The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[peterms]

21 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, true.

I don't know how much science and how much hunch was used.

 

Sciunch.  (A word that sounds better than it looks).

[snowychap]

The Politics of Old Europe

Quote

Whatever else it has been, the argument over Brexit has been a reminder of the way European politics used to be: divided parties; vacillating leadership; unstable governments; intense anger; and the looming possibility that the last word might belong to ‘Citizen Browning’ (as, around 1900, French anarchists called the gun). In this sense, modern British politics has become the politics of old Europe, which between 1848 and 1968 could usually be relied on to supply a stream of congratulatory comparison between British stability and European chaos. British politics now looks more like that of Weimar Germany, postwar Italy or the France of the Third and Fourth Republics. It has become quite hard to believe that for much of the 19th and 20th centuries the properties of the elusive British constitution were a subject of sustained, serious and intense intellectual inquiry.

One of the outcomes of those inquiries was the realisation – which helped to form the European Union – that political problems cannot always be solved by political means, but sometimes have legal, economic or administrative solutions. Political solutions can magnify political problems because politics calls for choices and decisions even if choices and decisions are in short supply. Injecting politics into political stasis can be self-defeating because, as the argument over Brexit has shown, a lot can happen between the initial choice and the final decision. In the interim, almost anything can become political. This is because politics – unlike, say, religion, music, economics or sport – does not have a determinate or pre-given content. The nearest approximation is the idea of the rule of law. But when the rules run dry and the laws wear out, politics will still be there and its effects will still, at the least, be unpredictable. This was the realisation that began to take hold in Europe after 1848 and, more intensely, after 1917 and 1933.

The content of the realisation grew out of the problem of explaining, on the one hand, British social and political stability, despite the very deep economic divisions and fierce social conflict of much of the 19th and 20th centuries; and, on the other, European social and political instability, despite the growing number of institutions and arrangements – such as party politics, a democratic franchise, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a free press – that were usually taken to be largely responsible for the British capacity to manage peaceful social and political change. The more institutionally and constitutionally similar the two seemed to be, the more difficult it was to explain the differences in their social and political histories.

After 1848, theorists had three insights that added up both to a powerful explanation of how, in democratic conditions, it was possible to combine political stability with political reform, and, more broadly, to a powerful analysis of the properties of a federal political system. From this perspective, the fabled, famously unwritten British constitution was not something to be set against the centralisation, remoteness and unaccountability of its European counterpart, but the prototype from which the idea of a European Union emerged. In other words, the European Union was the real triumph of British politics, just as Brexit now threatens to reinstate the politics of old Europe in the place once taken to be a living embodiment of the alternative.

The first of these insights was that the British system of government was far more like a federal system than it appeared to be. Not because there was something federal about the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland – a type of union more imperial than federal. Rather, the federal side of the British system was supplied by trusts, corporations, syndicates, universities and limited companies. This cluster of institutions not only pointed towards an aspect of the British system of government that has now been largely forgotten. It also highlighted something not usually associated with the idea of a federal system and, by doing so, helped to throw a different light on the idea of a federal system itself.

The initial claim about the relationship between trusts, corporations and the underlying causes of British political stability is usually associated with the thought of the late 19th-century English historian and legal theorist Frederick William Maitland, but it began life a little earlier with the French economic and legal theorist Félix Esquirou de Parieu (the advocate, in the 1860s, of a common European currency). Both Maitland and Parieu described the scale and ubiquity of the network of trusts and corporations in British economic and social life, and the way they offset the more divisive consequences of economic inequality and the democratic deficit. Maitland’s evaluation of trusts and corporations supplied one of the components of what came to be called pluralism, with its emphasis on multiple associations and decentralised government. Parieu focused less on trusts and corporations themselves than on the characteristics of a state that housed a wide array of such political, legal and economic institutions.

A federal system is, simply, a unit made up of smaller units. Since the smaller units were parts of larger units, but were also responsible for providing a range of more or less costly public services and amenities, such as roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, policing, parks or playgrounds, credit would be built into the workings of the whole system. (This was the second insight.) The multiple outgoings of the different units would be funded by a mixture of local and national tax revenue, whether direct or indirect, and the leads and lags in income and expenditure would be covered by public debt. The network of trusts and corporations, with their legal provisions on what they could or could not do with their assets, would reinforce the nexus of debt, income and expenditure and, at the same time, lock public and private finance into a single, loosely integrated system.

