The future of the uk is up for grabs.

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I appreciate that there are other threads on the UK Brexit, but I would recommend anyone bored with the issues being argued over and over on them, to watch these events again now as it is coming to a boil.

There is a lot more at stake than membership of a trading bloc.

The middle ground of UK politics generally supports continued membership of the EU. Will the extremes, the far right and the real Marxist left have their way? They both voted near 100% to leave, whereas the 80% middle ground was split for genuine reasons but overall in favour of the status quo. So the extremists tipped the vote to leave. What does this teach us about democracy?

What does it mean for Parliamentary Democracy to be overridden by a one off popular vote? Please note that we only required a simple majority to change our country. Parliament was never in favour of Leave and now they can't find a way to agree on Leaving. The government's plan to leave is almost certainly going to fail to get support and be rejected. What then? The apparent Mother of all Parliaments failing??

What could be the unintended consequences? Unintended by most, but perhaps not the extremists.

Are you watching the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom? Will Ireland unite North and South, will Scotland become independent? And what will happen to Wales? OK, you don't know/care about Wales.

Is this the final process of dismantling the British Empire that started a hundred years ago? Is this the end for the British Monarchy?
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Britain really doesn't leave a good picture.
After Britain's largest party made the mistake to follow populists to gain more voters, the whole political landscape changed.
Now Tories need a coalition partner and choosed the worst possible.

We may see a disaster after Brexit - it's possible that we will have Brexit without a deal, Britain still isn't prepared to negotiate all needed new trade deals till final Brexit.
It is very likely that N.Ireland will leave the UK, but if at least one party is able to act as it's needed we won't see a failing rest UK.
The UK will survive, even if no longer one of the most wealthy nations in Europe.



About democracy in general, I think we can say that it works as long as the extreme wings never aim for the same goals.
If only the extreme right would have voted for Brexit, but not the extreme left it might could have been enough for remain. The majority of the middle ground would have won.
 
7

798686

Guest
Well, both major parties support Brexit - so you can't really claim the middle ground supports continued membership.

Also, NI isn't 'likely to leave the UK'. I think we're a way off that.

But yes, they are challenging times. And yes, Cameron was ridiculously foolish/cynical/suicidal to call and conduct a referendum in quite the way that he did.
 

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
79,231
Media
1
Likes
44,919
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
just shows all the supposed best education in the world, that i assume he received
means nothing/turns to nought huh joll

'i before e except after c'i remember from my English primary teacher
miss middlemiss

But yes, they are challenging times. And yes, Cameron was ridiculously foolish/cynical/suicidal to call and conduct a referendum in quite the way that he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
About democracy in general, I think we can say that it works as long as the extreme wings never aim for the same goals.

What does this mean? Democracy "works" so long as the overall majority inclination doesn't align a certain way? So long as it doesn't align in a way you don't like? I thought that decision making according to the alignment of the majority was the whole point of popular democracy?
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What does this mean? Democracy "works" so long as the overall majority inclination doesn't align a certain way? So long as it doesn't align in a way you don't like? I thought that decision making according to the alignment of the majority was the whole point of popular democracy?
No my opinion isn't important for the question if democracy works or not.

My point was that we usually have two extreme groups. One left, one right both around equally large. In most cases they vote for the opposite of each other... that's how they eliminate each other. What is left are the 80% "central" people - the vast majority. It's important how THEY vote. If their majority favours one vote, it will win. Most of the time their vote is moderate and something the whole nation can live with - No matter who wins.

At the referendum we had a different situation. Both extreme wings voted for the same result. Only a minority of the centre was needed to create a majority for Brexit.
Yes, it's still a majority, but it's one created out of different groups as usual. That's why we have a result different than usual. A result that tears the nation apart...
Is it "failed democracy"? No, but it's a democracy less beneficial for the nation.

The extreme wings shouldn't vote for the same result. It will create bad results. The moderate majority is more important in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie53 and Joll

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Well, both major parties support Brexit - so you can't really claim the middle ground supports continued membership.

.

What?

Both parties wanted to Remain before the referendum, but ostensibly said that they would honour the result afterwards.

The two main parties occupy the extended middle of the political spectrum. The referendum showed us the extent of their extremities, or rather how close some within their parties are to UKIP and the U.K. Marxist party etc.

The extremes tipped the referendum and they are trying to control the main parties. This is why Brexit is great for them.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
No my opinion isn't important for the question if democracy works or not.

