** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[roubaixtuesday]

However what will anger rather than merely disappoint is if the answer to the spirit and the letter of the question on the referendum paper is not respected

Nobody is arguing over the letter.

But there is huge disagreement over what the "spirit" means!

It is not practically possible to deliver what you argue is the "spirit": "[not] remaining subject to the rules of the EU over our own regulations" whilst maintaining our prosperity. Hence the current white paper, which explicitly commits us to following the EU rulebook. Note that any final deal will involve further concessions beyond this.

Others regard the "spirit" in entirely different, and self-contradictory ways.

All practical options involve betrayal of the spirit of what leave voters believe they voted for. It was always going to end thus. The leave campaign presented a fantasy.

[thirdcrank]

We hear about democracy but it's not a precise term. Even quite small groups tend to use representative democracy and the system used for choosing the representatives has a big influence on how it works in practice.

All that's happened here is that representative democracy was briefly suspended to take a fundamental decision to be executed by the reinstated status quo. While the decision was to leave, the meaning of leave was open to interpretation and in %age terms, the result was nothing like so overwhelming as some like to portray.

Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose that the EU negotiators will accept this: let's remember that one of the reasons put forward for leaving was that the EU was a slow negotiator.

One of the things this illustrates is how much temporary power we now give to a prime minister. The recent resignations are the result of the PM ignoring her ministers. DD is a particular case in point. His portfolio was specifically exiting the the EU but he seems to have been excluded from policymaking on his own single-issue brief. Put another way, several members of the Cabinet were appointed not to lead on policy in their own ministries, but merely as a way of keeping them onside. Ultimately, it didn't work, except to the extent that it has kept them quiet(ish) for a while.

We look to be heading towards the hard Brexit which some proposed from the start, but now by default rather than as a reasoned decision.

[meic]

Without the hardliners May is getting pretty close to the sort of Brexit Corbyn has been saying he would seek, which makes me wonder how Labour will adapt to this new reality.

The EU referendum has been quite an interesting experiment for me.
My basic assumption is that the referendum will not be allowed to make any significant impact on the vested interests of those who hold power, not just Soros, BMW etc but all those middle ranking people doing quite well out of the system.

So I try and figure how you could arrange a departure which satisfies the criteria of having left the EU but leaves the existing system intact in the ways which matter.
On your chosen area of interest, immigration, I guess the answer is quite simple immigrants from the EU could be treated like those from outside are presently treated. Which is that they are restricted from travel in ways that only benefit them personally but will be granted visas easily at the request of any employers who wish to have compliant, cheap labour.
The EU was never really responsible for the UK failing to reach its claimed immigration targets, it was just a handy excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway.

I think a good indicator of what the final policies will look like can be arrived at in this way.

[meic]

It is not practically possible to deliver what you argue is the "spirit": "[not] remaining subject to the rules of the EU over our own regulations" whilst maintaining our prosperity.

That argument was made quite clearly before the referendum. Armed with that knowledge people voted to leave anyway.
People did not enter that ballot box limited to your value set, or mine.
I did not vote to remain for the sake of prosperity, I voted to remain for higher values than that.

[PDQ Mobile]

Again, this is just your interpretation, it was not on the paper. Indeed, some of the leave campaign extolled Norway as a great example of thriving outside the EU, whereas the Norway option is now derided as making us a "vassal state"!


It's also not going to happen. Regardless of the fantasies of Brexiters, the EU will continue to exist, and we will continue to have to take account of what it does. Brussels will have more power over us in future than when we were members. Geography is a hard mistress.

Even in the best possible case, where the free trade fantasies come true, those free trade deals will come with demands which limit our sovereignty.

The truth is, there is no Brexit which will satisfy leave voters. There are only more or less damaging options.

Oh yes.+ 1
And so clearly and succintly put.
Actually a bit of a revelation to me- we will be more under the sway of Brussels than before!

Someone in our Govt. should stand up and say now all the options have been looked at, the damage to our economy ( and other stuff) will be huge.
That is why Johnson and Davies have gone.
They were wrong.
They cannot implement what they promised and other members of the Cabinet see that and have voted accordingly.

[roubaixtuesday]

meic,

I'm genuinely confused by what you're arguing now.

You seem to be saying both that the Norway option betrays the result, and that the Norway option is perfectly acceptable.

Could you clarify?

Once the UK has its own sovereignty (as is implicit in the question), it can then do with it as it likes.
Which includes handing it back to the EU in a Norway style deal

yet

There is no reasonable interpretation of that which involves remaining subject to the rules of the EU over our own regulations

These appear to be in direct contradiction.

[mercalia]

I have a complaint. will the moderator change the title to "Brexit doesn't mean Brexit" would be more accurate?

[meic]

meic,

I'm genuinely confused by what you're arguing now.

You seem to be saying both that the Norway option betrays the result, and that the Norway option is perfectly acceptable.

Could you clarify?

Once the UK has its own sovereignty (as is implicit in the question), it can then do with it as it likes.
Which includes handing it back to the EU in a Norway style deal

yet

There is no reasonable interpretation of that which involves remaining subject to the rules of the EU over our own regulations

These appear to be in direct contradiction.

They do dont they?
If there is a clear cut departure from the EU and then after that we rejoin on a Norway basis, that is respecting the result. Especially if there is a General Election in the middle of this and it was in the winners manifesto to do so.
If the EU and UK governments cook this up as a way of circumventing the result and to not honour the result of the referendum, then even though we end up in the same place it will be an establishment stitch up in the eyes of enough people.
Something between those two extremes will be seen somewhere between those two extremes and the fraction of people who accept it as valid could well be high enough. That is a pragmatic decision not to go to the expense of totally smashing down the system just to rebuild it again. That would involve a degree of trust in the integrity of the establishment which may not exist out there.

[mr bajokoses]

No-one, literally no-one, will be satisfied with the eventual outcome of this vain and shambolic exercise.

And that's democracy?

[PDQ Mobile]

If the EU and UK governments cook this up as a way of circumventing the result and to not honour the result of the referendum, then even though we end up in the same place it will be an establishment stitch up in the eyes of enough people.
Something between those two extremes will be seen somewhere between those two extremes and the fraction of people who accept it as valid could well be high enough. That is a pragmatic decision not to go to the expense of totally smashing down the system just to rebuild it again. That would involve a degree of trust in the integrity of the establishment which may not exist out there.

Yes but you are not surely suggesting that the result must stand for all eternity?
For that is also not a listening democracy.
Times change, people change and die.

And believe me my faith in the Establishment has never been lower than now.

[meic]

Yes but you are not surely suggesting that the result must stand for all eternity?

Certainly not.
I believe the US constitution has a bit in which forbids any laws which bind future generations, respecting the democratic rights of future generations.

You can start your campaigning to leave the Norway model right now if you wish.
I wonder how many people are in the mood for an immediate rematch, rather than getting on with whatever has been decided.

There was certain value in going to a vote, when people entered it with the fair minded attitude of accepting the result as deciding which path to follow.

[mikeonabike]

meic's argument about sovereignty assumes that a member of the EU is not a sovereign country. But that's clearly false because the UK can decide to leave the EU and there is no Union army invading to stop us.

And anyway, our sovereign parliament can decide to go for a Norway option if it decides that is in our best interests. Or it could decide to rejoin the EU if that was in our best interests. All are entirely consistent with the referendum.

So it comes back to: what does Parliament think is in our best interests?

[mr bajokoses]

So it comes back to: what does Parliament think is in our best interests?

As it should be in a representative democracy.

Far from increasing our democratic capital, the referendum has hobbled it for years, if not decades. Almost anyone can now cry betrayal.

[mikeonabike]

I agree that many of our MPs seem completely hobbled on this issue. The problem is that people have been told they can have cake and it eat, and get upset if their MP doesn't deliver that.

What it needs is for the cake merchants to fess up to the British people that cakeism is off the menu. But they won't do that.

This is why second referendum is good idea - with two clear choices: the best Brexit deal that the govt could negotiate or staying in EU.

[Vorpal]

So it comes back to: what does Parliament think is in our best interests?

As it should be in a representative democracy.

That works as long as our representatives do what think is best for the country.

What if a minority act on what is best for their party or their personal wealth, rather than what is best for the country? Or they ignore evidence in favour of preference?