Brexit matters

[Yew]

The physical stamps will be going away later this year once the Entry-Exit System (EES) finally comes into service.

So I will admit to quite enjoying getting stamps in my passport. Though I can imagine for peak-time travellers it was not fun with the extra waits

 

[styles]

Wouldn't hold my breath on the new EU entry-exit system anyway.

It was originally planned for 2022. More recently it was planned for November 2024 and threatened my Iceland trip with being stampless.

Except, it was delayed yet again.

Maybe it'll happen in October, but I wouldn't put money on it.

 

[AM9]

Wouldn't hold my breath on the new EU entry-exit system anyway.

It was originally planned for 2022. More recently it was planned for November 2024 and threatened my Iceland trip with being stampless.

Except, it was delayed yet again.

Maybe it'll happen in October, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Why would the new entry-exit system have "threatened my [your] Iceland trip with being stampless"?

 

[Snow1964]

Why would the new entry-exit system have "threatened my [your] Iceland trip with being stampless"?

Iceland is part of the Schengen area, so gets same rules for UK citizens as entering most of Europe

 

[Yew]

So reading this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz63d82z785o

We have this quote (my bold):

Elspeth Macdonald, who represents 450 fishing boats as chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation says: "This deal is a horror show for Scottish fishermen, far worse than Boris Johnson's botched Brexit agreement."

Which seems completely at odds with this previous statement, that the deal is simply an extension of the current agreement?

The "reset" document notes "political agreements leading to full reciprocal access to waters to fish until 30 June 2038" - a 12-year extension to the current deal negotiated by Boris Johnson's Conservative government - and much longer than expected.

It seems that these two statements cannot both be true?

 

[DarloRich]

Which seems completely at odds with this previous statement, that the deal is simply an extension of the current agreement?

simply a reflection of indoctrination. Labour = BAD! Reality is a stranger.

 

[oldman]

It seems that these two statements cannot both be true?

The Tory line (according to a clown on Newsnight) is that the agreement was a temporary deal (necessary evil) which would have been replaced by something more restrictive (taking back control) after 2026. This may or may not be true.

 

[DarloRich]

Looks like a good set of agreements to me have been achieved by Labour. No particular downsides that I can see and some wins such as e-gates and some more regulatory alignment, easing of trade barriers for farming and security cooperation.

exactly - but it is talking to Europe something Reformies find unconscionable. They will witter endlessly about "surrenders" & fishing. As if they care................

(Reform don't even ATTEND debates about fishing in Parliament, obviously!)

The key points of the deal seem to be:

• Trade and Border Control: The deal includes measures to streamline food trade and ease border checks, reducing red tape and potentially lowering food prices. British passport holders will be able to use more eGates in Europe to avoid long border control queues
• Pet Travel: Pet passports will be reintroduced, eliminating the need for costly animal health certificates for each trip
• Fishing Rights: The current fishing deal will continue for 12 years, with no increase in fish quotas. EU fishing vessels can fish in UK waters with a valid licence
• Defence and Security: A new security and defence partnership has been established, allowing the UK defence industry to participate in the EU's £150bn Security Action for Europe (SAFE) fund
• Economic Impact: The deal is expected to boost the UK economy by £9bn by 2040 2.
• Environmental Cooperation: The UK and the EU will cooperate more closely on emissions, linking their emissions trading systems

i am not sure what the problem is here!

 

[TravelDream]

Why would the new entry-exit system have "threatened my [your] Iceland trip with being stampless"?

Iceland is in Schengen.

It's just one of the many examples of how leaving the EU is meaningless.

You can be in Schengen with open borders without being in the EU (see Iceland, Norway).

You can be in the customs union without being in the EU (see Turkey).

You can be in the single market without being in the EU (see Switzerland, Norway, Iceland).

You can be in EU programmes like Erasmus without being in the EU (see North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey).

And some things, like the ECHR, are nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Montenegro, Azerbeijan, Bosnia and many other non-EU states are members.

Yet that's all we seem to hear from the right-wing media is about surrender deals and betraying Brexit. It's all total nonsense.
Brexit is meaningless in itself. We could have had Brexit (i.e. leave the EU) and actually had a closer relationship with the EU than before.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yet that's all we seem to hear from the right-wing media is about surrender deals and betraying Brexit. It's all total nonsense.

It's clever (and infuriating) though.

