[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

some sections of the establishment/media/population refusing to accept the result and doing all they can to reverse/undermine it.

Like some sections of the establishment/media/population are doing in attacking the courts for interpreting our laws, as the Supreme Court are currently doing.

 

[studio150]

So did you fall into the correct category of voter?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-who-voted-for-brexit-and-who-didnt?utm_term=.ludQxeWOA#.mkG8gwoqX://

 

[pastafarian]

Like some sections of the establishment/media/population are doing in attacking the courts for interpreting our laws, as the Supreme Court are currently doing.

In the UK you are permitted to criticise the courts and the judges if thats what you want to do. We are not Castro Cuba.
Disgusting people are saying the judiciary should be above criticism because they want a specific decision according to their beliefs.

 

[GT49er]

So did you fall into the correct category of voter?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-who-voted-for-brexit-and-who-didnt?utm_term=.ludQxeWOA#.mkG8gwoqX://

Buzzfeed for intelligent comment?

Not as as patronising people who think it's something that should impress people, though.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Like some sections of the establishment/media/population are doing in attacking the courts for interpreting our laws, as the Supreme Court are currently doing.

Not like at all. Their misguided views aren't motivated by a desire to reverse or block the democratic will of the majority.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Comment in The Times today, backing Brexit, but backing the courts and cautioning against populism:

(Disclaimer - I am neither stating I agree nor disagree with this view!!)

We must stand up to the populist blackmail

Daniel Finkelstein

Veiled threats over judges’ Brexit ruling show why movements that claim to speak for ‘the people’ are so dangerous.

No. I try to see the best in everyone and in their arguments. Sometimes I worry that I do it to a fault, cutting people slack when they don’t deserve it. But there are moments when resistance is the only option. And this is one of them. So, no. Absolutely not.

The suggestion that the courts must rule in favour of the government over Article 50, because to rule otherwise would stoke resentment among supporters of Brexit, is completely outrageous.

I think actually it is a case study in populism and what is wrong with it.

It is, to start with, a threat, a lightly veiled piece of blackmail. The blackmailers are offering acceptance of the ruling of judges only if they get the result they want. Otherwise we can expect “anger” and the never quite specified consequences of that anger. Such blackmail can never be accepted.

It is also a misrepresentation of what courts are for and what they are being asked to rule upon. Courts have to interpret the law, and the point of law the Supreme Court is interpreting is not whether we leave the European Union. It is whether the power of governments to agree treaties extends to their power over Article 50.

The suggestion that we mustn’t have due legal process because it might delay Brexit is also childish. Leaving the EU is complicated and has profound consequences and needs to be done properly and legally. It should be done expeditiously, of course, but it is absurd to start complaining that we voted in June and haven’t left yet.

However none of this begins to explain how dangerous the attack on the court judgment really is.

Parliament must accept and respect the result of the referendum and we must leave the EU. I also hope that the government wins its court case. I think the prerogative power to agree treaties is important and I fear the consequences of its dilution. In particular, as a free trader I worry about the power to agree trade deals.

To hope for such a result, or to argue that this would be the correct outcome legally, is, however, entirely different from suggesting that the result of the referendum sweeps all before it and that judges should lay aside their legal opinion in order to avoid the fury of Leave voters.

In a very insightful new book, What is Populism?, the Princeton academic Jan-Werner Müller looks at the political ideas that unite such disparate political figures as Donald Trump and Hugo Chávez, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Geert Wilders, Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement and Nigel Farage’s Ukip.

The professor argues that the central claim each of them makes is that they embody the will of the people. That will is simple, clear and unified and obviously associated with the national interest.

The crucial first populist step is to ensure that “the people” are limited to those who share the same conception of the country’s destiny. Anyone who does not must be considered not a real person. They are a member of “the elite” or of “the establishment”, they are liberals or they are metropolitan. These groups don’t do “real” jobs, or have “real experience”; they conspire against “real” people. They “just don’t get it”.

Other groups may be excluded: immigrants, say, because they aren’t “real” nationals. The attempt to show that Barack Obama wasn’t really born in America was much more than just an effort to deny him the presidency on technical grounds.

Or half the country can be dismissed as “Remoaners”. Nigel Farage described the Brexit vote as a “victory for real people”. Quite similar to Trump’s extraordinary comment at a rally in May that “the only important thing is the unification of the people — because the other people don’t mean anything”. Through this process of exclusion, the populists produce a homogeneous people with a common interest.

The next stage in advancing populism is to attack anybody who challenges the exclusive right of the populist party to define or interpret the national interest. It is vital, for instance, to attack the mainstream media and use social media to communicate with people directly.

