So what's Brexit really about?

[flatandy]

Ultimately - to use Mids's word - sovereignty lies with the sovereign. It only lies with the electorate (not the people) in a de facto sense. The one place it doesn't lie with the electorate is "ultimately".

[perrykneeham]

Demonstrably incorrect.

[mids]

What? Are you quibbling over the use of the word, "sovereignty"? The ultimate power to decide how society (the nation, country, whatever) runs itself, in a democracy, lies with the people.

[bertruss2]

The ultimate power to decide how society (the nation, country, whatever) runs itself, in a democracy, lies with the people.

Where did you get that idea? Do you mean that the blokes in the pub actually run the country or that they ought to run the country?

[mids]

Read it again.

[Deleted]

"Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity." Wikipedia

I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. What do we do? We vote on it. We're divided. What happens? We elect someone to compromise/make decisions. Who is then the sovereign power - you, me, or the elected body?

It can't be you and me cos we don't agree. Get it?

[bertruss2]

Sept 23, 2019 6:40:21 GMT mids said:

Read it again.

'The People', in your terminology, appears to be some imaginary being, existing in your head, and not actual people.

The blokes in the pub are not the entire population but they are some of it. Therefore, if the people rule, they are some of the rulers of the country. Who are The People in your mind?

Democracy means, literally, people power. In a tribal society, the few dozen or few hundred members of the tribe (men only) can meet in a big hut in the village and take decisions about simple matters, like allocating women captured in a raid on a nearby tribe. That's direct democracy. In modern hugely complex societies with millions of citizens, it doesn't happen this way, as you may have noticed.

We live in representative democracies where we delegate power to professional politicians, who exercise power, with the help of civil servants and expert advice, to rule the country in the interests of all of us. Due to the party political system and the self-serving actions of careerist politicians, there is a wide gap between theory and practice.

In the Brexit case, politicians are justified in exercising the power delegated to them by cancelling Brexit in the public interest. They are supposed to act in the public interest, not on the results of an opinion poll held in 2016.

What actually is in the public interest is a matter of debate, of course. Brexiters have no argument, just the petulant cry, "We want our Brexit".

[moggyonspeed]

Perhaps that's approaching a key part of this whole problem.

Brexit is ill-defined and has different meanings to different people; democracy comes in various flavours, each of which has its own meaning, and each of which is valid.

[bertruss2]

Sept 23, 2019 8:42:19 GMT moggyonspeed said:

Perhaps that's approaching a key part of this whole problem.

Brexit is ill-defined and has different meanings to different people; democracy comes in various flavours, each of which has its own meaning, and each of which is valid.

There are several scenarios for the 31 October deadline. Do nothing and have a Johnson-do-or-die exit by being thrown out the door and landing in a heap. Ask for an extension and, if granted, hold a general election or a referendum, or both, and make the decision after that. The decision is between cancelling Brexit or signing a withdrawal agreement, acceptable to the EU 27.

Brexiters are deluded about the type of democracy we live in. There are no modern states with direct democracy. Switzerland has elements of direct democracy, since there is provision for referendums in the constitution and rules for when they can be held, how they are to be conducted and the applicability of the results.

[moggyonspeed]

I agree that the scenarios are many and varied - we all know that - though, to be honest, I think it is a little unfair to characterise Brexiteers as being "deluded about the type of democracy we live in"; I suspect you'd find many in the Remain camp who are equally confused about democracy in general, never mind ours in particular.

Perhaps the easy trap to fall into was to take the result of the referendum (direct democracy, you're right) as being an end in itself which, obviously, it wasn't. Post-A50, it necessarily relied on our Parliament to pass it as Law, which is where the sticking point is, with perhaps all MPs having their own idea as to what Brexit means for them, their constituents and the country. Parliament doing the work of Parliament should be something that Brexit should applaud and love, since one of their biggest pre-referendum taglines was "repatriating Laws to the UK". Well, this is one instance where the UK IS trying to make up its mind as to what its own Law should be, with no EU input at all, and look where we are ...

Sure, it offers some Brexiteers the opportunity to turn puce with rage screaming "undemocratic", but they're missing the point by a mile if they thought the plebiscite was the be all and end all.

