Who is in and who is out?

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm coming to the conclusion that like driving a car or flying an aeroplane, people should have to pass a test of competence before being allowed in a poll booth.

Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."

That's not freedom.

 

[Jacob]

......
The big issue as I see it is the repeated anti-establishment feeling amongst the people eg Corbyn's election by the Labour party membership against the MPs wishing;

More a case of the anti-people feeling amongst the establishment - some labour MPs seem shocked at being expected to take notice of the membership and the media establishment are hopping mad at losing control of the agenda - with people actually thinking for themselves! :shock:
The media, across the board from left to right, is less trusted than it used to be. Probably a good thing.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

 

[Rhossydd]

Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."
That's not freedom.

The problem at the moment is that too many people don't understand anything about the political and governmental process and how it impacts their lives.
Other countries have theses sort of studies as part of their basic school curriculum.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Maybe the problem for those who wish to remain is that too many do?

 

[finneyb]

......


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

Jacob,

Excellent read, thanks for posting

Brian

 

[finneyb]

This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.

Brian

I'm more worried about people exercising power without accountability to those over whom the power is exercised. The definition of freedom is the electorate at large having the collective power of veto over who governs.

' Democracy. The argument about ‘unelected bureaucrats’ is spurious. We never get to vote for Treasury or Home Office officials. The real questions are:
•Is there a democratic deficit in the EU, i.e. does the European Parliament exert sufficiently powerful democratic oversight over the activities of EU officials? There are legitimate doubts whether that is so.
•How likely is it that the problem will be addressed? There are grounds for optimism: the problem is recognised and other member states share UK concerns, so that pressure for change will comes from multiple sources.
•Is this issue a reason for leaving? Clearly views can differ. Mine is the same as William Hague’s in the quote at the start of this article.

For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .'
Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

 

[mind_the_goat]

The MEP simply plays lip-service in promulgating the goals of the Council of the EU who are non-elected.

This is the EU council made up of the Heads of elected Government of the participating countries, or some other non-elected EU council ?

 

[gregmcateer]

Should London vote to separate from rest of UK, seeing as it 'contributes' more, (albeit due to the sad demise of much of manufacture etc, whilst the 'financial service's sector has been given almost free reign and bailed out)?

Just a thought...

 

[RogerS]

When students at the LSE start to allow proper debate and freedom of speech at their meetings and debating platforms then I'll start to take anything that comes out of the LSE more seriously.

 

[mind_the_goat]

What's puzzled me is why so many people are moaning about lack of say in Europe when so many of them must have voted for the UKIP MEPs who got elected, but then won't take part.
"I want a say, so I'll vote for someone who won't get involved" makes no sense.

It makes no sense unless you realise that many people do not understand how the EU works and believe that MEPs are not important. I confess my knowledge of the EU has been poor, but in the last few weeks I have got myself an education on the subject, the threads on this forum have contributed considerably, through general discussion, fact checking and some very useful reference material shared by various contributors.
I have one big concern that after this vote, the number of people who still don't understand how it all works will not have changed very much. I have also become very angry at politicians and the various hangers on from both sides who have treated the general population as complete idiots. It wouldn't surprise me to see the turnout at the next general election fall to even lower levels after this, maybe that's the plan. It's a real shame as it has been a great opportunity to get people interested in Government again and to buy in to the decision making process through rational discussion rather than blind dogma.

 

[Eric The Viking]

For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .'
Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
[/i]

1. The LSE is far from unbiased.

2. That's the lowest possible figure they could come up with. If we used the same measures, our own bureaucracy would be tiny (only Westminster), and anyway I'm not claiming we aren't already over-bureaucratic without the EU overhead.

3. See (2) above. A huge proportion of EU administration is delegated to national governmental bureaucracies, including ours. It's rare to find UK bureaucrats solely employed on EU business (and in any case they aren't on the EU payroll directly); most have EU related responsibilities as part of their job, but that means a huge number of people, and a huge number of man-hours annually. For example (as discussed elsewhere), the Min of Ag used to have fifty people just checking field boundaries for CAP payment forms. I expect they still do, as it would be very hard to computerize.

4. See (2) and (3) above: counting heads is a meaningless statistic, which is why the pro-EU side (including the LSE) like the number so much. If you could arrive at the number of man-hours employed on EU-bureaucracy, that would be meaningful, probably. But then again, maybe not.

The trick is not to actually lie with a demonstrably false statistic, but to mislead by using statistics that seem meaningful to a lay person, but aren't.

The best example of this has to be the criteria used for entry to the euro. Basically the rules ended up not just bent, but in dainty corkscrews where Italy, Spain and Greece were concerned. Yet, according to those charged with the decision, they did meet the eligibility criteria.

And we all know what happened next.

E.

