Looks like a head on crash if the Lords steer the country towards a single market and Customs Union Brexit.
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
Observers comment that there is no majority for a hard Brexit in the Commons.
The clash between Lods and Commons might splinter the Tory party? We are watching a slow motion train crash. Ideally the economy and the electorate will not suffer too much but we have to go through this to come out the other side.
Looks like a head on crash if the Lords steer the country towards a single market and Customs Union Brexit.
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
But the Lords on their own can't do anything other than suggest amendments.
Time for Labour to pull its socks up and lobby its MPs, the SNP and Tory remainers to vote through the amendments proposed by the Lords to put Theresa May and her cabinet out of their misery.
23 nearly 24 months. And how ever many years before that when the UK was in the EU participating in shaping the EU rules and procedures. The UK can't act surprised and outraged when the EU is being the EU that the UK knows full well about, and that same EU is simply applying their rules and procedures. It was the UK that started all this malarkey, and the UK can't expect the EU to simply adjust it's rules and procedures just because otherwise the UK will stamp it's foot and shout 'I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick'. For the zillionth time those who suggested and voted for brexit ought to have thought about the implications of what they were doing before, and have a plan to sort all the details. It is no surprise that Theresa May doesn't have a clue what to do, she voted remain, but it is her stupidity to think that her brexit voting colleagues would assist her with helpful suggestions, they haven't got a clue what to do. The issues over brexit are firmly in house and not down to the Irish or the wider EU to sort out. For brexiters it must be their desperate hope to survive all this nightmare somehow, because the notion that anything good will come of this, and that there are sunny uplands to look forward to is well off the agenda. With brexit we know what a mess we're in, and there isn't even a glimmer of hope to lift the spirits in dealing with the mess, it must simply be endured...or in my case, opposed.
Looks like a head on crash if the Lords steer the country towards a single market and Customs Union Brexit.
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
But the Lords on their own can't do anything other than suggest amendments.
Time for Labour to pull its socks up and lobby its MPs, the SNP and Tory remainers to vote through the amendments proposed by the Lords to put Theresa May and her cabinet out of their misery.
Problem as I see it is that a Corbyn wouldn’t do anything like that. He wants a Tory Brexit that he can pick up the pieces and run with should he get the chance. The mans duplicity on Brexit is nothing short of scandalous.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What won't the EU have? HM government hasn't proposed a solution yo the border issue yet, so how could the EU "not have" it?
I think they are proposing an "honesty box" policy whereby companies carrying goods across the border declare the value of goods in a shipment. Òbviously open to fraud and while this Tory UK government may be prepared to absorb the hit, the EU won't for goods going the other way.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What won't the EU have? HM government hasn't proposed a solution yo the border issue yet, so how could the EU "not have" it?
I think they are proposing an "honesty box" policy whereby companies carrying goods across the border declare the value of goods in a shipment. Òbviously open to fraud and while this Tory UK government may be prepared to absorb the hit, the EU won't for goods going the other way.
It’s frankly bollocks. A trusted trader system...... Let me see. Would that include Volkswagen for example who only recently couldn’t be trusted to publish true emission figure. No one can be trusted.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What won't the EU have? HM government hasn't proposed a solution yo the border issue yet, so how could the EU "not have" it?
I think they are proposing an "honesty box" policy whereby companies carrying goods across the border declare the value of goods in a shipment. Òbviously open to fraud and while this Tory UK government may be prepared to absorb the hit, the EU won't for goods going the other way.
It’s frankly bollocks. A trusted trader system...... Let me see. Would that include Volkswagen for example who only recently couldn’t be trusted to publish true emission figure. No one can be trusted.
I, for one, have full confidence in the likes of Thomas "Slab" Murphy.
We could certainly trust him and his ilk....
to do everything in their power to maximise illegal trade across the border.
Looks like a head on crash if the Lords steer the country towards a single market and Customs Union Brexit.
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
But the Lords on their own can't do anything other than suggest amendments.
Time for Labour to pull its socks up and lobby its MPs, the SNP and Tory remainers to vote through the amendments proposed by the Lords to put Theresa May and her cabinet out of their misery.
Problem as I see it is that a Corbyn wouldn’t do anything like that. He wants a Tory Brexit that he can pick up the pieces and run with should he get the chance. The mans duplicity on Brexit is nothing short of scandalous.
Corbyn, Starmer and Labour have already shifted from wanting something like a Customs Union in the last Manifesto to definitely supporting a Customs Union. If that policy starts in the Lords and goes through the Commons then Fox is toast as his department becomes redundant.
Let us be clear that we are talking massive political forces with millions of voters backing each side. And yet the Achilles heel for Brexit is the Customs Union where only 20-25% of the voters support leaving.
Fox and his ilk keep saying that staying in the Customs Union with no influence is worse than the status quo. But his alternative is far, far worse and Parliament will hopefully kill it off?
