson learned should be: countries of the size of Scotland have a much greater ability to look after the interests of its people than as a minor part of the larger UK. That this discussion is topical right now, and can give rise to a discussion like this, is only a result of the gulf that currently splits the politics of the two countries. It would however hold true at any time for me.

Please excuse the tone if it seems confrontational, it is not meant as such.

On brexit, and majority

The British public voted to leave, so why do you not believe the government has a mandate to take the UK out of the European Union?

The thing that really makes my hair stand on end is when people use phrases like ‘the British public’ or ‘the people’. Just look at the sheer numbers. Firstly, you have to accept that the franchise for the EU referendum was restricted. It excluded 16 and 17-year-olds, ex-pats who had been abroad for more than 15 years and EU citizens working and paying taxes in the UK. These three groups of people, by the way, would probably have the most material interest in the outcome of an EU referendum and they were excluded. This was a deliberate, conscious decision, which has the smell of gerrymandering about it.

So on a restricted electorate, the 51.9% vote for Leave represents 37% of that total electorate, representing about 26% of the total population.

When people use expressions like ‘the people have spoken’ or ‘the British public has voted to leave’ and so on, they are talking nonsense. This is a very narrow interpretation of the British people.

And the nature of the referendum bill makes the outcome politically illegitimate. For a start, MPs were told that it was advisory only, a fact that was repeated in the parliamentary debate in June 2015. Therefore, they saw no need to build in a safety bar, such as a super-majority requirement.

So because of the nature of the referendum, the restricted franchise and the fact that only 37% of that electorate voted to leave – not to mention all the well-documented distortions, falsehoods and false promises of the Leave campaign – it is constitutionally improper. As far as any rational, dispassionate discussion of the matter goes, that is an open and shut case: there is no mandate for Brexit.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/interview/a-c-grayling-brexit-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-a-coup/?

The EU might need reform, and that might come to pass now, (although it does not need reform as to free movement of people, as seems the primary concern of pro british exit voters, that is actually one great democratic leveling rule on european level that does exactly what it should on all its simplicity.) On the other hand there is no other choice for Europe if the shall not break into tiny insignificant pieces. The EU is a political and econimic project, and you need to be in on both if you want to be in on either, that is the stick and the carrot to create a better more functioning europe for all.

Norway are only in the EEA, but we are part of the political and legal areas the EEA agreement cover as much as the member states. What we do is pay, through the nose, to be, in name, on the outside, while really being part of the single market. There only other option is going it on your own. And while you can do that, as the UK seems determined, it will end up hurting yourself and your population. Opting out of the political project means opting out of preferential access to the market. That is the simple fact of the matter, and the one May, the Tories, and the 26% who voted for brexit and are sticking to their guns fail to understand.

Be on the outside of the European project if you so wish, but it hurts that project of cooperation and stability, and it, more than anything, hurts the UK disproportionately. As Jean Claude Junker said to Theresa May

In perhaps the most telling exchange, May implored Juncker, “Let us make Brexit a success.” The commission president responded that while he didn’t want chaos, “Brexit cannot be a success.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/brexit-weekly-briefing-has-a-disastrous-dinner-made-talks-about-talks-trickier

Lancebloke wrote:This may be completely wrong, but you seem to have quite a dislike for the English.

If we are going to judge the merits of things like this then recent history should be the focus. Reading Figgy's response it seemed to me she was focussing on any decision people take now as getting them away from 'harsh English oppression.'

I assume you know that the Irish government in the 70s and 80s asked us not to bring the idea of handing back Northern Ireland because they thought it would erupt on to civil war and that the majority of the territory was populated with protestants who did not want to have Catholic doctrine forced upon them.

Similarly in Scotland... there was a vote to end this brutal, harsh oppression you speak of. They decided not to.

It also seems that whenever we speak of Brexit you attack the decision of the majority as some kind of insular, ego-centric lunacy made by a bunch of racist imbecciles.

I voted to stay in, but I know lots of people who didn't and they have genuine concerns over the ineptitude of the EU and it's seeming inability to reform to any great extent.. which I agree with, just that we should have been helping the reform not running away.