Parliament, of course, allows diverse representation and the clash of interests. Politicians interpret these different interests and attempt to weigh them and compromise between them. This is everything populists despise. A lot of talking and accommodation of different views when the will of “real” people is perfectly clear. So it is essential to populism that politicians — “the Westminster bubble” — be subjected to continuous attack. These people have never done a “real” day’s work in their lives. What do they know? And anyway, why should parliament debate anything when we already know what people think?

The populist Hungarian party Jobbik always couples “politician crime” with “gypsy crime”. The Ukip donor Arron Banks flits from attacking “so-called intellectuals” and the “metro elite” to suggesting that the Austrians didn’t get it right in their presidential election, rejecting the anti-immigrant far-right candidate because “they haven’t suffered enough rape and murder yet”.

The attack on the courts is therefore just one part of a bigger argument. Judges proceed by precedent and rules and make judgments that balance the rights of individuals against the decision of the majority. Yet this assumes that balance is required. Haven’t “real” people made themselves perfectly clear? If judges can’t see that, it is because they aren’t proper people themselves. They are the establishment, the elite, the metropolitans.

Müller’s analysis explains also why so many populist political positions are simple and pure. It’s just “common sense”. “People”, you see, are tired of political correctness. If the people are cohesive and share a common interest it is not hard to serve that interest. Politics is only difficult if the values and interests of different constituencies clash with each other.

But here is the point, the crucial, unavoidable point. The populist claim is wrong. Wrong and dangerous. All of us are “real” people living “real” lives. We all have interests and views and they clash. We must argue and compromise and no one has the “actual person” trump card.

Our institutions — parliament, government, the courts — must serve a plural society, they must balance interests and protect rights. We have decided to leave the EU. We must leave the EU. We will leave the EU. But if you think that in the process we are going to allow anyone to undermine a liberal, pluralist, political democracy based on the rule of law you’ve got another think coming. No.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-must-stand-up-to-the-populist-blackmail-sqgj8nk8h

 

[pastafarian]

So did you fall into the correct category of voter?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-who-voted-for-brexit-and-who-didnt?utm_term=.ludQxeWOA#.mkG8gwoqX://

so wealthy higher rate tax payers voted to remain and low income voters voted to leave
are you surprised?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

And you have summed it up quite well.
A strange amalgamation of bed fellows from diverse political spectrums who saw The EU as broken, devoid of accountability to the ordinary bloke, vastly out of touch and adverse to any change

If tories,labour, socialists and trade unions can unite to defeat The EU then you know it is a serious problem

I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I was commenting on posters on NSC. However, your point is still valid in any case!

 

[Baldseagull]

We don't agree on much (regarding this subject) but you are making an entirely valid point here - There are many that have no concept about how detached and disenfranchised people in some regions are, I've talked to people in South Wales, in Northern England, people who voted both in and out. Their testimony bares little resemblance to the words of the posters/commentators/journalists from the South East of England....

I dont have any doubt that people feel disenfranchised, I very much doubt that they will be enfranchised post Brexit. What has been a surprise for me is how detached from the reality of who it is that is running an austerity program in the UK, who it is that has the power to incentivise more house building, and who it is they want to give a freer hand to.

 

[El Presidente]

so wealthy higher rate tax payers voted to remain and low income voters voted to leave
are you surprised?

Is it possible to have higher rate tax payers who are not wealthy?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I dont have any doubt that people feel disenfranchised, I very much doubt that they will be enfranchised post Brexit. What has been a surprise for me is how detached from the reality of who it is that is running an austerity program in the UK, who it is that has the power to incentivise more house building, and who it is they want to give a freer hand to.

Both labour and the Tories have sold out in the past twenty years. Well, not so much the Tories as we know what they are about.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

We would need to know the actual Healthcare usage of British people in Spain and
vice versa. Rather than saying there are very few Spanish pensioners in the U.K. and leaving it at that he needs to quote the amount of NHS healthcare used by younger Spanish people otherwise his figures are meaningless.

Isn't this an instance of where a reasonable assumption can be made? One set of figures shows that there is a vast mismatch between the number of UK pensioners in Spain and the number of Spanish pensioners in the UK. Another set of figures show that healthcare usage rises sharply as people get older. From these data it seems reasonable to assume that the cost of treating UK citizens in Spain is much higher than Spanish citizens in the UK.

 

[Baldseagull]

so wealthy higher rate tax payers voted to remain and low income voters voted to leave
are you surprised?

