Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
Did you say 30th June?

I am eligible to change my driving licence to a Slovak one on 12th June.

My citizenship has let me down and left me behind so I'll take whatever small victories I can.
 
baldgye
But I thought we had no control or influence over the EU and it's laws, isn't that why we're leaving??
Click to expand...
I understand that the general idea is that we have no control or influence over the EU and its laws... once they become laws.

It's actually a pretty common concern, which is emergent from the Treaty of Lisbon - which took a couple of goes to get through all member states - because by creating the European Parliament and making the European Union a legal person, it made it possible for a qualified majority to create law despite the objections of any given member state (see: Article 13).

That said, Cameron had negotiated exemptions for the UK, in addition to existing opt-outs and the rebate. This essentially formed the basis of the Referendum - to stay in the EU with the new relationship (which is now expired, as it was contingent on a remain vote; the second referendum will not bring it back to the table) or leave anyway.

Sadly, very little of this was communicated during the referendum campaigns themselves. Despite spending more money, the Remain campaigns struggled to adapt to the tactics (similar to Trump's) of the Leave campaigns.
 
It strikes me that we'd get a lot more progress on this situation if the MP's votes were by secret ballot on cross party issues.
 
MatskiMonk
It strikes me that we'd get a lot more progress on this situation if the MP's votes were by secret ballot on cross party issues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, or perhaps that would make it even harder to hold politicians accountable and easier for them to be bought off by wealthy external interests.
 
Imari
Perhaps, or perhaps that would make it even harder to hold politicians accountable and easier for them to be bought off by wealthy external interests.
Click to expand...

As opposed to simply voting along party lines in the interests of gaining or retaining power, I'd pretty much be okay with that.
 
MatskiMonk
As opposed to simply voting along party lines in the interests of gaining or retaining power, I'd pretty much be okay with that.
Click to expand...

You'd be OK with that now because you feel like you'd be getting an immediate result, but I think as the years went on you might miss the opportunity to be able to hold individual members to account. Politicians would still be voting according to whoever provides them the most incentive, you just wouldn't be able to see if that was you any more.

Making the political system more opaque is not the right answer to the difficulty of political parties overwhelming the will of individual members. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it less visible.
 
Imari
You'd be OK with that now because you feel like you'd be getting an immediate result, but I think as the years went on you might miss the opportunity to be able to hold individual members to account. Politicians would still be voting according to whoever provides them the most incentive, you just wouldn't be able to see if that was you any more.

Making the political system more opaque is not the right answer to the difficulty of political parties overwhelming the will of individual members. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it less visible.
Click to expand...

I'm okay with it now because I'm sick of our current system. MP's do not have to represent their constituents, and therefore any vote they cast is open to influence not in the interest of those that voted for them*. Don't get me wrong, I understand the shortcomings of a secret ballot, but for the kinds of indicative votes they've been having I think the risk is not that different...

... and pretty much any changes I propose to our system are done in the context of wanting a ground up re-think of the entire system.

* sorry typing fail, I've overtyped part of what I wanted to say...

.. in short, FPTP = bad and the will of MP's isn't proportional to the will of two different individuals who voted for them.
 
baldgye



But I thought we had no control or influence over the EU and it's laws, isn't that why we're leaving??
Click to expand...

I read his comment as a political move in his own interest towards one day being Prime Minister. Using his new found influence to try to force the EU not to offer a long extension to in turn increase the probability of hard brexit which plays into the kind of shifts in parliament that he can use to elevate himself. I used to think that I just disagreed with his preferences (though I do admire his knowledge of parliamentary history & constitutional matters) but now I believe his preferences are or have become shallow and opportunistic with no basis at all in how they affect the country.

Edit: I should clarify, my evolving opinion of this member reached this point long before the tweet in question.
 
Last edited:
polysmut
I read his comment as a political move in his own interest towards one day being Prime Minister. Using his new found influence to try to force the EU not to offer a long extension to in turn increase the probability of hard brexit which plays into the kind of shifts in parliament that he can use to elevate himself. I used to think that I just disagreed with his preferences (though I do admire his knowledge of parliamentary history & constitutional matters) but now I believe his preferences are or have become shallow and opportunistic with no basis at all in how they affect the country.

Edit: I should clarify, my evolving opinion of this member reached this point long before the tweet in question.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't disagree, in fact Mogg, like Bojo has been fairly straightforward in his goals. He makes millions and stands to make more from hard/no-deal and, like Bojo he's also positioning himself to become leader.
The issue is that he's the head of a group who's leading the charge for Brexit. On the basis of clear lies, lies they're backers and supports don't even care about even more because they can see the finish line. The fallacy is over, Brexit isn't about making this country better, its about helping a small group of people increase their own wealth and power. It's so shallow and clear, only a week ago(?) he backed May's deal, a he'd earlier described as making the British people slaves. Not because he thought it was a good deal now and that he was previously wrong, but because it would help further his political aims.

During the campaign it was promised we'd be much better off and waltz into a deal. Now we're told by these same lying politicians that everyone voted for no-deal and that it's the will of the people to force Brexit to happen, at all costs... and we're not even as worse off as everyone predicted.

