7 ms·

That's actually a good point and well said ... 3 years ago. However, today you cannot make that argument with a straight face when Boris is a PM with a very we

by gutnor 7y ago

That's actually a good point and well said ... 3 years ago. However, today you cannot make that argument with a straight face when Boris is a PM with a very weak democratic mandate, actively undermining the democratically elected Parliament, doubling down on the lies made by the campaigns, pushing for highly damaging (according to the Government own assessment) economic measure. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal we know that the bus not only worked, but it is the tip of the iceberg of a propaganda machine without conterpart in the remain side. I can't believe that on HN, Brexit is still seen as a "remainer" vs "leaver" problem. Brexit has exposed a much deeper rot and threat to democracy, not in the EU, but in the very heart of the UK institutions. Brexit is not a liberating process, it is a threat.

shard972 7y ago
Ok but he has called for an election so we can fix that democratic mandate issue but that's bad because Brexit might actually happen and the opposition can't risk that.
fergie 7y ago
(Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s. Johnson is in a sense "unelected", but his premiership is no less legitimate than that of Cameron or Major. Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign, and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen, and taking responsibility for its success or failure. Its completely fair to say that Brexit is an economically stupid and possibly xenophobic project, but its not fair to say that Brexit is a threat to democracy. Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best: the people forcing the ruling classes to make decisions that are against the ruling class's own interests. EDIT: Johnson is of course the head of government, not the head of state, since the UK is a monarchy.
- drcongo 7y ago
  There is nothing about Brexit that is against the ruling class's best interests. They're the only ones who are actually going to benefit from it in the form of huge profits from shorting the pound and selling off public services. It's all outlined in Rees-Mogg snr's handbook on how to make millions out of the misery of the working class.
- jkoudys 7y ago
  If we go back to the original data visualization, is that really what happened though? Especially on HN, I think we can all concede that decisions are only as good as the data they're based on. Can you honestly claim that the leave side's economic understanding matched the reality? Is it really "democratic" for the people to force action based on the carefully-crafted misinformation they've received?
- nvarsj 7y ago
  I’m not sure this is true. Cameron had a majority government after the 2015 election. Prior there was a coalition government which also held a majority. May lost the majority after the snap election and had to build a coalition with the DUP and others. In Johnson’s case he doesn’t have any majority at all. It’s a weird situation that only exists afaik because of the fixed term act, as the PM can no longer trigger an election when he loses the majority. The current situation is far from normal.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Correct, the Fixed Term Parliament act was supposed to cure a government supposedly "abusing democracy" by calling an election at their whim. Well at least that seemed to be the LibDem line during the coalition. In requiring a super-majority, and a search for a second government first it's badly broken the system. As we can see, there is a government 20 odd votes short of a majority stuck there. Stuck there having lost every vote they've called. Stuck there because they are trying to evade the extension parliament voted for, that would take EU membership beyond an election. I am intrigued though, that neither side has made calls to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, despite it very clearly not being fit for purpose.
    - benj111 7y ago
      "I am intrigued though, that neither side has made calls to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act" Boris Johnson doesn't want an election. It was suggested after the first vote that he could table something that only required a simple majority, but he didn't, you cant really argue it's people against parliament, when you are (hopefully) a majority of parliament. Those against a hard Brexit don't want an election now because it impairs their ability to do that, plus its been nicely illustrated to them why you don't want too much power to reside with the executive.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It’s a weird situation that only exists afaik because of the fixed term act, as PM can no longer trigger an election when he loses the majority And even then, it only exists because Johnson is overtly trying to use the disruption of an election as a mechanism to enable no-deal, which is why Parliament refuses to let him have one.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > (Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) He had a brother and father in politics, Johnson is a very common surname, Boris unambiguously identifies him, and he's not head of state.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  <pedantry>Boris Johnson is not head of state. He is head of government</pedantry>
  - fergie 7y ago
    Yes, good point. A digital slip of the pen. Have updated my original comment.
- gutnor 7y ago
  Brexit is not a threat to democracy in the absolute sense. It is a threat to democracy because, after 3 years, we now know that it is a power wrestling within the ruling class, for the exclusive benefit of the ruling class. All the good reasons you may have had before and right after the referendum are irrelevant now. What Brexit is and what it is used to do is clear for all to see, and it is not a democratic excercise. To take a less loaded example: that's like sending money to a charity "Food for Africa Children" and realising 3 years after, your money is instead funnelled into buying a super yatcht for some billionaire somewhere. Feeding Africa Children is good, giving money to charity is good but you can no longer make the argument that "Food for Africa Children" is good, and you can no longer claim any moral high ground if you continue to support that organisation.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    > ruling class, for the exclusive benefit of the ruling class. You can't really expect to be taken seriously with nonsense like this?
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    You are probabaly a remainer, as am I, but you are using a remainer's justification for a re-run. And pretending leavers believe this. They generally don't. No significant proportion of people have changed their mind. The leavers still want to leave, everyone's sick of parliament dragging this out for years. Many remainer's are still hoping for some sort of magic unicorn waving it's horn and we'll stay in. The time to do that was 2 years ago, not now, just get it over with already.
    - benj111 7y ago
      To be fair you don't need anyone to change their mind for the outcome to change, Leavers skew older so mortality would swing the result in remains favour. Id agree that each side is entrenched, I still think you need to have that vote, or come up with an option somewhere between the 2 camps, not swing to an even further extreme as we seem to be doing at the moment. No deal wasn't a thing we were discussing in the run up to the referendum, it wasn't even a thing we were really discussing this time last year.
- bloak 7y ago
  "BoJo" Borisconi is not a head of state. Since we haven't abolished the monarchy, the head of state is Brenda.
- phs318u 7y ago
  > Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best Both democracies and markets assume informed participants for their proper functioning. If the participants are not informed or misinformed then both democracies and markets can be gamed by those “in the know” at the expense of the misinformed.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign ... This isn't true either. Nigel Farage likely wins that unenviable title. > ... and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen ... That doesn't necessarily follow. His reasons for supporting / promoting Brexit have been shown to be based on falsehoods. > ... and taking responsibility for its success or failure. I appreciate your optimism that there remains any doubt about which of those it will be. It's clear that this guy - Boris, Johnson, or Boris Johnson if you prefer - has not and will not take responsibility for his actions. Claims of 'Brexit == democracy at its best' are massively misguided - they presuppose that the voters were not outright lied to (they were).
- DanBC 7y ago
  > No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s I don't understand what you're saying about John Major. Here's the 1992 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_el... 336 seats, out of 651, with 326 needed for a majority. Current conservatives have 288 seats out of 650.
ackshually 7y ago
Yes, the current government does not have a majority, but this was due to internal strife caused by the leaver/remainer dynamic within the halls of power. Fair enough, the UK government is rotten to the core and the lot deserve to be thrown out and strung up. But they won't be, because the UK population is frustrated, but misinformed and distracted. The problem with your argument is this; Brexit was not a vote on the corrupt local government, it was a vote on the corrupt EU government, and changing the focus on this matter doesn't change that. The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal, thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. If you cannot walk away from a negotiation, you're not negotiating. Your discussing the terms of your slavery. The task of getting the UK out of the EU in any kind of positive way is now utterly impossible. So I'm afraid this is a remainer vs a leaver problem, because the majority of the population ("leavers") are not represented by the majority of the government ("remainers"). That is the problem with British democracy, not the steps taken by PM Johnson to put in to affect a desicion made by the people in the referendum!
- gutnor 7y ago
  > The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. Come on now. 544/650 MP ran for a party that had Leave as a Manifesto promise in the 2017 GE. Yes individual MP could disagree with their party and defy the whip, but that is an overwhelming cross-party majority in favour of leaving. In comparison, no party ran with a "Remain" outright manifesto, rather with a "Let run the deal against Remain" in a confirmation referendum. Only in the last weeks, Labour has sided with the confirmation referendum, and rejected last week to campaign for remain in that referendum. > The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal That's nonsense. The supreme judged the suspension of Parliament by the PM illegal. It is loosely related to No Deal. > thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. > Your discussing the terms of your slavery. That's appeal to emotion territory here. International negotiation like leaving the EU do not have the information asymmetry where leaving the table is a real asset. As advanced economies, the threat of instability or uncertainty is enough to keep both the EU and UK in search of a win-win agreement. In addition, the UK is an important contributor to the EU budget and the USA would only too happy to step in, so it is clearly in a position of strenght ... relative to its geopolical and economic size. A good deal is achievable, just not the cakist deal that was promised.

by gutnor 7y ago

shard972 7y ago

Ok but he has called for an election so we can fix that democratic mandate issue but that's bad because Brexit might actually happen and the opposition can't risk that.

fergie 7y ago

(Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s. Johnson is in a sense "unelected", but his premiership is no less legitimate than that of Cameron or Major. Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign, and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen, and taking responsibility for its success or failure. Its completely fair to say that Brexit is an economically stupid and possibly xenophobic project, but its not fair to say that Brexit is a threat to democracy. Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best: the people forcing the ruling classes to make decisions that are against the ruling class's own interests. EDIT: Johnson is of course the head of government, not the head of state, since the UK is a monarchy.

drcongo 7y ago
There is nothing about Brexit that is against the ruling class's best interests. They're the only ones who are actually going to benefit from it in the form of huge profits from shorting the pound and selling off public services. It's all outlined in Rees-Mogg snr's handbook on how to make millions out of the misery of the working class.
jkoudys 7y ago
If we go back to the original data visualization, is that really what happened though? Especially on HN, I think we can all concede that decisions are only as good as the data they're based on. Can you honestly claim that the leave side's economic understanding matched the reality? Is it really "democratic" for the people to force action based on the carefully-crafted misinformation they've received?
nvarsj 7y ago
I’m not sure this is true. Cameron had a majority government after the 2015 election. Prior there was a coalition government which also held a majority. May lost the majority after the snap election and had to build a coalition with the DUP and others. In Johnson’s case he doesn’t have any majority at all. It’s a weird situation that only exists afaik because of the fixed term act, as the PM can no longer trigger an election when he loses the majority. The current situation is far from normal.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Correct, the Fixed Term Parliament act was supposed to cure a government supposedly "abusing democracy" by calling an election at their whim. Well at least that seemed to be the LibDem line during the coalition. In requiring a super-majority, and a search for a second government first it's badly broken the system. As we can see, there is a government 20 odd votes short of a majority stuck there. Stuck there having lost every vote they've called. Stuck there because they are trying to evade the extension parliament voted for, that would take EU membership beyond an election. I am intrigued though, that neither side has made calls to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, despite it very clearly not being fit for purpose.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "I am intrigued though, that neither side has made calls to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act" Boris Johnson doesn't want an election. It was suggested after the first vote that he could table something that only required a simple majority, but he didn't, you cant really argue it's people against parliament, when you are (hopefully) a majority of parliament. Those against a hard Brexit don't want an election now because it impairs their ability to do that, plus its been nicely illustrated to them why you don't want too much power to reside with the executive.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It’s a weird situation that only exists afaik because of the fixed term act, as PM can no longer trigger an election when he loses the majority And even then, it only exists because Johnson is overtly trying to use the disruption of an election as a mechanism to enable no-deal, which is why Parliament refuses to let him have one.
Jedd 7y ago
> (Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) He had a brother and father in politics, Johnson is a very common surname, Boris unambiguously identifies him, and he's not head of state.
goodcanadian 7y ago
<pedantry>Boris Johnson is not head of state. He is head of government</pedantry>
- fergie 7y ago
  Yes, good point. A digital slip of the pen. Have updated my original comment.
gutnor 7y ago
Brexit is not a threat to democracy in the absolute sense. It is a threat to democracy because, after 3 years, we now know that it is a power wrestling within the ruling class, for the exclusive benefit of the ruling class. All the good reasons you may have had before and right after the referendum are irrelevant now. What Brexit is and what it is used to do is clear for all to see, and it is not a democratic excercise. To take a less loaded example: that's like sending money to a charity "Food for Africa Children" and realising 3 years after, your money is instead funnelled into buying a super yatcht for some billionaire somewhere. Feeding Africa Children is good, giving money to charity is good but you can no longer make the argument that "Food for Africa Children" is good, and you can no longer claim any moral high ground if you continue to support that organisation.
- easytiger 7y ago
  > ruling class, for the exclusive benefit of the ruling class. You can't really expect to be taken seriously with nonsense like this?
- mattmanser 7y ago
  You are probabaly a remainer, as am I, but you are using a remainer's justification for a re-run. And pretending leavers believe this. They generally don't. No significant proportion of people have changed their mind. The leavers still want to leave, everyone's sick of parliament dragging this out for years. Many remainer's are still hoping for some sort of magic unicorn waving it's horn and we'll stay in. The time to do that was 2 years ago, not now, just get it over with already.
  - benj111 7y ago
    To be fair you don't need anyone to change their mind for the outcome to change, Leavers skew older so mortality would swing the result in remains favour. Id agree that each side is entrenched, I still think you need to have that vote, or come up with an option somewhere between the 2 camps, not swing to an even further extreme as we seem to be doing at the moment. No deal wasn't a thing we were discussing in the run up to the referendum, it wasn't even a thing we were really discussing this time last year.
bloak 7y ago
"BoJo" Borisconi is not a head of state. Since we haven't abolished the monarchy, the head of state is Brenda.
phs318u 7y ago
> Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best Both democracies and markets assume informed participants for their proper functioning. If the participants are not informed or misinformed then both democracies and markets can be gamed by those “in the know” at the expense of the misinformed.
Jedd 7y ago
> Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign ... This isn't true either. Nigel Farage likely wins that unenviable title. > ... and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen ... That doesn't necessarily follow. His reasons for supporting / promoting Brexit have been shown to be based on falsehoods. > ... and taking responsibility for its success or failure. I appreciate your optimism that there remains any doubt about which of those it will be. It's clear that this guy - Boris, Johnson, or Boris Johnson if you prefer - has not and will not take responsibility for his actions. Claims of 'Brexit == democracy at its best' are massively misguided - they presuppose that the voters were not outright lied to (they were).
DanBC 7y ago
> No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s I don't understand what you're saying about John Major. Here's the 1992 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_el... 336 seats, out of 651, with 326 needed for a majority. Current conservatives have 288 seats out of 650.

