Very good article that. The section on May and the journalist is particularly telling. To be fair, it's not just her that responds to questions like that, all politicians do it. They all operate on their very own fantasy island where soundbites and unfounded optimism are the order of the day. As far as I can see, there are no politicians who critically analyse things, who are are honest enough to say that their chosen path might be difficult or to say when they don't know something. They all just press ahead with their own narrow field of view as if reality isn't something that impinges on them. If they did any of the above they'd fail their media training and would never get selected by their parties.
This excellent piece by Carole Cadwalladr needs no additional observation from me other than to say that Nick Clegg is the kind of centrist, democrat and Europhile that many on here have been calling to rescue us all from right/left/in/out .
By working for Facebook he has lost any last vestiges of moral authority to lecture the rest of us Leavers or Remainers, I particularly put this to you @PragueAddick because apart from you being a Lib Dem* you above anybody else I know has been warning us on here of the dangers of Facebook and what their true purpose was for some time, I also know that you are a big fan of Carole Cadwalladr as well.
* I voted Lib Dem from 2002 - 2010 too.
Mate, I won't deny that my first reaction to the news was to be completely appalled. I would like to read his piece in the Guardian where he seeks to explain himself, but he will have a job. I promise not to duck this.
Your post re Labour and Brexit is a good one too, though it would sit much better with me if the current Labour leader was a modern social democrat, such as either Milliband, or someone like Andy Burnham. That's because I look for someone who understands and respects the EU project, and why the other 27 are rock solid in the negotiations. Corbyn, you know, thinks the EU is a right wing plot ( as opposed to the Brexit Tories who think it's a soshulist plot). He cannot deliver a decent relationship with the EU for this country. If one of the modernists were leading the party, it would be 8-10 points ahead in the polls. I believe that in your heart, you know that.
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Convulutedly if Yvette Cooper wasn't married to Ed Balls Labour would probably have a better Brexit position. The Labour position may be political, but it is both cowardly and makes no sense. However the Tory position is, well you fill in the blanks, but I think it is a position fuelled by latent racism and greed peppered by false nostalgia to make it palatable.
I would like Labour to be led by a pro-Remain MP who also shares Corbyn's commitment to renationalisation and social agenda - I don't think this is a pipe-dream as such MPs may well exist
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Also a story saying that the civil service are making the necessary preparations should a second referendum be needed.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
From those I have spoken to in the last few weeks, 70/30 sounds right.
However, based on the comments I have received, I would still predict only a borderline majority ... it’s just not clear in which way it will go ... and if it is borderline again, is there any real point?
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Also a story saying that the civil service are making the necessary preparations should a second referendum be needed.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Also a story saying that the civil service are making the necessary preparations should a second referendum be needed.
This excellent piece by Carole Cadwalladr needs no additional observation from me other than to say that Nick Clegg is the kind of centrist, democrat and Europhile that many on here have been calling to rescue us all from right/left/in/out .
By working for Facebook he has lost any last vestiges of moral authority to lecture the rest of us Leavers or Remainers, I particularly put this to you @PragueAddick because apart from you being a Lib Dem* you above anybody else I know has been warning us on here of the dangers of Facebook and what their true purpose was for some time, I also know that you are a big fan of Carole Cadwalladr as well.
* I voted Lib Dem from 2002 - 2010 too.
Mate, I won't deny that my first reaction to the news was to be completely appalled. I would like to read his piece in the Guardian where he seeks to explain himself, but he will have a job. I promise not to duck this.
Your post re Labour and Brexit is a good one too, though it would sit much better with me if the current Labour leader was a modern social democrat, such as either Milliband, or someone like Andy Burnham. That's because I look for someone who understands and respects the EU project, and why the other 27 are rock solid in the negotiations. Corbyn, you know, thinks the EU is a right wing plot ( as opposed to the Brexit Tories who think it's a soshulist plot). He cannot deliver a decent relationship with the EU for this country. If one of the modernists were leading the party, it would be 8-10 points ahead in the polls. I believe that in your heart, you know that.
