Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by VintageWomble

Scoundrel, as much as I admire and back your taste in vintage pornography, I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this. (You do seem like you'd be good fun/conversation over a few down at the local!).

The fiasco that was the Brexit referendum of June 23rd 2016 was a non binding one from the onset, because of one major characteristic of the democratic system of this country, and that has been inherently part of our traditions since Charles I : the sovereignty of Parliament.

This is inherent to the British "Rule of Law" that (should-but in some cases doesn't) govern our Nation.( If you want to learn more about that, my daughter's boyfriend introduced me to a youtube channel called Count Dankula, he raises a fair few good points in a video entitled "The Actual State of the UK") but I digress...


The way our Nation's political system works is based in part on a millenium of history, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what people who voted for Brexit wanted? To "preserve Britain's History"?

Of course, a lot of the present difficulty arises because there were no details underpinning the Leave question in the June 2016 referendum, so the only proven fact is that there was a small but unmistakable majority of voters who voted to leave the EU. I suspect the script said that we would vote to Remain, thus making eventual integration into an ever closer Union almost a done deal. The reality is that the voters chose against the EU.

In a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the executive and the legislature; which is the basis of parliament being sovereign. We once chopped a man's head off to punish him for thinking he had a divine right to boss British people around, ignore their wishes and deny then their rights. King Charles I thought his authority came from God; but the event proved that it came from the consent of his people. This still remains the basis of authority in the UK - the consent of the governed. So when Parliament thinks a referendum on a constitutional issue can possibly be "non-binding", they are forgetting where their own authority comes from.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the executive and the legislature; which is the basis of parliament being sovereign. We once chopped a man's head off to punish him for thinking he had a divine right to boss British people around, ignore their wishes and deny then their rights. King Charles I thought his authority came from God; but the event proved that it came from the consent of his people. This still remains the basis of authority in the UK - the consent of the governed. So when Parliament thinks a referendum on a constitutional issue can possibly be "non-binding", they are forgetting where their own authority comes from.

The civil war was not a choice between 'the People's authority' or 'God's' it was about a 'Catholic God's' or 'Puritans God's'.

The King's executioners were later tried and executed for treason and Cromwell was dug up and head stuck on a spike outside Westminster as a warning to others.

In 1660, Charles II was restored to the throne and continued, as his father had done, trying to rule without Parliament. (as did Cromwell)

The thing that kept stopped Kings power was the fear of being politically or militarily replaced like James ll The Dutch Invasion of 1688 permanently established a 'constitutional monarchy', which is a 'king-controlled-by-parliament'. It was the turning point in England's government not the civil war. The king remained influential, but Parliament made the laws.

Legally the referendum is non-binding because that's what the legislation said it was unlike the AV referendum. The Supreme Court fully upheld this.
If you think politicians lied by failing to mention this, then well, join the long queue.

As any lawyer/policeman/taxman will tell you 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. It's all just political argument.

Democracy and the 'will of the people' didn't end immediately after one advisory referendum it continues and changes.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by VintageWomble

Count Dankula, he raises a fair few good points in a video entitled "The Actual State of the UK"?

Why does he speak a so horrible English ?

Edit: That's weird to watch guys fighting with machettes in the street !
Are they Brexiters ?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

The civil war was not a choice between 'the People's authority' or 'God's' it was about a 'Catholic God's' or 'Puritans God's'.

The King's executioners were later tried and executed for treason and Cromwell was dug up and head stuck on a spike outside Westminster as a warning to others.

In 1660, Charles II was restored to the throne and continued, as his father had done, trying to rule without Parliament. (as did Cromwell)

Sir Thomas Fairfax knew Cromwell rather well and didn't like him very much, but fell out with Charles II and his more extreme supporters over the exhumation of Cromwell, for fairly obvious reasons. As I remember it, some of those who signed the death warrant went into exile. including 3 who went to America. Quite a few others were imprisoned - not all were executed. But without a doubt King Charles II had a serious sense of humour failure, not usual in his generally laid back ruling style.

Originally Posted by vinceprince

The thing that kept stopped Kings power was the fear of being politically or militarily replaced like James ll The Dutch Invasion of 1688 permanently established a 'constitutional monarchy', which is a 'king-controlled-by-parliament'. It was the turning point in England's government not the civil war. The king remained influential, but Parliament made the laws.

The experience of exile made King Charles II more pragmatic and cautious than his father. He used to openly comment that he did not want to go on his travels again.

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Legally the referendum is non-binding because that's what the legislation said it was unlike the AV referendum. The Supreme Court fully upheld this.
If you think politicians lied by failing to mention this, then well, join the long queue.

On the one hand there is the letter of the law. On the other hand there is political reality. If you hold a referendum on membership of the EU and the Leave side wins, you ignore and slight the Leave vote at your peril. You will not do that and nothing happens. It is at the best a spring for widespread civil disobedience - and that is the best case scenario.

Originally Posted by vinceprince

As any lawyer/policeman/taxman will tell you 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. It's all just political argument.