It was a similar attitude toward Trump voters, lumping them all in to the same insular, rascist, flag waving, gun toting, homophobic pot when the reality is a lot more nuanced than that.

I don't agree with Petty on this independence thing as I think it creates further divisions that are not in anyone's interests but I respect his views. I am not sure from some of your posts that you are able to see it from the other many and varied view points.

that was pretty much what I meant. Its so tedious to have the British Empire thrown in English peoples faces like its anything to do with modern Brits. Its as ridiculous as blaming modern Germans for the war, its dumb and unfair. chips need to be brushed off shoulders, you cant live in the past.

Regarding the whole democratic legitimacy thing:

A. C. Grayling wrote:The thing that really makes my hair stand on end is when people use phrases like ‘the British public’ or ‘the people’. Just look at the sheer numbers. Firstly, you have to accept that the franchise for the EU referendum was restricted. It excluded 16 and 17-year-olds

This is the standard in most of the world, including every sovereign state in Europe except Austria. The lowering of the voting age in Scottish elections is a devolved matter, so while the Scottish Parliament gets to set rules it likes for Scotland-only election, the decision is separate from the rules used in UK-wide elections.

A. C. Grayling wrote:ex-pats who had been abroad for more than 15 years and EU citizens working and paying taxes in the UK

These are the same rules for general elections in the UK. Agree with it or disagree, but I'm gonna need to see better evidence for the claim that it was a "deliberate, conscious decision" to exclude Remain voters, especially since the government wanted and expected Remain to win. For the record though, I agree that not letting resident EU citizens who pay taxes vote in general elections or referendums is bullshit.

A. C. Grayling wrote:So on a restricted electorate, the 51.9% vote for Leave represents 37% of that total electorate, representing about 26% of the total population.

When people use expressions like ‘the people have spoken’ or ‘the British public has voted to leave’ and so on, they are talking nonsense. This is a very narrow interpretation of the British people.

Besides the fact that the electorate for the Brexit referendum was not significantly different from the standard UK electorate, turnout was actually higher than in any general election since 1992. Most democracies don't factor turnout into their decision-making process anyway, and I've maintained in past discussions about mandatory voting that not voting is itself a legitimate choice, but if the turnout in the Brexit referendum was too low to confer legitimacy on the referendum result, then no British government in the past 25 20 years has been legitimate either. (I know some people who think that about governments but it tends to be because they reject the idea of representative democracy wholesale, not because they quibble over turnout percentages.) In any event, unless there is evidence that the UK government disenfranchised people who would normally have been allowed to vote, I see no basis for the claim that the referendum electorate was restricted.

A. C. Grayling wrote:And the nature of the referendum bill makes the outcome politically illegitimate. For a start, MPs were told that it was advisory only, a fact that was repeated in the parliamentary debate in June 2015. Therefore, they saw no need to build in a safety bar, such as a super-majority requirement.

I'm gonna need a citation for the idea that MPs would have instituted a super-majority requirement since that was not a requirement for the EEC membership referendum in the '70s or, as far as I know, any other referendum in UK history (although the Scottish devolution referendum in the '70s was a rare example of factoring turnout into the process).

More to the point, it is constitutionally impossible to have a legally binding referendum in the UK. This is not exactly a secret. Also, ignoring the will of more than 50% of the voting public would be electoral suicide, which should be pretty self-evident IMO. Looking at Hansard from the period in which the Brexit bill was debated, we can see that the House of Lords debated the finer points of the constitutional issue multiple times after it had been made clear that the referendum would technically be advisory (all emphasis mine).

https://goo.gl/vVh7Dj

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The Bill is all about putting the question to the British people. It does not make provision about what happens next. I was asked whether the result would be legally binding. Clearly, at the moment, it is not sensible for us to guess about the best way to implement the result, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this would be the first time that a member state had had the opportunity to vote to leave. If we got to the position where the country decided that it wished to leave, we would then get into the newer territory of working through those procedures.

Perhaps I may deal first with whether the result would be legally binding. I was asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London whether the Government would respect the result of the referendum. ​The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will respect the result of the referendum even though it is not legally binding. In March 2010, the Constitution Committee of this House considered referendums in the UK and concluded that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, they could not be truly legally binding—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was on the Constitution Committee, so I know that he will appreciate the details of that.