My point was that we usually have two extreme groups. One left, one right both around equally large. In most cases they vote for the opposite of each other... that's how they eliminate each other. What is left are the 80% "central" people - the vast majority. It's important how THEY vote. If their majority favours one vote, it will win. Most of the time their vote is moderate and something the whole nation can live with - No matter who wins.

At the referendum we had a different situation. Both extreme wings voted for the same result. Only a minority of the centre was needed to create a majority for Brexit.
Yes, it's still a majority, but it's one created out of different groups as usual. That's why we have a result different than usual. A result that tears the nation apart...
Is it "failed democracy"? No, but it's a democracy less beneficial for the nation.

The extreme wings shouldn't vote for the same result. It will create bad results. The moderate majority is more important in my opinion.

This is precisely what happened. The 80% middle ground were split 60/40 which equates to 48% and 32%. But then the two "opposite" extremes came in for leave disruption of the hated status quo and so the final vote was still 48% for remain and now 52% for leave.

It's like mixing nationalism with socialism, and that is not what the 80% want. But this is how it happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados
7

798686

Guest
What?

Both parties wanted to Remain before the referendum, but ostensibly said that they would honour the result afterwards.

The two main parties occupy the extended middle of the political spectrum. The referendum showed us the extent of their extremities, or rather how close some within their parties are to UKIP and the U.K. Marxist party etc.

The extremes tipped the referendum and they are trying to control the main parties. This is why Brexit is great for them.
Yet they managed to account for over 50% of those who voted - which suggests a large part of the extended middle also voted Leave...
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Yet they managed to account for over 50% of those who voted - which suggests a large part of the extended middle also voted Leave...

Yes. Probably around 60:40 and maybe closer, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. But what is different here is that the usual political extremes were united against Europe rather than being divided by our standard political spectrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados and Joll
7

798686

Guest
Yes. Probably around 60:40 and maybe closer, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. But what is different here is that the usual political extremes were united against Europe rather than being divided by our standard political spectrum.
True.

And it does seem to have created a uniquely febrile and dangerous atmosphere. :tired_face:
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the UK is seeing something revolutionary. I think it is as big as the post-war social contract, as big as votes for women after the first world war, as big as the increasing franchise through the nineteenth century. As to where we're going, I've yet to hear a prophet who convinces me. I just don't think we know.

The politicians who can articulate a vision of the future will find they get enormous support. We are seeing in the UK right now not a vision of the future but an anti-vision, a rejection of the old norms. People are willing to vote for a Jew-hating friend of terrorists. Probably there is a comparable phenomenon across Europe (AfD, hard right in Austria, Hungary, nasty politicians in Greece and Italy). I think it is terribly easy for people to say that Brexit is part of this same anti-vision, but I think this is far too simple. I think Brexit is something different.

None of us can see how Brexit events are going to develop in the next few days and weeks, and I'm just going to gloss over this. I think by 30th March we will have:
* The Brexit issues contained. Whatever has or has not happened the issue will be one of managing events, not deciding what wil happen.
* The government clearly in power. The Conservatives are going to hold together and the DUP will back them. The government may not be able to do much, but they will be in power. There will be stability. I think Con-DUP will make some renewed pact.
* The boundary commission changes will go through so the gerrymander in favour of Labour will be over.
* Without the relentless media negativity around Brexit the government's popularity will increase somewhat. More of the filth around Corbyn and his cronies will surface.
* I think the new vision will come for 2022. And no, I don't know what it will be.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the UK is seeing something revolutionary. I think it is as big as the post-war social contract, as big as votes for women after the first world war, as big as the increasing franchise through the nineteenth century. As to where we're going, I've yet to hear a prophet who convinces me. I just don't think we know.
something big like the fall of Rome, or the fall of Constantinople in 1453, as massive as the black death. ;)

Let me be your prophet. I will guide us into the darkest corners of hell.
The politicians who can articulate a vision of the future will find they get enormous support. We are seeing in the UK right now not a vision of the future but an anti-vision, a rejection of the old norms. People are willing to vote for a Jew-hating friend of terrorists.
I agree, everyone who can offer a "vision" will earn massive support. People know we are in a time with massive changes, economically, geo-politically, by military, technology, and society.

The populists have noticed it first and create fears, only to present themself as the solution for the "problem".

