BREXIT RULES! The Consequences | Page 19 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Strategies Follow Rules, But Rules Are Made To Be Broken 1 reply

Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform for forex traders 16 replies

Rules .. where are the Rules located 7 replies

Trade what you have, take responsibility, and enjoy the consequences 10 replies

Underleverage and the consequences 8 replies

Attachments: BREXIT RULES! The Consequences
Exit Attachments

BREXIT RULES! The Consequences

  • #361
  • Aug 5, 2016 12:41pm Aug 5, 2016 12:41pm
Quoting smikester
{quote} ... We bremainers have to be careful not to cheer every time the economy stumbles or the pound falls or RBS loses another billion. .
Why do you think Ive not posted here for a week.. LoL
  • #362
  • Edited 7:02am Aug 12, 2016 4:24am | Edited 7:02am
I some how missed this UK government publication published in April last, which seeks to provide a factual reference to address the huge ignorance gap about the EU and the UKs participation as a member, that weve seen in much of the dialogue and debate both per- and post- the UK referendum decision on 23rd June.
Its entirely factual, and equips the reader with a basic understanding of what is a highly complex subject.


Its an important read both for UK citizens and for interested parties around the world who want to establish an understanding of exactly what the EU is,
how it works, and what the UKs referendum has now voted for them to leave. It may also explain the huge majority of Members of Parlaiment

Equally it may prove instructive for those that think Brexit a simple process of free trade tariff-centric negotiations, to understand the complexity and range of cooperation on the UKs common interests now placed in jeopardy, and of the sheer scale of the challenge in redefining these, and establishing new relationships with the UKs closest and most economically interdependent neighbors.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf
  • #363
  • Aug 12, 2016 4:32am Aug 12, 2016 4:32am
Quoting cliffedwards
I some how missed this UK government publication published in April last, which seeks to provide a factual reference to address the huge ignorance gap about the EU and the UKs participation as a member, that weve seen in much of the dialogue and debate both per- and post- the UK referendum decision on 23rd June. Its entirely factual, and equips the reader with a basic understanding of what is a highly complex subject. Its an important read both for UK citizens and for interested parties around the world who want to establish an understanding of...

Do you think the people voting to Leave, or Remain, are more likely to be ignorant of the EU?
  • #364
  • Edited 7:01am Aug 12, 2016 6:23am | Edited 7:01am
Quoting verv
{quote} Do you think the people voting to Leave, or Remain, are more likely to be ignorant of the EU?
Great question. I dont know.

Nor is it possible to interpolate ignorance of the EU and its structures, from the result.. with out a specific research study.
Some Remain Voters may have voted Remain, BECAUSE they knew they didnt understand the issues.. and hence voted for what they saw as the "Safe", dont rock the Boat" option.
Equally it may be argued that the Educational profile of Brexit voters, (significantly lower than of Remain voters) placed a question mark over their capacity to properly research or understand the subject, and hence were more impressionable and more likely to have been influenced by the populist Brexit campaign with its often disingenuous misrepresentations of the EU.
This is significant in that the most quoted reason for Leave voters was the principle that Decisions about the UK should be taken by the UK (Parliament/Government) A close reading of the EU framework, the number of UK opt-outs, the Veto, and the inherent checks and balances in the Ordinary Legislative Process show this to be a nonsense. To draw a parallel.. remember Brussels is home not just to the EU Commission, but also to NATO. I mean should UK leave NATO, because every Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR), since 1951 has been an AMERICAN? A U.S. four-star general or admiral which chain of command dictates UK NATO forces must operationally obey in life and death situations?


Ashcroft did some research on the vote profile, day after. Ill post some of the key charts and conclusions later when Ive got more time.
Unfortunately from a research point of view its difficult to frame a question that could give a reliable OBJECTIVE indication of this.
Other than one that asked the voter their own assessment of their level of understanding. Which would be totally subjective. And useless.

Anyway.. great question.. Hope you have time to read the Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf
  • #365
  • Edited 10:30am Aug 13, 2016 9:12am | Edited 10:30am
Some interesting results from recent Ashcroft Poll about the Referendum and Voters priorities.
The BIG one for me was the size of the Little England vote..
Im actually genuinely surprised at the lack of commitment to a UK identity and the size of the England identity.
Creates worrying questions about the longer term stability of the Union, the need for a written constitution
and perhaps a transition into a Federal system where England, and perhaps London too, would like Scotland Wales and N.Ireland, have ITs own regional parliament..