I'm afraid that while you and I believe in staying in the single market, this is far more complex and risks re-running the entire Brexit debate. Yes Corbyn wants to pick up the pieces but he doesnt want to be the one seen to be blocking Brexit.
And the political outcome will not be pretty with Brexit loons coming out playing the victim. This will lead to marches on the street and perhaps another surge in racist hate crime?
Looked at in those terms, the only political solution is to lever the sane Tories away from the alt-right rabble. But they might only do that as we move closer to the cliff edge?
One can empathise with concerns about Corbyn's position on the single market and the four freedoms, but guess what? The UK can extend the transition period or rejoin the SM at a later date. In other words that can be fixed. And the irony is that some financial services jobs will migrate abroad in the meantime which helps to rebalance our economy.
The Tories may end up shrinking the City by 10% for there are plenty of financial centres in Europe who do not have crazy political risk.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
I don't think The Lords should be abolished, having a second house that isn't concerned with just the next round of elections to oversee the shortermism of The Commons is an important check and balance on our democracy. Obviously it is deeply flawed in it's current format and needs major reform.
I don't necessarily have an issue with life peerages, it is the ultimate anti-shortermism move to have a life long position thinking about the long term effects of government actions, but I'm sure there are other ways of achieving long term thinking without the long term privileged positions. My bigger issue with The Lords is that it is party political. Ideally political party affiliations would be banned completely. We've seen with Brexit how damaging putting party before country is. It is doubling damaging if the checks and balances put in place play the same damaging political games.
I don't think we disagree really. Abolish the HoL, create a more democratic second house with all of your suggestions as part of it and there we have some genuine taking back control.
Looks like a head on crash if the Lords steer the country towards a single market and Customs Union Brexit.
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
But the Lords on their own can't do anything other than suggest amendments.
Time for Labour to pull its socks up and lobby its MPs, the SNP and Tory remainers to vote through the amendments proposed by the Lords to put Theresa May and her cabinet out of their misery.
Problem as I see it is that a Corbyn wouldn’t do anything like that. He wants a Tory Brexit that he can pick up the pieces and run with should he get the chance. The mans duplicity on Brexit is nothing short of scandalous.
As the article points out the EU have been consistent in their rejection of both options anyway so this is yet more unnecessary, harmful procrastination caused by her own hubris in delivering her 'red lines' for her audiences benefit, not the country's.
She won't sack Johnson and she won't discipline Mogg and the minority of her MP's pushing for the hardest Brexit possible regardless of the costs. Her response is to waste more time and effort setting up stupid working groups in her cabinet. Just so she can carrying on pretending either option is available and give herself an 'out' for ditching the partnership option that doesn't look like Boris and Moggy are calling the shots. She's completely out of her depth.
...and again, borders are about more than tariffs!
Whilst I am, filled with a mix of trepidation and hope, concentrating today on scrolling through the takeover thread every five minutes, there are a couple of interesting articles in the Irish Times today.
The other, by Noel Whelan, being subscriber only, I have to copy and paste, but it does highlight how little time there is to make some sort of progress:
Collapse of Brexit talks now the better of two evils
Derailment may provoke change in UK politics needed to bring realism to talks
It is more than three decades since Ireland’s politicians and public servants have had to embark on an exercise in politics, diplomacy and constitution framing as complex and as important as the current Brexit negotiations. The implications for Ireland must weigh heavily on the minds and shoulders of all involved.
The nightmare outcome of course is that Britain crashes out of the European Union next March without any transition period and without any agreement in place for trade between Britain and the EU.
It is understandable that there is real Irish concern therefore at the prospect of a collapse in the talks between Britain and the EU before European leaders meet for a summit on June 16th.
In these situations it is counterintuitive for diplomats and most politicians to insist on the sort of clarity which risks breakdown. The instinct is usually to keep the talks going, to keep engaging, to blur the lines of disagreement, to hope that sense will prevail in the end.
Of course, it will put Ireland in an uncomfortable position if our government has to precipitate this collapse because the British government refuses to confirm the “backstop” agreed about the Irish Border in legal text. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has indicated that he is prepared to so if necessary.
Diplomatic fudge Given the contorted state of British cabinet politics and the delusions which persist among many British commentators and voters about what can be achieved in Brexit, a collapse in the talks now rather than in October would be the lesser of two evils. It is to be preferred over engaging in more diplomatic fudge which merely postpones that breakdown to October.
At least if things came to a head now there could be sufficient time for the cathartic event necessary in British politics to occur so as to enable a real effort to resolve the Irish Border and other matters in the autumn.
Fudging around the real obstacles across the summer will only enable Brexiters to persist in the fantasy that Britain can be great again as a free-trading nation while continuing to trade into the EU on terms close to the existing arrangements. It would also serve to disabuse Brexiteers of the comforting notion that the Irish Government is exaggerating its concerns about the Border or that Michel Barnier is merely exploiting the Irish Border issue to inflict a higher cost on Britain for leaving.
