The debate is still lively. Fresh news below the break.
I have a new assignment as regional director for Leave Means Leave, one of the organisations campaigning to have the 2016 referendum vote respected by our politicians. Chairmen Richard Tice and John Longworth are calling on all Leave voters to stand up for Democracy and call on their MPs to act accordingly.
Keep an eye out for notices advertising rallies and events in your area. We need you to get involved and galvanise the public to insist that their MPs stand up for Democracy too. More news as it arrives.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The Bexit decision is simple for me. The question being: By whom do you wish to be governed; Brussels or Westminster?
I am probably one of the few people who have read the EU Constitution; from which I concluded that Westminster was definitely preferable. This based on:
1) The EU system is potentially unstable in that it confers power to a small undemocraticlly elected section of individuals and thus open to potential corruption. Currently it appears to many that it has benign objectives. However that could easily change in the wrong hands.
Essentially it is set up to thwart the democratic system making it very difficult to remove a government and replace it in accordance with the wishes of the people.
2) The Westminster system however has a major advantage in that it has no written constitution as such and is therefore open to flexibility ultimately free from manipulation of the rules; although this may not appear to be the case at the moment. The system allows a government to be removed and replaced relatively easily. A factor which concentrates the mind.
3) Both systems are inevitably subject to corruption and we see much of that; particularly where legalised corruption is involved. Rooting this out in Westminster is easier than in Brussels.
4) As far as an individual is concerned the ability to replace a government, ie: the value of the vote is reduced by membership of the EU by a factor of roughly 60 million divided by 450 million, being the number of people with whom you share your vote.
It is a long term decision; difficult in the short term; but made all the more obvious by the attitude and behaviour of Brussels during the negotiations.
Finally in the tipping point: It is an EU dictat that now requires me to keep my marmalade in the fridge to avoid it becoming furry. Totally unacceptable! (sarc!
@ cognog2, I quite agree. So frustrating too, to have the SNP, for all their craptrap, going on about Anti-Westminster, etc BUT rushing to join up with Brussels. mammy Mammy mammy, they’re taking away my subsidies and freebies, seems to be the hidden reasoning behind them….
WE in UK and in Scotland managed so well BEFORE we joined the EEC. The gravy train with its loads of food mountains and drinks lakes soon dried up – to be replaced by ……. . Now we are bemoaning the vagaries of the weather and social engineering of our agriculture – like the USSR, was heading fort he Cliff – and its crumbling.
As I’ve said befofre, ” wake up and smell the coffee: – isn’t it awrf? “
The flaw in the continuity of ‘remain’ is that the EU isn’t a fixed point. It never was. Every year it moves closer to a super state (its intended gaol… sorry I mean goal) and UK government after government let our sovereignty erode. Eventually there would have been nothing left for us to defend. Another PM like Blair and we’d have been irrevocably tied to the EU. There would have been no referendum if we’d joined the Euro. If leaving is hard now, it’s proof of how crippled we have become by letting the EU take over the processes of government. If we don’t use it, we lose it.
If the question on the ballot paper had been ‘do you want to be part of an EU super state the answer would have been a massive majority for ‘no’. How can we remain part of a club with its core plan for ever closer union and freedom of movement, if we don’t want that? The idea that we can steer the EU from the inside was demonstrated to be untrue in the decades where the number of countries was limited. Now, with its greater membership it should be obvious that the EU cannot be even partially be controlled by the UK. Even Germany will lose influence over the club of unelected bureaucrats. Individual national politicians sell out their countries for the greater power of an EU role, particularly when they lose the favour of their own people. Blair dreamed of being President Blair of a country to rival the US and he cared nothing about what he did to us in the process.
Goodbye to this…
Qualified majority voting (QMV)
Designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the Council of Ministers, qualified majority voting (QMV) allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. The current allocation is set out in Appendix 4, from which it can be seen that Germany has one vote for every 8 million inhabitants whereas Luxembourg has one for every 200,000.
http://euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/q.html
Or, one Luxemburger vote has the same weight as 40 German votes.
– – –
Published on August 3, 2018
Britain’s Populist Revolt
written by Matthew Goodwin
Far from staging an irrational outburst, most Leavers shared a clear and coherent outlook and had formed their views long before the campaign even began.
https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
Since it’s “Westminster” that’s slowly handed powers over to the EU, without even a by your leave from us, why should we trust them with even more power?