 

[Jacob]

Hmm where does one go for unbiased opinion nowadays? Boris sounds a pretty straightforward sort of chap, perhaps?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.

Brian

I'm more worried about people exercising power without accountability to those over whom the power is exercised. The definition of freedom is the electorate at large having the collective power of veto over who governs.

' Democracy. The argument about ‘unelected bureaucrats’ is spurious. We never get to vote for Treasury or Home Office officials. The real questions are:
•Is there a democratic deficit in the EU, i.e. does the European Parliament exert sufficiently powerful democratic oversight over the activities of EU officials? There are legitimate doubts whether that is so.
•How likely is it that the problem will be addressed? There are grounds for optimism: the problem is recognised and other member states share UK concerns, so that pressure for change will comes from multiple sources.
•Is this issue a reason for leaving? Clearly views can differ. Mine is the same as William Hague’s in the quote at the start of this article.

For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .'
Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

It's not about Civil Servants or 'bureaucrats' - they do as instructed, they aren't the decision makers. The decision makers should be elected by those over whom they govern - the Westminster parliament is composed of elected constituency MPs, and the government is drawn from them; hence, when voting at a general election, you know who the leaders of the major parties are, so you know who is likely to be PM depending on which party has the most seats in Parliament. That's something you can take into account in casting your vote - and if enough people think a government is not acting for the nation's best interests, it can be thrown out and somebody else given a chance.

The decision-makers in the EU - the commissioners who propose legislation, and the Council of Ministers who provide the overall direction - are much less accountable to the ordinary voter. Commissioners are appointees and in no way accountable to the ordinary voter, and any EU citizen can only influence, through the ballot box, one Minister out of 28 on the Council.

The 'grounds for optimism' mentioned are nowhere near good enough to satisfy me - I'd rather go with the system that got there about a century ago (starting sometime in the 12th century, I think), and has been proven since. Westminster isn't perfect by a long chalk, but it's streets ahead of Brussels.

Edit to add - The roots of the Common Law go back even further, to the foundation of England as a nation state in the 9th century. It suffered something of a hiatus at the time of the Norman Conquest, but was rebuilt gradually starting with Magna Carta in 1215.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hmm where does one go for unbiased opinion nowadays? Boris sounds a pretty straightforward sort of chap, perhaps?

In this debate, I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased opinion. Indeed, I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming it was. Better to listen to all the biased opinions on both sides and form your own view.

As for the various political personalities - well, they're always looking for something to further their careers or seal their political legacies; that's what some politicians do in almost any circumstance. Better to ignore personalities and be guided by arguments instead, I think.

 

[gregmcateer]

I believe they were traditionally neutral until Blair got at them.

Blair may not be anyone's fave, but if I remember rightly, Yes Minister was before his time. :lol:

 

[Eric The Viking]

I have one big concern that after this vote, the number of people who still don't understand how it all works will not have changed very much. I have also become very angry at politicians and the various hangers on from both sides who have treated the general population as complete idiots. It wouldn't surprise me to see the turnout at the next general election fall to even lower levels after this, maybe that's the plan. It's a real shame as it has been a great opportunity to get people interested in Government again and to buy in to the decision making process through rational discussion rather than blind dogma.

I agree. It is _very_ hard to get youngsters involved.

Daughter #2 is going to SOAS in the autumn to read what is basically international politics. Despite me offering her copies of the treaties, and a small library of books on the subject, she takes no interest, whilst at the same time asking me for an "unbiased" view on the matter, so she can cast her vote, without having to actually look into anything.

But the "blind dogma" is on the pro-EU side. How does she think I came to my view in the first place? I have spent years, literally, looking at the EU and the machinations of its proponents, and the British constitution and what our democratic process was before Heath sold us out. I have been back to source material on countless occasions, I have read (and annotated) the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, and the EU Constitution, and our own foundational documents. Twenty years ago, I thought it was a good thing!

Remember Cameron's re-negotiation? What, exactly, did he come back with that was of any real value to the British people? Even Chamberlain had a piece of paper...

The levels of personal benefit accruing to the politicians involved are enormous. The accountability is almost non-existent (we can't even choose the individuals we send to the EU parliament any more, and they in turn can't even propose legislation), and this doesn't seem to bother the kids one bit!

. . .

I blame history teaching in schools in large part. They all learn about the world wars, but they don't learn what went before. They know nothing about the painful way our own democracy developed, and the deviations and wrong turns en route (for example John and the barons, the Commonwealth, the Glorious Revolution and so on), nor even Harold and Hastings. They don't understand that, for example, Spain has only had any democracy since around 1974, so it doesn't have traditions of accountability. They don't realise that whilst the French were doing Les Miserables (with real blood), we were not, and that Mme. Guillotine reigned there, and not here - we are very different societies.