I can't really disagree with most of that but would refer you to Leuth's comment about wanting a Soshulist leader who also is passionate about the EU. In the absence of anybody else Corbyn will have to do as the closest 'I' can get. I will point out that Ed Milliband was creamed in the polls, David is not really the answer whilst I have a lot of time for Andy Burnham and would have voted for him in a leadership election (an election he was thrashed in) although I am aware he comes across as a bit uninspiring.
Would I would add, and it is something I have confessed to on numerous occasions, is that perhaps through hope or naivety I don't think we are at the end game with Corbyn/Labour and Brexit. If we stay in the EU or even get to a point of a far less damaging Brexit than a lot of us expect to see, would we not see that as a success?
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Also a story saying that the civil service are making the necessary preparations should a second referendum be needed.
The Sunday Times are running a live poll on whether there should be a second referendum. Over 5,600 people have voted so far and it is currently 70/30 in favour of a second referendum. I would expect that result if the poll was done on Guardian readers. But, I would have expected Sunday Times and Times readers to be 50/50.
Aren’t The Times and Sunday Times two very different newspapers though ? Two different editors.
I would like Labour to be led by a pro-Remain MP who also shares Corbyn's commitment to renationalisation and social agenda - I don't think this is a pipe-dream as such MPs may well exist
I think Corbyn's own account of being 70 - 75% in favour of the EU in the interview in the link below is an honest account of where he stands (he has also said that he would vote remain again if there were another referendum - something that Theresa May refused to answer):
I also think that in the 2016 referendum and now a politician who says they have reservations about the EU but nonetheless believe that ordinary people would be better off if the UK remains an EU member was and is in a better position to win over the many millions who voted for and still support Brexit than an uncritical europhile.
Although there has been movement in opinion polls in both directions since the 2016 vote opinion remains volatile and could 'bite the bum' of those supporting a 2nd referendum if any 2nd vote is poorly handled (Theresa May discovered how volatile opinion can be in her disastrous 2017 General Election):
I reckon a quite plausible scenario is that the UK does Leave, though with no deal, then in about ten years or so a referendum is held to join again, which is a Yes vote. Despite some Brexiters suggesting the EU is on the verge of collapse, this is clearly not true and it will hopefully will go through some reform in the next years. I think it's unlikely the generation of the late 2020s will want to be isolated from Europe and will feel quite bitter if the 2016 vote leads to needless economic problems. Question is whether the UK would obliged to join the Euro if it rejoined though.
I reckon a quite plausible scenario is that the UK does Leave, though with no deal, then in about ten years or so a referendum is held to join again, which is a Yes vote. Despite some Brexiters suggesting the EU is on the verge of collapse, this is clearly not true and it will hopefully will go through some reform in the next years. I think it's unlikely the generation of the late 2020s will want to be isolated from Europe and will feel quite bitter if the 2016 vote leads to needless economic problems. Question is whether the UK would obliged to join the Euro if it rejoined though.
I would agree with this, although I would guess at nearer five years than ten.
Three things are clear. 1) Whatever happens on 29th March, the majority of the country will not be happy. 2) Any deal going through parliament is unlikely to be passed. 3) The only 2nd referendum with a hope of a leave vote will be one with the simplistic 50/50 choice from last time with no built in margins like 55%. And the Tories wouldnt be so stupid to do that again. Would they?
Very interesting article in the New Statesman by Timothy Less, extract below:
“So there is another possibility: that the EU splits. The basic problem the European establishment has with its south-eastern periphery is the opposite of the problem it has had with the UK – that wayward states such as Hungary and Italy refuse to leave and insist on changing the system from within. This leaves two options. Either the core must secede and establish an EU 2.0, comprised of states that endorse its liberal precepts. Or it must expel the EU’s most unruly members, starting with Hungary.