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Q30-by-LR.jpg Size: 92 KB


Surprised to see how late Voter decisions were made..?

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: timeline-by-LR.jpg Size: 51 KB



Finally and most interestingly...

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Quadrant.jpg Size: 89 KB


Interesting to see that Sovereignty and NOT emigrants was the biggest issue for Leave voters.
This fits with my belief that most Voters had no idea about how EU laws are made, and what a chimera of Smoke and Mirrors ,
absolute Sovereignty in a globalised world is.
The "faceless bureaucrats of Brussels" myth, has I believe through misunderstanding and misrepresentation of HOW EU laws are made,
An idea that would have been hard to justify to anyone who understood how the EU legislative process worked.

embedded itself in the national conciousness, of a heasrtland loosing its identity in a multicultural 21st century.



Other interesting conclusions came from..

What Voters expected..

  1. Seven voters in ten expected a victory for remain, including a majority (54%) of those who voted to leave. Leave voters who voted UKIP at the 2015 election were the only group who (by just 52% to 48%) expected a leave victory.


And what impact they believed would result from a Brexit result...

  1. More than three quarters (77%) of those who voted to remain thought “the decision we make in the referendum could have disastrous consequences for us as a country if we get it wrong”. More than two thirds (69%) of leavers, by contrast, thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way”.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Leave-vs-Remain-podium-rankings.jpg Size: 195 KB
  • #366
  • Edited 6:38am Aug 14, 2016 6:22am | Edited 6:38am
Hi Cliffwards,

Good point about those who didn't know what way to vote, just voting for the status quo. I think that probably holds true for a large section of people, and perhaps those also who didn't have strong feelings. All my friends (I was the only Leave voter, and have gotten lots of stick I can tell you) who voted for Remain were just voting not to rock the boat. Despite being highly intelligent none had any interest in how the EU worked and just voted for Remain because it suited them to do so. I had one friend, who is highly political and who I was sure would also be a Leave voter, but he was conflicted and didn't vote at all - he said he would have probably voted to Leave if forced.

Regarding the issue of sovereignty. The BBC broke down this a while back, and they pointed to sovereignty as the main issue rather than immigration. For my money the immigration issue highlighted the sovereignty issue, and in some ways they were the same thing (explained below). You and I both know roughly how laws are made at an EU level, however whilst you believe an in depth knowledge of the EU is required to understand the issue of sovereignty, I would argue that experience alone is sufficient and actually you don't need any knowledge of the EU at all.

Take for example the issue of immigration, and firstly the inability of our PM to first deliver on a manifesto pledge, but more importantly the inability of the PM to get immigration reforms for the UK from the EU. These two issues around immigration framed the sovereignty issue. The climax was when Cameron firstly had to ask the Europeans for migration control (highlighting that the UK wasn't in control of immigration), immigration reforms which was then subsequently denied by the EU (highlighting his inability to deliver any reforms for the UK). As a result of those events it became therefore blatantly obvious that the UK was powerless to do anything about immigration, as a result an immigration issue became a sovereignty issue for a large amount of people. Even a dimwit with no knowledge of the EU institutions could figure that if the government of your country wants something, but has to go to another parliament to ask for it, and then cannot deliver it, the parliament is not sovereign on that issue. And if they didn't understand it themselves, the Leave campaign hammered the point home.

I had one more point, but I cannot remember what it was lol, may come back if I do. Anyway.

Edit - I remembered.
I do believe that if you are going to argue that the EU is anti-democratic, and filled with "faceless bureaucrats of Brussels", then you do indeed need to understand the workings of the EU and how those laws are made - that is actually a more complex argument. But the issue of sovereignty and democracy, though obviously related, are different. I will fully admit that there are plenty on the Leave side who will talk about sovereignty and democracy interchangeably with no distinction, such that it leaves you believing they are in fact one and the same thing. It is very likely that a great many of the Leave voters simply don't understand that sovereignty and democratic accountability are in fact different.
  • #367
  • Edited 6:54am Aug 15, 2016 6:40am | Edited 6:54am
Hi @VERV

The clarity of your description of the connect between the Immigration issue and Sovereignty, in the public mind is interesting. As is your note of the distinction between Sovereignty and democratic accountability, and its confusion in many minds.

Some thoughts on this sovereignty business.

1. The UK is and remains a sovereign state, and were it not so it would not be able to Leave the EU. Unlike for example Texas, which cannot devolve from the United States. So membership of the EU implies NO basic infringement of the UKs sovereignty.