I see there’s the continuing meme of leaving the Single Market, with nothing put forwards to replace this.
Might it be worth compiling a list of fighting points? Things about what the EU does that nobody voted for. Things that emerged after the Brexit vote (EU army). Focus on overcrowding, not immigration. Work with migration watch. Mention how Amazon etc won’t be able to shift their tax to the EU. Have examples of over regulation. Create graphs. Is it possible to work out the net benefit/drain of an average migrant? I doubt that business is putting enough money back into the economy to pay for housing, schooling, GPs, etcEspecially if we have a recession.
One of the flaws of the referendum was the paucity of arguments.
Adam, baby steps. We can’t sort out Westminster if they use the EU as a perpetual shield.
Remainers are myopic. Leavers have a good idea of what lies beyond the horizon.
The BBC -> The British Burough Council.?
“We know what we have if we remain.”
TB “Yes, that’s why we voted to leave.”
*Mic drop*
🤣
We have been lied to by Government & Establishments since we joined the “Common Market” and we are still being lied to.
How the public are fooled by the magnanimous EU giving us back a small amount of our own money into thinking we actually get something out of being in the EU is beyond me.
The same over “Rights”, we had lots of rights way before joining the common market let alone the EEC.
Ref: oldbrew and QMV:
Yes this was a point I noted when I read the constitution.
Also there is the matter of voting lists provided by political parties. This essentially removes the right of individuals to choose the person they wish to represent them and transfers votes to candidates that are perhaps not acceptable.
There are many other instances of similar dubious mechanisms hidden in the small print, essentially degrading the value of the vote.
Currently the value of my Westminster vote is puny in comparison to what it was in my youth.
Don’t forget to make frequent references to the pre-referendum Government spending of 9 million or so for the printing and distribution of grossly misleading literature about the immediate consequences of a Leave vote.
That should be a clear breach of at least the spirit and podssibly the law relating to campaign financing rules which dwarfs the contentious allegations about UKIP financing.
It seems that belief in democracy has declined over recent decades such that the establishment is full of those who believe the old soviet mantra that the ends justify the means.
Adam G: Since it’s “Westminster” that’s slowly handed powers over to the EU, without even a by your leave from us, why should we trust them with even more power?
Hardly an argument for handing even more power to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
I endorse the views of cognog2 [at 4:47 a.m.]. Most of the debate has related to short tem transition effect. But we should be looking at the long term effects, which are primarily effected by constitutional factors. The Executive has shown itself willing to change the constitution without public or parliamentary endorsement, Moreover, the EU constitution is already weaker than that of thr UK in ares of accountability, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Added to that the EU has a dismal record in handling major issues: Immigration, Currency, Ukraine, Climate. Why would we want to subject ourselves to such a poorly structured and run organisation?
The worst failing of the EU is that qualified voting is not based on money paid into the coffers. The small socialist states can outvote the biggest contributors.
cognog2 said:
“Essentially it is set up to thwart the democratic system making it very difficult to remove a government and replace it in accordance with the wishes of the people.
2) The Westminster system however has a major advantage in that it has no written constitution as such and is therefore open to flexibility ultimately free from manipulation of the rules; although this may not appear to be the case at the moment. The system allows a government to be removed and replaced relatively easily. A factor which concentrates the mind.”
As an American, let me point out that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
http://www.monarchist.org.uk/constitutional-monarchy.html
“In Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch (‘A Limited Monarchy’) are much older than that, as seen in our Magna Carta. Today the monarchy in Britain is politically neutral and by convention the role is largely ceremonial. No person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen.”
However, you point 1) is valid, a Democracy or Republic (Such as the US) GOVERNS by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED. When a bureaucrat makes rules/laws which the legislative body (the Governed’ representatives) did not approve or consent, it is an act of tyranny. Yes, even legislative bodies can be foolish and give power to bureaucrats to enact rules for expediency in their stead and not consider the unanticipated consequences which then force the legislature to pass laws to overrule the bureaucrats.
Of course, the cynical in me says politicians typically give power to bureaucrats precisely because they are cowards since they don’t want to take responsibility for bad law so they can ride to the rescue grandstanding saying, “bad bureaucrat, I will reverse what you imposed on the people.” The bureaucrat is the tender of the trial balloon, if the public snoozes, doesn’t demonstrate in the streets, then all is good for the politician, otherwise, if the balloon pops like the failed UK Anschluss with EU via Brexit, then they can save face and dissemble.