Edit:
https://www.businessinsider.com/price-of-brexit-66-billion-recession-2019-4?r=US&IR=T
 
Last edited:
MatskiMonk
I'm okay with it now because I'm sick of our current system. MP's do not have to represent their constituents, and therefore any vote they cast is open to influence not in the interest of those that voted for them*. Don't get me wrong, I understand the shortcomings of a secret ballot, but for the kinds of indicative votes they've been having I think the risk is not that different...

... and pretty much any changes I propose to our system are done in the context of wanting a ground up re-think of the entire system.

* sorry typing fail, I've overtyped part of what I wanted to say...

.. in short, FPTP = bad and the will of MP's isn't proportional to the will of two different individuals who voted for them.
Click to expand...
Proportional representation has its own problems as well you know. You're not electing a specific individual so it's still open to corruption across the board anyway.

If I can't check how my MP has voted in an issue that is important to me how am I to judge if I should vote for them?
 
Tired Tyres
Proportional representation has its own problems as well you know. You're not electing a specific individual so it's still open to corruption across the board anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm against the FPTP system we have, but I'm not necessarily suggesting we change to the AV system of 2011.

Tired Tyres
If I can't check how my MP has voted in an issue that is important to me how am I to judge if I should vote for them?
Click to expand...

To me, this is where things get fuzzy anyway, I don't have an answer to your question.

Effectively, if your MP has voted on something, your next vote for them is too late for your opinion to be faithfully represented (assuming you're represented by the person you voted for). You can then assume they are a liar, and not vote for them again, but lets say they then campaign on issues that are important to you, and the other candidates are opposed to these issues... what are you going to do, not vote, vote for someone else, or vote for them again?

I say it gets fuzzy because there's no direct link between promise and action, only retrospective indirect 'punishment' via losing voters - and that gained or lost vote is not ultimately representative of the issue a voter had a problem with - just of if they want them in parliament (or not).... and in either case, the thing the MP did or didn't do, they they said they would or wouldn't do... remains done (or not done...) ... if you follow me.

In the case where an MP might have been anti-Europe, but been in a remain constituency - what's fair? Vote for what the people who voted in you in, want... or, vote for what the constituency wants... these may not be the same thing in the 45% of constituencies where the winning party didn't get the overall majority of the electorate.

I'm not disagreeing that MP's need to be held accountable, but the current system isn't really a system, it's a series of coincidences. There needs to be a better system...


edit: I am looking forward to UKIP doing better next time though.. should be a hoot.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/07/ukip..._qTNcqhgwc36wFAzwlZn-k5NEgYf4eHs7wfa0IFXcYu54
 
Last edited:
MatskiMonk
I'm against the FPTP system we have, but I'm not necessarily suggesting we change to the AV system of 2011.



To me, this is where things get fuzzy anyway, I don't have an answer to your question.

Effectively, if your MP has voted on something, your next vote for them is too late for your opinion to be faithfully represented (assuming you're represented by the person you voted for). You can then assume they are a liar, and not vote for them again, but lets say they then campaign on issues that are important to you, and the other candidates are opposed to these issues... what are you going to do, not vote, vote for someone else, or vote for them again?

I say it gets fuzzy because there's no direct link between promise and action, only retrospective indirect 'punishment' via losing voters - and that gained or lost vote is not ultimately representative of the issue a voter had a problem with - just of if they want them in parliament (or not).... and in either case, the thing the MP did or didn't do, they they said they would or wouldn't do... remains done (or not done...) ... if you follow me.

In the case where an MP might have been anti-Europe, but been in a remain constituency - what's fair? Vote for what the people who voted in you in, want... or, vote for what the constituency wants... these may not be the same thing in the 45% of constituencies where the winning party didn't get the overall majority of the electorate.

I'm not disagreeing that MP's need to be held accountable, but the current system isn't really a system, it's a series of coincidences. There needs to be a better system...
Click to expand...
It's the whips that are the problem. Each MP has to vote in accordance with what they think is the right thing to do, but how do we know when a free vote is really a free vote?
 
Tired Tyres
t's the whips that are the problem. Each MP has to vote in accordance with what they think is the right thing to do, but how do we know when a free vote is really a free vote?
Click to expand...

Whips are definitely a specific problem, but I'm saying that a voter should be informed on campaign promise, actions accordingly, and reason for difference between the two... the answer may well be whips.. it might be something different... but until we get that level of transparency delivered in an effective form... it's mostly ill informed judgement calls from voters...

... add to that, the number of people that vote for a party leader preference, versus the name on the paper anyway.
 
Famine
I understand that the general idea is that we have no control or influence over the EU and its laws... once they become laws.
Click to expand...

The European Commission has the initiative to propose legislation. During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are ministers from member state governments) and the EuropeanParliament (elected by citizens) can makeamendments and must give their consent for laws to pass.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law
https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en


Seems we have about the same or similar control as we do in our own Parliament.
 
Never ending time extension time. Limbo, limbo limbo. How is anyone meant to make investment under these circumstances?
 
Well all I can say is that I'm glad there's an extension as I'm due to fly back to the UK via Schipol for a few days next week.

In the event that the UK had crashed out this week, then it had the potential to be tricky for me, assuming there were no agreements in place.
 

Latest Posts

Back