2. On a temporary basis however .. Of course the UK parliament has delegated sovereignty in many matters in its accession treaty obligations as a member of the EU.
And I can find few cases where that delegation has been abused, thanks to the checks and balances of a highly structured legal framework in the EU legislative process.
As it has in its membership Treaty obligations to NATO the WTO, etc etc. Central to the effective operation of these and other treaty defined international associations, is that they require such partial devolvement of sovereignty by all members, in order to fulfil and achieve their core objectives and effectiveness. And since the UKs continued membership, is regarded by Parliament, as central to maintenance of its (UKs) influence, security and economic power in a globalised world such delegations of sovereignty are recognized as necessary. I am astonished that this reality of life in a can come as news to anybody.

3. Within each of these types of associations are commitments and obligations that are central (as distinct from peripheral) to that association.
In NATO for example one central principle is that of commitment to Collective Defence. Another .. the acceptance of Foreign command and control of UK forces (e.g. SACEUR). In NATO led operations.
Treaty commitments that in matters of National Defense and Security surely represent the most serious relinquishing of sovereignty.

4. In the EU FoM of citizens of member states between member states is such a central pillar of the whole "Free Movement" package - .Labour/Capital/Good/Services. On which the EU is based.
Achieving derogations at short notice from European partners, given that there are very specific Treaty based legal rules of how such central treaty principles can be changed and manipulated, was always going to be impossible in terms of UK populist media driven expectation. In that context the concessions Cameron actually came back with (the "Brake") were generous in terms of a reaction from many EU Members with which the UK and the Cameron government has more recently failed to build alliances and bridges with.

5 To look at an analogy, I ask myself what reaction the UK would get from its NATO partners, were it to decide by advisory referendum to seek derogation from its commitment to Article 5? Or to suddenly refuse to allow SACEUR (always an American) command and control over NATO mission assigned UK military assets?
My point is that some principles in all organisations are RED LINE. FoM is so deeply embedded in the core principles of the EU treaties that its simple not negotiable with out a new treaty and the unanimous agreement of all 28 members.

6. At each stage in the evolution of the EU, it has been the unanimous view of successive democratically elected UK governments, and (ironically) continues to be the view of the current UK government, (i.e. the considered view of the majority of democratically elected MPs in parliament - notwithstanding Mays commitment to abide to the results of an advisory referendum, to revoke its membership) that these revocable dilutions of sovereignty, are worthwhile tradeoffs to the overall interests to the Nation of EU membership. There are and have been dissenters from this view, naturally, and typically they find support from single issue based developments, where the "Will of the People" is thought to be thwarted. And typically the popular press can sell papers in a populist rant. In most cases like the Abu Hanza saga, these are sorted, given time, patience and diplomatic skill.

IMHO, unfortunately in this case, the migration/sovereignty issue has resulted in the mess we now find ourselves in, because of an unbelievable level of incompetence by the UK Government and Cameron in particular. We now find ourselves having "Bet the Farm" on the totally unconsidered consequences of a narrow decision in an advisory plebiscite, called for party political reasons and whose marginal result can be attributed to populist press a disaffected electorate and a single issue dissatisfaction that will not be resolved by the recourse voted on.

Finally its worth remembering that the vast majority (over twothirds) of MPs of the current UK parliament, elected just one year before the referendum, opposed Brexit on the grounds of the National Interest. Irrespective of declarations of "respecting the will of the People" and Mays "Out is Out" mantra, these people have not changed their convictions. Given that MPs are "Representatives" Not "Delegates" and as such have a triple mandate in the UK constitutional tradition. and while the views of constituents must be considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their conscience, and their judgement of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole. Politically, threats by Brexiteers to electorally dump Representatives who appear to thwart the referendum decision, and follow their conscience, are IMHO silly. With 4 years to go to the next General Election, theres a lot of time for the reservations of these dissenters from the popular vote to play-out in the economy, and if they are right, a lot of pain to be endured by the Voters arising from their Brexit decision and consequential "Regretxit" to reverse the playbook.
  • #368
  • Aug 15, 2016 8:49am Aug 15, 2016 8:49am
MEDIA BIAS

As a a onetime professional researcher in media and consumer attitudes, for major commercial brands, I have been concerned about the extent and effect of the media bias of the British National Press, in their coverage of the issues leading up to the June Referendum on Brexit.
In particular because of the recently researched timescale profile (Ashcroft) of voters decision making in the referendum showed that the decision of circa 40% of the voters was made only in the final month before the referendum.
IOW 40% of total voters were "Floating Voters", open to influence by peer group and positive v negative media presentation, in the period immediately prior to the referendum.