Adam, replace the Single Market with an FTA between the UK and the EU, as every Leaver has said every day for ten years.
Not sure how you can make your bizarre claim frankly.
Great responses and suggestions so far, thanks all.
Although my role as regional campaign director will be more focused on practical matters such as logistics and comms, it’s great to have this sounding board for bouncing the ‘big picture’ issues around on. Please keep it coming.
It seems to me that in the really big picture the primary issue was nailed by Peter Shore back in 1975 when he denounced Project Fear and called on the British people to be confident and outward looking.
The BBC has deigned to read your opinions about brexit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45259227
Let them have it with both barrels. I kept it polite enough to stand a chance of being interviewed.
As someone who actively campaigned out in the small towns and villages for a Leave vote in the 2016 EU referendum (I was the regional campaign director in Yorks/Humber), I am appalled that a large number of MPs in Westminster are now agitating for another referendum before the 2016 result has been implemented.
Barry Gardiner is correct. The democratically expressed decision of the voting majority must be respected, or we risk something far more dangerous than a short term economic downturn. The majority of ordinary folk don’t have time to follow the endless machinations in Westminster, but they know when they are being denied their democratic right to have their decision respected by the civil servants and elected representatives they pay to uphold and underpin our society.
I have just been appointed as regional director by Leave Means Leave, and we are rebooting the Leave campaign. We will give the electorate the opportunity to let their representatives and civil servants know in no uncertain terms that they must implement the result of the referendum without further prevarication or lose their positions if they are unable or unwilling to do so.
Please contact me by phone or email, I would appreciate the opportunity to be interviewed.
Thanks and regards
I voted leave because I asked myself the very same question that cognog2 asked himself (21/08/2018 2 4:47 am).
All the other arguments – immigration/finances/ease of movement – pale into insignificance for me.
The similarity between the EU and the USSR is striking.
Anyone who doubts the undemocratic nature of the EU should read the following excerpt from an official EU document (the European Stability Mechanism [2011] – ESM – which imposes financial regulations on Eurozone members):
From Article 32
3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall
enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly
waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including
the documentation of the funding instruments.
4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever
held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure,
taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall
be inviolable.
So not only are the personnel free from investigation, but all the paperwork and minutes are also inviolable.
How can this be right in a democratic institution? George Orwell eat your heart out…
The important thing now is to actually leave. Any compromise that means we effectively remain in the EU for a number of years is not acceptable.
To those who say it will be disruptive, I agree. However, my parents remembered the disruption the last time we tried to avoid being ruled by Germany. Brexit is the better option.
To those who say we will not be able to trade without being part of the EU I would ask how a country like Japan manages – without being part of the EU?
Why are MPs negotiating with the EU and not our MEPs? They are the ones with real experience of the EU and I think Nigel would have done a much better job!
May I suggest angry demonstrations to get the MEP’s attention? Public dissatisfaction makes the pols very uncomfortable. Seize on one of the dissembling statements by those feigning to honor the vote by accusing them of stone walling the exit. Name them and shame them. Highly effective making the offender an example to the rest and it gets the public focused on the issue by associating a face to it. All politics are personal.
dscott:
I think you will find that the European Parliament is totally irrelevant in the Brexit debate. It seems to be just ignored by the MSM. I am not even aware that it has even been debated in that chamber. Very different here in the U.K. and a major reason why we should get out of the clutches of the current EU and return to the basic Common Market that we originally agreed to back in 1975.
The way Brussels has behaved in these negotiations reveals much on the inherent democratic deficit inherent in the EU machine.
dscott says: Why are MPs negotiating with the EU and not our MEPs?
It’s the UK government doing the negotiating. Our MEPs don’t run the country, and have little or no noticeable influence on the EU bigwigs either 😐
Generators on barges in the Irish Sea under no deal Brexit?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-no-deal-northern-ireland-eu-withdrawal-electricity-energy-crisis-barge-irish-sea-a8443181.html
– – –
Whitehall’s ‘potty’ plan to keep NI lights on if no Brexit deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/11/whitehalls-potty-plan-to-keep-ni-lights-on-if-no-brexit-deal