The strongest correlation that has been found between this or that group, voting this or that way in the referendum, has been that those that support the death penalty mostly supported leave, and those that do not support the death penalty mostly supported remain. The correlation being around 70%.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

this makes sense.
One of the most unsavoury outcomes of the vote was the vile demonisation of so called elderly people, quite astonishing to see how the millennials branded them as worthless and guilty of destroying young peoples aspirations......last time i looked all votes were valid.
The referendum vote wasnt political but i wonder if this gross thinking is in line with the corbyn types that are purely focused on young people and oldies can wither off and die......thats the perception they give off anyway.

Over the top and a wonderful if not rare example of the victim mentality you like to charge others with. As has been pointed out no one is 'blaming' older people for claiming more healthcare than younger ones. It's a fact that they do. No more critical than saying that young people claim more in education costs than older ones. Good on both groups I say.

Obviously I don't feel like congratulating older people for voting Leave but your claim that noting the demographics of Leave/Remain voters amounts to 'vile demonisation of the so-called elderly' is bizarre.

 

[Baldseagull]

You could insert many northern towns or much of the working class into that bracket. It's fascinating that Brexit seems to have made unlikely bedfellows of posters who purport to be socialists and Tory posters. I can understand the Tory supporters maybe harbouring negative views of this sort, but the labour supporters baffle me. Before all of this blew up, there were those on this board that have complained about the treatment of the working class and yet now are prepared to pile in, as they appear to be angry that many working class people have given two fingers to the EU. This is the case on social media as well. Whether Brexit will go any way to solving inequality remains to be seen, however liberal globalisation has been an unmitigated disaster for the poor and the policies of the EU have in some ways helped cause that.

Is it not the economic argument for Brexit though, to have more liberal globalisation, through trade agreement with India, China, US etc?

 

[ManOfSussex]

I must admit I'm intrigued by the developing farming situation. I think I'm correct in that farmers by-and-large voted to leave, despite their subsidies and I see the NFU are campaigning for 'tariff-free access to the Single Market and continued access to a competent and reliable workforce, in order for British food and farming to flourish post-Brexit.'

I see they want to trial a 'controlled fixed-term work permit scheme' targeted at 'Non-EU workers' next summer as since the vote the EU workforce isn't what it was, coupled with a falling pound making it less attractive for EU workers to come here.

So, surely it would make sense to utilise non-EU workers from non-EU countries close enough to us to make it practical to travel, such as Ukraine and Turkey, with it's very large, young Muslim population, to work in places like Lincolnshire. Can anyone envisage any potential problems anyone would have with this?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

We don't agree on much (regarding this subject) but you are making an entirely valid point here - There are many that have no concept about how detached and disenfranchised people in some regions are, I've talked to people in South Wales, in Northern England, people who voted both in and out. Their testimony bares little resemblance to the words of the posters/commentators/journalists from the South East of England....

I completely agree. This sense of detachment and disenfranchisement (which extends to parts of all regions, including the south east), while occasionally self-induced, is real enough. Almost without exception, people posting on this thread have a spirit of involvement in small-p politics. Most people don't. I know lots of them. I am not going to blame those people for feeling fed up and uninvolved, just as I'm not going to blame them on principle for voting Leave. But the two are closely linked, surely?

 

[El Presidente]

So, surely it would make sense to utilise non-EU workers from non-EU countries close enough to us to make it practical to travel, such as Ukraine

As someone who has been fortunate enough to teach young Ukranian women, I am VERY much in favour of this. I also have some films of them working with vegetables which I thoroughly recommend.

 

[Baldseagull]

In the UK you are permitted to criticise the courts and the judges if thats what you want to do. We are not Castro Cuba.
Disgusting people are saying the judiciary should be above criticism because they want a specific decision according to their beliefs.

Disgusting that the judiciary should be criticised for applying the law. To make a decision based on the referendum would be ultra vires.

 

[Soulman]

Both labour and the Tories have sold out in the past twenty years. Well, not so much the Tories as we know what they are about.

Who do you look to.
Did this apply to the Richmond result.

The Electoral Commission has given the LibDems the maximum £20,000 election fraud fine, ruled they committed multiple offences and referred them to the police. Guido had previously told how LibDem candidates had split their spending between their local and national spend – they even had a handy spreadsheet used to cook the books. Time and time again the LibDems told us they had done everything above board. The Electoral Commission’s investigation uncovered 307 payments totalling £184,676 which the candidate had split between local and national spend, but which were missing from the national return. They have ruled that the LibDems committed multiple offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and issued them with the maximum fine. They also slammed the LibDems for contributing to “damage to public confidence” and “detriment to transparency in politics”. Here’s the real kicker: the Electoral Commission notes that knowingly or recklessly making a false declaration is a more serious criminal offence, of which they believe the LibDems are guilty. They have referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police…