This makes the question of the influence of Media Bias very significant.
The interim results of research into media bias by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism were published for the initial March/April period, on May 23rd 2016.
In this found significant bias. Specifically that 45% of 928 referendum articles it studied were in favour of leaving while 27% backed the remain case.
When circulation weighted, this figure was even more skewed.

Given the preponderance of reputable "Expert" opinion on the dangers of Brexit during this period, and the overwhelming majority of parliamentary support for a Remain outcome by recently elected sitting MPs these figures appear very strange.

In fact disturbing, particularly when matched to ownership profile of of the British press media

The final report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism for the period immediately prior to the vote is due in in September.
I look forward to its publication.

The initial report is here: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Press%20release%20-%20EU%20Referendum%20media%20coverage.pdf
  • #369
  • Aug 15, 2016 4:18pm Aug 15, 2016 4:18pm
Quote
Hi @VERV
Quote

The clarity of your description of the connect between the Immigration issue and Sovereignty, in the public mind is interesting. As is your note of the distinction between Sovereignty and democratic accountability, and its confusion in many minds.

Some thoughts on this sovereignty business.

1. The UK is and remains a sovereign state, and were it not so it would not be able to Leave the EU. Unlike for example Texas, which cannot devolve from the United States. So membership of the EU implies NO basic infringement of the UKs sovereignty.

2....

The point you are making in (1.) is that sovereignty was given, not taken. The second point you are making is that if sovereignty can be reclaimed, then there is no loss of sovereignty issues at all.
I can see where you are coming from. However I dont agree with the conclusion.
For me it doesnt matter if that handing of sovereignty was given by choice, what matters was that there was a transfer of powers from the UK parliament to the EU, and that is a loss of sovereignty.
The third point you are making is that if you can claim sovereignty back, then the sovereignty infringements mustnt be that bad.
Here I agree. And it was because the EU wouldnt budge on some issues that the only decision was to Leave. UK membership of the EU was a trade, people were fed up with immigration for an example, and decided that the only way to control migration, was to reclaim sovereignty.


Quote
It was in the EU by choice. The problem was that a large portion of people felt that an inability to control UK borders was a loss of sovereignty that people were fed up with.

Yes I agree.

Quote
5 To look at an analogy, I ask myself what reaction the UK would get from its NATO partners, were it to decide by advisory referendum to seek derogation from its commitment to Article 5? Or to suddenly refuse to allow SACEUR (always an American) command and control over NATO mission assigned UK military assets?
Quote
My point is that some principles in all organisations are RED LINE. FoM is so deeply embedded in the core principles of the EU treaties that its simple not negotiable with out a new treaty and the unanimous agreement of all 28 members.

This example, and the ones above, highlight a trade. You get access to a single market, or access to a military union, in return you have to hand over sovereign on free movement of labour, or national defence considerations.
Like any trade between two groups the trade only works when it is beneficial to both sides, why would you trade at all if it wasnt beneficial to you?
The issue with the EU is that a sufficient felt that the negatives were outweighing the positives. I was one of them.
I had other concerns to though.

Quote
6. At each stage in the evolution of the EU, it has been the unanimous view of successive democratically elected UK governments, and (ironically) continues to be the view of the current UK government, (i.e. the considered view of the majority of democratically elected MPs in parliament - notwithstanding Mays commitment to abide to the results of an advisory referendum, to revoke its membership) that these revocable dilutions of sovereignty, are worthwhile tradeoffs to the overall interests to the Nation of EU membership. There are and have been...


I dont think we have bet the farm at all. We have bet a few % points of GDP in the short term maybe, long term as well.
That to me is a perfectly acceptable trade off.
This is a matter of personal preference though, and much disagreement, thus a referendum.

Quote
Finally its worth remembering that the vast majority (over twothirds) of MPs of the current UK parliament, elected just one year before the referendum, opposed Brexit on the grounds of the National Interest. Irrespective of declarations of "respecting the will of the People" and Mays "Out is Out" mantra, these people have not changed their convictions. Given that MPs are "Representatives" Not "Delegates" and as such have a triple mandate in the UK constitutional tradition. and while the views of constituents must be considered, the actions of MPs...