It was not, in the notorious phrase of Kenneth Clarke MP, a glorified opinion poll.

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Democracy and the 'will of the people' didn't end immediately after one advisory referendum it continues and changes.

In other words, the referendum didn't mean shit and we can ignore it and do as we please. If you think that will fly, you might be in for a very nasty surprise. People are not going to react well to being treated with contempt by their "betters"; no indeed.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In other words, the referendum didn't mean shit and we can ignore it and do as we please. If you think that will fly, you might be in for a very nasty surprise. People are not going to react well to being treated with contempt by their "betters"; no indeed.

It happens all the time - Nearly all the Tory election Manifesto was dumped immediately after the election like many others in the past. Promises forgotten and dumped. Can't see any protests or civil unrest, nothing.
All that happens is that people get more cynical about politicians and what they say.

I suppose millions can march like they did against the Iraq War, that did a lot of good.

Regarding civil unrest, I don't think anyone takes that seriously especially looking at the demographics of the average leave voter, even if they really care that much and can be bothered I don't fancy their chances much.

In my experience in the real world for most, (unlike those who post about it obsessively on internet forums) leave or remain the overriding feeling about Brexit is now that of confusion, boredom and resignation rather than any revolutionary fervor.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

On the one hand there is the letter of the law. On the other hand there is political reality. If you hold a referendum on membership of the EU and the Leave side wins, you ignore and slight the Leave vote at your peril. You will not do that and nothing happens. It is at the best a spring for widespread civil disobedience - and that is the best case scenario.

From a perspective of Realpolitik, it would be political suicide to "Just forget" about Brexit and it doesn't matter if the prime minister is Theresa May, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbin after another election. That's a matter of path dependancy, more than two years after the Brexit vote.

Cameron and Johnson set the country on this path and the country now must follow the path to its end and deal with the consequences. The UK can't have its cake and eat it, too, in that regard the hard Brexiteers are at least more honest than the current prime minister, who still promises to retain all the advantages of EU membership with none of its drawbacks. Becoming another Norway is not what Brexit supporters voted for two years ago.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

From a perspective of Realpolitik, it would be political suicide to "Just forget" about Brexit and it doesn't matter if the prime minister is Theresa May, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbin after another election. That's a matter of path dependancy, more than two years after the Brexit vote.

It's not political suicide due to our FPTP system which makes it basically a choice between a Tory or Labour Gov't- both soft Brexit. They'll just say 'it's us or Corbyn and even softer Brexit is that what you want?'

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

It's not political suicide due to our FPTP system which makes it basically a choice between a Tory or Labour Gov't- both soft Brexit. They'll just say 'it's us or Corbyn and even softer Brexit is that what you want?'

A soft Brexit won't be agreed upon with the EU without breaking a core Brexit promise - regaining full sovereignty over immigration. British leaders were either intentionally lying in that regard, or woefully overestimating the strength of their negotiating position with the EU, for whom it is a matter of survival to hold fast to its "four freedoms".



More than two years after the vote, the UK still has no clear negotiating position regarding precisely what kind of Brexit it wants. The world's oldest parliament, faced with the gravest decision of each MP's career, still has no idea what it's doing.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

A soft Brexit won't be agreed upon with the EU without breaking a core Brexit promise - regaining full sovereignty over immigration. British leaders were either intentionally lying in that regard, or woefully overestimating the strength of their negotiating position with the EU, for whom it is a matter of survival to hold fast to its "four freedoms".



More than two years after the vote, the UK still has no clear negotiating position regarding precisely what kind of Brexit it wants. The world's oldest parliament, faced with the gravest decision of each MP's career, still has no idea what it's doing.

My question though is to (hard) leavers is:
What are you or can you actually do about it apart from moaning on internet forums?

Who are you going to vote for? As I said the Tory line is - any vote not for us just let's in Corbyn - and they're right about this under our FPTP system.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

My question though is to (hard) leavers is:
What are you or can you actually do about it apart from moaning on internet forums?

Who are you going to vote for? As I said the Tory line is - any vote not for us just let's in Corbyn - and they're right about this under our FPTP system.

I voted to leave, the mechanics of how it actually works are to be drawn up by Parliament, and I am happy to let them get on with that, the highest percentage of moaning by far is coming from remainers who want the vote cancelled.
Let's be honest the UK did have an exit strategy, it could not be fleshed out in detail prior to the vote because of the vagueness of Article 50.
They wanted to negotiate a sort of favoured nation deal but at every point the EU has played hardball and rejected each compromise, the EU want the UK to continue to pay for many years to come, and I have never argued against that, however if we are to continue to pay we must receive some benefits.
Yes a negotiated deal is better for all but if no deal is struck prior to the deadline then let us leave and trade on WTO terms, any payments to the EU can be massively reduced accordingly.
I have every confidence the UK will survive outside the EU, there may need to be many changes but who is to say they will not be for the better.

As for all the posts about the 2016 referendum not being binding, I take it you will accept then that the 1975 result has also never been binding, or is it only non binding if we vote against your preferred choice.