EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[tspaul26]

I seriously cannot see that happening .....it would cause chaos within the EU

The German Constitutional Court has raised this as a theoretical possibility, although to my knowledge no member state has ever purported so to do.

 

[Moonshot]

The German Constitutional Court has raised this as a theoretical possibility, although to my knowledge no member state has ever purported so to do.

Well if it were to happen , it would seriously undermine the whole EU project.....which in some eyes might not be a bad thing.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

That's the just of it, taking away our rights and freedoms (and those rights of workers) to keep what they already had. One day the population will wake up to realise - when workers lose paid holidays, maternity rights etc etc and the Tory Top Brass enjoy revelling in a low-tax Kingdom - they've been well and truly had.

This gives the implication that those respective rights were gained under EU laws and are as such protected by them. This isn't true. Paid holiday rights for instance were granted as early as the Holiday Pay Act. 1938. There are workers rights laws in the EU, but the UK had already introduced many of them before it came about, and in fact UK legislation gives superior working rights. EU standard minimum maternity leave is 14 weeks, while the UK offers 52 weeks, which are in fact the highest in Europe. Any removal of these rights after Brexit would require it's own repeal bill, and it would be electoral suicide for even the Conservatives to try this. It would need total stupidity from the electorate, as well as opposition parties who would strongly oppose these bills, for these rights to be removed by consent. It simply wouldn't be worth the trouble.

 

[fowler9]

The point of law at issue was rather more narrow than 'sovereignty'. It was to do with the municipal effects of international treaties and whether the executive's treaty-making power was available and sufficient to enable Article 50 TEU to be engaged (cf. article 50(1) in particular).

The sovereignty stuff was mostly wibble.

As it happens, I believe that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong as a matter of law, but we are where we are.

Why do you think the Supreme Court were wrong and what are you views on the press making it about sovereignty?

 

[tspaul26]

Why do you think the Supreme Court were wrong and what are you views on the press making it about sovereignty?

As to the first, I will locate links to some of the legal commentary, which explains the various points relatively succinctly. Will probably have to wait until after work tomorrow though!

As to the second, most journalists are utterly useless when reporting on legal matters. In any event, I am not at all convinced by the Diceyan school so favoured by English lawyers.

The majority of the public are also ignorant in this regard. To be clear: I do not mean this in any pejorative manner; it is merely intended to be descriptive.

 

[fowler9]

As to the first, I will locate links to some of the legal commentary, which explains the various points relatively succinctly. Will probably have to wait until after work tomorrow though!

As to the second, most journalists are utterly useless when reporting on legal matters. In any event, I am not at all convinced by the Diceyan school so favoured by English lawyers.

The majority of the public are also ignorant in this regard. To be clear: I do not mean this in any pejorative manner; it is merely intended to be descriptive.

Cheers mate.

 

[Moonshot]

As to the first, I will locate links to some of the legal commentary, which explains the various points relatively succinctly. Will probably have to wait until after work tomorrow though!

As to the second, most journalists are utterly useless when reporting on legal matters. In any event, I am not at all convinced by the Diceyan school so favoured by English lawyers.

The majority of the public are also ignorant in this regard. To be clear: I do not mean this in any pejorative manner; it is merely intended to be descriptive.

This is very true.......one of the best I have seen relating to brexit is the one below.....its heavy reading but if you take your time and digest it. its a well worth read.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...the-process-of-leaving-the-eu/oral/30396.html

 

[Tetchytyke]

The key point is that UK parliament, composed of elected MPs, originates U.K. legislation. It is the ultimate legislature, and is elected by the people.

That's the theory. The reality is that the ability for backbench MPs to initiate legislation is extremely limited. The right to use Private Members' Bills to initiate legislation is hypothetical at best.

The reality is that effectively only the Government initiates legislation. Cabinet members are not elected, they are nominated. By a Prime Minister who is also not elected.