We will have to wait and see if someone serious will show up, before it's too late. I have my doubts.
Probably there is a comparable phenomenon across Europe (AfD, hard right in Austria, Hungary, nasty politicians in Greece and Italy). I think it is terribly easy for people to say that Brexit is part of this same anti-vision, but I think this is far too simple. I think Brexit is something different.
Brexit is just another child of the same mother.
The only difference between the general right wing phenomena and Brexit is the support of the far left. The reason is the general conflict between the far left and state structures. If you erase this, the only thing left is just another right wing movement.

Sadly the established politicians weren't willing to fight it. Even worse, many saw it as an opportunity and supported it. A disgrace for Britain and its parliament.

Brexit has no real vision. It's just a word everyone interprets different. For the right wing it's the return to nationalism, British supremacy and purity, for the left it's the destruction of a control system. For everyone else it's something between these two extreme.
And that's why it was so easy to spread lies. No one knew what topic they should talk about and as soon as someone tried to start one, another one instantly started to spread lies. Before anyone could do a fact check a third one already started a new topic he thought of was more important and everything starts from the beginning.

None of us can see how Brexit events are going to develop in the next few days and weeks, and I'm just going to gloss over this. I think by 30th March we will have:
* The Brexit issues contained. Whatever has or has not happened the issue will be one of managing events, not deciding what wil happen.
* The government clearly in power. The Conservatives are going to hold together and the DUP will back them. The government may not be able to do much, but they will be in power. There will be stability. I think Con-DUP will make some renewed pact.
* The boundary commission changes will go through so the gerrymander in favour of Labour will be over.
* Without the relentless media negativity around Brexit the government's popularity will increase somewhat. More of the filth around Corbyn and his cronies will surface.
* I think the new vision will come for 2022. And no, I don't know what it will be.
There will be a deal, the EU and Britain will find an agreement, that's what I believe. Should Britain refuse to make a deal the hell breaks lose.

We have an economical decline in Germany and the USA this quarter, just as a very low growth rate in China (the worst in 30 years - or 40?). The demand of oil has dropped recently. International stock markets turn down and so on.

Should Britain leave without a deal, the world economy COULD run into a recession. This could create problems equal to 2008/9.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree that politicians have not articulated a Brexit vision. I think there is a vision however. (At this stage people tell me to calm down and keep taking the tablets, or just look blank.)

The vision is that common law is better than civil law. We even have it now where in the UK serious politicians are saying that we can sign a treaty with the EU then ignore bits we don't like. Ultimately there are justifications for that in common law, but probably not in civil law. Common law creates a different way of thinking. People in the UK notice it whenever they come up against the law, anything from a parking ticket to a court case to probate to divorce. Yes there are rules, but it is not just rules.

I think the Brexit vision is a reassertion of the supremacy of Common Law. It is doing things the British way. International finance requires common law (which is why Frankfurt or Paris cannot become the global financial centre). I think we will see a democratisation of the law, a people-led legal system. I think this will change the moral framework of business and finance, and will have a moral impact throughout the UK. In old language Common Law is God's Law. In new language Common Law is people-led law.

The UK itself is common law, as is England & Wales (one entity) and Ireland (both Northern Ireland and the Republic). Scotland is civil law, but within UK. There is a parallel to a civil law jurisdiction within a common law jurisdiction (Louisiana) and it does work, but common law within civil law (UK within EU) does not. I think the different system in Scotland goes a long way to explain why Scotland feels different about Brexit.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I think you nail it Perados, Brexit is a disgrace to Britain, certainly a painful embarrassment. Politics can now be mobilised in a way we have not seen the like since the Nazis and our system was caught with its pants down. Make a fool of me once, shame on you, make a fool of me twice, shame on me, or whatever George Bush said :).

Jason, perhaps 5% of UK people could give a reasonable explanation of the differences between common law and statute civil law. Do you think this was the wave of Brexit voting? Or is that your issue? You just demonstrate how Brexit pulled together so many disparate causes of discontent. Shame on Cameron.

Perados is also correct in that the world is in a very precarious place. It is time for solid foundations and solidarity, not a time for Tory activists like Jason to be in bed with Marxists pulling our structures down together so they can feed on its aftermath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You think @Drifterwood as many as 5% of Brits could explain the difference between common law and civil law? You must know very educated Brits!