The question asked was:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

The answer was that the UK should leave the EU. This has happened. There is perhaps an argument that if Labour were talking about re-joining the EU that could possibly be seen as betraying Brexit. But anything less than that? Nowt to do with the "Will of the People" from almost a decade ago.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

(...) Yet that's all we seem to hear from the right-wing media is about surrender deals and betraying Brexit. It's all total nonsense.
Brexit is meaningless in itself. We could have had Brexit (i.e. leave the EU) and actually had a closer relationship with the EU than before.

This is also what infuriated me about the endless post-Brexit debates back in the day, on both sides of the isle. People like Nigel Farage and others should have been hammered every single day about why they kept bringing up Norway and Switzerland as shining examples of progress, wealth and democracy outside the EU, both during the campaign but also after the referendum, yet would then turn around and talk about any deal involving membership in the customs union and single market as "betrayal". You cannot have it both ways. Fact is, Norway and Switzerland are prosperous nations, yes, both enjoying a good relationship with the EU. But fact is also, Norway and Switzerland are in the single market and have signed up to freedom of movement. In fact, they are both in Schengen too.

Norway and Switzerland definitely have their issues, I have personal experience with the latter and how a lack of EU membership, contrary to the statements of home-grown populist politicians there, does have significant downsides. There are some upsides, not everything is black and white, but staying outside the EU does come with a cost. But these downsides absolutely pale in comparison with the crappy deal the UK willingly decided to inflict upon itself.

So I agree, there never was a democratic mandate for a hard Brexit or leaving the single market and/or customs union. That is why parliament was paralysed for so long. And even the 2019 landslide general election only carried a hard Brexit "mandate" of roughly 44%, if you choose to interpret that result as such a mandate in the first place, which I would not. This problem extended across the political isle where some people, many in my personal circle even, were obsessed with fully reversing Brexit, rather than focusing on a good, closely aligned deal in the style of Switzerland or Norway. That severely lacked pragmatism at the time, and now look. But I digress...

The problem is, and Rory Stewart explained this to John Stewart during his visit to the US, the UK FPTP system is largely to blame for the more than naff status quo. Under a proportionally representative system, there is little doubt the current government would have quickly moved to a closer alignment with the EU, I think even putting matters such as single market membership on the table. Starmer and basically all his cabinet would support that move.

But under the current system where a lot of politicians and broad public opinion may well support such a move, but key target constituencies that are being monitored by the government do not, we are stuck with this unsatisfying limbo, with the government tepidly trying to move to closer alignment bit by bit without waking up the right-wing press dragon or pissing off those "key" voters in the process.

It's madness and frankly, it's undemocratic too. FPTP has really got to go.

 

[AM9]

Iceland is in Schengen.

It's just one of the many examples of how leaving the EU is meaningless.

You can be in Schengen with open borders without being in the EU (see Iceland, Norway).

You can be in the customs union without being in the EU (see Turkey).

You can be in the single market without being in the EU (see Switzerland, Norway, Iceland).

You can be in EU programmes like Erasmus without being in the EU (see North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey).

And some things, like the ECHR, are nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Montenegro, Azerbeijan, Bosnia and many other non-EU states are members.

Yet that's all we seem to hear from the right-wing media is about surrender deals and betraying Brexit. It's all total nonsense.
Brexit is meaningless in itself. We could have had Brexit (i.e. leave the EU) and actually had a closer relationship with the EU than before.

I still don't understand what the 'stampless' reference is and why it being threatened is an issue for you (or anyone).

 

[styles]

I still don't understand what the 'stampless' reference is and why it being threatened is an issue for you (or anyone).

If EES had been rolled out, I would've have gotten a stamp going into (or out of) Iceland.

I would have had a "stampless" trip, as in, no passport stamps.

The EES was delayed and I got the stamps though.

It's not really an "issue" in that it wouldn't cause me any problems. But I like collecting passport stamps, so it was nice to get them.

 

[Gloster]

Looking at it it seems to me that the deal is generally to our advantage and also, probably, to the EU. However, you can’t always have everything you want and it seem that one area where we had to accept that we must give way to get a deal is fisheries. With the fisheries what we have got is possibly slightly worse than we might have got, but still not too bad and at least gives some clarity. However, the people who got us into this mess and made an even worse shambles of fisheries than most other parts of Brexit are screaming about how terrible this element is. Fisheries have suddenly become totemic to them because it is their business to talk the deal and Britain down to further their agendas.