In the context of recent events, this would be less a change of policy than a continuation of an existing process. By triggering Article 7, the EU’s institutions have already set Poland and Hungary on a glide-path to departure, and Luxembourg explicitly called for Hungary’s expulsion in September 2016. With other wayward states such as Italy, Romania, Malta and Cyprus similarly out of favour, the outcome would be a reversion to the original concept of the European project – a union comprised of a handful of like-minded, geographically proximate states, at the core of which are France and Germany.
A Great Schism may seem far-fetched from the vantage point of 2018. But the political calculus will be very different come the start of the next decade when the EU confronts the next recession, which is inevitable. With the eurozone unreformed, interest rates already at zero and its weakest members sitting on a pile of new debt, the next crisis is likely to hit hard.
What will happen when troublesome elements such as Italy and Greece once again find themselves in financial straits? Will the EU’s core members dig deep into their pockets, as they did before?
That seems improbable. More likely is that the creditor states cut the Mediterranean loose and concentrate on shoring up their own defences. In the process, the EU will squeeze out recalcitrant non-eurozone members such as Hungary and Poland, by whatever means necessary. Already, the former head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has proposed a compulsory referendum in every member state which offers just two choices – accept a political union or quit the EU.
That would, of course, have massive geopolitical implications for the old periphery. Hungary and Italy would seek to balance internationally between the new reduced EU, Russia and China. Poland would focus its attention on the US and UK. New alliances would emerge in the region to replace the EU, encompassing not just central Europe but the Balkans, Belarus and Ukraine. And issues suppressed by EU membership would return to the fore, starting with Hungary’s unresolved grievance over the status of its regional diaspora.
As for the rump EU, it may overcome the challenge emanating from the periphery by expelling its members, but its problems would not be over. It would still be faced with the shortcomings of liberalism – the threat to identities, the economic insecurity, and so on – that fuelled the populist uprising from the east. The core EU may defeat the external enemy by banishing it from the realm. But the challenge from within may prove even greater.”
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped and go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote and nothing else can happen now other than to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or its people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example, of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy than one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
Cheers, Stonemuse - very interesting. The quality of discussion has really gone up again lately on here and it makes for fascinating reading. Thanks to the moderators for guiding it into sensible territory again after some silliness. Must be hard work moderating this with so many heated views, but credit to them for steering it into polite and thoughtful conversation again.
Cheers, Stonemuse - very interesting. The quality of discussion has really gone up again lately on here and it makes for fascinating reading. Thanks to the moderators for guiding it into sensible territory again after some silliness. Must be hard work moderating this with so many heated views, but credit to them for steering it into polite and thoughtful conversation again.
The New Statesman article complements my desired approach as outlined in my post of 9 October:
“The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes.”
Cheers, Stonemuse - very interesting. The quality of discussion has really gone up again lately on here and it makes for fascinating reading. Thanks to the moderators for guiding it into sensible territory again after some silliness. Must be hard work moderating this with so many heated views, but credit to them for steering it into polite and thoughtful conversation again.
The New Statesman article complements my desired approach as outlined in my post of 9 October:
“The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes.”
Negotiation - Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.
Unfortunately, UK politicians have proved themselves totally inept to handle any negotiations, only looking out for their personal agendas. On the other side, the EU has also not ‘negotitiated’ and approached the topic with an incalcitrant attitude.
Such a pity when so many in the EU and the European Parliament support a multi-track approach ... this entire issue could have been handled positively, benefiting both sides, as well as other countries as mentioned in the New Statesman article.
Has the opportunity now been lost? Not according to the Chief Economist of Deutsche Bank (refer previous posting) ... we shall see in the coming months.
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped an go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote nothing else can happen now other to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or it's people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy that one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
Probably the best ever post on CL and I did follow "should I get back in touch with my ex".
A bunch of people exercising their democratic right to show their hatred for democracy.
God bless Britain.
Actually this deserves a more serious response.