The cathartic event necessary in British politics could take the form of a cabinet crisis combined with parliamentary shifts which enable prime minister Theresa May to concede to continued membership of the customs union and some regulatory alignment. In the absence of that, it may take a British general election. It might even require the Labour Party government negotiating a soft Brexit after having adjusted its position towards continued customs union and single market membership before or just after any such election .
Recent manoeuvres in both houses at Westminster have managed to set some parliamentary traps in the way of a hard Brexit policy. Events there might have been expected to come to a head later this year but a collapse in the talks in June might bring that timescale forward also.
Political consensus Bringing matters to a head in June would also have the advantage of preserving the political consensus here in Ireland about Brexit policy. This is something which should not to be taken for granted. Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, and most of the smaller parties and Independents have been remarkably supportive of the Government position until relatively recently. Some differences have emerged since Britain’s refusal to legally codify the agreement on the Border was parked in March. Fianna Fáil in particular has been critical of a perceived government failure to nail down the backstop option. Any further delay or fudge on doing so at the June summit creates space for division in the Oireachtas on the point. Such divisions would no doubt be exploited by Brexiteers who love to point out how precarious the Varadkar government is.
Bringing matters to a head in June would also put beyond doubt the commitment of our European partners in supporting the Irish position. To date the strategy of being deeply embedded within the EU27 negotiation stance has worked. There endures, however, a lingering doubt that, when it comes to the crunch, our European partners will abandon our concerns in order to get a workable deal with Britain. The fear is that if matters are left for resolution at the end of October then – in a scenario not unknown in large-scale European negotiation – we as a smaller state would come under irresistible pressure during last-minute talks to concede on the nature of the Irish Border so that Brexit terms could be finalised.
It would be better we know where we stand, and who stands with us in June, rather than scrambling to achieve our objectives when up against the wire in October.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
There you go again, banging on about democracy, yet at the same time happy to hand over executive power to individuals from one political party to impose laws and its will on the UK with next to no scrutiny or accountability.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
Are you claiming that popular sovereignty is achieved with 37% of an electorate? Now that is really weird!
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
A cynic might suggest that you are ever so slightly twisting the thrust of what the author is saying to fit an argument.
It is not about Brexit, per se, but about the danger that the author sees arising from the way that Western liberal democracies appear to be moving away from the ideals of liberal democracy. There is nothing to suggest that the author was either pro- or anti-Brexit.
I do not think that anyone could disagree with the statement, below, for example.
The referendum debate has left the UK government in a Catch-22 situation. If politicians were to sanction a rerun of the election, it would completely delegitimise the original Brexit vote. If they choose not to rerun the vote, the voices of the sceptics will likely never be silenced. Either way, democracy becomes weaker.
The author is very clearly arguing for a need to ensure that everyone has reasonably detailed knowledge about the nature of the society in which they live (in every democracy) and are motivated to vote and otherwise engage in politics.
Ultimately, the ideal democracy is one in which as many citizens as possible vote, and the voters are armed with the most objective information. Yet today only a fraction of the electorate are voting, and many are armed with a diet of hyped-up statistics and social media propaganda. Proposals to redress the situation must strike at the heart of these weaknesses, with a mission to re-engage voters and improve the quality of politicians.
I have been examining electoral systems across the world. In many democracies, including the US and UK, migrants are required to pass government-sanctioned civic tests in order to gain citizenship. So, in this vein, why not give all voters a test of their knowledge? This would ensure minimum standards that should lead to higher-quality decision-making by the electorate. The message this would send is that voting is not just a right, but one that has to be earned. Such testing would not only lead to a better-informed electorate, but also to voters who are more actively engaged.
Of course, such a system would be truly democratic only if everybody had a fair chance of casting their vote. It is vital that those with fewer life opportunities have their say, and we cannot have a system that is skewed against the worst educated, which would leave poorer people even more marginalised and unrepresented than they already are. To that end, the knowledge needed should be part of the core curriculum, with young people tested in their final year of secondary education. Governments could also organise tests for those over school age.
Nowhere does the author indicate the need for a qualification to be allowed vote. Universal suffrage should mean just that.
The article is clearly arguing for universal suffrage based upon a foundation of universal understanding of the society (not just in the UK) - and that it is counter intuitive that naturalised citizens should find themselves having to know more about a country, its traditions and political system than their fellow, native-born, citizens.
Most importantly, the article is just as much about finding some way to improve the quality of our political representatives - the poor standards of political representation seems to be the one complaint that almost all of us have about modern day politics.
It is, in so many ways, nothing like the suggestion that you make that only those who are educated should be allowed vote, or even that Remainers wish to impose some kind of intellectual segregationist regime.
If anything, it is an article suggesting ways that would attempt to make universal suffrage as universal as possible, by getting as many as possible to engage with the political process.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
You use the word 'accepting' in relation to the referendum result, and suggest that 'not accepting' is the same as 'opposing democracy'.
Putting to one side the position I and others take, which is to indeed accept (or endure if you like) the referendum result, and now challenge brexiters to explain what they have voted for and how they will achieve that.