Procedures that might have worked in the 1700s, with loose alliances of Whigs and Tories, don't any more. If the Government doesn't want your proposed legislation to pass, it will never see the light of day.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst Parliament remains Sovereign de jure, remaining with the EU makes it de facto impossible to fully exercise that sovereignty in a manner comparable to that that existed prior to joining the EU.

Parliament is now required to accept essentially privatised 'competitive' energy and railway systems, no matter what the British electorate wants.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So conditions have been set out by Barnier in regards to the future trade deal between the EU and the UK. These conditions include fair competition, tax, labour law, environmental, and food safety. None of these conditions set out the need for free movement, and in fact another article elsewhere stated that the UK would lose the benefits of the single market if it wanted to control free movement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/20/barnier-eu-standards-uk-trade-deal

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has said that any move by a British government to abandon European-style policies will complicate the agreement of a post-Brexit trade deal in national and regional parliaments across the bloc.

The EU was ready to offer the UK the “most ambitious” partnership on trade possible, he said, but was not going to compromise its standards on fair competition, tax, labour law, environmental and food safety.

Please note that the whole article isn't quoted.

Personally, I think that while it could be argued as a reasonable compromise, I don't think May's team will accept it. Even if they do, I doubt it will really help the trade deal very much. Some might say that we haven't regained full sovereignty if we're following these EU rules, but a trade deal is also a compromise, and considering immigration was a bigger issue to Leave voters than bendy bananas (which by the way isn't an EU law, and even so who cares? It's a banana!) one could say it is a reasonable compromise to make. Me personally? I have no faith in the process at this point, so it's gonna take a lot of work to make me regain it.

 

[nlogax]

In eighteen months of defining moments, this is stand-out. The UK is going to have to make a choice between aligning itself with the US (why is it always the US?) and its requirements and standards (or lack thereof) for a trade agreement, or with the EU whose standards it has adopted and indeed has helped write over the last four decades.

It's not going to be enough for the UK to walk some mid-Atlantic trade tightrope. Hard Brexiteers in the government want to cosy up to new markets and allow divergence from the status quo and we're rapidly approaching make or break time. EU-wide agreement and phase 2, or a hard and fast failure with no agreement at all. It's hard to tell which way this dog's Brexit is going to go, but either way it won't be pretty. Nobody will win at the end of this god-awful farce.

 

[Moonshot]

Whilst Parliament remains Sovereign de jure, remaining with the EU makes it de facto impossible to fully exercise that sovereignty in a manner comparable to that that existed prior to joining the EU.

Parliament is now required to accept essentially privatised 'competitive' energy and railway systems, no matter what the British electorate wants.

The gist of what you have posted above is probably what persuaded the small majority to vote leave.

 

[Mag_seven]

It's hard to tell which way this dog's Brexit is going to go, but either way it won't be pretty. Nobody will win at the end of this god-awful farce.

But its the will of the people, innit.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

In eighteen months of defining moments, this is stand-out. The UK is going to have to make a choice between aligning itself with the US (why is it always the US?) and its requirements and standards (or lack thereof) for a trade agreement, or with the EU whose standards it has adopted and indeed has helped write over the last four decades.

I think the US might be a consideration because Theresa May thinks she's got a great relationship with Donald Trump. Being a world superpower, she's probably under the impression that if she can get a deal with the US, she can get a deal with anyone. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Personally, I'd rather we adopted the policies we had a part in rather than accept some of the American standards, which if you ask me are inferior to European standards. I just hope it isn't pushed to the point of ridiculousness, though with the way it's being handled I wouldn't be surprised. Leaving could've potentially been made so great if we had a good team behind it.

EDIT: Then again, can we not point out the ridiculousness of these conditions? Not the conditions themselves though, but the fact that it's even up for discussion for a trade deal. If you want to trade with a country or bloc, you will have to abide by each others laws and standards. This might be seen as removal of sovereignty, but it really isn't. Sovereignty is the right of a country to self-govern, not the right to ignore the laws of other nations. Trade deals require compromise, so these conditions should be of the standard, but instead they're offered as if they're negotiable. I'd be outraged if they weren't willing to follow our laws of course...