 

[alex397]

Fishing is certainly a topic which should be talked about, but as it makes up 0.05% of our economy I’m not sure why the media talk about it with so more importance than other topics.

 

[signed]

Fishing is certainly a topic which should be talked about, but as it makes up 0.05% of our economy I’m not sure why the media talk about it with so more importance than other topics.

The agricultural industry is a prime target for the right-wing parties and the media is mostly influenced by the right wing

 

[zero]

The question asked was:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

The answer was that the UK should leave the EU. This has happened. There is perhaps an argument that if Labour were talking about re-joining the EU that could possibly be seen as betraying Brexit. But anything less than that? Nowt to do with the "Will of the People" from almost a decade ago.

The only way to find out the "Will of the People" is to have another referendum with properly worded options, but no UK politican is going to risk another one where the result isn't already absolutely clear beforehand, which would mean that there isn't really any point in holding a referendum. (Though I don't know the views of a theoretical Reform government.)

It's madness and frankly, it's undemocratic too. FPTP has really got to go.

I would also like a PR voting system for the UK, but the People were asked to choose between FPTP and AV and they chose FPTP by a resounding margin. And FPTP suits the Labour Party for now. It would be amusing if the results of the next GE lead to Reform managing to reform the voting system... (or maybe people will go back to voting Tory)

 

[Mrwerdna1]

I would also like a PR voting system for the UK, but the People were asked to choose between FPTP and AV and they chose FPTP by a resounding margin. And FPTP suits the Labour Party for now. It would be amusing if the results of the next GE lead to Reform managing to reform the voting system... (or maybe people will go back to voting Tory)

Two things:

1) That was 14 years ago, support for proportional representation (and dissatisfaction with FPTP) has grown substantially since then. In a recent poll by YouGov, just shy of a majority (i.e. 49% percent) were in favour of scrapping FPTP and introducing a proportionally representative system, including a majority within all political parties apart from the Conservatives, so that tells you the extent to which there is support for it. I have seen other polls with a majority of voters in favour. Voters are fed up with the Tories and Labour, so provided a referendum were held before the end of parliament or just after a Labour+Lib Dem win, I think it would have pretty good odds. There is also the option of introducing a change to the voting system without a referendum, though that would, admittedly for good reason, be political dynamite.

2) AV is not proportionally representative. It is perhaps more democratic than FPTP, but it is not proportionally representative. And unlike proportionally representative systems, where one can point to a huge number of countries in Europe as point of reference, AV was only ever used by the Australians to elect their parliament, and well... not sure that's a good marketing call, do you?

However, one considerable snag surrounding the replacement of FPTP is that, like with Brexit, there may well be a majority of voters who want to replace FPTP with something else, but not a majority for any one alternative system.

So, whilst I don't think it would necessarily be the ideal system for the UK (I am a strong supporter of the entirely proportional closed list method using the D'Hondt formula) I think the voting method with the biggest chance of success i.e. for being accepted by the British electorate would be the additional-member system as used in Scottish National elections, because it retains the constituency - MP link. It is not 100% proportional, but comes very close and would effectively rule out a single party winning an outright majority in the future. Put it this way, based on the general election vote-shares of the last 40 years, no single party would have been able to gain a majority in parliament. At the same time though, AMS retains the constituency - MP link, which takes the wind out of the sails of that argument. Additionally, a variant of AMS is also used in Germany and New Zealand.

Alternatively, single transferable vote (STV) might have a good chance too, considering it is used to great effect in Ireland's parliamentary elections and is considered the best and most democratic system by the UK Electoral Reform society. But if I had to place all my eggs in one basket, it would still be AMS, I think.

 

[TravelDream]

Looking at it it seems to me that the deal is generally to our advantage and also, probably, to the EU. However, you can’t always have everything you want and it seem that one area where we had to accept that we must give way to get a deal is fisherie

It's better than what's before. We need a far stronger relationship to push growth, but it could be worse.

Fisheries are a tiny part of the economy and no party cares about the industry (especially not Farage). But perhaps that's fine as there are much bigger fish to fry as it were to grow the economy.

It would be amusing if the results of the next GE lead to Reform managing to reform the voting system... (or maybe people will go back to voting Tory)

If Reform win a general election under FPTP, their chances of changing the electoral system are somewhere between none and zero.