However!

https://goo.gl/yBBEUr

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)

Surely the key to the decision taken in the referendum is that it is advisory and not mandatory, so therefore it would not be necessary at once for the United Kingdom to apply for Article 50. We could merely carry on with the negotiations with absolutely nothing changing whatever.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Technically, that is correct. It is advisory. But it seems to me that anybody who thinks that the Government could do other than act fairly quickly on the advice they had received from the entire country is in cloud-cuckoo-land. The noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hamilton, are right in ​a sense in that our influence in the councils of the European Union would go into very rapid decline. We would still be there but we would not be listened to a great deal if we were heading for the exit door. That is certainly true. However, we would be members, and the idea—with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that the Government might consider whether they were going to act on the advice of the country or going to try some form of new negotiation is nonsense. If the country votes to come out, we come out.

And in the following exchange we see the matter discussed again:

https://goo.gl/VYn4hp

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)

Let us remember another thing that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, omitted to tell us. This referendum will be advisory, not mandatory, and that is very significant.

...

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)

I return to the original contention, which is this: whether this is a binding referendum or some other sort, I do not know, but if the people have spoken then they will have to be listened to. There is no question about that. It is not a question only of the Government listening; it is more about Parliament listening. It is Parliament that will have to take action after the people have spoken, and the action it must take is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Once it did that, everything would fall into place; after the repeal it would then have to embark upon negotiations.

Jumping over to the House of Commons, we see that the Government was quite clear that it would obey the result of the referendum even though it was not constitutionally obliged to do so.

https://goo.gl/iz2RgO

Mr Lidington [Tory MP and then-Minister of State for Europe]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind thoughts, but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The result of the referendum will be regarded by the Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British people as a whole to take, and I am proud that it is my party and a Conservative Government that are finally giving the British people the right to take that decision.

Not that this clarification was really necessary, because the Tories had already said as much in their 2015 election manifesto in which they promised the referendum.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto (skip to page 73 of the manifesto, or page 74-75 of the file viewer thingy)

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the results of the referendum, whatever the outcome.

Going back to the article...

A. C. Grayling wrote:So because of the nature of the referendum, the restricted franchise and the fact that only 37% of that electorate voted to leave – not to mention all the well-documented distortions, falsehoods and false promises of the Leave campaign – it is constitutionally improper. As far as any rational, dispassionate discussion of the matter goes, that is an open and shut case: there is no mandate for Brexit.

This is not how democratic legitimacy works. No country has a system for invalidating the outcome of an election on the basis that politicians or the media lied during the campaign. Don't get me wrong, it would have been wonderful if, for example, the 2015 election had focused on more pressing issues than whether Ed Miliband could eat a sandwich, but that's not something that can or should be legislated for.

I'm gonna need to see better evidence for the claim that it was a "deliberate, conscious decision" to exclude Remain voters- Eldo

{{ It certainly was a deliberate choice to exclude EU members from the vote. This was not a general election, it was a referendum. They can choose who votes. And most recent precedent prior to it was the Scottish Independence referendum, agreed withe UK Parliament which included EU residents having a right to vote.
Why Cameron choose to do this, when as you say he supposedly wanted us to Remain has long been a mystery to me.

Agree overall with the rest though Eldo. I dont see this as a conspiracy referendum, or an attempt to deceive (save in the usual political promises and lies manner) I see it has a complete blotch up, a total arse made of it by Cameron and Co and the Tory party and one of the most incompetent chapters politically speaking in Parliamentary history for a long time.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It certainly was a deliberate choice to exclude EU members from the vote. This was not a general election, it was a referendum. They can choose who votes.

I probably shouldn't be playing word lawyer since IANAL, but I don't see the Government's decision not to change the eligibility rules as hard evidence of any specific motive, much less sufficient evidence to describe it as a "certainty".

And most recent precedent prior to it was the Scottish Independence referendum, agreed withe UK Parliament which included EU residents having a right to vote.

The UK Government wrote up the rules for the IndyRef in cooperation with the Scottish government, so I don't see the two situations as directly comparable anymore than I see the fact that Scottish 16-year-olds can vote in Scottish Parliament elections as being directly relevant to the different eligibility rules for Westminster elections.