[mids]

Brexit is no more ill defined than remain. What sort of remain were you hoping for? Take us through all the different remains (no etc...). In/out the euro? In/out schengen? A eurmy? Turkey in/out? Centralised tax raising? All possibilities for remain. If there's to be another referendum, you'd probably want 3 or 4 scenarios as different remain questions. Remainers, now's your chance. Explain your vision for remain!

[bertruss2]

Sept 23, 2019 12:15:46 GMT mids said:

Brexit is no more ill defined than remain. What sort of remain were you hoping for? Take us through all the different remains (no etc...). In/out the euro? In/out schengen? A eurmy? Turkey in/out? Centralised tax raising? All possibilities for remain. If there's to be another referendum, you'd probably want 3 or 4 scenarios as different remain questions. Remainers, now's your chance. Explain your vision for remain!

There is no ambiguity at all. The ruling of the European Court is that the UK has the right to simply cancel Brexit and continue its membership.

[jimboky]

That would suggest that the UK also has the right not to cancel Brexit and continue it's membership?? no?

[bertruss2]

I think it is a little unfair to characterise Brexiteers as being "deluded about the type of democracy we live in"; I suspect you'd find many in the Remain camp who are equally confused about democracy in general, never mind ours in particular.

To be more accurate, it's the slogan that " Parliament must respect the will of the People", which is false. Firstly, 17.4 million is not the British People". In any case, Parliament does not have to follow the outcome of a public opinion poll, if it considers it would not be in the public interest.

There was no Johnson do-or-die Brexit in the Labour or Conservative manifestos in 2017.

[moggyonspeed]

Sept 23, 2019 12:15:46 GMT mids said:

Brexit is no more ill defined than remain. What sort of remain were you hoping for? Take us through all the different remains (no etc...). In/out the euro? In/out schengen? A eurmy? Turkey in/out? Centralised tax raising? All possibilities for remain. If there's to be another referendum, you'd probably want 3 or 4 scenarios as different remain questions. Remainers, now's your chance. Explain your vision for remain!

My vision for Remain is to do the brave thing by standing and fighting for reform of the EU from within the EU - not turning tail and running because things are getting tough and The Big Rough Boys have turned up. Sorry, but that's Surrender Monkey Central.

The rest of your comment is the usual obfuscation, but just to clarify ...

- In/out the Euro? We're not in, which you know, 'cos you're smart.
- In/out Schengen? Ditto.
- A eurmy? There is no EU army, but there is the usual demonstrable p&w from the Brexit camp about this. Straw man.
- Turkey in/out? Currently in negotiation, but I don't recall this being on the referendum paper. I do recall the Brexit camp pre-referendum coming up with all kinds of lies about this (Project Fear recherché, if you ask me), but if this topic fuels your hypertension, then I'm all in favour.
- Centralised tax raising? Ditto.

To paraphrase St. Theresa: Remain means Remain, pure and simple.

[mids]

You did understand that I was talking about realistic future scenarios didn't you? The EU isn't preserved in amber, there's been a constant direction of travel towards "more Europe". But since you mentioned bravely fighting from within for reform, let's hear all about that. What reforms? List 'em and how this fighting would occur. I need to know exactly what I'm voting for.

[mids]

Also refer, if you will, to past examples of bravely reforming the EU from within.

[bertruss2]

"Reforming the EU" was the David Cameron meme. We Brits'll sort'em out and bring them up to our standards.

The EU is an organization which constantly has to meet new challenges and adapts and evolves, with as much, or as little, flexibility as the leaders of the 28 independent sovereign states are able to muster.

The program set out by President elect Ursula von der Leyen, in her election campaign, gives an idea of the direction of travel she will be proposing to the Council.


www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20190716RES57231/20190716RES57231.pdf

[Deleted]

The first reform I'd go for would be to cap all EU Governor and MEP expenses and enforce transparency on personal finances and business links.

[mids]

Reform and change are different things. The EU changes but it doesn't reform. It just moves in the direction of more Europe.

Anyway, big day tomorrow. The not quite Supreme Court are to give their ruling at 10.30.