 

[sor]

I would also like a PR voting system for the UK, but the People were asked to choose between FPTP and AV and they chose FPTP by a resounding margin. And FPTP suits the Labour Party for now. It would be amusing if the results of the next GE lead to Reform managing to reform the voting system... (or maybe people will go back to voting Tory)

It's worth noting that this referendum was the first test of the tactics that would later be re-used for the EU referendum. Some of the same people were involved in the AV misinformation campaign. It was "£250 million" to change the system (a vastly inflated number which assumed every council would need electronic counting equipment, which was not necessarily the case) and "the baby needs a bulletproof vest, not a new voting system".

Add in the fact that it was seen as a "referendum on Nick Clegg" and people thinking that if we had AV we'd never move to actual PR, and it's not surprising the result went the way it did. 14 years later its relevance to any modern discussion on voting reform is near enough non existent

 

[DelW]

I'm pleased that the government has decided to position us in alignment with EU food standards. That should reduce (or avoid an increase in) the cost of food movement in either direction, and it should reduce spoilage and waste due to delays in transit. I assume it will also simplify food movements to and from Northern Ireland, and eliminate the need for "Not for EU" labelling.

It should also block off the possibility of our having to accept American food produced to their much poorer hygiene and animal welfare standards. The problem with the infamous chlorine washed chicken isn't the chlorine washing per se, it's the terrible conditions in which American poultry is kept that means they have to be disinfected to make them just about edible.

 

[JonasB]

So, whilst I don't think it would necessarily be the ideal system for the UK (I am a strong supporter of the entirely proportional closed list method using the D'Hondt formula) I think the voting method with the biggest chance of success i.e. for being accepted by the British electorate would be the additional-member system as used in Scottish National elections, because it retains the constituency - MP link. It is not 100% proportional, but comes very close and would effectively rule out a single party winning an outright majority in the future. Put it this way, based on the general election vote-shares of the last 40 years, no single party would have been able to gain a majority in parliament. At the same time though, AMS retains the constituency - MP link, which takes the wind out of the sails of that argument. Additionally, a variant of AMS is also used in Germany and New Zealand.

If having a single local MP is important, the additional member system is probably the best option. Although you can also argue that having 10 local MPs is better than just a single one.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

If having a single local MP is important, the additional member system is probably the best option. Although you can also argue that having 10 local MPs is better than just a single one.

I would certainly agree with your assessment. The problem is, I think the British (or English) public don't. I think they'd rather hang on to the single MP principle as a matter of a tradition. Could be wrong of course.

 

[Annetts key]

If having a single local MP is important, the additional member system is probably the best option. Although you can also argue that having 10 local MPs is better than just a single one.

Personally I don't see the problem with having more than one MP for an area. In many "local" councils, there may be multiple councillors per ward. I think the biggest problem from the public point of view is the usual "don't like change", "it's what we are used to", "the existing system works so why change it" and that some people will see a "new" system as complex and/or confusing.

And of course, we previously had multiple MEPs per area.

 

[edwin_m]

Personally I don't see the problem with having more than one MP for an area. In many "local" councils, there may be multiple councillors per ward. I think the biggest problem from the public point of view is the usual "don't like change", "it's what we are used to", "the existing system works so why change it" and that some people will see a "new" system as complex and/or confusing.

And of course, we previously had multiple MEPs per area.

In the current climate people would be politicising the argument by claiming Labour (or anyone else who tries) were introducing it for electoral gain. Unfortunately I think the only way it will come back onto the agenda is at during a second Labour term if they win one, by which time they will quite probably be predicted to lose the one after under FPTP but a proprtional system might see them remain as part of a coalition.

 

[najaB]

I think they'd rather hang on to the single MP principle as a matter of a tradition.

True. Part of British culture is being (small C) conservative, and there's a reluctance to change things in preference to "make do and mend".

 

[zero]

A problem with multi-member seats would be that in the case of 2 MPs per constituency, then a very marginal constituency under FPTP might actually becomes a safe seat.

Suppose it's Tory 45%, Labour 45% and other parties 10%. Tories and Labour would get one MP each. Even if the two main parties saw a swing to 55% for one and 35% for the other, they might still get one MP each.

Meanwhile a safe seat where a party gets 66% of the vote under FPTP could become a marginal seat as the second place party may just need a small swing to get its first candidate elected.