This is where I have very strong disagreements.
I fully accept that in terms of the written law, referendums are only advisory but in practice all previous referendums in this country have been followed by parliament. Cloudrider spoke about constitutional precedent in this country, I dont believe there has ever been a precedent for the parliament to allow a public referendum and then ignore it.
The politicians of this country used an act of parliament to enable a nationwide referendum fully aware of what the result might mean. This act was voted in favour for by a very large majority in the houses of parliament, if the house considered it in the national interest not to leave the EU then that was the time to make the case. It cant be a matter of conscience post referendum to pick and choose which referendums you choose to enact.
In any event I still have issues. Politicians should be abiding a constitution, which provides a codified conscience. I think it incredibly dangerous to have an interpretive view in these matters and not a formal process of doing things.
What we need is clarity, I was an advocate for a written constitution before the Brexit, but now Im sure its needed.
  • #370
  • Edited 7:34am Aug 16, 2016 4:29am | Edited 7:34am
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Quoting verv
{quote}{quote} The point you are making in (1.) is that sovereignty was given, not taken. The second point you are making is that if sovereignty can be reclaimed, then there is no loss of sovereignty issues at all. I can see where you are coming from. However I dont agree with the conclusion. For me it doesnt matter if that handing of sovereignty was given by choice, what matters was that there was a transfer of powers from the UK parliament to the EU, and that is a loss of sovereignty.


Our point of difference here appears to rest on your last sentence which clearly states that you object to any and all transfers of power. On that basis NO major Treaty defined association in the world., would be accessible to the UK. (WTO, NATO, etc) IMHO this position untenable.

IMHO discussions on Sovereignty often miss or confuse the difference between the Absolute Sovereignty of the UK, and those Elements of Sovereignty that the UK Government pools (temporally and conditionally) to international treaty defined organisations like NATO and the EU. In discussion however the term Sovereignty is typically used interchangeably, which does not serve clarity and conveys an emotive significance to the latter partial and temporary delegation of sovereignty that appears threatening to the sanctity of the former. To put this in proportion, , the British government dispite its pooling of powers in the EU, contrary to media presentation determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. And controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure.
It similarly presides almost totally over the two greatest bureaucratic and regulation packed costly and time-wasting bits of Red Tape British industry faces, ...
The Domestic Tax system, and the Domestic Planning Laws.

Does that describe a Nation that has lost its Sovereignty? No.
Again to put things in proportion, the immigration controversy on sovereignty is a ONE ISSUE argument, and one that involves less than 50% of UK inward migration.
  • #371
  • Edited 7:37am Aug 16, 2016 4:50am | Edited 7:37am
Quoting verv
{quote}And it was because the EU wouldnt budge on some issues that the only decision was to Leave. .
I believed we had already covered this. Freedom of Movement is a central pillar of The EU package. Just as Collective Defense is a central pillar of NATO.
The principle is not negotiable except through a major redefinition of the Treaties signed by all 28 Nation members.
Can it be changed .. Yes by treaty change. How long does that take.. 3-5 years.***
The Government KNEW this. Cameron went to the Council of Ministers to demand changes that were impossible to deliver under current treaty agreement.
In fact he did very well by getting the "Brake" option. Which would have solved the immediate UK problem, while allowing time for the more fundamental Treaty change to be negotiated.

*** How long is it estimated that Brexit will take ? 3-5 years.
  • #372
  • Edited 7:25am Aug 16, 2016 6:15am | Edited 7:25am
.
Quoting verv
{quote} This is where I have very strong disagreements. I fully accept that in terms of the written law, referendums are only advisory but in practice all previous referendums in this country have been followed by parliament. Cloudrider spoke about constitutional precedent in this country, I dont believe there has ever been a precedent for the parliament to allow a public referendum and then ignore it. The politicians of this country used an act of parliament to enable a nationwide referendum fully aware of what the result might mean. This act was...
I apologize for raising this somewhat off-message paragraph in my earlier post. I too believe that the UK needs a written constitution. ( I think UK is one of only 4 or 5 countries that dont have one). Im not making any POINT here. or arguing in any sense from a Remain agenda perspective. Im simply interested in exploring the moral and legal dilemma facing MPs who in the vast majority, and in their best judgement of what would be best for their Nation, Constituents and Party, were overwhelmingly against Brexit. What is the MPs democratic role and duty in this situation.? MPs in the British democratic tradition are REPRESENTATIVES not DELEGATES of the people. This should NOT be confused with American democratic traditions so be aware that GOOGLING may confuse rather than enlighten you on this.

