Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

Another Irish civil war would be such fun after all.


@OvB : I completely agree with your post.

[Tamas]

I don't have the energy to argue again how fundamentally stupid I find these British national referendums. Scottish independence (i.e. the breakup of the country) should not be based on a simple majority referendum, and neither should Brexit have been. Direct democracy is a plague, but a lot of British posters here seem to think a referendum is the best way to do it. So at this juncture I'd say "get it done with", once you've accepted plebiscites as a means of running your entire country you might as well get on with splitting Scotland off and getting Northern Ireland out of the UK and merged with the Republic, because that will always be the inevitable result.

Same thing with Brexit frankly. When you've decided popular passions are all that is required to make such monumental and permanent decisions, then the outcome which is permanent will always come to pass--in this case the end of the UK and Brexit. Because no matter how many referendums union or stay won, the other side can just look to the next one. They only have to convince half the people who bother to vote for one day at one point in history to win forever.

[Barrister]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

And so what?

Look, the SNP types have had a lot of contact with the PQ and other Qubec separatists.  In Canada we too have a Supreme Court ruling that Quebec can't unilaterally declare independence - that it would have to be negotiated with the rest of Canada.  But the PQs plan (which was not publicized, but learned of later) was that upon winning a yes vote they would unilaterally declare independence after perfunctory take-it-or-leave-it attempt to negotiate.

Would it have been a constitutional crisis?  Sure.  Would it have worked?  Probably.

All of which is me saying that just saying "you just had a referendum and lost, there will be no further discussion on the topic" may not be a winning strategy.

[Zanza]

I agree with Otto. Plebiscites are rarely a good idea, certainly not on constitutional topics.

There was an extremely silly one on German orthography in Syt's and my home state during the 1990s. Our homestate decided that it alone would keep the traditional German orthography and not change to what was agreed between the German states, Austria and Switzerland after a decade long process. A year later, the state government pretty much just ignored it due to its inherent stupidity.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

And so what?

Look, the SNP types have had a lot of contact with the PQ and other Qubec separatists.  In Canada we too have a Supreme Court ruling that Quebec can't unilaterally declare independence - that it would have to be negotiated with the rest of Canada.  But the PQs plan (which was not publicized, but learned of later) was that upon winning a yes vote they would unilaterally declare independence after perfunctory take-it-or-leave-it attempt to negotiate.

Would it have been a constitutional crisis?  Sure.  Would it have worked?  Probably.

All of which is me saying that just saying "you just had a referendum and lost, there will be no further discussion on the topic" may not be a winning strategy.

I think that the argument will be about the timing rather than a blanket refusal. From Westminster's pov it would be best to have a second Scotland referendum after brexit is complete. Then, at least, the Scots will have a better idea of what they are voting for. If a second referendum is held during the brexit talks it would both complicate matters and allow the SNP to call for a 3rd referendum (in less than 10 years) because "the goalposts have moved".

[Barrister]

I disagree with Otto.  Referendums are a powerful tool that ought to be rarely used, but I think they are the only tool for deciding the really important national and constitutional questions of the day.

The UK's membership in the EU has been contentious for decades.  The issue has hung over PMs and politicians for my entire lifetime.  It seems to me as far back as Thatcher had to struggle with euro-skeptics (and probably further back than that).  A referendum has a tremendous value in "settling" these kinds of questions, if not once and for all, at least for a generation or two (since it's been 40 years since the last EU referendum).

The Scottish situation is really unique because of having two separate, but related referendums within such a short period of time.  Absent Brexit though, I don't think you would have heard a serious peep out of Scotland about independence for a very long time.

[The Larch]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

And so what?

Look, the SNP types have had a lot of contact with the PQ and other Qubec separatists.  In Canada we too have a Supreme Court ruling that Quebec can't unilaterally declare independence - that it would have to be negotiated with the rest of Canada.  But the PQs plan (which was not publicized, but learned of later) was that upon winning a yes vote they would unilaterally declare independence after perfunctory take-it-or-leave-it attempt to negotiate.

Would it have been a constitutional crisis?  Sure.  Would it have worked?  Probably.

All of which is me saying that just saying "you just had a referendum and lost, there will be no further discussion on the topic" may not be a winning strategy.

I think that the argument will be about the timing rather than a blanket refusal. From Westminster's pov it would be best to have a second Scotland referendum after brexit is complete. Then, at least, the Scots will have a better idea of what they are voting for. If a second referendum is held during the brexit talks it would both complicate matters and allow the SNP to call for a 3rd referendum (in less than 10 years) because "the goalposts have moved".