However not accepting is a long way from opposition. I don't 'accept' the Tory government, in that I despise them and within the law will resist what they do. I have the right in my view to refuse to accept alliance to somebody like Boris 'picaninny' Johnson, or Jacob Rees Mogg. I believe what you hint at is akin to what Esther McVay and others keep on saying 'don't talk brexit down, get behind the country, we have a great future out of the EU', George Orwell might say we are called on to love Big Brother.
Well no.
I 'accept' that I have lost as a matter of dreadful happenstance in my lifetime, but why should I 'accept' the result of that being stuff like travel restrictions, a worse version of democracy, less collaboration and co-operation with all kinds of good EU stuff?
And the forthcoming hard border on the island of Ireland?
Incidentally I will again push back at your non-detailed critique that the EU is undemocratic. It is more democratic than the UK, which operates decidedly undemocratic practices of of it's own in house. There is absolutely no objective way that you can say that the EU is undemocratic, and repeating it won't make what you say true.
Anyway you can be happy that I know I am a loser, but don't expect me to be happy about it.
In addition, in the absence of any kind of coherent plan from the brexiters, what would there be to accept or oppose anyway?
Having the liberty to express opinion and ask questions did not stop when the referendum ballot closed, just as pro brexit people expressed opinion and asked questions before the vote. Some might even say such discourse is the very currency of 'democracy', yet you seem antagonistic towards that particular feature of 'democracy'.
I don't understand why brexiters spend so much time gawping at the reaction of us remain losers.
Maybe it is because brexiters have no clue as to what to do with their victory, so turn on remainers for not loving them enough, a useful distraction.
The time for constructive ambiguity is nearly over! We are fast approaching the point where May will be told what to do. She does not want to make the first move for whichever way she goes she will step on a political landmine!
So what happens next?
Perhaps Barnier points out what his political masters say is possible - a form of customs union and FTA for goods OR nothing.
Or perhaps Parliament "takes back control" through a coalition of Labour, SNP and Tory remainers?
Let us be absolutely clear - this is not rocket science. And nothing suggested by any faction of the cabinet will fly. If it it were going to fly then they would have cut a deal with Dublin and the EU27 earlier this year.
And for the benefit of @Southbank our system of government is a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Naturally there will be political consequences when the Tories fold into a risk free position.
Labour will be able to say that this was their position since early March but they are not the government. It is not for them to enact a response to the referendum.
If Labour were in government tomorrow it is possible that a deal could be closed extremely quickly for they are not far apart from Barnier. Certainly not on the Customs Union and the Irish border. The single market is a separate topic, perhaps worthy of a separate thread as the situation heats up over the summer.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
A good summary of the situation so far from Ms Hyde.
Not one for our Brexiters, obviously
...and if anyone feels the need to remind themselves of the type of politician driving us further and further into this mess...
“I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result..." - Daniel Fecking Hannan!
A good summary of the situation so far from Ms Hyde.
Not one for our Brexiters, obviously
...and if anyone feels the need to remind themselves of the type of politician driving us further and further into this mess...
“I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result..." - Daniel Fecking Hannan!
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
You use the word 'accepting' in relation to the referendum result, and suggest that 'not accepting' is the same as 'opposing democracy'.
Putting to one side the position I and others take, which is to indeed accept (or endure if you like) the referendum result, and now challenge brexiters to explain what they have voted for and how they will achieve that.
However not accepting is a long way from opposition. I don't 'accept' the Tory government, in that I despise them and within the law will resist what they do. I have the right in my view to refuse to accept alliance to somebody like Boris 'picaninny' Johnson, or Jacob Rees Mogg. I believe what you hint at is akin to what Esther McVay and others keep on saying 'don't talk brexit down, get behind the country, we have a great future out of the EU', George Orwell might say we are called on to love Big Brother.
Well no.
I 'accept' that I have lost as a matter of dreadful happenstance in my lifetime, but why should I 'accept' the result of that being stuff like travel restrictions, a worse version of democracy, less collaboration and co-operation with all kinds of good EU stuff?
And the forthcoming hard border on the island of Ireland?
Incidentally I will again push back at your non-detailed critique that the EU is undemocratic. It is more democratic than the UK, which operates decidedly undemocratic practices of of it's own in house. There is absolutely no objective way that you can say that the EU is undemocratic, and repeating it won't make what you say true.
Anyway you can be happy that I know I am a loser, but don't expect me to be happy about it.
In addition, in the absence of any kind of coherent plan from the brexiters, what would there be to accept or oppose anyway?
Having the liberty to express opinion and ask questions did not stop when the referendum ballot closed, just as pro brexit people expressed opinion and asked questions before the vote. Some might even say such discourse is the very currency of 'democracy', yet you seem antagonistic towards that particular feature of 'democracy'.
I don't understand why brexiters spend so much time gawping at the reaction of us remain losers.
Maybe it is because brexiters have no clue as to what to do with their victory, so turn on remainers for not loving them enough, a useful distraction.
