Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Verbose]

^So, no penalties for being illiberal or anti-legislative autonomy in the Eu. Looks like the dream ended with the 2003 countries massively joining.
I have to suppose that at least in the UK there is a much more firm sense of democracy, so i am not seeing them destroying the distinction of powers as easily.

What, you're unhappy with the how the EU is shown up as effectively powerless against that kind of determined onslaught on liberal democracy — since no provisions were ever made for, it and the EU structures lacks power to sanction it on its own accord? Because the EU can only do what its member states mandate it to do. And Hungary is one of them, and so are a few others of the same current bent, and they are all actually sovereign in relation to each other AND the EU.

So far most of the other EU member states 1) don't care (enough) about the kind of challenge Hungary poses, 2) might want to join Hungary and aid the process of dismantling it, or 3) hope Hungary can be brought back towards a functioning liberal democracy again, presumably by the Hungarians tiring of rule-by-simple-majority (which might be too late, since Fides is beavering away at safe-guarding its hold on power regardless of elections). At some unspecified later point, joint sanctions against Hungary MIGHT come on the table. The question then is how many more EU member states might have gone down the same road, reducing efficiency, possibly splintering the EU itself between liberal and illiberal governments? The fundamental problem is that democracy is under attack, and the democracies are so far too naive and too uncoordinated to fight back effectively. And at times part of the problem is like the British situation — parliamentarism not producing legitimate-enough majorities — or the Italian where the entire national political process is considered corrupt (they trust Brussels more) — or the sad Greek case of a Greek state masquerading as a representative government while being a clientilistic system in reality, and the Greeks being hostages to it being as broke as it is broken. Which is where the rest of the EU comes in, even if Germany catches the flak — if it deserves it, it is for continuing to pay for a Greek state that is STILL not reforming itself into something viable that could actually serve the Greeks.

Russia is hoping to cash in on all this of course. It's this new weird mediated autocracy ruled by majority-considerdation-through-extensive-polling-while-rigging-the-elections. Orban likes it. And Marine Le Pen.

The apparent British problem is that its system produces majorities in parliament, just not sufficiently legitimate majorities, since the voters clearly don't feel they sufficiently represent them. Somehow Britain needs to change its system of parliamentary elections in order to save it, with whatever needs to be done that produces majorities that have at least more legitimacy in the eyes of British voters than is currently the case.

In the mean time the running commentary on Brexit in not insignificant parts of the media and politics does seem to indicate the preference is for government to railroad both the legislative and judiciary branches of government in the process of implementing it.

Of course, if the judiciary branch's ruling is allowed to stand, the the UK goes to parliamentary election, then your confidence in the British sense of democracy will have been confirmed.

But as you said, the political landscape looks like it won't allow a parliamentary election process to be actually significant? Which is where this exchange started.

 

[EnglishEdward]

How would it be put to an election, if both main parties (Labour and Tory) are officially (Labour due to leader) pro-Brexit?

While we in the UK voted for party lists for the election of members for regions for the European
Parliament, we vote for individual named candidates in constituencies for the UK Parliament itself.

So in each constituency, each candidate would no doubt be asked (by the media) to provide a formal
statement as to their position on the European Union and implementing (or not) the referendum result.

UKIP candidates will obviously say Leave immediately, Liberal Democrats will probably say Remain.

It will however split the Conservatives and in particular Labour.

My view is that, irrespective of the outcome of further legal appeals, our Prime Minister should ask for a
simple vote, not a Bill, in the House of Commons in favour of formally requesting leave under Article 50.

If that House does not pass that vote, she should call for a vote for a general election.

That will be fun, particularly where the incumbent MP has a dfferent opinion from their constituents.

 

[Arakhor]

So in each constituency, each candidate would no doubt be asked (by the media) to provide a formal statement as to their position on the European Union and implementing (or not) the referendum result.

Why should MPs be required to do such? They're entitled to private opinions and secret votes as much as everyone. "Trial by press" is almost never the correct way to do things.

 

[Verbose]

Why should MPs be required to do such? They're entitled to private opinions and secret votes as much as everyone. "Trial by press" is almost never the correct way to do things.

It seems a bit redundant to demand a formal statement. One might surmise that, considering such an election would be mostly about Brexit anyway, any candidate that coyly withheld that particular piece of information would have to be VERY strong on every other conceivable issue to get consideration from the voters.

 

[Arakhor]

Another Tory MP has resigned, this time over the government's mishandling of Brexit.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It seems a bit redundant to demand a formal statement.

This is not in the UK a legal requirement.

One might surmise that, considering such an election would be mostly about Brexit anyway, any candidate that coyly withheld that particular piece of information would have to be VERY strong on every other conceivable issue to get consideration from the voters.

Quite so.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Why should MPs be required to do such? They're entitled to private opinions and secret votes as much as everyone.