Sturgeon has already said that she'd want to make the 2nd referendum before Brexit takes place (the proposed schedule is apparently between autumn 2018 and spring 2019, right when Brexit would be triggered if Article 50 is activated soon, give or take). I guess their "have their pie and eat it" plan is to propose the EU some kind of "The UK might be leaving the EU, but Scotland wants to inherit its spot", which AFAIK Brussels has already thwarted by saying that they'd have to apply from the beginning and they would not get any special deal.

[Zanza]

The EU has clearly said that they'll only negotiate with the British government, not some regional government like Scotland. Spain for example would never allow that.

[The Larch]

The EU has clearly said that they'll only negotiate with the British government, not some regional government like Scotland. Spain for example would never allow that.

Yes, it's basically the same situation that the Catalonian government wanted, a "we don't need to reapply to the EU because we'd never leave it" argument, that Brussels repeatedly said that it had no basis in reality.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

only if the scots lose.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

only if the scots lose.

The Scots voted to remain in the UK back in 2014 by a 55-45 margin. The SNP lost that vote, the majority of Scots presumably got what they wanted.

[Grey Fox]

and the SNP will ask again until it gets the result it wants.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The EU has clearly said that they'll only negotiate with the British government, not some regional government like Scotland. Spain for example would never allow that.

Yes, it's basically the same situation that the Catalonian government wanted, a "we don't need to reapply to the EU because we'd never leave it" argument, that Brussels repeatedly said that it had no basis in reality.

What Brussels says today may not be what Brussels says tomorrow. As for no basis in reality: given that the situation hasn't happened before Brussels doesn't know how things would go. It's answer is -basically- pandering.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

only if the scots lose.

The Scots voted to remain in the UK back in 2014 by a 55-45 margin. The SNP lost that vote, the majority of Scots presumably got what they wanted.

and then Brexit happened. It's a new world.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I disagree with Otto.  Referendums are a powerful tool that ought to be rarely used, but I think they are the only tool for deciding the really important national and constitutional questions of the day.

I certainly won't defend America's form of government in all matters, but I'll simply note we have never settled our important issues with referendum in America. The decision to break away from Britain was made by a vote of the delegates of the thirteen colonial governments. The decision to draft our first constitution was made by delegates to national congress during the war. The decision to write a new constitution and promulgate it to the states for ratification was taken by the congress. The decision that, in response to the Southern states unilaterally deciding to leave the union, we would wage a war to force their remaining was undertaken by the President with the support of the remaining Congress. A decision, I note, which has made separatism and secession a true joke in the United States, it's only spoken of as a silly fringe idea--it was quite literally settled for all time without any sort of referendum.

The decision to free the slaves was not based on a referendum. That issue is well settled. The decision to insure voting rights and some basic civil rights regardless of race was undertaken by congress, no referendum ever happened.

I'd actually say it's fairly honest that of all the things America's gotten right, the decisions that are least connected to direct democracy hold up better than the ones most connected to direct democracy. For example the election of Trump, albeit based on an electoral college system that weights votes based on States, is essentially a series of fifty-one direct elections for President. If you want to find the most dysfunction at the State government level, you rarely have to look beyond silly referendums that are held and passed, and disastrously constrain the actions of elected legislators.

Indirect democracy certainly has failures, but it's superior in every way to direct democracy.

Since time immemorial Britain has sent MPs to Parliament to make decisions for the whole country. It is strange to me that only in the modern era, when MPs are elected by a broad franchise and held accountable to the public will very unlike they were 200+ years ago, the decision was made to abandon a way of decision making that had worked so well for Britain for so long, and to replace it with one that has worked so poorly everywhere it's ever been used, for so long.

In the United States we've never even entertained the idea of subjecting important government decisions to a referendum. By even accepting it as a legitimate procedure, the Brits have done serious harm to the long-term capacity of Britain to be governable.

I think on secession, the United States is really a model for the world. With our Civil War we established that we are one people, one country, and that it cannot be dissolved by its constituent parts. To me, by even allowing Scottish or Quebec referendums to occur, those countries are essentially conceding they are not a country of one people. Once conceded, that is something that is very hard to undo. It does appear Canada has done better at it than Britain, but it's a dangerous concession to make. Further, the opposite, to say that there is something special about living in Scotland that makes you a materially different type of Britain, is to tacitly accept the early 20th century nationalism, that lead to some of the worst excesses and destructions in human history.

To me then, the only non-nationalist, liberally correct way to break up a country would be for the entire country and the constituent part in question, to agree on a break up. So not only is the Scottish referendum a bad idea, as are all referendums, it's also immoral and out of line with modern liberal values that seek to de-emphasize the dangerous nationalism of the past.