I see it has a complete blotch up, a total arse made of it by Cameron and Co and the Tory party and one of the most incompetent chapters politically speaking in Parliamentary history for a long time.

Agreed.

In the interest of full disclosure, after a bit more digging I've found what I think Grayling is referring to when he mentions the statement from June 2015 that the referendum would be advisory. However, in light of both the Conservative Party manifesto from the year prior and the comparisons made in the quote itself, I think it is fairly clear that the referendum being advisory is considered a constitutional curiosity (my wording, not that of any MP) rather than something influencing the government's plans. That said, it doesn't paint Lidington in a great light, especially when compared to his other statement five months later (quoted above).

https://goo.gl/V3VZpw

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)

Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result. The Government take the view that, in respect of EU membership, we are one United Kingdom. The referendum will be on the subject of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and it is therefore right that there should be one referendum and one result. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will choose not to press his amendment.​

Eldo continues to amaze me; perhaps his youth allows him to dive deep rather than the reverse, but in any case you should get yourself into the diplomatic corps post-haste, lad!

A couple comments.

The point of a representative democracy is that the representatives have more time to deeply examine matters than the general public. In this case taking the referendum as advisory rather than binding is exactly right.

Regarding the idea that only 37% voting invalidates the vote disregards the idea of sampling. Giving the large numbers involved, so long as we accept that there was no representational bias in who actually voted (a big assumption, I know) then the vote should reflect the will of the people.

Combining the close vote with the strong possibility of representational bias found in any vote, I'd call it a toss-up. I think Parliament should have just voted their conscience.

Legitimacy isn't an either/or question in this context though. Because the referendum was perfectly legally legitimate as of and in of what it was. An advisory referendum on EU membership. It is good in this context to note, Grayling neither is a lawyer, and I don't read him as making a legal argument.

What we must do is move a step further. From straight legality, to democratic legitimacy. This is not a legal concept, per se. Although legal theory might have as much to say about it as any other branch of science. But if it is, we are dealing with the law here, de lege ferenda, on basis of how the law should be.

What Grayling is dealing with is the divide, chasm, from an advisory referendum to the "hard brexit" "brexit means brexit" "strong and stable" world we live in today. And this is where the democratic legitimacy of the advisory referendum becomes topical in the sense Grayling addresses it. The democratic legitimacy of the referendum, cause, that has lead us to this "hard boiled egg... sorry, brexit" world, effect. And the bridge across this chasm rests on unsteady foundation as to democratic legitimacy is concerned.

You might say, 16 and 17 year olds do not normally have the right to vote in any referendum, election etc. But statistics show us that a large majority of young people were opposed to brexit, which was pushed through by the older more conservative part of the electorate. It is these young people who will have to live with the results of the referendum. Their voice was more needed on this generation spanning issue than in a normal election of a parliament for a five year term.

You might say expats do not normally get to vote in general elections. But this was a question of a constitutional change that would impact them more than anyone. Arguably then, it was a lot more important for them to have their voice heard on this matter than in a general election. Their interests were the ones that would be most adversely effected by a leave vote. In a general election however, someone who have not resided in a country for a long time will have less reason to care what government is elected and their interests wouldn't be affected in the same way. (Although, a Tory government that decides to have a referendum on EU membership might speak against that assumption..)

You might say that EU nationals don't either get to vote in general elections. But, as Petty points out, in the last major referendum held in the UK they did. Consequently, the changes in electorate does hint at gerrymandering as Grayling argues. The choice of who should have a vote seems dependent on the question asked.

Where this all falls down, the referendum, the result, the "hard brexit",  however is in having the referendum in the first place. Because there was no choice. Or rather, there was a choice between destitution, based on old nationalist dreams of nationalist greatness, fermented by 40 years of a biased tabloid press misleading the populace to basic realities and the leave campaign compounding those lies tenfold, and to work to change  a common european project form the inside. There was no choice. The referendum should never have been held. It's as simple as that. (Now that is my personal opinion, but it is backed up by almost every substantial economic treatment on the issue.)

