Monday, June 13, 2016

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard — Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU


Yep. Nails it. National sovereignty and democracy are at issue.
Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.
Devastating.

9 comments:

andy blatchford said...

There is a really interesting comment over at NakedCap by a Vlade

" I will, with gritted teeth, vote in – not because I’d have any love for EU/Brussells, but because Leavers are really even worse bunch of idiots that the current crop (and I always thought that was hard to beat). Even ignoring everything else outside, seeing Boris J as the next (unelected really) PM is to me even less appealing than Trump – because Trump is at least honest-to-god idiot, while Johnson is his personal quest for power is genuinely scary (for him it’s not about EU, but about a fast-track to being PM).

On the parliament issue – the referendum (as people should read before they start screaming) is non-binding.
Cameron was very very careful about that.

To me, if Leave wins, the only reasonable choice is to call an election – because if people voted out, they should then vote on what the out negotiation should look like (especially since it’s clear that free labour movement will be a condition on any reasonable access to EU markets similar to Norway/Swiss).

But that’s a problem, because of the Fixed Parliament Act – basically two thirds of the parliament have to vote to dissolve the current one. And given that we can expect Tory civil war, and likely Labour one too (both of them are already simmering, and this would just fire them off), it’s very unlikely to happen. So it’s entirely possible, that the article 50 notice may not go out of the door. In fact, I can see a situation where Cameron loses confidence vote as PM, but no new PM can be put in, so Cameron will be there until 2020 – purely because it will end in a gridlock."

I hadn't thought about the non binding issue, due to the nature of UK system being a representative system changing the laws will not get through the Commons. "Leave" will never get a majority to do it. Scotland for a start is going to be overwelmingly remain as well as the big cities.


MRW said...

I read that comment by Vlade. Neo-liberal angst, imo.

MRW said...

On the parliament issue – the referendum (as people should read before they start screaming) is non-binding.
Cameron was very very careful about that.


I can’t find it. You have a link?

MRW said...

This documentary begs to differ with Vlade’s false equivalence scare. Hyperventilating about the possible election of some guy who might become a Prime Minster as a reason to justify staying in the EU is insanity. First, a PM has a term limit. He is temporary in the grand scheme of things.

This is a pro-Brexit documentary. Pretty impressive. I watched the entire thing even though I had no intention of watching more than the first 10 minutes. The breadth of experience in the commenters contributing to the film is impressive. I recommend it. It’s an eye-opener. Believe me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

Alain Parguez at the MMT Rimini Conference in 2012 gave an even more devastating presentation on why the EU should break up, but I defy any of you to understand his video. I had to speed it up 165% when I transcribed it; the one that San Francisco radio did gets a lot wrong. He was involved with the history of the Euro’s creation during the 70s and 80s and it is a stunner. The Euro was designed in 1942 in anticipation of Hitler winning WWII and subjugating the southern European and Eastern European countries.

andy blatchford said...

Sure here you go wiki but it's right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom we just don't do them as a representative democracy. When is referendum not a referendum? When it's the UK. It's a glorified opinion poll.

andy blatchford said...

You are missing the point Parliament is sovereign in the UK. In the case of an out vote Parliament can 'ignore' the result. Not likely to but the problem is as Vlade points out it still has to get through Parliament as it's a change in legislation. Due to our first past the post system the vote isn't evenly spread. Scotland, big cities etc who are in would be able to hold the 'out' vote off.

andy blatchford said...

What will happen next Friday in the event of an out vote is we will all be grabbing the results per constituency and going over them. An MP in one that voted 'out' will probably go for the change, one who has one that is 'in' won't...it is not necessarily what there beliefs are but if they want to hold their seats at the next election they will probably (not definately) go with it. Things get very tribal at GE not particularly on issues...The old joke about pinning a coloured rosette on a donkey, but it's true in 'safe' seats.

MRW said...

Andy,

All I see is The first ballot papers were issued to postal voters in May 2016, and the referendum question that appears on them, as required under both pieces of legislation, is: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"[46] The response is to be marked with a single (X): "Remain a member of the European Union" or "Leave the European Union".[46]

Same as what I found before. Dont see anything about “non-binding."

andy blatchford said...

From the wiki link
"Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of ‘No' for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign."