Brexit Thread III - How to instantly polarise your country without even trying

[Arakhor]

Referenda should obviously be held if something alters basic elements of the constitution. That is not the case in all, but in some of your examples.

What about countries with unwritten constitutions?

 

[Hrothbern]

What about countries with unwritten constitutions?

Touching upon a key property of the UK tradition.
Don't codify or overengineer rulles by writing them... much better to get along as it goes

 

[Snerk]

The Norwegian deal is clearly superior. Pay EU fees, adopt EU rules, inner EU market access, but have no say in any EU matters what so ever. All so that the politicians can say thank god we're not part of the EU.

 

[Verbose]

Referenda should obviously be held if something alters basic elements of the constitution. That is not the case in all, but in some of your examples.

Alternatively — the way this often seems set up — any such things needs to be passed by two consecutive parliaments, with an election between them (and often qualified majorities), to make sure that a majority really are in favour of the changes, and if it's not has the opportunity to vote in a general election for a political alternative that promises to stopp such changes.

 

[Kyriakos]

Alternatively — the way this often seems set up — any such things needs to be passed by two consecutive parliaments, with an election between them (and often qualified majorities), to make sure that a majority really are in favour of the changes, and if it's not has the opportunity to vote in a general election for a political alternative that promises to stopp such changes.

That isn't workable. A change in parliament often means the other main party is in power. Continuation of law is a thing as well, and most countries define the result of a referendum as binding. That said, many countries (Greece as well) have clauses in the constitution which demand not just any majority (eg 50% + 1 vote) but an enhanced majority (iirc it is approximating 3/5ths) in cases where some decision is to change the constitution itself. Yet a vote on the eu (even leaving it) is not part of a country's constitution.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Well, was there a referendum about joining the EU? I mean, a fusion of two or more countries is a pretty
big step. If you want to do something like that you should better legitimize it. Otherwise, if your idea turns
out to be a bad one, you will be blamed & you won't be able to point at the people & say: "You guys wanted it".
Then you'll take the blame & you alone.

I feel like reading up only the slightest bit on the history of the EU would have answered that question for you in an instant...

 

[Verbose]

That isn't workable. A change in parliament often means the other main party is in power.

No it's exactly how this should work. The general Big Idea is that constitutional changes are of kind that they really should only be made when there is a general genuine desire with electorate, one that preferably has bi-partisan support. The whole idea is that if something is tried, and it fails to live up to that, in the next general election the electorate punish the idiots that came up with something lacking support, and rewarding the opposition to it. It's what's supposed to happen

Continuation of law is a thing as well, and most countries define the result of a referendum as binding.

I'd say on the contrary. I know of next to none that does. What you might be after is that in some countries the political class is fearful enough of their own people to not dare act otherwise. But that's a pathology of parliamentary democracy. It's when it's no longer healthy.

And of course, we might still get to see the UK parliament suspended in favour of legislation directly by government in order to effectuate Brexit.

 

[Kyriakos]

No it's exactly how this should work. The general Big Idea is that constitutional changes are of kind that they really should only be made when there is a general genuine desire with electorate, one that preferably has bi-partisan support. The whole idea is that if something is tried, and it fails to live up to that, in the next general election the electorate punish the idiots that came up with something lacking support, and rewarding the opposition to it. It's what's supposed to happen

I'd say on the contrary. I know of next to none that does. What you might be after is that in some countries the political class is fearful enough of their own people to not dare act otherwise. But that's a pathology of parliamentary democracy. It's when it's no longer healthy.

And of course, we might still get to see the UK parliament suspended in favour of legislation directly by government in order to effectuate Brexit.

There is imo merit only in safeguarding the actual constitution, cause that is pretty much the stable set of laws of the country, and changes to the constitution do require more than a simple majority. Eu participation is - obviously - not part of the country's constitution- nor can it be.
As for referendums... well, the popular vote is what puts people in parliament, so it is a bit suspect when they act contrary to it. Let's not pretend the parliamentarians are wise and parent-figures of the state. Politicians tend to be lowly by majority. The population can be that as well, but the latter is what has the constitutional right to decide by vote, and not just once every 4 years-- particularly when very serious matters come up.
You know, for a swedish person, you echo quite the parochial love/trust in authority

 

[Oerdin]

So, what's the current situation? There was a referendum, yes? & then everyone began to argue. The EU was pissed, Great Britain was pissed & they are not talking anymore with each other

That about sums it up. Though the UK has been trying to talk to the EU while they EU has done nothing but refuse to have any meaningful discussions. It seems perfectly obvious the EU is a bad faith actor who is trying to cause talks to fail. I am perfectly happy with that though because it means May won't be able to give the EU any exit ransome demands without a trade deal and that probably would be an ok outcome.