 

[Bromley boy]

That's the just of it, taking away our rights and freedoms (and those rights of workers) to keep what they already had. One day the population will wake up to realise - when workers lose paid holidays, maternity rights etc etc and the Tory Top Brass enjoy revelling in a low-tax Kingdom - they've been well and truly had.

See the people of Grimsby (leave town) have woken up to the fact their fishing and fish import/export industry's up the spout and want concessions to the effect of being in the EU. Too late...

Im afraid the above post is scaremongering/tosh. That certainly isn’t the “just” of it, whatever that means! It’s nothing to do with taking away rights, it’s about saying any such rights should be made by the elected U.K. government, not by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

[Bromley boy]

That's the theory. The reality is that the ability for backbench MPs to initiate legislation is extremely limited. The right to use Private Members' Bills to initiate legislation is hypothetical at best.

The reality is that effectively only the Government initiates legislation. Cabinet members are not elected, they are nominated. By a Prime Minister who is also not elected.

Procedures that might have worked in the 1700s, with loose alliances of Whigs and Tories, don't any more. If the Government doesn't want your proposed legislation to pass, it will never see the light of day.

Yes but the government is at least duly elected by the U.K. electorate. I’d far rather they were making the legislation that affected my life than Brussels which is essentially unaccountable.

It may not be a perfect system but it’s about the best there is, and I struggle to identify a country around the world with anything better, although many have far worse!

It’s also a popular system - don’t forget we had a referendum on FPTP in 2011 and the electorate roundly rejected proportional representation. So although you don’t consider the current system to work well, many people clearly disagree with you.

 

[Bromley boy]

You assert that Parliament is sovereign (correct), but then suggest that you want to claim sovereignty back?

I was comparing the concept of a “parliament” as we know it with the EU equivalent which means something very different.

In practical terms at least, as HSTEd notes above, the UK Parliament has “de facto” ceded sovereignty to the EU in quite a few areas - just as the judicial system defers to the ECJ which sits above the Supreme Court.

We can argue about the semantics but that is the practical reality.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes but the government is at least duly elected by the U.K. electorate.

How do I elect the Government then?

I elect an MP. If they happen to be in the biggest party then their leader (who they might or might not have elected) becomes a PM who then hand-picks their Government.

Remember, too, that Government ministers don't have to be in the House of Commons. Lord Mandelson is a recent and famous example, but there are 25 government ministers in the current administration who are in the Lords.

Government ministers don't even, technically, have to be a member of either House. You can appoint a Government minister off the street if you want.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It’s also a popular system - don’t forget we had a referendum on FPTP in 2011 and the electorate roundly rejected proportional representation. So although you don’t consider the current system to work well, many people clearly disagree with you.

If I may respectfully correct you mate, we had a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which is not a form of proportional representation. The campaign against it was also filled with lies, deception and bad misrepresentation too.

The idea of a Parliamentary democracy is popular, but first past the post is very outdated and not designed for more then two-party systems. One could argue that Switzerland is a superior democratic system, though I imagine some will disagree. If you’re a fan of referendums and direct democracy then it’s perfect for you.

 

[Moonshot]

If I may respectfully correct you mate, we had a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which is not a form of proportional representation. The campaign against it was also filled with lies, deception and bad misrepresentation too.

The idea of a Parliamentary democracy is popular, but first past the post is very outdated and not designed for more then two-party systems. One could argue that Switzerland is a superior democratic system, though I imagine some will disagree. If you’re a fan of referendums and direct democracy then it’s perfect for you.

No matter what system of voting is used, UK governments will always be unpopular with a significant proportion of the electorate.

 

[HSTEd]

FPTP leads to a system where the majority of MPs are chosen by party supremos and have effectively zero responsibility to their actual electorate.
As such they are, at the end of the day, merely extensions of the leader's will.

It leads to huge numbers of voters being resentful that they are irrelevant.
It is a disaster for social and national cohesion.