In this financial setting, the law – this was the third insight – would have a double identity. In one guise it would be public law, or the system of rules that applied to the membership of a given unit, from a charitable trust to a sovereign state. In another guise, it would be private law, or the system of rules that applied within the membership of a given unit, all the way up to a single state within an international system. In the first guise, the function of the law would be largely positive, to define and enforce a determinate set of rules. In the second guise, its function would be largely negative, to maintain the ability of its subordinate components to define and enforce the law. Just as, in the financial system, the line separating private credit from public debt would be clear but passable, so too, in the legal system, would the line separating public from private law. This was once claimed to be the hallmark of the British system of government, and it became the hallmark of the European Union.

Nothing of this has been seen or heard in the long argument over Brexit. The futility and fatuousness of ‘project fear’ on one side has been matched only by the fantasy and fecklessness of ‘taking back control’ on the other. Historical memory is a slippery thing and its contents are as easy to distort as to forget. (This, it could be said, is why we need historians.) Putting Brexit in its historical context helps to show the scale of what will be lost, not only in Britain but in Europe. It also helps to show what can be gained. The European Union began as a British solution to a European problem. There is still time to take back control and make it a British solution to a British problem.

 

[bickster]

I was wondering what happened to this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

Quote

Date set for court case which could prosecute Boris Johnson over £350 million EU referendum lie

The date has been set for a court case which will attempt to hold Boris Johnson to account for the £350 million claim told during the EU referendum campaign - and was plastered all over the big red battle bus.

The crowdfunded private prosecution was brought against the MP and former Vote Leave co-chair by Marcus J Ball.

It will take place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on May 14th from 2.00pm, with the first hearing held in private, followed by a second public hearing shortly after.

Ball, the 29-year-old private prosecutor, has accused Johnson of abusing public trust in his office as Mayor of London and Member of Parliament by intentionally misleading the public with regards to how much money the UK spends on EU membership.

The statistic was criticised as misleading by the head of the UK Statistics Authority, who said that it was “a clear misuse of official statistics”.

A study found that almost half of the UK still believes the figure after it continued to be used throughout the referendum campaign.

Ball has worked full time on the prosecution case since June 2016 in his effort to address lying in politics.

Ball has worked full time on the prosecution case since June 2016 in his effort to address lying in politics.

He said: “I believe that when politicians lie democracy dies. If a company director lies to shareholders about financial matters they can be prosecuted. If a self employed person lies to HMRC about their spending or income they can be prosecuted. If a member of the public lies to the police about an ongoing investigation they can be prosecuted. This is because society and public trust cannot function based upon false information. So, why shouldn't a politician be prosecuted for abusing public trust by lying about public spending figures?”

He continued: “This case is a world first, it has never happened before. A Member of Parliament has never been prosecuted for misconduct in public office based upon alleged lying to the public. However, in 2014 PC Keith Wallis was given a 1 year prison sentence for misconduct in public office because of knowingly false statements he made. Mr Wallis lied to his MP and other police officers about witnessing the Plebgate scandal which took place on Downing Street on the evening of Wednesday 19 September 2012.

“My backers and I aspire to set a precedent in the UK common law making it illegal for an elected representative to lie to the public about financial matters. This would be the beginning of the end of lying in politics in the UK. Because of how the English common law works it's possible that such a precedent could be internationally persuasive by influencing the law in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada and India”.

The New European

[peterms]

[bickster]

 

[bickster]

Quote

Theresa May had insisted the European elections would not go ahead – but has bowed to the inevitable
Brexit: Tory MPs tell Theresa May second referendum becoming 'inevitable' as Labour talks hopes fade
Warning comes as prime minister suffers embarrassment of European elections going ahead – and as her own deputy suggests crisis will drag on until July

Conservative MPs on both sides of the Brexit divide are telling Theresa May that a fresh referendum is becoming “inevitable”, as talks with Labour to break the impasse looked set to fail.

The prime minister faced the warning as she suffered the embarrassment of conceding this month’s European elections will go ahead – and as her own deputy suggested the crisis would drag on until July.

As cross-party talks entered their sixth week, Labour’s Keir Starmer insisted he would force the Tories to end their refusal to contemplate a Final Say referendum as the price of a deal, saying it was “crunch time”.