If the people of a country are told they have a once in a generational chance to shape the future of that country and having made that decision by a majority are thwarted by people in power who take a different view then we have a massive political crisis in the making.
At present, there is still some slight reticence on the part of the largely Remainer Government and Remainer majorities amongst both Labour and Tory MPs to overturn the referendum result outright. The discussion over the Customs Union is a stepping stone towards that end because pursuing a CU can only have two endings. One is that the EU says no, whatever form the UK proposal finally takes. The second is that the EU insists on something which we can all probably agree is pointless, membership of the Customs Union with no control over its rules or the movement of people. If the EU says no then the majorities in Parliament will say staying in the EU is better than crashing out. If the CU deal is as bad as is being proposed then the argument will be that staying in the EU is better than being a rule taker. Either way the referendum result will be directly challenged, and that is when the political crisis wil take off.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
It is not weird. Once you go down the road of opposing democracy by not accepting the referendum result, it is not weird that you should find yourself welcoming and celebrating the intervention by the most grossly undemocratic institution in politics. There will be a lot further to go as well my friend: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
You use the word 'accepting' in relation to the referendum result, and suggest that 'not accepting' is the same as 'opposing democracy'.
Putting to one side the position I and others take, which is to indeed accept (or endure if you like) the referendum result, and now challenge brexiters to explain what they have voted for and how they will achieve that.
However not accepting is a long way from opposition. I don't 'accept' the Tory government, in that I despise them and within the law will resist what they do. I have the right in my view to refuse to accept alliance to somebody like Boris 'picaninny' Johnson, or Jacob Rees Mogg. I believe what you hint at is akin to what Esther McVay and others keep on saying 'don't talk brexit down, get behind the country, we have a great future out of the EU', George Orwell might say we are called on to love Big Brother.
Well no.
I 'accept' that I have lost as a matter of dreadful happenstance in my lifetime, but why should I 'accept' the result of that being stuff like travel restrictions, a worse version of democracy, less collaboration and co-operation with all kinds of good EU stuff?
And the forthcoming hard border on the island of Ireland?
Incidentally I will again push back at your non-detailed critique that the EU is undemocratic. It is more democratic than the UK, which operates decidedly undemocratic practices of of it's own in house. There is absolutely no objective way that you can say that the EU is undemocratic, and repeating it won't make what you say true.
Anyway you can be happy that I know I am a loser, but don't expect me to be happy about it.
In addition, in the absence of any kind of coherent plan from the brexiters, what would there be to accept or oppose anyway?
Having the liberty to express opinion and ask questions did not stop when the referendum ballot closed, just as pro brexit people expressed opinion and asked questions before the vote. Some might even say such discourse is the very currency of 'democracy', yet you seem antagonistic towards that particular feature of 'democracy'.
I don't understand why brexiters spend so much time gawping at the reaction of us remain losers.
Maybe it is because brexiters have no clue as to what to do with their victory, so turn on remainers for not loving them enough, a useful distraction.
If the people of a country are told they have a once in a generational chance to shape the future of that country and having made that decision by a majority are thwarted by people in power who take a different view then we have a massive political crisis in the making.
At present, there is still some slight reticence on the part of the largely Remainer Government and Remainer majorities amongst both Labour and Tory MPs to overturn the referendum result outright. The discussion over the Customs Union is a stepping stone towards that end because pursuing a CU can only have two endings. One is that the EU says no, whatever form the UK proposal finally takes. The second is that the EU insists on something which we can all probably agree is pointless, membership of the Customs Union with no control over its rules or the movement of people. If the EU says no then the majorities in Parliament will say staying in the EU is better than crashing out. If the CU deal is as bad as is being proposed then the argument will be that staying in the EU is better than being a rule taker. Either way the referendum result will be directly challenged, and that is when the political crisis wil take off.
I 100% agree about a political crisis, we are already in it. However the crisis is 100% the responsibility of those who promoted, voted for, and are now laughingly 'managing' brexit. The remainers, and the EU are charged with reacting and responding and indeed resisting brexiters. Not because they can't accept the result, but because if the result leads to an absurd, or damaging or unworkable situation it needs the toughest scrutiny of all time. You allude to this when you say it is 'once in a generation'. We remainers are told not to re run the referendum debate, to accept we lost. The problem seems to be that the winners can't accept they won. The remainer May now almost two years after the vote, has just sent away her cabinet to come up with ideas and solutions. A remainer asking leavers to prove they knew what they were voting for, means leavers are not being thwarted so much as challenged to prove they know what they are doing. If those who have any power in parliament exercise that power, it is a feature of UK government that brexiters sought to reinforce by voting for this thing they spuriously call sovereignty.
Comments
Far too many Tory looney tunes advocating a hard Brexit for anything other than an explosive final ten months.
The clash between Lods and Commons might splinter the Tory party? We are watching a slow motion train crash. Ideally the economy and the electorate will not suffer too much but we have to go through this to come out the other side.