While a lot more voters would end up with at least one MP from a party they support, the numbers of MPs elected might not be proportional to the country-wide vote for their party.

If it was 3 MPs per constituency, seats which would have seen a close three-way contest under FPTP would be very likely to elect the top candidate for those 3 parties, an undoubtedly more representative result. However, campagining to change a few voters' minds would be relatively fruitless.

We could of course add more MPs per constituency but the larger the area the less local the link to the MPs.

Ireland uses a multi-member system. I am not sure if they experience these problems and if so, how they attempt to reduce their effects.

 

[Senex]

I would certainly agree with your assessment. The problem is, I think the British (or English) public don't. I think they'd rather hang on to the single MP principle as a matter of a tradition. Could be wrong of course.

I fear you're right. We English are all too good at hanging on to traditions well past their sell-by date and then arguing that they're an essential part of our great and distinctive cultural heritage.

 

[berneyarms]

A problem with multi-member seats would be that in the case of 2 MPs per constituency, then a very marginal constituency under FPTP might actually becomes a safe seat.

Suppose it's Tory 45%, Labour 45% and other parties 10%. Tories and Labour would get one MP each. Even if the two main parties saw a swing to 55% for one and 35% for the other, they might still get one MP each.

Meanwhile a safe seat where a party gets 66% of the vote under FPTP could become a marginal seat as the second place party may just need a small swing to get its first candidate elected.

While a lot more voters would end up with at least one MP from a party they support, the numbers of MPs elected might not be proportional to the country-wide vote for their party.

If it was 3 MPs per constituency, seats which would have seen a close three-way contest under FPTP would be very likely to elect the top candidate for those 3 parties, an undoubtedly more representative result. However, campagining to change a few voters' minds would be relatively fruitless.

We could of course add more MPs per constituency but the larger the area the less local the link to the MPs.

Ireland uses a multi-member system. I am not sure if they experience these problems and if so, how they attempt to reduce their effects.

Here in Ireland the Constitution lays out that each constituency be a minimum of 3 seats, and while the total number of members of parliament (TDs) can be changed by law, that total number shall not be less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

Currently there are 43 multiple seat constituencies, with electoral law requiring that each constituency have a minimum of 3 seats and a maximum of 5 (15 x 5, 15 x 4 and 13 x 3) electing 174 members of parliament under the single transferable vote system.

The Constitution requires that constituencies are reviewed at least once every 12 years in line with census results (held every five years).

So you will never have just two members of parliament in any constituency, and by and large end up with a far more representative result, and in the five and four seat constituencies the smaller parties will have a good chance of electing a candidate.

The down side (as seen by some) is that you tend to end up with coalition governments and the talks to agree those can take weeks or months post-election.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

The down side (as seen by some) is that you tend to end up with coalition governments and the talks to agree those can take weeks or months post-election.

The first part is not really a glitch but a feature. Coalition governments tend to strengthen cooperation among different political parties. This is particularly great in Switzerland and Denmark where broad cross-party agreements on matters such as health, infrastructure, defence, transport etc. tend to be the norm rather than the exception. This has two advantages: it reduces the risk of political point-scoring and squabbling, but it also ensures that long-term projects that were once agreed to actually go ahead, even if there is a change in government. So more predictability and continuity. The British system allows for radical change, but also for one government to come in and heavily undermine a previous government's efforts over night, cancelling out any progress. Labour's transport policy in the 2000s was shambolic, not in my view because Labour was uniquely incompetent, but because there was unfortunately little incentive for the government to get to grips with some of the fundamental issues. There was virtually no political reward for that. Instead, they favoured what would look good then and there. Quick fixes. But no quick fix will work for transport policy that has been utterly broken since the mid 1960s at least. The 1984 Channel 4 documentary series "Losing Track" beautifully illustrates this. And that was before privatisation or austerity. Of course PR does not automatically lead to long-term strategic planning in politics. There are plenty of examples of shorttermism in PR systems too. But it does create the necessary preconditions for it in my view, whilst FPTP actively undermines any such attempts.

The second part of what you mention probably is the only major downside to PR that I can think of, but unless we're talking about the Netherlands or Belgium, both unique in their constellation, it ought to be possible to have a new government ready in a matter of a few weeks or months. That's generally the norm for PR systems. That is not a huge price to pay for all the other upsides I think.