In general however, I do wholeheartedly agree with Petty.

I dont see this as a conspiracy referendum, or an attempt to deceive (save in the usual political promises and lies manner) I see it has a complete blotch up, a total arse made of it by Cameron and Co and the Tory party and one of the most incompetent chapters politically speaking in Parliamentary history for a long time.

Which reflects a view also expounded upon by Guy Verhofstadt

“I am convinced and one hundred per cent sure about one thing, that there will be a young man or woman who will try again. Who will lead Britain into the European family once again. And a young generation that will see Brexit for what it really is, a catfight in the conservative party that got out of hand. A lot of time a waste of energy and I think stupidity.”

Bluebottle wrote:

“I am convinced and one hundred per cent sure about one thing, that there will be a young man or woman who will try again. Who will lead Britain into the European family once again. And a young generation that will see Brexit for what it really is, a catfight in the conservative party that got out of hand. A lot of time a waste of energy and I think stupidity.”

Just because some in the UK (not just England)don't want to be in a political union with the rest of Europe, it doesn't mean that all leave voters hate the European family-it might actually prove to be a good thing in the long run for both Europe and the UK politically, talking down to leave voters and implying they are all stupid racists isn't going to be a good way to sway their minds-I think it's one of the reasons some of my close relatives voted Leave, the remain campaign seemed to be based on talking down to, and scaring the working class rather than clarifying the good the EU does for us.

I voted Remain (somewhat reluctantly) but that was taking into account the UK's existing opt outs and strong economy, the UK (especially England) has always been the most euro-skeptic country in Europe (even Tim Farron leader of the Liberal Democrats recently described himself as a bit of a euroskeptic) and after we leave the union I think there will be a move by the remaining countries to pull together in closer federalization, many leave voters I've seen or talked to simply voiced the opinion that they were opposed to a federal europe (I certainly don't identify as European) and wanted tighter control over immigration regardless of the effect on the economy, for many it seemed to be a heart over mind argument for Brexit, I'd hazard a guess and say many remain voters don't have an especially high emotional attachment to the union anyway, give it a decade and (assuming the economic fallout isn't quite as disastrous as foretold) I think many in the UK will have moved on. Youth turnout for the Brexit vote wasn't that high, and judging by what I read on facebook, reddit, twitter etc in the run up to Brexit this generation is every bit (if not more so) disengaged politically from Europe.

I was, and remain annoyed that the UK is leaving the EU (though in some ways I'm relieved, I'm rather uneasy at the desire by some in Europe to move the EU as close as possible into a federal model) but leaving it we are, all we can do now if try and make the best of it we can, and I don't think many even in the Remain camp are still arguing to overturn the decision as soon as possible.

I'm a little confused Blue, at your strong support for Ireland and Scotland to leave a political union, but for Britain to remain in one. If you weren't so adamant about each I'd understand, but your feelings are hardly as subtle as the opposing views you advocate.

I understand the European condition must seem rather perplexing as a whole for someone non-European. To quote an australian friend of mine earlier today: "hahaha oh EU what a funny place"

I think my view can be stated as simply as, I believe in self-determination on micro level and broad cooperation at macro level.

Other than that the stance can be explained in differences in substance and context of the two examples referenced. Don't have time to go in depth on that now however.

Bluebottle wrote:Legitimacy isn't an either/or question in this context though. Because the referendum was perfectly legally legitimate as of and in of what it was. An advisory referendum on EU membership. It is good in this context to note, Grayling neither is a lawyer, and I don't read him as making a legal argument.

What we must do is move a step further. From straight legality, to democratic legitimacy. This is not a legal concept, per se. Although legal theory might have as much to say about it as any other branch of science. But if it is, we are dealing with the law here, de lege ferenda, on basis of how the law should be.

What Grayling is dealing with is the divide, chasm, from an advisory referendum to the "hard brexit" "brexit means brexit" "strong and stable" world we live in today. And this is where the democratic legitimacy of the advisory referendum becomes topical in the sense Grayling addresses it. The democratic legitimacy of the referendum, cause, that has lead us to this "hard boiled egg... sorry, brexit" world, effect. And the bridge across this chasm rests on unsteady foundation as to democratic legitimacy is concerned.