Significantly, the attempt to put a public vote centre-stage was bolstered from an unlikely source when Daniel Kawczynski, a Tory Brexiteer, predicted it could become the only option “to break the gridlock”.

“If we cannot do this, if this is beyond us, and if we fail, then another referendum is inevitable,” he said, expressing gloom about a deal otherwise.

Ed Vaizey, a pro-EU Conservative, echoed Mr Kawczynski, saying he was “warming to the idea” of a second vote as potentially “the only way to finally have closure on Brexit”.

The comments came as multiple Labour sources told The Independent there could be no deal without a referendum, a demand now being made by around two-thirds of the party’s MPs, it is understood.
 

Last Friday, Eric Pickles, a former party chairman, become the most prominent Conservative supporter of a referendum, when he gave his surprise backing.
The calls came as talks between Labour and the government broke up without agreement, with both teams preparing to meet again on Wednesday afternoon.

After the three-hour meeting, Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said: "Discussions today were very robust and we're having further meetings this week where we hope to make some progress."

She said there was a "willingness on both sides" to work together but there had been no movement towards a customs union, temporary or otherwise.

Ms Long-Bailey would only say another referendum was "one of many options on the table".

Meanwhile, David Lidington, the de-facto deputy prime minister, bowed to the inevitable, by admitting the government had run out of time to stop the European elections, on 23 May, with no ratification of Brexit in sight.

He paved the way for what is expected to be a Tory drubbing by Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party, by finally admitting: “Legally, they do have to take place.”

Mr Lidington appeared to set a new deadline for ratifying a deal before MPs leave Westminster for their summer break in late July – which would mean MEPs taking their seats at the start of July.

“Ideally, we’d like to be in a situation where those MEPs never actually have to take their seat at European parliament – certainly, to get this done and dusted by the summer recess,” he said.

No 10 played down the significance of the comment, insisting Mr Lidington had merely been “stressing the importance of having this process completed before MPs rise for summer”.

The elections will cost around £150m. To avoid further costs, the withdrawal agreement bill will need to be put before MPs within a week or so – but that will not happen without a Labour agreement not to vote it down.

At the weekend, the acrimony was laid bare when John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and other Labour figures accused Ms May of refusing to budge on the party’s central demand for a permanent customs union.
Heading into the talks, Sir Keir, the shadow Brexit secretary, said: “The time has now come to a crunch time, where the government has to decide whether it’s serious about significant changes capable of actually carrying a majority in the House of Commons.”

He pointed significantly to the clamour over a further referendum, adding: “A confirmatory vote will also be on the agenda, and we’re going to discuss that this afternoon.”

No 10 has refused to provide “a checklist” of her continued red lines in the talks, but her own MPs made clear the referendum issue could no longer be dodged.

“If there can be no compromise between the parties, I can actually see then the logic, and other people will be demanding another referendum,” Mr Kawczynski added.

Mr Vaizey, a former minister, said: “I've always been against a second referendum. But I think what is changing my mind is this talk about any agreement reached by parliament being seen as illegitimate.”

Any cross-party deal would pass only narrowly, which means MPs would “spend their whole time telling the public that this isn't Brexit, it’s not the Brexit they voted for – it's illegitimate”. 

Earlier, the prime minister met Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, who was expected to again urge her to set a rapid timetable for her departure.

If she refuses, the 1922 will consider rewriting the rules to allow a fresh vote of no confidence this summer – but Sir Graham made no immediate comment on Ms May’s response. 

Asked about the EU elections, the prime minister’s spokesman said she “deeply regrets” the fact the UK would be taking part, admitting: “Many members of the public will feel great frustration at this.”

The spokesman declined to say whether Ms May thought people should vote in the elections – or whether she would take part in any election campaign launch by the Conservatives.
 

INDY

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 

I think it is a good point, but honestly I wonder about whether 'anyone who lived through that campaign knows it's not what was promised'. Leavers have changed what they said they thought would happen, and what they said they wanted, so profoundly that it's very hard to remember what they actually said in 2016. Even as someone who has been following this fairly obsessively for more than three years now, I sometimes have to kind of mentally pinch myself to remember that this stage of increasing popularity of No Deal amongst Tories is less than a year old. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I wonder about whether 'anyone who lived through that campaign knows it's not what was promised'

There are still millions of people who believe the £350 million a week nonsense. My missus works with at least two and they are both NHS nurses!