The key demand of these protesters was a VOTE on the eventual terms of Brexit. A VOTE...
hatred for democracy, you say?
As long as it is a vote on whether the terms should be accepted or not, and not a rerun of the Referendum then I agree.
The referendum instruction was to Leave The EU. There are many ways to do this, May's is not one of them which makes sense. I would love a referendum which said to her, not good enough, try again.
But I also do not think that was what today's demo was about.
Farage said if he lost 48-52 it wasn't over. Why should it be over if it went his way?
What are the brexiteers afraid of?
A vote on the deal, including a remain option, should settle it one way or another.
We've already voted to remain. Democracy would be dead in this country if there was a second vote on this.
Blimey a new twist, when did we vote to remain ?
What, we lost the leave vote? I must have been sleeping. Can I vote again until I get the answer I want
I keep hearing Brexit voters telling me they won but they're unable to articulate what Brexit means. The leaders of the Brexit campaign don't even want to get involved with the process because they don't know what they're doing and shirk responsibility.
If you're going to leave something you need to understand what you're doing and how to do so - that certainly isn't the case.
This isn't some stupid childish game where the level of debate is 'we won, you lost so stop arguing'.
I fully get that there was a referendum to leave the EU but can someone on here seriously argue that politicians have a clue how to execute this?
Best not to assume that one voted for brexit. I believe in democracy above everything else.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
What? You mean that we can't just have our hand stamped an go back in again! All the more reason to ensure that we get this absolutely right or not do it at all.
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote nothing else can happen now other to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this: - Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years. - Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or it's people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired. - Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être. - Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy. - Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions. - Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first. - Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy that one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
The appropriate balance between representative and direct democracy is both delicate and contested and it can be validly argued that referendums have no place in a properly functioning parliamentary democracy. But if the principle of using referendums in constitutional decision-making is accepted, as it widely is, then we must assess the Brexit referendum by its mode of organisation and the legality of its process. By this measure it is hard not to conclude that the referendum accorded with international standards for direct democracy, that it was conducted in accordance with law and that it was effectively regulated. On this basis I argue that the result is one which citizens should agree to, even if it is not one they agree with. The inevitable, if unpalatable, conclusion is that the outcome was lawfully arrived at and should be faithfully implemented. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/25/stephen-tierney-was-the-brexit-referendum-democratic/
On the other hand: Successful referendums that are part of a lengthy process, involving public input at various stages, high quality information, and clarity about outcomes, can be pivotal moments which help build support for key decisions about a country’s democracy. https://ft.com/content/f8f985cc-8375-11e8-9199-c2a4754b5a0e
“And with the UK’s exit drawing ever nearer, the French president has urged his colleagues in Europe’s capitals, and especially in Brussels, to finally take a few steps in the direction of the British, and offer a solution from which all parties could emerge reasonably satisfied.
This seemingly comes as part of an attempt to revive the idea of a ‘multi-speed Europe’. Macron has been in favor of this concept for quite some time, having mentioned it in his Sorbonne speech last year: “Europe is already moving at several speeds, so we should not be afraid to say so and want it.”
Now he has found a new phrase for it, and reportedly wants to present his “concentric circles” at the EU Council Summit, in which a deal with the UK should be agreed upon. The concept of a multi-speed Europe has been discussed for many years, but has really come into focus since the Brexit vote. It was again put on the back-burner after Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech last September, where he completely excluded the idea and instead argued for a grand, centralised one-size-fits-all European Union.
Nevertheless, a multi-speed Europe could yet be the solution, not only to the debate on the future of the EU, but also for Brexit. As has often been noted, the ways different member states think of the EU couldn’t be more different, and their visions are often hard, if not impossible, to reconcile. There are some who simply want the EU to be a free-trade area with little cooperation in small areas when absolutely needed, there are others who want more integration in one area, but not others – and others who want exactly the opposite. Then there are the arch-federalists who want to go full steam ahead on their way to one united Europe.