Blue, come on man, if you're going to continue to rest the crux of your argument about Brexit's legitimacy on the fact that the referendum was advisory, it behooves you to respond to the copious documentation I have provided as to why the advisory nature of the referendum was (a) a constitutional necessity, (b) ultimately irrelevant in political terms, and (c) not something that was misrepresented either to MPs or the general public.

EDIT: fun fact! During the campaign leading up to Britain's previous referendum on Europe, Labour PM Harold Wilson promised voters that he would accept the result of the referendum as binding, same as the Tories did in 2015. See >here<

You might say, 16 and 17 year olds do not normally have the right to vote in any referendum, election etc. But statistics show us that a large majority of young people were opposed to brexit, which was pushed through by the older more conservative part of the electorate. It is these young people who will have to live with the results of the referendum. Their voice was more needed on this generation spanning issue than in a normal election of a parliament for a five year term.

Fair enough. I'm not totally sure if I agree but you're of course entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to cast aspersions on the integrity of a nation's democratic processes, I tend to think that this requires a stronger basis in widely-accepted political principles, which voting rights for 16-year-olds are not.

You might say expats do not normally get to vote in general elections. But this was a question of a constitutional change that would impact them more than anyone. Arguably then, it was a lot more important for them to have their voice heard on this matter than in a general election. Their interests were the ones that would be most adversely effected by a leave vote. In a general election however, someone who have not resided in a country for a long time will have less reason to care what government is elected and their interests wouldn't be affected in the same way. (Although, a Tory government that decides to have a referendum on EU membership might speak against that assumption..)

For one, not all UK expats live in EU countries. And two ... you pretty much already gave the rebuttal I had in mind, but it bears repeating: general elections are incredibly relevant to all citizens of a country! We never would have had the Brexit referendum if the Conservatives hadn't won the 2015 general election, during which one of the major planks in their platform was the promise of a referendum. Not to mention the various crucial milestones in the UK's history vis-a-vis Europe including its entry into the EEC*, its entry into (and departure from) the ERM, and its ratification of the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon which all took place without referendums, but were all dependent to varying degrees on the nature of Parliament and the government at the time, which is of course determined by general elections.

*The EEC membership referendum that came a few years later only took place after a change of governments, due to an election in which the victorious Labour Party promised to hold a referendum on the UK's entry into the EEC, which had taken place under the previous Conservative government without a referendum.

You might say that EU nationals don't either get to vote in general elections. But, as Petty points out, in the last major referendum held in the UK they did. Consequently, the changes in electorate does hint at gerrymandering as Grayling argues. The choice of who should have a vote seems dependent on the question asked.

You clearly read my exchange with Petty so I'm not sure why you're ignoring the response I already gave to this argument, but I'll try to flesh it out a little here. As I said before, the rules for the Scottish referendum are not directly comparable because they were set in conjunction with the Scottish government. The Westminster government is under no obligation to have its own electoral policies directly reflect those of any of the devolved governments. Voter eligibility for the Brexit referendum was essentially the same as that of the AV referendum in 2011 - both being based on general election eligibility - which was the only other UK-wide referendum in the past 30+ years. (I can not verify offhand what the eligibility rules in the 1975 EEC referendum were.) And perhaps more importantly if you're going to allege conspiratorial wrongdoing, you still have not pointed to any coherent motive to explain why Cameron would have deliberately engineered a scenario in which his political career ended in semi-forced resignation and national humiliation.

Where this all falls down, the referendum, the result, the "hard brexit",  however is in having the referendum in the first place. Because there was no choice. Or rather, there was a choice between destitution, based on old nationalist dreams of nationalist greatness, fermented by 40 years of a biased tabloid press misleading the populace to basic realities and the leave campaign compounding those lies tenfold, and to work to change  a common european project form the inside. There was no choice. The referendum should never have been held. It's as simple as that. (Now that is my personal opinion, but it is backed up by almost every substantial economic treatment on the issue.)

