7 ms·

Isn’t this in concept what contributed to Brexit?

pjc50 8y ago
Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. A lot of incidents where the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to are blamed on the EU by the press. As we are now seeing on trade, immigration, agriculture, etc, having the UK government try to take responsibility for those areas means the controversy immediately blows up in their face as suddenly they can no longer say different things to different audiences.
- Nursie 8y ago
  "Oh, but it wasn't us, it was that terrible EU just forcing us to do this!" (Please don't think about it too hard, or look at who introduced the legislation to the EU, or anything else, because it really was us pushing it hard...) Yeah it irritates me. I'm a bit in-between on the whole Brexit question, I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues, and things like this just show up the brokenness of the current situation. The EU is very flawed. I voted to remain, but I was under no illusion that we'd get sensible reform to the way the countries engage and participate in the whole thing.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues The "accelerationist" approach motivated Dominic Cummings, as well. It's surprising in that with the names filed off you could present it as orthodox Marxism. The key question is "does the Conservative party (and media) collapse before we get into the situation where flights are grounded and we're running out of food, or afterwards". History suggests that we'll have to end up in a full Winter of Discontent situation before they back down.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Do they have the capacity to back down fast enough in an Easter Of Discontent situation? Unlike the eponymous Winter, the UK government will need to make agreements with other governments to prevent or reverse it, and those governments may choose to extract a high price for rapid cooperation — if they are even capable of rapid action themselves.
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      > flights are grounded and we're running out of food This is a pretty extreme prediction of the consequences of Brexit.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-food-medicine-shortage-doomsday-armageddon-david-davis-a8381076.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-dea... That's the "zero preparation" scenario. If there is no deal, no deal at all, then the existing flight approval regime ends and carriers are not allowed to fly from the UK to the EU .. or the US. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-air-transport.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legisla... Similarly if the customs arrangement is not sorted out, everyone travelling in both directions through Dover-Calais will have to clear customs. At the moment that will involve "operation Stack" all the way down the M20. Similar regulatory requirements problems will arise; direct delivery will almost certainly still be allowed, but "cabotage" rules apply limiting multi-leg trips. We had two feet of snow earlier this year which resulted in Scottish supermarkets running out of fresh food for a few days. Snow melts. Brexit doesn't. We had a civil war for forty years in Northern Ireland. The peace treaty stipulated that there must not be a border on the island of Ireland. The government is refusing to present a viable proposal for Brexit that does not require a border.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        It only happens if there is no deal. Unfortunately, “no deal” is looking increasingly likely. While UK rhetoric appears to still be “[The EU] needs us more than we need them”, the EU’s responses have consistently been otherwise. This may be related to the observation that the UK’s goals and red-lines (when taken together rather than separately) are incompatible with WTO rules.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  "the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to " Probably didn't help that they sent useless do-nothing no-show UKIPers like Nigel to the European Parliament.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Oh he showed up, for the free fancy dinners.
- makomk 8y ago
  I'm not sure that's really much of a "but". The EU making it impossible for the UK population to hold their own government to account for what they did with the power given to them by the populace seems like a good reason to leave. In order for the government to achieve something at the national level, it would have to have to convince its MPs to publicly vote in support of it and risk losing their seats over it at the next election. The power in the EU rests with people appointed by people appointed by the people we vote for, and that completely diffuses all responsibility. (The elected European Parliament are pretty toothless compared to the unelected appointees.)
  - fauigerzigerk 8y ago
    The EU parliament is not nearly as toothless as you make it out to be. It _can_ block and amend directives such as the one we are talking about. And you _can_ vote out your MEP at the next election. You can also vote out your representative in the EU Council (and the council of ministers) because the UK member of the council also has to be a UK MP. So the power in the EU rests with directly elected politicians and with the Commission, which is appointed/approved/dismissed by directly elected politicians. The Commission alone cannot pass laws. In some countries, neither the prime minister nor cabinet ministers have to be elected politicians (unlike in the UK). This additional level of indirection obviously extends to the members of the EU council from these countries, but that is a function of national constitutions.
    - olivermarks 8y ago
      The leadership of the European Union is fundamentally undemocratic - Junckers et al
      - fauigerzigerk 8y ago