However I don't think an explanation is needed in order to appreciate what the different systems mean. Take the following:

German.jpg


A rule such as this has a rule-maker. That rule-maker may be able to impose some sort of sanction on transgressors. Alternatively (or as well) there may be a social sanction, in that a transgressor would be censured by members of the public. There is a level of expectation that the rule would be upheld. This is civil law in operation.

Compare the British version sign english.jpg
:

Note the use of the British "please". This is a request. Sanctioning a transgressor would be problematic. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but:
* my kids live in a town and don't have much chance to play on the grass
* my wheelchair judders on the uneven paving slabs and is much better on the grass
* I was admiring the flowers on the other side of the lawn
* I don't speak English and you haven't provided the sign in XYZ.
* I felt like walking on the grass.
These are all acceptable reasons for breaking the rule.

It is quite possible that passers-by would actively support a transgressor. It is even possible that the sign would trigger a desire to walk on the grass because that is the British thing to do. (Think the Kinder Scout mass trespass.)

Ultimately the rule-maker has no enforcement method. I cannot imagine a court that would in any real sense back the rule-maker. If a town council took someone to court they might win (so the rule-breaker pays a £1 fine) but the council pays all the costs (say £2,000).

Brexit means we can walk on the grass even when there is a "no walking on the grass" rule. The "have cake AND eat it" response to Brexit is the common law response. The EU might struggle with this, but that is common law. Only civil law enforces a rule.

****
Today in civil law Belgium les gilets jaunes have "stormed" the EU parliament. I'm not backing them - presumably they were a gang of vandals and (had they got inside the building) may well have done a lot of damage. However the police used tear gas against them. Within a civil law system I doubt there is a problem with this. Within a common law system there would be an issue around proportionality determined by a judge. The video clips show what would surely be considered in a common law system wrong action by the police. Civil law supports the police; common law supports the people. No common law jurisdiction has ever become a police state.
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree that politicians have not articulated a Brexit vision. I think there is a vision however. (At this stage people tell me to calm down and keep taking the tablets, or just look blank.)
No... Brexit is no vision and no serious politician has one.
No one knows how to deal with China, the technological change in society and economy, with increasing inequality and more and more migration/refugees.

If someone would have a vision or even a glimp on an idea we would hear about it.
The vision is that common law is better than civil law.
That's not a vision, that's a comparison or at best a glorification.
We even have it now where in the UK serious politicians are saying that we can sign a treaty with the EU then ignore bits we don't like.
That's called scam.
Ultimately there are justifications for that in common law, but probably not in civil law. Common law creates a different way of thinking.
Try to tell it any international partner.
People in the UK notice it whenever they come up against the law, anything from a parking ticket to a court case to probate to divorce. Yes there are rules, but it is not just rules.
and still you need courts to sort it out. This will happen between international partner as well And now guess who will win if one refuse to follow EVERY agreement of the treaty?
I think the Brexit vision is a reassertion of the supremacy of Common Law. It is doing things the British way.
Then have a look at all international treaties and organisations. Have a look at how your partners will handle treaties.

You are simply not in the position to establish anything.
International finance requires common law (which is why Frankfurt or Paris cannot become the global financial centre).
We know London is the place for the big crime... euribor, currencies, gold and other recourses... and you argue that's what the finance industry demands and London offers.
I think we will see a democratisation of the law, a people-led legal system. I think this will change the moral framework of business and finance, and will have a moral impact throughout the UK. In old language Common Law is God's Law. In new language Common Law is people-led law.
privatisation of law.
You could be right. A few big investors and companies will dictate everything in the UK.
We already see it in London, where investors buy whole blocks plus streets and sidewalks. They desite who can walk there and how they have to behave.
By lobbying large companies already have massive influence on the government. Large internet companies define the standards of the internet, the government doesn't even react.

This will continue and increase.

Not the people will profit from "privatisation of law" but the big players only.
The UK itself is common law, as is England & Wales (one entity) and Ireland (both Northern Ireland and the Republic). Scotland is civil law, but within UK. There is a parallel to a civil law jurisdiction within a common law jurisdiction (Louisiana) and it does work, but common law within civil law (UK within EU) does not. I think the different system in Scotland goes a long way to explain why Scotland feels different about Brexit.
sure it only works this way, everything else would be silly. It wouldn't support your point and the fact that UK common law worked perfectly in the EU civil law can easily be ignored.