It would truly be a European scheme of voluntary cooperation between individual member states. Emmanuel Macron said so himself last year: “We have to think up a Europe with several formats, go further with those who want to go forward, without being hindered by states that want – and it is their right – to go not as fast or not as far.”
Every state could sign up to those efforts which it likes. There would be a “Core Europe,” which is in favour of integration on the euro, on finance, the economy, migration, and so forth, and then there are other circles – those on the outside of Macron’s “concentric circles,” where states only participate in some areas.
As for Brexit, it would open the possibility for Britain to be one of those outer circles, perhaps creating a completely new one. This does not mean that the UK would have to be a member of the EU – neither is Switzerland, while it is still part of a European trading structure. It opens the door, however, for a new kind of partnership, for this “unprecedented deal” which EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier talked about recently. Because the structure of the EU itself wouldn’t be so strict anymore, new ideas and ways of cooperation could be thought up and introduced.
Some have argued that a multi-speed Europe is “too complex,” and not realisable. But we need to remind ourselves that such a complex structure already exists: there is the Eurozone, the non-euro EU member states, EEA, EFTA, the Council of Europe, Schengen, and the Customs Union, all including different states. A Europe a la Carte, as the multi-speed idea is also sometimes called, would merely institutionalise this structure, and make differences in integration common practice, adding much-needed flexibility on the European level.“
However, it cannot be assumed that concentric circles will always work ... as exemplified by Dante’s “Inferno”, the 14th century epic poem, where Hell is nine concentric circles of torment located within the earth.
Comments
Your post re Labour and Brexit is a good one too, though it would sit much better with me if the current Labour leader was a modern social democrat, such as either Milliband, or someone like Andy Burnham. That's because I look for someone who understands and respects the EU project, and why the other 27 are rock solid in the negotiations. Corbyn, you know, thinks the EU is a right wing plot ( as opposed to the Brexit Tories who think it's a soshulist plot). He cannot deliver a decent relationship with the EU for this country. If one of the modernists were leading the party, it would be 8-10 points ahead in the polls. I believe that in your heart, you know that.
Leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
The Labour position may be political, but it is both cowardly and makes no sense.
However the Tory position is, well you fill in the blanks, but I think it is a position fuelled by latent racism and greed peppered by false nostalgia to make it palatable.
However, based on the comments I have received, I would still predict only a borderline majority ... it’s just not clear in which way it will go ... and if it is borderline again, is there any real point?
ie Gina Miller, Clegg, Sourbury, Geldoff, Campbell, Cable, Delia,
pay for it!!!!
Would I would add, and it is something I have confessed to on numerous occasions, is that perhaps through hope or naivety I don't think we are at the end game with Corbyn/Labour and Brexit. If we stay in the EU or even get to a point of a far less damaging Brexit than a lot of us expect to see, would we not see that as a success?
Thanks for that
Two different editors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36506163/corbyn-i-m-seven-out-of-10-on-eu
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/12/jeremy-corbyn-says-would-vote-remain-second-eu-referendum
I also think that in the 2016 referendum and now a politician who says they have reservations about the EU but nonetheless believe that ordinary people would be better off if the UK remains an EU member was and is in a better position to win over the many millions who voted for and still support Brexit than an uncritical europhile.
Although there has been movement in opinion polls in both directions since the 2016 vote opinion remains volatile and could 'bite the bum' of those supporting a 2nd referendum if any 2nd vote is poorly handled (Theresa May discovered how volatile opinion can be in her disastrous 2017 General Election):
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/
1) Whatever happens on 29th March, the majority of the country will not be happy.
2) Any deal going through parliament is unlikely to be passed.
3) The only 2nd referendum with a hope of a leave vote will be one with the simplistic 50/50 choice from last time with no built in margins like 55%. And the Tories wouldnt be so stupid to do that again. Would they?
My money is on no deal chaos.