[HanoiVillan]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

There are still millions of people who believe the £350 million a week nonsense. My missus works with at least two and they are both NHS nurses!

The most common mistake among political pundits, and people who are above-averagely interested in politics like everyone in this thread, is over-estimating the engagement of the electorate. We've been in so many of these discussions and arguments that they seem boring, maybe even ritualistic, but about 50% of the electorate won't have had a single thought about politics since May 2017, if they even had it then. The '£350 million a week' claim made it through the apathy barrier in 2016, and none of the refutations have, so here we are today, stuck with it. Depressing. 

[peterms]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think it is a good point, but honestly I wonder about whether 'anyone who lived through that campaign knows it's not what was promised'. Leavers have changed what they said they thought would happen, and what they said they wanted, so profoundly that it's very hard to remember what they actually said in 2016. Even as someone who has been following this fairly obsessively for more than three years now, I sometimes have to kind of mentally pinch myself to remember that this stage of increasing popularity of No Deal amongst Tories is less than a year old. 

Some people will have voted on the basis of perceived facts, assurances, or the strength of the argument.  I should think that many voted for a sentiment, a feeling, and for those, the detail of what was promised is probably not the point, and therefore specific promises being disproven doesn't affect much.  How many of those are there?  No idea.  But more than a tiny minority.

[Davkaus]

On 06/05/2019 at 22:32, peterms said:

This is a fun game, I want to play.

We asked the bar whether they wanted ale, or something else.

48% wanted ale.

52 wanted something else. Some wanted lager, some cider, some spirits, some wine. A fringe group of nutters wanted the contents of the urinal. And that's what we should all have. Something else means something else!

[KenjiOgiwara]

Didn't really know where to put this, and I didn't quite feel like making a thread called "world economy - we're all ****". But how's everyone's view on what's going on atm? 

It's slowing down a lot of places. Italy is pretty much in recession already. Japan is holding their interest levels dead low, same are EU it seems. US are now facing more and more reporting seasons where it's getting harder to impress. My understanding is that the one-off tax cuts the spadeface gave the industries, were largely used to buy back shares. Which means numbers are ever so inflated from an intrinsic point of view.

To avoid more bad press and how every president will need a war, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump invaded Venezuela or bombed the shit out of Iran. And even if higher oil prices are good for my country, there's a pretty obvious correlation between higher oil prices and a down turn in the economy. 

Brexit has still to happen and while that's something I don't really follow, I assume things can get worse here. 

The trade deal with China is wobbling at the moment. 

The French are still rioting. Not sure what they actually want (probably free stuff and less hours), but seems to be financial unrest at least. 

Some of Europe's biggest banks are already in the dirt due to corruption scandals, i.e. Deutsche, Danske, SB etc.

A lot of big companies all over the world are presenting less than impressive quarterly numbers despite the markets being at all time high. Especially cyclic depandent companies as raw market companies, are doing way worse than expected. I fully expect consumer related companies to follow before long and and I think you can already see tendencies with Samsung amongst others. 

You got the longest bull market running known to man. So where does it end? I am kinda worried by the fact that the debt levels are crazy high all over, countries got interest rates already floored and if things turn for the worse I am not sure how it's gonna turn around for a long time. 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by KenjiOgiwara

[choffer]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

So where does it all end?

Fascism, probly. 

[mjmooney]

On 02/05/2019 at 17:19, chrisp65 said:

your best bet geographically if you want to register a remain vote

according to the remain alliance

What has happened to this map? Can't find it anywhere. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

What has happened to this map? Can't find it anywhere. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

I'm a long time lover of bad poetry, and this is a real doozy (you'll need to click the tweet but it's worth it believe me)

 

[HanoiVillan]

'the job of work'

[chrisp65]

[dont_do_it_doug.]

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

To what end? Why would we want a bunch of neoliberal puppets carrying our interests into the European Parliament, which is only relevant if we end up remaining. At which point, they become the noose.

The EU needs reform. This aint it. 

[Seat68]

2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

To what end? Why would we want a bunch of neoliberal puppets carrying our interests into the European Parliament, which is only relevant if we end up remaining. At which point, they become the noose.

The EU needs reform. This aint it. 

It's better than honking words removed looking merely to disrupt rather than engage.