        Mr Juncker was elected by a majority of the European Council (comprising national heads of government) and the European Parliament (directly elected by the people).
- kps 8y ago
  Well yes. The government didn't want Brexit, and are now doing their best to sabotage it to punish the peons for voting wrong.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    The government that didn’t want it got replaced with one that did, which then called a General Election to strengthen its position and instead found itself weakened. The PM stated (in writing!) that she called that election in order to increase her majority and so be able to force through her version of Brexit; however despite losing so many seats she needed a coalition afterwards, which in a democracy ought to be pause for thought, her post-election government not only still wants Brexit but also refuses to countenance any variation from her implausibly over-ambitious goals.
    - mrec 8y ago
      > despite losing so many seats she needed a coalition afterwards, which in a democracy ought to be pause for thought Worth pointing out that the Labour opposition in that election had also pledged to respect the referendum result. Over 89% of votes went to parties with "leave the Single Market and Customs Union" in their manifesto. Given her current trajectory and staffing picks, I think it's at least plausible that May's objective was to get enough of a majority that she could pursue a "Brexit In Name Only" strategy without being blocked by the Tories' Brexiteer wing, and that the collapse of her vote was a reaction to this by the UKIP-inclined. I certainly saw conspiracy theories along these lines bandied about in the run-up to the election. If anything, I suspect you'd have more luck arguing from the latest Tory poll bump that the population had gone off the idea.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        Despite the truth of your words [1], the impression I have is that most people are treating Labour as if it were the Remain party. This confuses me. [1] The only claim of yours I am not sure of is the UKIP one: I have not seen evidence to convince me UKIP voters voted tactically to prevent BINO. However, I don’t think it alters your point.
- bograt 8y ago
  > Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. It's quite possible that this behaviour by the UK political classes is what hastened to movement towards Brexit. I personally think that many people in the UK were aware of the behaviour, by both major parties, of using the EU to impose laws for which they lacked democratic support technocratically. Since there was no electable party that stood in contrast to this, the electorate took its opportunity by evicting the EU instead. Seen in this light, Brexit is as much a reflection of a failure of national politics, as it is of continental politics. The mantra 'taking back control' of many Brexit supporters is perhaps better seen as citizens wanting to stop their government from acting in ways they don't vote for, than as the government taking back control from the EU. The dissembling (as I see it) of politicians from across the EU on this law (and others before it) indicates that this is not a problem that is restricted to the UK.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Brexit was about immigration. Nothing else comes close. I think you're right that this was in the mix, but so were a hundred other factors that might have got raised here or there, but they're all dwarfed by immigration. Britain more than any other member has managed to get exclusion clauses from any EU regulations or rules we didn't want, so the argument that we couldn't do anything about rules imposed by Brussels is obviously untrue. We opted out of stuff all the time, it was routine. The irony is that if we end up in a soft Brexit situation with an open trade deal with the EU, we won't be able to negotiate any opt-outs anymore because we won't have any representation in Brussels. We'll have to take everything Brussels serves up, or crash out hard.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Not to deny that immigration was a major part, but the belief is more important than reality for both that and sovereignty. Yes, the UK had a great deal with loads of opt-outs, but that didn’t stop the papers blaming the EU for everything — including immigration, which was mostly non-EU.
isostatic 8y ago
There's an annecdotal quote from an evening standard journalist > I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice. He may or may not have said that, but what's clear is the perceived power of the UK press to manipulate governments. UK PM in the 90s, John Major, told an inquiry that Murdoch had demanded he change his position on Europe otherwise lose support. [0] He didn't change, and Murdoch supported his opponent in 1997 (who then went on to win) 20 years later, Murdoch executives met with the UK PM or Chancellor (the second most important person in government) 10 times. [1] So while perceived EU lobbying may have contributed to brexit, far more likely was 40 years of proven newspaper lobbying. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405629 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405629 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch...
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Local tyrants preferred brexit, international tyrants preferred remain.
  - fauigerzigerk 8y ago
    Murdoch is very much an international "tyrant" though. He's not British and his media empire spans much of the globe.
    - Pica_soO 8y ago
      Divide and conquer then?
- smsm42 8y ago
  > the perceived power of the UK press to manipulate governments. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? I mean not for Mr. Murdoch personally, but if you take the whole press, isn't that one of the instruments through which the society controls - or, if you will, "manipulates" - the government? And if the government can't be "manipulated" by the society, isn't that the definition of tyranny?

Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. A lot of incidents where the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to are blamed on the EU by the press. As we are now seeing on trade, immigration, agriculture, etc, having the UK government try to take responsibility for those areas means the controversy immediately blows up in their face as suddenly they can no longer say different things to different audiences.

Nursie 8y ago
"Oh, but it wasn't us, it was that terrible EU just forcing us to do this!" (Please don't think about it too hard, or look at who introduced the legislation to the EU, or anything else, because it really was us pushing it hard...) Yeah it irritates me. I'm a bit in-between on the whole Brexit question, I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues, and things like this just show up the brokenness of the current situation. The EU is very flawed. I voted to remain, but I was under no illusion that we'd get sensible reform to the way the countries engage and participate in the whole thing.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues The "accelerationist" approach motivated Dominic Cummings, as well. It's surprising in that with the names filed off you could present it as orthodox Marxism. The key question is "does the Conservative party (and media) collapse before we get into the situation where flights are grounded and we're running out of food, or afterwards". History suggests that we'll have to end up in a full Winter of Discontent situation before they back down.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Do they have the capacity to back down fast enough in an Easter Of Discontent situation? Unlike the eponymous Winter, the UK government will need to make agreements with other governments to prevent or reverse it, and those governments may choose to extract a high price for rapid cooperation — if they are even capable of rapid action themselves.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    > flights are grounded and we're running out of food This is a pretty extreme prediction of the consequences of Brexit.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-food-medicine-shortage-doomsday-armageddon-david-davis-a8381076.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-dea... That's the "zero preparation" scenario. If there is no deal, no deal at all, then the existing flight approval regime ends and carriers are not allowed to fly from the UK to the EU .. or the US. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-air-transport.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legisla... Similarly if the customs arrangement is not sorted out, everyone travelling in both directions through Dover-Calais will have to clear customs. At the moment that will involve "operation Stack" all the way down the M20. Similar regulatory requirements problems will arise; direct delivery will almost certainly still be allowed, but "cabotage" rules apply limiting multi-leg trips. We had two feet of snow earlier this year which resulted in Scottish supermarkets running out of fresh food for a few days. Snow melts. Brexit doesn't. We had a civil war for forty years in Northern Ireland. The peace treaty stipulated that there must not be a border on the island of Ireland. The government is refusing to present a viable proposal for Brexit that does not require a border.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      It only happens if there is no deal. Unfortunately, “no deal” is looking increasingly likely. While UK rhetoric appears to still be “[The EU] needs us more than we need them”, the EU’s responses have consistently been otherwise. This may be related to the observation that the UK’s goals and red-lines (when taken together rather than separately) are incompatible with WTO rules.
jonhendry18 8y ago
"the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to " Probably didn't help that they sent useless do-nothing no-show UKIPers like Nigel to the European Parliament.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Oh he showed up, for the free fancy dinners.
makomk 8y ago
I'm not sure that's really much of a "but". The EU making it impossible for the UK population to hold their own government to account for what they did with the power given to them by the populace seems like a good reason to leave. In order for the government to achieve something at the national level, it would have to have to convince its MPs to publicly vote in support of it and risk losing their seats over it at the next election. The power in the EU rests with people appointed by people appointed by the people we vote for, and that completely diffuses all responsibility. (The elected European Parliament are pretty toothless compared to the unelected appointees.)
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  The EU parliament is not nearly as toothless as you make it out to be. It _can_ block and amend directives such as the one we are talking about. And you _can_ vote out your MEP at the next election. You can also vote out your representative in the EU Council (and the council of ministers) because the UK member of the council also has to be a UK MP. So the power in the EU rests with directly elected politicians and with the Commission, which is appointed/approved/dismissed by directly elected politicians. The Commission alone cannot pass laws. In some countries, neither the prime minister nor cabinet ministers have to be elected politicians (unlike in the UK). This additional level of indirection obviously extends to the members of the EU council from these countries, but that is a function of national constitutions.
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    The leadership of the European Union is fundamentally undemocratic - Junckers et al
    - fauigerzigerk 8y ago
