Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

There are oceans of ignorance concerning all such matters; which is why people should not be asked difficult questions via a referendum.

I'm not sure. Like I think it's complicated and difficult, in much the same way that untangling the union will be complicated and difficult.

But I think there is a case that actually being in the EU or the UK relies on the consent of the people (eveon though this is only formally acknowledged in relation to Northern Ireland). It seems like something where that consent needs to be checked every now and then, especially if the situation changes. I think there's an obligation on politicians and others to explain these issues so people can make informed decisions, which didn't happen (and hadn't happened for many years). But I think that was the issue not asking the question. And if people withdraw their consent to a layer of government governing them, then that's fine and it needs to happen.

I certainly don't think it's worse than, say, a referendum on the European Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty. But I think there should have been a two stage process of establishing the principle of consent by the people, then politicians work to develop options and return to the people rather than going through Parliament and elections (even if that's how our system is meant to work).

Yeah but then let's add in realism about politics. There will always be politicians/sides who are skewing the information put out there, muddying the waters so to speak.

As such, you are very rarely, if ever, have a situation where the populace can make an informed decision. And if they are only getting biased information, it seems a failing to allow them to have such a direct voice.

[Barrister]

Yeah but then let's add in realism about politics. There will always be politicians/sides who are skewing the information put out there, muddying the waters so to speak.

As such, you are very rarely, if ever, have a situation where the populace can make an informed decision. And if they are only getting biased information, it seems a failing to allow them to have such a direct voice.

You could use that argument against even our representative democracy.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I suppose I could get behind the idea of a referendum if we had avoided the idea of a simple majority to determine an irrevocable change. I fear for Scotland, for example, if they leave in a future referendum that the nationalists win with a tiny majority of those who voted. The results will be harsh, far harsher than the UK leaving the EU, and the country hopelessly divided...it will be miserable.

[garbon]

Yeah but then let's add in realism about politics. There will always be politicians/sides who are skewing the information put out there, muddying the waters so to speak.

As such, you are very rarely, if ever, have a situation where the populace can make an informed decision. And if they are only getting biased information, it seems a failing to allow them to have such a direct voice.

You could use that argument against even our representative democracy.

I guess but I'd say it makes sense that people have the choice of electing representatives who are better informed about handling such matters.

[Sheilbh]

I agree about the politicians and those referendums will never be perfect. But that's an argument against democracy that applies to elections too. We have to accept that risk and, I'd say, it's often on other politicians to make the case. Lot's of people point to the lies by the leave side and that they had circulated for 25 years by the time of the referendum - and that was an issue. But I think the bigger issue was no-one was making a positive case for Europe for those 25 years. There were loads of politicians who supported Europe but when they spoke about it it was grudgingly or against their better instincts, so we never had people spelling out and explaining the benefits.

It'd be like if all the unionist parties in Scotland spent all of their time basically saying that the union isn't that great and doesn't really deliver benefits for Scotland, but it's probably worth keeping on balance just out of small-c conservatism, and then acting surprised if the SNP won. The only actively pro-EU politicians I can think of are the Lib Dems (who wanted a referendum to settle the issue) and Tony Blair from, say 97-2001.

But I think the principle of consent to being governed or in a political structure is really important. The UK can't and shouldn't force a people who don't want to be part of the union to stay and the same goes for the EU. These are democratic institutions.

[Valmy]

Yeah but then let's add in realism about politics. There will always be politicians/sides who are skewing the information put out there, muddying the waters so to speak.

As such, you are very rarely, if ever, have a situation where the populace can make an informed decision. And if they are only getting biased information, it seems a failing to allow them to have such a direct voice.

You could use that argument against even our representative democracy.

Sure. But that is different. If something is a shitty idea you just fire the representatives and get new ones.

If you have a referendum and it is a shitty idea well nothing you can do. The soveriegn power has spoken. Having the sovereign make the decisions is always tricky. Electing representatives you can blame for any failures is better. Sort of like why Kings appoint ministers they can fire when things go wrong.