 

[Arakhor]

Feel free to ever provide any sources for your assertions, Oerdin.

 

[Kyriakos]

Feel free to ever provide any sources for your assertions, Oerdin.

Assertion means Assertion.

 

[caketastydelish]

Thank God for Brexit! Thank you Nigel Farage for all your hard work that has finally paid off! For ordinary people, decent people! Those swiss banks in Brussels can kiss my ass!

 

[Ironsided]

Yeah, better sing Rule Britannia and hope for a trade deal with the apricot gibbon squatting round the White House.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That about sums it up. Though the UK has been trying to talk to the EU while they EU has done nothing but refuse to have any meaningful discussions. It seems perfectly obvious the EU is a bad faith actor who is trying to cause talks to fail. I am perfectly happy with that though because it means May won't be able to give the EU any exit ransome demands without a trade deal and that probably would be an ok outcome.

Generally the larger economic block holds most of the cards and is in a position to demand favourable terms. This is how it has always worked
The UK should honestly just prepare for a Hard Brexit, with the way things are going. Between the failed India Free trade negoisiations and the failed Free trade with Japan, I think the UK is going to find out that negosiating Free trade deals as the smaller economy its the smaller economy that must give concessions.

Outside the EU the UK can sign free trade agreements with smaller countries as it pleases, Just remember that large part of the UK economy is used for backdooring imports into the EU thanks to its current special position.

I dont think the EU is being unreasonable, being the larger trading partner
Something will be worked out, probably be the UK caving into giving concessions unless it wasnt to find out the hardway what a Brexit would look like

 

[Oerdin]

Failed? They legally can't even begin negotiating yet!

 

[ori]

Nothing (at least no legal obligation) keeps the UK from beginning negotiations with third parties - they just cannot have a trade treaty entering into force prior to leaving the EU. Where does the "legally" come from, I cannot find any EU rules (press releases no withstanding) that would prohibit a member state from talking to non-members. Stating they cannot legally start negotiating a treaty is akin to claiming the EU members have no foreign relations apart from through the EU, the EU is not yet that integrated. There are of course major sticking points, most of which having to do with any trading partner certainly wishing to know what kind of deal the UK will have with the EU prior to negotiations as that will impact pretty much everything related to any conceivable trade deal.

 

[Verbose]

Failed? They legally can't even begin negotiating yet!

Oh they can, if they want to. There just isn't much point. Not from the UK's perspective, but from whomever's they might want to negotiate with, since it's unclear what the UK can actually deliver before it's divorce from the EU is finalized.

 

[Arakhor]

The trade talks with India failed months ago, when it was reported that the Indian government wanted more of its citizens to be allowed to move to the UK. In a move that no doubt broke the hearts of tens of Telegraph readers, the New British Empire couldn't even manage to negotiate a deal within the Commonwealth for fear of having more brown people over here...

Edit: A Net search tells me that it was a whole year ago.

 

[Arent11]

What about countries with unwritten constitutions?

Well, not writing down the basic rules is a big problem, because then "interested parties" will always try to change them in their favor.

That about sums it up. Though the UK has been trying to talk to the EU while they EU has done nothing but refuse to have any meaningful discussions. It seems perfectly obvious the EU is a bad faith actor who is trying to cause talks to fail. I am perfectly happy with that though because it means May won't be able to give the EU any exit ransome demands without a trade deal and that probably would be an ok outcome.

The construction of the EU is such that an "exit" leads to severe economic & legal problems to discourage any such exits. While I don't necessarily disagree that there has to be some kind of stabilizing factor, I would prefer if that factor was implemented "honestly" by some kind of referenda & not trough some backdoors.
Because, as you can see, a large country can always leave the hard way - simply letting the negotiation go awry. & I actually think that is exactly what the Brits are doing, although Juncker & other parts of the commission didn't do themselves a favor by threatening to "punish" the Brits for leaving. The mean thing is just that smaller countries like greece can not so easily walk away.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, not writing down the basic rules is a big problem, because then "interested parties" will always try to change them in their favor.

And how has "writing down the rules" worked for the US? I'd dare say that our system has lasted longer and better than our errant children across the sea.