I'm kind of repeating myself here, but once again, this is an argument against British representative democracy as it has existed for decades, not against the Brexit referendum specifically. I'm really trying to understand what you're getting at here. I don't want to put words into your mouth but I have to ask, do you think that general elections are not shaped by lies, misinformation, nationalistic nostalgia, and the tabloid media? Or if you agree that they are shaped by these things, do you think that every UK general election lacks legitimacy as well? If not, what makes Brexit different?



I recall seeing the Alyn Smith speech shortly after it was first made and was quite impressed by it. And while I'm not sure that the UK will ever try to re-enter the EU, largely for the reasons that Malick mentions, I'm definitely not thrilled by the idea of Brexit and would like to see Britain be able to cooperate with Europe as much as is feasible in the future.

Eldorion wrote:[Blue, come on man, if you're going to continue to rest the crux of your argument about Brexit's legitimacy on the fact that the referendum was advisory, it behooves you to respond to the copious documentation I have provided as to why the advisory nature of the referendum was (a) a constitutional necessity, (b) ultimately irrelevant in political terms, and (c) not something that was misrepresented either to MPs or the general public.

Thank you for the response. I don know if I have the energy to respond in kind, so I'll try shortly.

First, I do not see what that changes about the referendum being advisory. Second, I don't see my argument as resting on the crux of the referendum being advisory. As I attempted to outline, I see several factors weakening the democratic legitimacy of the referendum, not in vacuum, in relation to the proposed result, hard brexit. (Perhaps you are conflating some of my, and my and Graylings arguments?) Further arguments can be seen in the quotes below. (And more were mentioned in the post above.)

You might say, 16 and 17 year olds do not normally have the right to vote in any referendum, election etc. But statistics show us that a large majority of young people were opposed to brexit, which was pushed through by the older more conservative part of the electorate. It is these young people who will have to live with the results of the referendum. Their voice was more needed on this generation spanning issue than in a normal election of a parliament for a five year term.

Fair enough. I'm not totally sure if I agree but you're of course entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to cast aspersions on the integrity of a nation's democratic processes, I tend to think that this requires a stronger basis in widely-accepted political principles, which voting rights for 16-year-olds are not.

This is of course a more general question, but in a one stop shop referendum like brexit it imho becomes additionally topical.

You might say expats do not normally get to vote in general elections. But this was a question of a constitutional change that would impact them more than anyone. Arguably then, it was a lot more important for them to have their voice heard on this matter than in a general election. Their interests were the ones that would be most adversely effected by a leave vote. In a general election however, someone who have not resided in a country for a long time will have less reason to care what government is elected and their interests wouldn't be affected in the same way. (Although, a Tory government that decides to have a referendum on EU membership might speak against that assumption..)

For one, not all UK expats live in EU countries. And two ... you pretty much already gave the rebuttal I had in mind, but it bears repeating: general elections are incredibly relevant to all citizens of a country! We never would have had the Brexit referendum if the Conservatives hadn't won the 2015 general election, during which one of the major planks in their platform was the promise of a referendum. Not to mention the various crucial milestones in the UK's history vis-a-vis Europe including its entry into the EEC*, its entry into (and departure from) the ERM, and its ratification of the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon which all took place without referendums, but were all dependent to varying degrees on the nature of Parliament and the government at the time, which is of course determined by general elections.

*The EEC membership referendum that came a few years later only took place after a change of governments, due to an election in which the victorious Labour Party promised to hold a referendum on the UK's entry into the EEC, which had taken place under the previous Conservative government without a referendum.

"3.5 million EU nationals in the UK and 1.2 million Britons in Europe."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/meps-will-veto-any-brexit-deal-that-fails-to-uphold-citizens-rights

And while I might agree that as broad a voting population as possible is for the best in any election or referendum, I do however respectfully disagree on one point. I believe there are several legitimate reasons to consider nationals who has lived outside the borders of their country to have less of a stake in general elections, which are rerun every 5 years, than they have in a generation spanning quality of the brexit referendum that specifically impact their interests. So, yes, I agree with the point, but I still see a difference here.

(It can be interesting to note from a historical point of view that if De Gaulle had not opposed it the UK (and Norway) would have joined the EEC early on, without any direct democracy involvement at all.)