They have no idea why anything matters, and can't extrapolate the consequences of a project like the EU failing with us trapped within it.

Google Lord Kilmuir's letter to Edward Heath. It's there in a nutshell: Anything created by deliberately lying to the people ("for a higher purpose") isn't going to end well. The EU isn't some surprise birthday party.

E.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."
That's not freedom.

The problem at the moment is that too many people don't understand anything about the political and governmental process and how it impacts their lives.
Other countries have theses sort of studies as part of their basic school curriculum.

It used to be part of the curriculum in this country, at least in some schools - I studied British Constitution to 'O' Level in the mid 1970s. I can't say I found it riveting at the time, but it has proved of some value later. I'd agree that educational standards have slipped over the years, but recent governments have been trying to do something about it, starting with Andrew Adonis' academies initiative, and other measures by subsequent administrations.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The EU is arguably no less democratic than the UK - just another level in a longer larger chain as it has to deal with the competing priorities of member states.

The EU council comprises heads of state of member nations and sets the overall political direction and priorities under which the Commission operates.

Commissioners (equivalent of cabinet ministers) are appointed by member states for a period of 5 years. Although in theory the President of the Commission can refuse an appointment, or the European Parliament can vote (2/3rds) to remove the commission, in practice this never happens (as yet) as a compromise is usually reached.

In the UK we elect a government who are supported by a permanent civil service. Cabinet appointments are by the PM. Ministers are almost wholly reliant on permanent Civil Servants for advice, analysis and action. Except for broad strategic issues, it is the civil service and Treasury who effectively run the country, create legislation etc. In principle the Civil Service is independent of elected Government - they cannot hire and fire etc. Yes Minister mostly still applies!

Even at a local authority level most of the work is done is done by a chief executive supported by staff - the strategy is set by the elected council, albeit conditioned by central rules and legislation.

The EU is far from perfect - and the UK is only one of 28 members so it will frequently not get its own way.

The UK is also over centralised and bureaucratic. Voting Leave may simply replace often bizarre EU legislation with a different set of UK initiated constraints. Leave will not solve the problems - just change the name on the rulebook with a slightly different set of people disadvantaged or benefiting.

 

[Jacob]

.... They don't realise that whilst the French were doing Les Miserables (with real blood), we were not, and that Mme. Guillotine reigned there, and not here - we are very different societies.
.....

Not that different.
The guillotine was expected here. The south coast was heavily fortified and signs of sedition were being brutally put down. These were revolutionary times in France, Ireland, America and here. Thomas Paine was English and a major contributor to the French and the American revolutions. France, Ireland and USA were allied against Britain for a time.
Interesting times without a doubt.

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victori ... in-britain

The French actually landed (Killala Bay 1798) but they failed to meet up with the United Irishmen (catholics and prods) and were routed. The Irish rebel army was brutally slaughtered.
How this relates to the EU is interesting to speculate. Maybe the aims of the revolution will finally be achieved - we'll have their heads off metaphorically - in a civilised democratic way.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The EU is far from perfect - and the UK is only one of 28 members so it will frequently not get its own way.

The UK is also over centralised and bureaucratic. Voting Leave may simply replace often bizarre EU legislation with a different set of UK initiated constraints. Leave will not solve the problems - just change the name on the rulebook with a slightly different set of people disadvantaged or benefiting.

I agree with the first of those points.

The second I disagree with, because there is a fundamental difference in approach between the UK way of doing things (legislate or regulate when experience shows it to be necessary, otherwise leave well alone; everything is legal unless specifically outlawed) and the continental approach (any human activity should be regulated, everything is illegal unless specifically allowed).

The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because (among other reasons) the legal and legislative framework just allowed people to get on with things. It could never have happened in (for example) France, despite their superior intellectual establishment at the time, because such things as the steam engine would have taken so long to navigate the various government committees that would have been obsolete by the time it came to fruition.

Estimates of the proportion of UK legislation that is putting EU law and regulation on the UK statute book vary - I've heard figures varying from 15% to 75% - and the uncertainty about the amount suggest that some want the true figure concealed from the UK population. It also suggests that without this additional burden, British business, commerce and general life would be freer and lean back more toward the old way of legislating only when experience shows it necessary. Clearing the statute book of the accumulated EU law would take a long time - perhaps decades, given that there's 40 years worth of it - and not all would need to be repealed. Messrs Carswell and Hannan suggested a Great Repeal Bill to remove swathes of surfeit law, but that would need a lot of spadework to ensure that good bits were not slung out with the bad. It could be done, and a lot would be removed or superceded piecemeal as part of the ongoing evolution of the statute book. We would, however, gradually become a freer people without the dead hand of the EU over us, and commerce would be better able to get on with things - that would a boost to the economy, so we would be better off financially, too, in the longer run.