This may be a esoteric point to many normal observers. But in the UK context there is a huge difference.
Whereas the REPRESENTATIVE is a Trustee of the peoples interest, the DELEGATE is a messenger of the peoples will.

The UK has no written constitution and is therefore wholly dependent on constitutional definitions based on usage acceptance and Parliamentary tradition. The origin for the UK tradition on this is Edmund Burke who is regarded as having defined thus "

"A representatives unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you .... Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

This interpretation continues and is often quoted today by men such as John Bercow Speaker of the House,

So given that the advisory referendum clearly if narrowly advocated that the UK leave the EU...

  1. Should those MPs vote IN their best judgement and refuse to enforce that advisory plebicite?
  2. Should they resign en mass and precipitate a General Election?
  3. Or simple vote against their best judgement to enact a policy that they sincerely believe damaging to the interests of their Nation?

Given that Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval these are real and present issues.


My second question is some what more cynical.. and is why the Referendum was not enacted specifically as a legally binding referendum?

Note: for those interested the most recent challenge to this interpretation of the MPs role and Duty related to John Redwood

  • #373
  • Aug 16, 2016 7:15am Aug 16, 2016 7:15am
Quoting cliffedwards
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. {quote} Our point of difference here appears to rest on your last sentence which clearly states that you object to any and all transfers of power. On that basis NO major Treaty defined association in the world., would be accessible to the UK. (WTO, NATO, etc) IMHO this position untenable. IMHO discussions on Sovereignty often miss or confuse the difference between the Absolute Sovereignty of the UK, and those Elements of Sovereignty that the UK Government pools (temporally and conditionally) to international...
Hi Cliff,

I don't object to transfer of sovereignty, I object to transferring sovereignty without first asking the people.

I don't believe politicians should have the ability to transfer the sovereignty of their own backs.

Regarding the rest of your passage I largely agree, there is a difference between absolute sovereignty and the definitions talked about.
  • #374
  • Aug 16, 2016 7:17am Aug 16, 2016 7:17am
Quoting cliffedwards
{quote} I believe we had already covered this. Freedom of Movement is a central pillar of The EU package. Just as Collective Defense is a central pillar of NATO. The principle is not negotiable except through a major redefinition of the Treaties signed by all 28 Nation members. Can it be changed .. Yes by treaty change. How long does that take.. 3-5 years.*** The Government KNEW this. Cameron went to the Council of Ministers to demand changes that were impossible to deliver under current treaty agreement. In fact he did very well by getting the...
The brake is just a can kick. It will not satisfy any Brexiters who voted on lines of immigration.

I don't have any disagreements with you here, free movement is what the EU asks for. You either abide by that and have a treaty, or you don't.
  • #375
  • Aug 16, 2016 7:56am Aug 16, 2016 7:56am
Quoting verv
{quote} Hi Cliff, I don't object to transfer of sovereignty, I object to transferring sovereignty without first asking the people.
Were we asked about the UKs NATO Treaty pooling of sovereignty? No ?
Then an immediate NATO referendum is clearly necessary.

Quoting verv
{quote} I don't believe politicians should have the ability to transfer the sovereignty of their own backs.
Im truely confused?. Are you seriously disputing the essence of Parliamentary democracy?
The right of Parliament and Government to delegate sovereignty in the interests of the Nation?

Quoting verv
Regarding the rest of your passage I largely agree, there is a difference between absolute sovereignty and the definitions talked about.
NP.. not my points.. we got there together.

PS.. If you are interested .. try to get hold of an old (1970) and very funny and satirical film called " The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer"
A satirical treatment of the whole issue of democracy and the manipulation of public perceptions. Stars Peter Cook.. Say no more Lol
  • #376
  • Aug 16, 2016 8:03am Aug 16, 2016 8:03am
Quoting verv
{quote} The brake is just a can kick. It will not satisfy any Brexiters who voted on lines of immigration. I don't have any disagreements with you here, free movement is what the EU asks for. You either abide by that and have a treaty, or you don't.
Isnt that what I said? The Brake was never more than a temporary solution to the UKs immediate problem.
Treaty change is the answer. And then I compared the time span Brexit creates before any relief can be expected to the problem? 3-5 years
And compared that to the timescale for a Treaty change solution .. 3/5 years.
Whereas I believe the Brake could have been applied within months.

Problem solving requires an open mind. When the only tool in your box is a hammer.. then all jobs require a hammer.
  • #377
  • Aug 16, 2016 11:35am Aug 16, 2016 11:35am
Cliff your jumpin ahead lol. I'm in work and started replying to comment 3 posts, but had to curtail it because something popped up. I will respond to all of them later lol. My response to one has carry over to the other.

steady on
  • #378
  • Edited 4:15pm Aug 16, 2016 3:28pm | Edited 4:15pm
Quoting cliffedwards
. {quote} I apologize for raising this somewhat off-message paragraph in my earlier post. I too believe that the UK needs a written constitution. ( I think UK is one of only 4 or 5 countries that dont have one). Im not making any POINT here. or arguing in any sense from a Remain agenda perspective. Im simply interested in exploring the moral and legal dilemma facing MPs who in the vast majority, and in their best judgement of what would be best for their Nation, Constituents and Party, were overwhelmingly against Brexit. What is the MPs democratic...
I understand there is a difference between the UK and US ways of doing things, I assure you, it isn't just random googling lol. I consider the American way of doing things better, I'm a very big fan.

Generally the UK has been moving towards a US style of governance. For example 10 years ago we looked to formalise separation of powers - and in the process aligned ourselves closer with the US constitution.

Indeed the UK is currently going through the formal process of looking at codifying our constitution here.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...nstitution.pdf (https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf)
Again moving in the direction of the US written constitution, with talk of making the House of Lords elected.

In any event, we should be looking back only if it is relevant regarding precedent. What is more important though is what you said above the 'moral and legal dilemma facing MPs' today. From my point of view, there needs to be consistency, a framework and set of rules upon which government acts.


Quote
So given that the advisory referendum clearly if narrowly advocated that the UK leave the EU...

* Should those MPs vote IN their best judgement and refuse to enforce that advisory plebicite?
* Should they resign en mass and precipitate a General Election?
* Or simple vote against their best judgement to enact a policy that they sincerely believe damaging to the interests of their Nation?

Given that Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval these are real and present issues.


My second question is some what more cynical.. and is why the Referendum was not enacted specifically as a legally binding referendum?

-They should follow the referendum result
-They were voted to run the country on behalf of the people, and to be a representative of the people in parliament
-When something is put to referendum, government is seeking guidance from the people

I have a few problems with this line of questioning.

For one the people of the country didn't vote for their MPs based on their stance to Brexit. The country voted knowing that if the Conservatives won a majority there would be a EU referendum, and by the way the Conservatives won a majority. That negates your point about MPs having to resign because the referendum gave the people the chance to express their views independent of their elected representatives.

Your question re: a legally binding referendum, that is sort of a dreamed up question.
I would turn that question back to you, has there ever been a legally binding referendum in the UK? The Wikipedia article on the EU referendum says 'this referendum wasn't legally binding' which implies that there has been other legally binding referendums in the UK. But as far as I'm aware no UK ref has ever been legally binding, yet every referendum result has been accepted as the wishes of the people and made legal if change was voted for. This occurred in spite of personal feelings on the issues, which to be fair aren't nearly as strong as they are around this topic.

That last point about parliament accepting the wishes of the people is important, because that is precedent and precedent is the basis of law and the constitution in this country. Enacting non legally binding referendums accepted as being the will of the people by parliament is the rule, not the exception. Any argument that MPs should reject the EU referendum results ignores precedent and flies in the face of previous referendum outcomes.

This kind of revisionism of the tradition is dangerous, which is why I strongly support a written constitution.

What I am finding is that there are people on the Remain side who are throwing as much mud as they can in the hope it sticks. This talk about MPs acting in the best interests of the country, about using their conscience, and about the mortal dangerous to the UKs national interest doesn't really stand to reason. And a few though questions demonstrates this:

-Were the MPs not aware of these potential issues before they voted in favor of holding the referendum?
-Were they also not aware of the precedent set by other national and regional referendums, were despite not being legally binding the will of the people was accepted?
-If they didn't understand these issues why did they vote in favor of holding a referendum?
-If they didn't understand these issues does that make them incompetent? (which they would never admit to)
-If they did understand these issues then why on earth did the house by a a 10-1 majority vote in favor of holding the referendum in the first place?
-When they voted for the referendum, was it their expectation to subsequently reject the results?
-Why would you allow a referendum to proceed just to ignore the result?

These are strong leading questions. The answers are obvious, and they reveal the motivations.