The only secret vote they are entitled to have in this matter is whether they vote for themselves or for another candidate in the constituency election.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/

"Trial by press" is almost never the correct way to do things.

That is not what I have suggested.

 

[Yeekim]

What, you're unhappy with the how the EU is shown up as effectively powerless against that kind of determined onslaught on liberal democracy — since no provisions were ever made for, it and the EU structures lacks power to sanction it on its own accord? Because the EU can only do what its member states mandate it to do. And Hungary is one of them, and so are a few others of the same current bent, and they are all actually sovereign in relation to each other AND the EU.

See, it is really simple. The EU is simply bad. If it puts some kind of pressure on countries it is bad because it does, and if it doesn't, it is bad because it doesn't.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Verbose: you lack the actual experience of what is going on here. I am not at all interested in wasting my whole life cause some deranged goon in a foreign gov and tied interests force me to. Nor do i recall signing up to a Eu of german puppet states. Think of how Sweden would be currently if gone through the hell Greece has, cause you would literally have broken up to more states in such a case.
Interesting though that you never stop defending the Eu, even if it means that uber-racist govs are just way it is now. Yet it will get far worse, cause that is the mentality in more than half of the union.
I am not seeing the post 2003 enlargement Eu as something positive at all. It is by now a salad. Britain helped create this salad, of course, by not vetoing the 2003 expansion. Back then it was all niceties from the prospective countries to the already-in-Eu ones

See, it is really simple. The EU is simply bad. If it puts some kind of pressure on countries it is bad because it does, and if it doesn't, it is bad because it doesn't.

It got to the crap it now is after the 2003 enlargement where most (not all) of the countries should never have been there in the first place. Not sure about your own (honestly, i just don't know there), but many others were not something which could join and not erode the progressive element in the Eu and also become german client states, effectively making this a hegemony.

 

[Verbose]

@Verbose: you lack the actual experience of what is going on here. I am not at all interested in wasting my whole life cause some deranged goon in a foreign gov and tied interests force me to. Nor do i recall signing up to a Eu of german puppet states. Think of how Sweden would be currently if gone through the hell Greece has, cause you would literally have broken up to more states in such a case.
Interesting though that you never stop defending the Eu, even if it means that uber-racist govs are just way it is now. Yet it will get far worse, cause that is the mentality in more than half of the union.
I am not seeing the post 2003 enlargement Eu as something positive at all. It is by now a salad.

I don't claim personal experience of the Greek situation. And it's not necessary. To the extent that Greeks might deny there is ALSO a problem with the Greek state that precedes and underlies the more recent crisis it isn't able to get out of by its own accord, that IS a Greek problem. (I did live through the Swedish banking and real-estate crash in the early 1990's. Had that been handled differently, Sweden today might have been something akin to Argentina.)

And by the look of things, the Greek government and the Greek people have become SO co-dependent — like a REALLY bad marriage — that there's no forseeable future for Greece that does not involve it being financially carried by the rest of the EU. Greece is a basket-welfare-case to the rest of the EU as it is. It's too sovereign for outsiders to actually fix it FOR the Greeks (if they would even want it), but as a state it is just too incapable to fix itself. The Greek people MIGHT jointly club together to get something done. But that requires at least recognizing there is Greek problem for the Greeks to address first — and not just the more comfortable finger-pointing at everyone else for Greece's predicament. Greece wasn't the only place to get hit, and badly, by the financial crisis. It's the only one to remain on the critical list indefinitely.

The various EU administrative task-forces' findings about the Greek government administration — what it can, and more shockingly what it CAN'T do — has not been edifying. Bad government is bad government.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't claim personal experience of the Greek situation. And it's not necessary. To the extent that Greeks might deny there is a problem with the Greek state that precedes and underlies the more recent crisis it isn't able to get out of by its own accord, that IS a Greek problem.

And by the look of things, the Greek government and the Greek people have become SO co-dependent — like a REALLY bad marriage — that there's no forseeable future for Greece that does not involve it being financially carried by the rest of the EU. Greece is a basket-welfare-case to the rest of the EU as it is. It's too sovereign for outsiders to actually fix it FOR the Greeks (if they would even want it), bat as a state it is just too incapable to fix itself. The Greek people MIGHT jointly club together to get something done. But that requires at least recognizing there is Greek problem for the Greeks to address first — and not just the more comfortable finger-pointing at everyone else for Greece's predicament. Greece wasn't the only place to get hit, and badly, by the financial crisis. It's the only one to remain on the critical list indefinitely.

The various EU administrative task-forces' findings about the Greek government administration — what it can, and more shockingly what it CAN'T do — has not been edifying.