ackshually 7y ago

Yes, the current government does not have a majority, but this was due to internal strife caused by the leaver/remainer dynamic within the halls of power. Fair enough, the UK government is rotten to the core and the lot deserve to be thrown out and strung up. But they won't be, because the UK population is frustrated, but misinformed and distracted. The problem with your argument is this; Brexit was not a vote on the corrupt local government, it was a vote on the corrupt EU government, and changing the focus on this matter doesn't change that. The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal, thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. If you cannot walk away from a negotiation, you're not negotiating. Your discussing the terms of your slavery. The task of getting the UK out of the EU in any kind of positive way is now utterly impossible. So I'm afraid this is a remainer vs a leaver problem, because the majority of the population ("leavers") are not represented by the majority of the government ("remainers"). That is the problem with British democracy, not the steps taken by PM Johnson to put in to affect a desicion made by the people in the referendum!

gutnor 7y ago
> The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. Come on now. 544/650 MP ran for a party that had Leave as a Manifesto promise in the 2017 GE. Yes individual MP could disagree with their party and defy the whip, but that is an overwhelming cross-party majority in favour of leaving. In comparison, no party ran with a "Remain" outright manifesto, rather with a "Let run the deal against Remain" in a confirmation referendum. Only in the last weeks, Labour has sided with the confirmation referendum, and rejected last week to campaign for remain in that referendum. > The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal That's nonsense. The supreme judged the suspension of Parliament by the PM illegal. It is loosely related to No Deal. > thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. > Your discussing the terms of your slavery. That's appeal to emotion territory here. International negotiation like leaving the EU do not have the information asymmetry where leaving the table is a real asset. As advanced economies, the threat of instability or uncertainty is enough to keep both the EU and UK in search of a win-win agreement. In addition, the UK is an important contributor to the EU budget and the USA would only too happy to step in, so it is clearly in a position of strenght ... relative to its geopolical and economic size. A good deal is achievable, just not the cakist deal that was promised.