 

[EM2]

The EMA is to relocate to Amsterdam and the EBA to Paris. That's a thousand jobs leaving the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42050742

Paris has won a battle to host the European Banking Authority (EBA), which will relocate from London after the UK leaves the European Union.

The French capital's victory follows a win earlier for Amsterdam, which will host the London-based European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Paris was picked after lots were drawn when three rounds of voting failed to produce a winner.

The EMA and the EBA currently employ about 1,000 people in London.

French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted that the win for Paris was "a recognition of France's attractiveness and European commitment".

Ministers from the 27 EU countries remaining in the bloc after the UK departs in 2019 took part in a secret ballot to pick the victors.

Some 16 cities bid for the EMA, while eight wanted to host the EBA - Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Prague, Luxembourg City, Vienna and Warsaw.

The final vote pitched Paris against Dublin. Frankfurt, which is home to the European Central Bank, lost out early in the voting.

The EMA is the more alluring of the two bodies, as it promises to make its new host into a hub for Europe's medical industry.

 

[tspaul26]

It's hard to tell which way this dog's Brexit is going to go, but either way it won't be pretty. Nobody will win at the end of this god-awful farce.

Nonsense! Someone will be making money out of it or it wouldn't be happening.

 

[Senex]

FPTP leads to a system where the majority of MPs are chosen by party supremos and have effectively zero responsibility to their actual electorate.
As such they are, at the end of the day, merely extensions of the leader's will.

It leads to huge numbers of voters being resentful that they are irrelevant.
It is a disaster for social and national cohesion.

How true!

 

[tspaul26]

Cheers mate.

The following link is a relatively digestible summary of my views on the Supreme Court's majority judgment in 'the Brexit case':
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/

A somewhat more in-depth critique of the judgment may also be found in the following CLJ article:
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...4008083103116005127086071000097089126&EXT=pdf

For those who are unfamiliar, Mark Elliott is the Professor of Public Law at Cambridge as well as the legal advisor to the House of Lords Constitution Select Committee.

[More importantly, he was also one of my supervisors for administrative law alongside his predecessor Professor Forsyth.]

 

[furnessvale]

The EMA is to relocate to Amsterdam and the EBA to Paris. That's a thousand jobs leaving the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42050742

Frankfurt will not be happy about that.

 

[Bromley boy]

How do I elect the Government then?

I elect an MP. If they happen to be in the biggest party then their leader (who they might or might not have elected) becomes a PM who then hand-picks their Government.

Remember, too, that Government ministers don't have to be in the House of Commons. Lord Mandelson is a recent and famous example, but there are 25 government ministers in the current administration who are in the Lords.

Government ministers don't even, technically, have to be a member of either House. You can appoint a Government minister off the street if you want.

The government that is formed is formed by the party which has won the greatest number of seats, via an election, and will be comprised of a combination of both MPs and members of the Lords. The PM and Chancellor are always (by convention) MPs and it's rare for the cabinet to contain members who are not elected MPs. Yes technically it's possible for a non MP/Lord to be chosen but this would be a very rare occurrence.

The system relies very heavily on convention in the absence of a written constitution, so all manner of things may be technically possible while, in reality, they would never occur. It would be unthinkable for the queen to refuse to invite the largest party to form a government, for instance, while this would be perfectly possible legally.

Parliament is also held to account - of course we have the great British press to thank for that - look at the expenses scandal and the recent sexual abuse scandals being two examples. By contrast when are MEPs or European Commissioners ever so much as mentioned.

It may be archaic but it takes a pretty tortuous logic to describe the UK system as undemocratic, and I simply don't see how the current UK system can reasonably be described as equivalent or less democratic than the EU system which relies on appointed commissioners from various European countries making decisions that are then critiqued by a "parliament" which itself cannot even originate legislation.

It does seem a little bizzarre that you are so slavishly uncritical of the EU yet appear to believe the UK system is highly undemocratic and unfit for purpose.

 

[Bromley boy]

If I may respectfully correct you mate, we had a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which is not a form of proportional representation. The campaign against it was also filled with lies, deception and bad misrepresentation too.