You might say that EU nationals don't either get to vote in general elections. But, as Petty points out, in the last major referendum held in the UK they did. Consequently, the changes in electorate does hint at gerrymandering as Grayling argues. The choice of who should have a vote seems dependent on the question asked.

You clearly read my exchange with Petty so I'm not sure why you're ignoring the response I already gave to this argument, but I'll try to flesh it out a little here. As I said before, the rules for the Scottish referendum are not directly comparable because they were set in conjunction with the Scottish government. The Westminster government is under no obligation to have its own electoral policies directly reflect those of any of the devolved governments. Voter eligibility for the Brexit referendum was essentially the same as that of the AV referendum in 2011 - both being based on general election eligibility - which was the only other UK-wide referendum in the past 30+ years. (I can not verify offhand what the eligibility rules in the 1975 EEC referendum were.) And perhaps more importantly if you're going to allege conspiratorial wrongdoing, you still have not pointed to any coherent motive to explain why Cameron would have deliberately engineered a scenario in which his political career ended in semi-forced resignation and national humiliation.

No obligation. But the parameters you set are a choice, which can be criticized. We might see the merits differently.

"Conspiratorial wrongdoing" is not a standard I have set. I would assume that assume some sort of quasi-criminal intent?

Whatever the degree of intent we have three examples here of picking the electorate. In ways that affected the referendum result.

Now, all these points of contention forms a broader part of a general argument. All these question marks I have pointed to in my two posts, that Grayling pointed to in the interview, that others have pointed to elsewhere goes towards the point that the democratic legitimacy of the brexit vote struggles to span the chasm from the vote to the result of hard brexit.

But as I said, I agree with Petty. This was a botch job more than anything. A mistake. A stupidity.

Where this all falls down, the referendum, the result, the "hard brexit",  however is in having the referendum in the first place. Because there was no choice. Or rather, there was a choice between destitution, based on old nationalist dreams of nationalist greatness, fermented by 40 years of a biased tabloid press misleading the populace to basic realities and the leave campaign compounding those lies tenfold, and to work to change  a common european project form the inside. There was no choice. The referendum should never have been held. It's as simple as that. (Now that is my personal opinion, but it is backed up by almost every substantial economic treatment on the issue.)

I'm kind of repeating myself here, but once again, this is an argument against British representative democracy as it has existed for decades, not against the Brexit referendum specifically. I'm really trying to understand what you're getting at here. I don't want to put words into your mouth but I have to ask, do you think that general elections are not shaped by lies, misinformation, nationalistic nostalgia, and the tabloid media? Or if you agree that they are shaped by these things, do you think that every UK general election lacks legitimacy as well? If not, what makes Brexit different?

That is not really what this quote gets at, but okay. There are several ways to answer that. One is to look at it from the perspective of degree. There are lies and there are lies. Politicians might lie in general elections, but to the degree they did in the brexit referendum and as brazenly? And then all scurry off the moment the votes comes out and leave the shambles to someone else? Second, lies in a general election potentially hurts the liar, or his party in the next general election. it is a double edged sword, so to say. People have the choice to judge the politicians on merit. There will however not be a second brexit referendum, not even on teh deal agreed which might be disastrous. This was, for all intents and purposes a one stop shop.

Specifically, the lies of both the leave campaign and media matters in the context of this referendum being advisory. When 37% of that total electorate vote for a solution that almost every economist every report made has said must and will have a starkly detrimental effect. That is exactly the kind of situation where you want the Parliament to see the fact that the referendum was advisory and use it. If only to take their time, get expert opinions, find the solution that best mitigates the ill effects all experts say will be the result. This is where the advisory nature of the referendum becomes important. Because of the lies, because of the questions of democratic legitimacy, because of the opinion of experts (whatever Michael Gove might think of them.)

Instead we get the worst solution of all. The nationalist dream/nightmare of a hard brexit. The best solution for all would be the UK in the EEA agreement. But they will stick to the irrationality that continued EU immigration as unacceptable, despite research showing the UK profits, substantially, from EEA immigration.

But it is the UK it will substantially hurt. So, leave then. I think will be the EU's parting words. And as Verhofstadt said, however sad it might make you feel, perhaps it was always meant to be that way. Still. A mistake. A stupidity.