      Mr Juncker was elected by a majority of the European Council (comprising national heads of government) and the European Parliament (directly elected by the people).
kps 8y ago
Well yes. The government didn't want Brexit, and are now doing their best to sabotage it to punish the peons for voting wrong.
- ben_w 8y ago
  The government that didn’t want it got replaced with one that did, which then called a General Election to strengthen its position and instead found itself weakened. The PM stated (in writing!) that she called that election in order to increase her majority and so be able to force through her version of Brexit; however despite losing so many seats she needed a coalition afterwards, which in a democracy ought to be pause for thought, her post-election government not only still wants Brexit but also refuses to countenance any variation from her implausibly over-ambitious goals.
  - mrec 8y ago
    > despite losing so many seats she needed a coalition afterwards, which in a democracy ought to be pause for thought Worth pointing out that the Labour opposition in that election had also pledged to respect the referendum result. Over 89% of votes went to parties with "leave the Single Market and Customs Union" in their manifesto. Given her current trajectory and staffing picks, I think it's at least plausible that May's objective was to get enough of a majority that she could pursue a "Brexit In Name Only" strategy without being blocked by the Tories' Brexiteer wing, and that the collapse of her vote was a reaction to this by the UKIP-inclined. I certainly saw conspiracy theories along these lines bandied about in the run-up to the election. If anything, I suspect you'd have more luck arguing from the latest Tory poll bump that the population had gone off the idea.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Despite the truth of your words [1], the impression I have is that most people are treating Labour as if it were the Remain party. This confuses me. [1] The only claim of yours I am not sure of is the UKIP one: I have not seen evidence to convince me UKIP voters voted tactically to prevent BINO. However, I don’t think it alters your point.
bograt 8y ago
> Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. It's quite possible that this behaviour by the UK political classes is what hastened to movement towards Brexit. I personally think that many people in the UK were aware of the behaviour, by both major parties, of using the EU to impose laws for which they lacked democratic support technocratically. Since there was no electable party that stood in contrast to this, the electorate took its opportunity by evicting the EU instead. Seen in this light, Brexit is as much a reflection of a failure of national politics, as it is of continental politics. The mantra 'taking back control' of many Brexit supporters is perhaps better seen as citizens wanting to stop their government from acting in ways they don't vote for, than as the government taking back control from the EU. The dissembling (as I see it) of politicians from across the EU on this law (and others before it) indicates that this is not a problem that is restricted to the UK.
- simonh 8y ago
  Brexit was about immigration. Nothing else comes close. I think you're right that this was in the mix, but so were a hundred other factors that might have got raised here or there, but they're all dwarfed by immigration. Britain more than any other member has managed to get exclusion clauses from any EU regulations or rules we didn't want, so the argument that we couldn't do anything about rules imposed by Brussels is obviously untrue. We opted out of stuff all the time, it was routine. The irony is that if we end up in a soft Brexit situation with an open trade deal with the EU, we won't be able to negotiate any opt-outs anymore because we won't have any representation in Brussels. We'll have to take everything Brussels serves up, or crash out hard.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Not to deny that immigration was a major part, but the belief is more important than reality for both that and sovereignty. Yes, the UK had a great deal with loads of opt-outs, but that didn’t stop the papers blaming the EU for everything — including immigration, which was mostly non-EU.

isostatic 8y ago

There's an annecdotal quote from an evening standard journalist > I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice. He may or may not have said that, but what's clear is the perceived power of the UK press to manipulate governments. UK PM in the 90s, John Major, told an inquiry that Murdoch had demanded he change his position on Europe otherwise lose support. [0] He didn't change, and Murdoch supported his opponent in 1997 (who then went on to win) 20 years later, Murdoch executives met with the UK PM or Chancellor (the second most important person in government) 10 times. [1] So while perceived EU lobbying may have contributed to brexit, far more likely was 40 years of proven newspaper lobbying. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405629 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405629 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch...

pessimizer 8y ago
Local tyrants preferred brexit, international tyrants preferred remain.
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  Murdoch is very much an international "tyrant" though. He's not British and his media empire spans much of the globe.
  - Pica_soO 8y ago
    Divide and conquer then?
smsm42 8y ago
> the perceived power of the UK press to manipulate governments. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? I mean not for Mr. Murdoch personally, but if you take the whole press, isn't that one of the instruments through which the society controls - or, if you will, "manipulates" - the government? And if the government can't be "manipulated" by the society, isn't that the definition of tyranny?