Nice narrative. Any touch on reality, though? Cause it is somewhat a joke to claim that people here don't want structural changes to the state, virtually all the electorate wants that. What we do not want is to die, as with this nice punishment laws which made the situation and the debt hugely worse.
That said, i am wasting metaphorical breath on the web talking on this. Just notice sometime that what you post is so out of touch with our reality that you can only offend despite (i think) not meaning to.

 

[Verbose]

Nice narrative. Any touch on reality, though?

Yes, but it's a picture not simply overridden by the specific Greek problems. It's of course impossible to blame Greeks for their desperation and dismay over the situation. The tricky bit is that I kind of also try to get where our Estonian friend is coming to all this.

Everything we see in Greece, we already saw in the Baltic republics. A complete GDP bloodbath, austerity budgets up the wazoo — to the extent of literally sending people to forage for food in the woods in the Baltic winter…

Except now they're back, and part of the group providing the financial life-line to Greece, for which the Greeks express no gratitude (and yes it would be rich indeed to expect it, and pointless I would agree), but is still what keeps Greece, as it currently is, afloat.

The problem with Greece from THAT kind of perspective is that everything asked from it has already been successfully done in some other part of the EU. It ended well. Yet somehow Greece IS different.

 

[HAND]

Put it to the test in a general election if the British feel uncertain.

The Brexit referendum, THAT was glorified opinion poll. If it wasn't, it should have been binding, not advisory.

Obviously, you were lucky enough not to be exposed to the campaigning in the UK in the run up to the vote. The referendum wasn't sold as an advisory vote to the general public, though if you were to look at a fact checking site or two such as the BBC site, it does state the referendum wasn't actually legally binding. This BBC fact checking site, actually depicted a scenario the UK could be heading into now:

"Could MPs block an EU exit?
Could the necessary legislation pass the Commons, given that a lot of MPs - all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservatives - were in favour of staying? The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report. In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two-thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020."

Cameron said he would trigger Article 50 on the day after the referendum if a leave vote prevailed and then set about negotiating an exit deal, but instead he quit. So he was willing to misled the public about his intentions on that front and maybe also on what the referendum result empowered him to do.

 

[Arakhor]

The only secret vote they are entitled to have in this matter is whether they vote for themselves or for another candidate in the constituency election.

If you can't say that the Mail or Express would not be preparing a series of front pages along the theme of "is your MP a traitor?? Check inside!", then you clearly haven't been following any news of late. After the tragic circumstances surrounding Jo Cook MP, a reasonable person would conclude that MPs do not need any more attempts on their life.

 

[JohannaK]

Jo Cox, I believe.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you can't say that the Mail or Express would not be preparing a series of front pages along the theme of "is your MP a traitor?? Check inside!", then you clearly haven't been following any news of late. After the tragic circumstances surrounding Jo Cook MP, a reasonable person would conclude that MPs do not need any more attempts on their life.

So, if both main parties have leadership in favour of Brexit, and you don't want individual mps to be publicly for or against brexit, how exactly would a general election be on pro or against brexit?

 

[Arakhor]

Jo Cox, I believe.

Indeed, yes. I clearly didn't remember her name correctly.

So, if both main parties have leadership in favour of Brexit, and you don't want individual mps to be publicly for or against brexit, how exactly would a general election be on pro or against brexit?

Well, if there was a snap general election on those grounds, it might be unavoidable. Simply voting in Parliament or holding the government to account does not require such extents though. MPs are here to serve their constituents and help run the country (or provide effective opposition to those who do), not to rush around blindly following some artificial "will of the people" mantra.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The apparent British problem is that its system produces majorities in parliament, just not sufficiently legitimate majorities, since the voters clearly don't feel they sufficiently represent them. Somehow Britain needs to change its system of parliamentary elections in order to save it, with whatever needs to be done that produces majorities that have at least more legitimacy in the eyes of British voters than is currently the case.

So want a system where (presumably) people are still free to vote the way they do now, which is always reasonably close to equal numbers between both "sides", which then produces an outright majority from from one of those sides, even bigger than we currently have, and yet somehow ends up with everyone feeling as though they got a government that represents them personally? Good luck with that...

 

[EnglishEdward]

If you can't say that the Mail or Express would not be preparing a series of front pages along the theme of "is your MP a traitor?? Check inside!", then you clearly haven't been following any news of late. After the tragic circumstances surrounding Jo Cook MP, a reasonable person would conclude that MPs do not need any more attempts on their life.

The murder of one MP is not an adequate reason for abolishing democracy.

 

[Arakhor]

The murder of one MP is not an adequate reason for abolishing democracy.

I'm glad to hear you say that, which is why I'm puzzled that you'd want to bring back Brexit-style McCarthyism. It's also fundamentally undemocratic to refuse to allow Parliament to vote on matters that directly affect UK legislation, which is why I'm also glad to hear that you don't want to abolish the democratic process.