Time for Labour to pull its socks up and lobby its MPs, the SNP and Tory remainers to vote through the amendments proposed by the Lords to put Theresa May and her cabinet out of their misery.
And how ever many years before that when the UK was in the EU participating in shaping the EU rules and procedures.
The UK can't act surprised and outraged when the EU is being the EU that the UK knows full well about, and that same EU is simply applying their rules and procedures.
It was the UK that started all this malarkey, and the UK can't expect the EU to simply adjust it's rules and procedures just because otherwise the UK will stamp it's foot and shout 'I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick'.
For the zillionth time those who suggested and voted for brexit ought to have thought about the implications of what they were doing before, and have a plan to sort all the details. It is no surprise that Theresa May doesn't have a clue what to do, she voted remain, but it is her stupidity to think that her brexit voting colleagues would assist her with helpful suggestions, they haven't got a clue what to do.
The issues over brexit are firmly in house and not down to the Irish or the wider EU to sort out.
For brexiters it must be their desperate hope to survive all this nightmare somehow, because the notion that anything good will come of this, and that there are sunny uplands to look forward to is well off the agenda.
With brexit we know what a mess we're in, and there isn't even a glimmer of hope to lift the spirits in dealing with the mess, it must simply be endured...or in my case, opposed.
We could certainly trust him and his ilk....
to do everything in their power to maximise illegal trade across the border.
Let us be clear that we are talking massive political forces with millions of voters backing each side. And yet the Achilles heel for Brexit is the Customs Union where only 20-25% of the voters support leaving.
Fox and his ilk keep saying that staying in the Customs Union with no influence is worse than the status quo. But his alternative is far, far worse and Parliament will hopefully kill it off?
I'm afraid that while you and I believe in staying in the single market, this is far more complex and risks re-running the entire Brexit debate. Yes Corbyn wants to pick up the pieces but he doesnt want to be the one seen to be blocking Brexit.
And the political outcome will not be pretty with Brexit loons coming out playing the victim. This will lead to marches on the street and perhaps another surge in racist hate crime?
Looked at in those terms, the only political solution is to lever the sane Tories away from the alt-right rabble. But they might only do that as we move closer to the cliff edge?
One can empathise with concerns about Corbyn's position on the single market and the four freedoms, but guess what? The UK can extend the transition period or rejoin the SM at a later date. In other words that can be fixed. And the irony is that some financial services jobs will migrate abroad in the meantime which helps to rebalance our economy.
The Tories may end up shrinking the City by 10% for there are plenty of financial centres in Europe who do not have crazy political risk.
https://politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/95083/theresa-may-splits-warring-cabinet-two-groups-bid
As the article points out the EU have been consistent in their rejection of both options anyway so this is yet more unnecessary, harmful procrastination caused by her own hubris in delivering her 'red lines' for her audiences benefit, not the country's.
She won't sack Johnson and she won't discipline Mogg and the minority of her MP's pushing for the hardest Brexit possible regardless of the costs. Her response is to waste more time and effort setting up stupid working groups in her cabinet. Just so she can carrying on pretending either option is available and give herself an 'out' for ditching the partnership option that doesn't look like Boris and Moggy are calling the shots. She's completely out of her depth.
...and again, borders are about more than tariffs!
The first (by Alex Kane, with whom I do not always agree) is an interesting take on the truth, or otherwise,of Robert Peston's throwaway comment about Ireland on Sunday (but also quite useful in explaining how Northern Ireland exists solely due to the threat of violence): https://irishtimes.com/opinion/perhaps-robert-peston-has-a-point-about-ireland-undermining-the-uk-1.3490846.
The other, by Noel Whelan, being subscriber only, I have to copy and paste, but it does highlight how little time there is to make some sort of progress:
Collapse of Brexit talks now the better of two evils
Derailment may provoke change in UK politics needed to bring realism to talks
It is more than three decades since Ireland’s politicians and public servants have had to embark on an exercise in politics, diplomacy and constitution framing as complex and as important as the current Brexit negotiations. The implications for Ireland must weigh heavily on the minds and shoulders of all involved.
The nightmare outcome of course is that Britain crashes out of the European Union next March without any transition period and without any agreement in place for trade between Britain and the EU.
It is understandable that there is real Irish concern therefore at the prospect of a collapse in the talks between Britain and the EU before European leaders meet for a summit on June 16th.
In these situations it is counterintuitive for diplomats and most politicians to insist on the sort of clarity which risks breakdown. The instinct is usually to keep the talks going, to keep engaging, to blur the lines of disagreement, to hope that sense will prevail in the end.
Of course, it will put Ireland in an uncomfortable position if our government has to precipitate this collapse because the British government refuses to confirm the “backstop” agreed about the Irish Border in legal text. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has indicated that he is prepared to so if necessary.