“So there is another possibility: that the EU splits. The basic problem the European establishment has with its south-eastern periphery is the opposite of the problem it has had with the UK – that wayward states such as Hungary and Italy refuse to leave and insist on changing the system from within. This leaves two options. Either the core must secede and establish an EU 2.0, comprised of states that endorse its liberal precepts. Or it must expel the EU’s most unruly members, starting with Hungary.
In the context of recent events, this would be less a change of policy than a continuation of an existing process. By triggering Article 7, the EU’s institutions have already set Poland and Hungary on a glide-path to departure, and Luxembourg explicitly called for Hungary’s expulsion in September 2016. With other wayward states such as Italy, Romania, Malta and Cyprus similarly out of favour, the outcome would be a reversion to the original concept of the European project – a union comprised of a handful of like-minded, geographically proximate states, at the core of which are France and Germany.
A Great Schism may seem far-fetched from the vantage point of 2018. But the political calculus will be very different come the start of the next decade when the EU confronts the next recession, which is inevitable. With the eurozone unreformed, interest rates already at zero and its weakest members sitting on a pile of new debt, the next crisis is likely to hit hard.
What will happen when troublesome elements such as Italy and Greece once again find themselves in financial straits? Will the EU’s core members dig deep into their pockets, as they did before?
That seems improbable. More likely is that the creditor states cut the Mediterranean loose and concentrate on shoring up their own defences. In the process, the EU will squeeze out recalcitrant non-eurozone members such as Hungary and Poland, by whatever means necessary. Already, the former head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has proposed a compulsory referendum in every member state which offers just two choices – accept a political union or quit the EU.
That would, of course, have massive geopolitical implications for the old periphery. Hungary and Italy would seek to balance internationally between the new reduced EU, Russia and China. Poland would focus its attention on the US and UK. New alliances would emerge in the region to replace the EU, encompassing not just central Europe but the Balkans, Belarus and Ukraine. And issues suppressed by EU membership would return to the fore, starting with Hungary’s unresolved grievance over the status of its regional diaspora.
As for the rump EU, it may overcome the challenge emanating from the periphery by expelling its members, but its problems would not be over. It would still be faced with the shortcomings of liberalism – the threat to identities, the economic insecurity, and so on – that fuelled the populist uprising from the east. The core EU may defeat the external enemy by banishing it from the realm. But the challenge from within may prove even greater.”
https://newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/great-schism-could-pull-eu-apart
You believe in democracy, I believe in democracy, we all believe in democracy. The trouble is there are different views on what democracy is. To some it is nothing more, nothing less than one person one vote. That's it! That's democracy in a nutshell. We all had a chance to vote and nothing else can happen now other than to follow through on that decision.
For me though, there is so much more to democracy than this:
- Democracy assumes having an informed populace: We never had this. Many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for, and many still don't. Not the fault of the individuals as they had been systematically lied to for years.
- Democracy assumes doing this for the right reasons: The referendum wasn't held for the benefit of the country or its people. The referendum was designed as a way of silencing Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It badly backfired.
- Democracy assumes that only legal instruments are used for decision making purposes. In this case a non-binding referendum has been skewed into the governments whole raison d'être.
- Democracy assumes that only those items that are workable are put to the electorate. In this case the Irish border hadn't even been considered. No-one had a workable solution, and for all I know nobody has now. Putting such an issue to the electorate without so much as flagging it up as an issue gives the whole process a false legitimacy.
- Democracy assumes that the questions that are put to the populace are clear and unambiguous. We never had that. The options we had were simply to remain or leave in the EU. There was no mention, for example, of the customs union (or even a customs union). People had to guess at what that might mean - and they came to vastly different conclusions.
- Democracy assumes that people are voting for the right reasons. A large chunk of the Brexit vote came, not from people who genuinely wanted out but from people who saw it as an opportunity to kick the government. There were other underlying factors that should have been sorted before embarking on Brexit, like getting our own house in order first.