--------------------------------------------

Your quote from Edmund Burke is a strange one. He is living in a very different time, and worked in a system were there was very few people eligible to vote. I did a quick google, and around the time when Edmund Burke was alive only 3% of English people had the vote. Times have moved on... considerably. Who exactly was Edmund Burke speaking of when he said that, the 3% that got the vote, or the plebs who didn't and were treated as second class citizens? Are you or the speaker advocating that we go back to that time?

In addition that is a cherry picked part of the quote, Edmund Burke also talks about the interest of the whole country, and importantly listening to his constituents concerns. I wonder what Burke would make of this situation now, he was a big advocate of an evolving constitution based on precedent, so the cherry picked quote from Burke makes even less sense here in this context.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Edmund Burke, and I don't think others can speak for a dead man either. Nobody knows what he would have thought about this issue.
  • #379
  • Edited Aug 17, 2016 3:42am Aug 16, 2016 4:29pm | Edited Aug 17, 2016 3:42am
Quoting cliffedwards
{quote} Were we asked about the UKs NATO Treaty pooling of sovereignty? No ? Then an immediate NATO referendum is clearly necessary.
I think we should have been asked yes. I think all issues on the sovereignty or parliament require the people to vote on it.
My suspicion is that if we were asked now it would be a landslide to stay in Nato.

Quote
Im truely confused?. Are you seriously disputing the essence of Parliamentary democracy? The right of Parliament and Government to delegate sovereignty in the interests of the Nation? {quote}

They are two different things are they not?

A parliamentary democracy is sovereign, but it gets its sovereignty from the people. I have no issues with parliament making common law without consultation by a referendum, but I believe the people should be consulted on constitutional law, and sovereignty is a constitutional issue.

Lets take this to the extreme to highlight my point. If a parliamentary democracy hands over all its sovereignty to another body one day, is it a sovereign parliamentary democracy the next day? Well it can't be sovereign anymore, what has changed is that it just handed over all its law and decision making powers to another institution, and it did it via the parliamentary process. More importantly what happened the people, on day one they had a parliament that could make laws for them, the next day they have a redundant parliament with no ability to govern on their behalf.

What if the same above process happened, instead of just in one day, but over a century? The outcome is no different, the end result is a parliament which is not sovereign, with an inability to govern on behalf of we the people.

My point is that since the people give a parliament its sovereignty, and since it is the people who constitute a government, the people must be consulted when laws impact the constitutional ability of that parliament to pass laws (sovereignty). Politicians don't own parliament, and they don't own sovereignty, as a result parliamentary cannot give away sovereignty because it is not theirs to give.

Parliament is sovereign but the don't own that sovereignty, it is given to them by the people.

That said, we both know that parliament has given sovereignty away on numerous occasions without consultation. EU for one, Nato for another. But we are talking about what is right, and what is wrong. I am arguing for a written constitution which defines a process where important constitutional changes are put in the hands of the people who own it. This is something we can all consult to provide guidance on issues such as this EU referendum.



Quote
NP.. not my points.. we got there together.

PS.. If you are interested .. try to get hold of an old (1970) and very funny and satirical film called " The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" A satirical treatment of the whole issue of democracy and the manipulation of public perceptions. Stars Peter Cook.. Say no more Lol

Lol I will have to look this up.

I used to watch some of the old Moore and Cooke stuff on youtube.
  • #380
  • Aug 16, 2016 4:50pm Aug 16, 2016 4:50pm
Quoting cliffedwards
{quote} Isnt that what I said? The Brake was never more than a temporary solution to the UKs immediate problem. Treaty change is the answer. And then I compared the time span Brexit creates before any relief can be expected to the problem? 3-5 years And compared that to the timescale for a Treaty change solution .. 3/5 years. Whereas I believe the Brake could have been applied within months. Problem solving requires an open mind. When the only tool in your box is a hammer.. then all jobs require a hammer.
But Cliff, the EU said there would be no compromise to the principle of free movement of labor.

It was never on the table to begin with, and even the brake appeared to be a token gesture rather than a prelude to real treaty change.

I don't understand the EU's position on this, the UK is an island, they could have made up some bs about overpopulation and about how this affected UK national security and that the UK deserved some kind of exemption.

This wasn't forthcoming though.

We can always reapply to the EU, if the EU do make some fundamental changes to the treaty along the lines of what Cameron asked for, that would be an indirect admission that the people of the UK had a point.
0 traders viewing now