Diplomatic fudge
Given the contorted state of British cabinet politics and the delusions which persist among many British commentators and voters about what can be achieved in Brexit, a collapse in the talks now rather than in October would be the lesser of two evils. It is to be preferred over engaging in more diplomatic fudge which merely postpones that breakdown to October.
At least if things came to a head now there could be sufficient time for the cathartic event necessary in British politics to occur so as to enable a real effort to resolve the Irish Border and other matters in the autumn.
Fudging around the real obstacles across the summer will only enable Brexiters to persist in the fantasy that Britain can be great again as a free-trading nation while continuing to trade into the EU on terms close to the existing arrangements. It would also serve to disabuse Brexiteers of the comforting notion that the Irish Government is exaggerating its concerns about the Border or that Michel Barnier is merely exploiting the Irish Border issue to inflict a higher cost on Britain for leaving.
The cathartic event necessary in British politics could take the form of a cabinet crisis combined with parliamentary shifts which enable prime minister Theresa May to concede to continued membership of the customs union and some regulatory alignment. In the absence of that, it may take a British general election. It might even require the Labour Party government negotiating a soft Brexit after having adjusted its position towards continued customs union and single market membership before or just after any such election .
Recent manoeuvres in both houses at Westminster have managed to set some parliamentary traps in the way of a hard Brexit policy. Events there might have been expected to come to a head later this year but a collapse in the talks in June might bring that timescale forward also.
Political consensus
Bringing matters to a head in June would also have the advantage of preserving the political consensus here in Ireland about Brexit policy. This is something which should not to be taken for granted. Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, and most of the smaller parties and Independents have been remarkably supportive of the Government position until relatively recently. Some differences have emerged since Britain’s refusal to legally codify the agreement on the Border was parked in March. Fianna Fáil in particular has been critical of a perceived government failure to nail down the backstop option. Any further delay or fudge on doing so at the June summit creates space for division in the Oireachtas on the point. Such divisions would no doubt be exploited by Brexiteers who love to point out how precarious the Varadkar government is.
Bringing matters to a head in June would also put beyond doubt the commitment of our European partners in supporting the Irish position. To date the strategy of being deeply embedded within the EU27 negotiation stance has worked. There endures, however, a lingering doubt that, when it comes to the crunch, our European partners will abandon our concerns in order to get a workable deal with Britain. The fear is that if matters are left for resolution at the end of October then – in a scenario not unknown in large-scale European negotiation – we as a smaller state would come under irresistible pressure during last-minute talks to concede on the nature of the Irish Border so that Brexit terms could be finalised.
It would be better we know where we stand, and who stands with us in June, rather than scrambling to achieve our objectives when up against the wire in October.
This Remainer wants educational qualifications for voters-the same argument that was used to stop blacks in the US getting the vote under the Jim Crow laws. Once you go off the path of democracy there is no end to how far you will go in undermining popular sovereignty..
It is not about Brexit, per se, but about the danger that the author sees arising from the way that Western liberal democracies appear to be moving away from the ideals of liberal democracy. There is nothing to suggest that the author was either pro- or anti-Brexit.
I do not think that anyone could disagree with the statement, below, for example.
The referendum debate has left the UK government in a Catch-22 situation. If politicians were to sanction a rerun of the election, it would completely delegitimise the original Brexit vote. If they choose not to rerun the vote, the voices of the sceptics will likely never be silenced. Either way, democracy becomes weaker.
The author is very clearly arguing for a need to ensure that everyone has reasonably detailed knowledge about the nature of the society in which they live (in every democracy) and are motivated to vote and otherwise engage in politics.
Ultimately, the ideal democracy is one in which as many citizens as possible vote, and the voters are armed with the most objective information. Yet today only a fraction of the electorate are voting, and many are armed with a diet of hyped-up statistics and social media propaganda. Proposals to redress the situation must strike at the heart of these weaknesses, with a mission to re-engage voters and improve the quality of politicians.
I have been examining electoral systems across the world. In many democracies, including the US and UK, migrants are required to pass government-sanctioned civic tests in order to gain citizenship. So, in this vein, why not give all voters a test of their knowledge? This would ensure minimum standards that should lead to higher-quality decision-making by the electorate. The message this would send is that voting is not just a right, but one that has to be earned. Such testing would not only lead to a better-informed electorate, but also to voters who are more actively engaged.
Of course, such a system would be truly democratic only if everybody had a fair chance of casting their vote. It is vital that those with fewer life opportunities have their say, and we cannot have a system that is skewed against the worst educated, which would leave poorer people even more marginalised and unrepresented than they already are. To that end, the knowledge needed should be part of the core curriculum, with young people tested in their final year of secondary education. Governments could also organise tests for those over school age.
Nowhere does the author indicate the need for a qualification to be allowed vote. Universal suffrage should mean just that.
The article is clearly arguing for universal suffrage based upon a foundation of universal understanding of the society (not just in the UK) - and that it is counter intuitive that naturalised citizens should find themselves having to know more about a country, its traditions and political system than their fellow, native-born, citizens.