- Democracy assumes that there are certain checks and balances against cocking-up on irreversible decisions. This usually take the form of a 2/3rds majority vote, a second vote, or some other agreed method of ratification. We had none of that.
For anyone who takes a wider view of democracy than one person one vote and, err, that's it, the Brexit referendum was anything but democratic. It was profoundly undemocratic. That's why we can't just plough ahead regardless. After all, leaving the EU isn't like leaving a nightclub.
“The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes.”
Unfortunately, UK politicians have proved themselves totally inept to handle any negotiations, only looking out for their personal agendas. On the other side, the EU has also not ‘negotitiated’ and approached the topic with an incalcitrant attitude.
Such a pity when so many in the EU and the European Parliament support a multi-track approach ... this entire issue could have been handled positively, benefiting both sides, as well as other countries as mentioned in the New Statesman article.
Has the opportunity now been lost? Not according to the Chief Economist of Deutsche Bank (refer previous posting) ... we shall see in the coming months.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/25/stephen-tierney-was-the-brexit-referendum-democratic/
On the other hand:
Successful referendums that are part of a lengthy process, involving public input at various stages, high quality information, and clarity about outcomes, can be pivotal moments which help build support for key decisions about a country’s democracy.
https://ft.com/content/f8f985cc-8375-11e8-9199-c2a4754b5a0e
This seemingly comes as part of an attempt to revive the idea of a ‘multi-speed Europe’. Macron has been in favor of this concept for quite some time, having mentioned it in his Sorbonne speech last year: “Europe is already moving at several speeds, so we should not be afraid to say so and want it.”
Now he has found a new phrase for it, and reportedly wants to present his “concentric circles” at the EU Council Summit, in which a deal with the UK should be agreed upon. The concept of a multi-speed Europe has been discussed for many years, but has really come into focus since the Brexit vote. It was again put on the back-burner after Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech last September, where he completely excluded the idea and instead argued for a grand, centralised one-size-fits-all European Union.
Nevertheless, a multi-speed Europe could yet be the solution, not only to the debate on the future of the EU, but also for Brexit. As has often been noted, the ways different member states think of the EU couldn’t be more different, and their visions are often hard, if not impossible, to reconcile. There are some who simply want the EU to be a free-trade area with little cooperation in small areas when absolutely needed, there are others who want more integration in one area, but not others – and others who want exactly the opposite. Then there are the arch-federalists who want to go full steam ahead on their way to one united Europe.
It would truly be a European scheme of voluntary cooperation between individual member states. Emmanuel Macron said so himself last year: “We have to think up a Europe with several formats, go further with those who want to go forward, without being hindered by states that want – and it is their right – to go not as fast or not as far.”
Every state could sign up to those efforts which it likes. There would be a “Core Europe,” which is in favour of integration on the euro, on finance, the economy, migration, and so forth, and then there are other circles – those on the outside of Macron’s “concentric circles,” where states only participate in some areas.
As for Brexit, it would open the possibility for Britain to be one of those outer circles, perhaps creating a completely new one. This does not mean that the UK would have to be a member of the EU – neither is Switzerland, while it is still part of a European trading structure. It opens the door, however, for a new kind of partnership, for this “unprecedented deal” which EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier talked about recently. Because the structure of the EU itself wouldn’t be so strict anymore, new ideas and ways of cooperation could be thought up and introduced.
Some have argued that a multi-speed Europe is “too complex,” and not realisable. But we need to remind ourselves that such a complex structure already exists: there is the Eurozone, the non-euro EU member states, EEA, EFTA, the Council of Europe, Schengen, and the Customs Union, all including different states. A Europe a la Carte, as the multi-speed idea is also sometimes called, would merely institutionalise this structure, and make differences in integration common practice, adding much-needed flexibility on the European level.“
https://capx.co/macrons-concentric-circles-could-be-a-solution-for-the-eu-and-for-brexit/