The idea of a Parliamentary democracy is popular, but first past the post is very outdated and not designed for more then two-party systems. One could argue that Switzerland is a superior democratic system, though I imagine some will disagree. If you’re a fan of referendums and direct democracy then it’s perfect for you.

Yes you're quite right - apologies I'd forgotten all about the AV alternative that was offered. It was a few years ago now in my defence! From memory AV seemed a pretty turgid and complex system which I suspect is what put many people off.

I'm not overly familiar with the Swiss system, I understood it incorporates an element of PR. I'm generally not a fan of direct democracy but for fundamenal constitutional issues such as Scottish independence, electoral reform and the question of EU membership it makes sense.

Naturally people tend not to be in favour of referenda which don't produce their desired result!

 

[EM2]

Yes but the government is at least duly elected by the U.K. electorate. I’d far rather they were making the legislation that affected my life than Brussels which is essentially unaccountable.

Who elects MEPs that represent us? We do.
Who selects European Commissioners that represent our country? The Government that we elect. And even then they have to be ratified by the European Parliament.
So that's surely as democratic as Westminster, where we elect MPs and they form a Government and select the Lords?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes you're quite right - apologies I'd forgotten all about the AV alternative that was offered. It was a few years ago now in my defence! From memory AV seemed a pretty turgid and complex system which I suspect is what put many people off.

I'm not overly familiar with the Swiss system, I understood it incorporates an element of PR. I'm generally not a fan of direct democracy but for fundamenal constitutional issues such as Scottish independence, electoral reform and the question of EU membership it makes sense.

Naturally people tend not to be in favour of referenda which don't produce their desired result!

Do not worry, I won't hold it against you. But the thing is, AV isn't that complicated, especially compared to other forms such as Single Transferable Vote and such. AV would simply be listing your candidates in order of preference, and if nobody gets enough first preference votes the candidate with the lowest gets eliminated, and then the round starts again until one candidate can get at least 51%. It might not be the first choice of everyone, but it's a candidate most people can agree on.

In fact, in local elections and the French Presidential election, they didn't even bother with rounds, they just sent the two highest candidates to the next round and got rid of everyone else. It's not difficult, especially if you kept it to voting for MPs. Labour and Conservatives are only opposed to this system because it wouldn't help them, they benefit from FPTP, while the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens etc. would benefit from it and are more in favour of it. You wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you, and as such the two main parties wouldn't even think of introducing anything else.

But the reason why AV didn't get through partly lay down to the lies of the No campaign. They depicted it as a case of whoever gets in third place is the winner by having an advert where a horse came third in the race but won. They also had someone try to explain it to a classroom but everyone got confused, even though they were teaching it incorrectly. They were basically complicating the whole thing and making it out to be something it wasn't. It's like having a creationist teach evolution: they don't understand it or blissfully refuse to acknowledge it's true nature because of their own agenda, no matter how wrong they are.

As for the Swiss system, it's a direct democracy, but it doesn't end at voting. If legislation gets more than 50,000 signatures opposing it, a referendum is ran, and the fate of the legislation rests upon the voters. They even rejected EU membership through referendums, and in fact they also tried to impose a quota on EU migration. Nevertheless, it didn't work because it would violate the bilateral treaties it currently holds with Brussels, which included the free movement of people. Switzerland is basically ran by the people, so much that it doesn't actually have a head of state and is one of the few directorial republics left in the world.

I'll be honest as well, though I originally voted to leave the European Union, and am still very much Eurosceptic, I don't think the referendum was done for the right reasons. Not to mention, it divided my family a bit, and I am in fact the only one in my household who voted that way. So to be sat there watching the results in the morning when everyone was displeased wasn't the most comforting feeling in the world. What would I do now? I'd spoil the ballot paper, because the team behind our negotiations are frankly rubbish, but I do not like the European Union, and I also refuse not to vote. Least spoiling can be seen as expressing distaste for the system.