Most importantly, the article is just as much about finding some way to improve the quality of our political representatives - the poor standards of political representation seems to be the one complaint that almost all of us have about modern day politics.
It is, in so many ways, nothing like the suggestion that you make that only those who are educated should be allowed vote, or even that Remainers wish to impose some kind of intellectual segregationist regime.
If anything, it is an article suggesting ways that would attempt to make universal suffrage as universal as possible, by getting as many as possible to engage with the political process.
Putting to one side the position I and others take, which is to indeed accept (or endure if you like) the referendum result, and now challenge brexiters to explain what they have voted for and how they will achieve that.
However not accepting is a long way from opposition. I don't 'accept' the Tory government, in that I despise them and within the law will resist what they do. I have the right in my view to refuse to accept alliance to somebody like Boris 'picaninny' Johnson, or Jacob Rees Mogg. I believe what you hint at is akin to what Esther McVay and others keep on saying 'don't talk brexit down, get behind the country, we have a great future out of the EU', George Orwell might say we are called on to love Big Brother.
Well no.
I 'accept' that I have lost as a matter of dreadful happenstance in my lifetime, but why should I 'accept' the result of that being stuff like travel restrictions, a worse version of democracy, less collaboration and co-operation with all kinds of good EU stuff?
And the forthcoming hard border on the island of Ireland?
Incidentally I will again push back at your non-detailed critique that the EU is undemocratic. It is more democratic than the UK, which operates decidedly undemocratic practices of of it's own in house. There is absolutely no objective way that you can say that the EU is undemocratic, and repeating it won't make what you say true.
Anyway you can be happy that I know I am a loser, but don't expect me to be happy about it.
In addition, in the absence of any kind of coherent plan from the brexiters, what would there be to accept or oppose anyway?
Having the liberty to express opinion and ask questions did not stop when the referendum ballot closed, just as pro brexit people expressed opinion and asked questions before the vote. Some might even say such discourse is the very currency of 'democracy', yet you seem antagonistic towards that particular feature of 'democracy'.
I don't understand why brexiters spend so much time gawping at the reaction of us remain losers.
Maybe it is because brexiters have no clue as to what to do with their victory, so turn on remainers for not loving them enough, a useful distraction.
So what happens next?
Perhaps Barnier points out what his political masters say is possible - a form of customs union and FTA for goods OR nothing.
Or perhaps Parliament "takes back control" through a coalition of Labour, SNP and Tory remainers?
Let us be absolutely clear - this is not rocket science. And nothing suggested by any faction of the cabinet will fly. If it it were going to fly then they would have cut a deal with Dublin and the EU27 earlier this year.
And for the benefit of @Southbank our system of government is a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Naturally there will be political consequences when the Tories fold into a risk free position.
Labour will be able to say that this was their position since early March but they are not the government. It is not for them to enact a response to the referendum.
If Labour were in government tomorrow it is possible that a deal could be closed extremely quickly for they are not far apart from Barnier. Certainly not on the Customs Union and the Irish border. The single market is a separate topic, perhaps worthy of a separate thread as the situation heats up over the summer.
A good summary of the situation so far from Ms Hyde.
Not one for our Brexiters, obviously
“I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result..." - Daniel Fecking Hannan!
https://newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/05/daniel-hannan-has-noticed-brexit-isn-t-going-well-and-he-blames-remainers
Jeremy Corbyn must change course on EEA, says Lord Kinnock
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/jeremy-corbyn-must-change-course-on-eea-says-lord-kinnock?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
At present, there is still some slight reticence on the part of the largely Remainer Government and Remainer majorities amongst both Labour and Tory MPs to overturn the referendum result outright. The discussion over the Customs Union is a stepping stone towards that end because pursuing a CU can only have two endings. One is that the EU says no, whatever form the UK proposal finally takes. The second is that the EU insists on something which we can all probably agree is pointless, membership of the Customs Union with no control over its rules or the movement of people.
If the EU says no then the majorities in Parliament will say staying in the EU is better than crashing out. If the CU deal is as bad as is being proposed then the argument will be that staying in the EU is better than being a rule taker.
Either way the referendum result will be directly challenged, and that is when the political crisis wil take off.
However the crisis is 100% the responsibility of those who promoted, voted for, and are now laughingly 'managing' brexit. The remainers, and the EU are charged with reacting and responding and indeed resisting brexiters. Not because they can't accept the result, but because if the result leads to an absurd, or damaging or unworkable situation it needs the toughest scrutiny of all time. You allude to this when you say it is 'once in a generation'.
We remainers are told not to re run the referendum debate, to accept we lost. The problem seems to be that the winners can't accept they won.
The remainer May now almost two years after the vote, has just sent away her cabinet to come up with ideas and solutions. A remainer asking leavers to prove they knew what they were voting for, means leavers are not being thwarted so much as challenged to prove they know what they are doing.
If those who have any power in parliament exercise that power, it is a feature of UK government that brexiters sought to reinforce by voting for this thing they spuriously call sovereignty.