[garbon]

Yeah but then let's add in realism about politics. There will always be politicians/sides who are skewing the information put out there, muddying the waters so to speak.

As such, you are very rarely, if ever, have a situation where the populace can make an informed decision. And if they are only getting biased information, it seems a failing to allow them to have such a direct voice.

You could use that argument against even our representative democracy.

Sure. But that is different. If something is a shitty idea you just fire the representatives and get new ones.

If you have a referendum and it is a shitty idea well nothing you can do. The soveriegn power has spoken. Having the sovereign make the decisions is always tricky. Electing representatives you can blame for any failures is better. Sort of like why Kings appoint ministers they can fire when things go wrong.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose I could get behind the idea of a referendum if we had avoided the idea of a simple majority to determine an irrevocable change. I fear for Scotland, for example, if they leave in a future referendum that the nationalists win with a tiny majority of those who voted. The results will be harsh, far harsher than the UK leaving the EU, and the country hopelessly divided...it will be miserable.

But again the issue I have with super-majorities what's the basis for us keeping people in a political institution, without their consent. I mean maybe there's a Burkean small-c conservative argument in favour of instutitons and requiring overwhelming votes for radical change to those institutions.

But to look at Scotland - and I don't think it'll be that close - but if 51% vote Yes, I don't see how we can legitimately force those people, who are a majority, to stay in a union they reject. Even though, as you say it will be far harsher than leaving the EU (especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

[Zanza]

(especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

In an amicable split between UK and Scotland, they could agree on a transition, where an independent Scotland stays with the British economic area and jurisdiction until it has agreed terms for joining the EU. A bit like the Irish Free State.

[The Brain]

(especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

In an amicable split between UK and Scotland, they could agree on a transition, where an independent Scotland stays with the British economic area and jurisdiction until it has agreed terms for joining the EU. A bit like the Irish Free State.

Just the thought of negotiating with the UK would keep most people from leaving it.

[Valmy]

(especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

In an amicable split between UK and Scotland, they could agree on a transition, where an independent Scotland stays with the British economic area and jurisdiction until it has agreed terms for joining the EU. A bit like the Irish Free State.

Yeah if everybody acts like adults and calmly considers what is in their best interests. But just as the UK and the EU and the UK and Irish Free State it will not happen like this and you know it.

[Sheilbh]

(especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

In an amicable split between UK and Scotland, they could agree on a transition, where an independent Scotland stays with the British economic area and jurisdiction until it has agreed terms for joining the EU. A bit like the Irish Free State.

Possibly - I could see something like that working on issues of trade and regulations. Obviously there'd still be lots of other big issues - allocating national debt, carving up the national bits of the welfare system like pensions, currency, defence etc. The SNP do the Brexiter thing of waving away the complications and basically saying, for example, the Bank of England will have no issue with Scotland continuing to use sterling etc. But I hope serious people in Westminster and Holyrood are thinking about it because I think it's coming.

It's one of those weird things where I think if we were in the EU it is easier for Scotland to leave the union (except for Spain) because we can avoid certain issues by having the same rules anyway - like Northern Ireland and the South. Having left the EU it will be more difficult because all of those issues will need resolving and they'll also need to joine the EU separately (subject to Spain ). But leaving the EU makes it more likely that Scotland will leave the union.

[Josquius]

My big concern with Scottish independence is who will get to be Scottish.
Loads of people who you'd never argue aren't actually Scottish but are living outside the country, likewise folk like me who plan to nip across the border and rent a shack for the passport if possible.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I suppose I could get behind the idea of a referendum if we had avoided the idea of a simple majority to determine an irrevocable change. I fear for Scotland, for example, if they leave in a future referendum that the nationalists win with a tiny majority of those who voted. The results will be harsh, far harsher than the UK leaving the EU, and the country hopelessly divided...it will be miserable.

But again the issue I have with super-majorities what's the basis for us keeping people in a political institution, without their consent. I mean maybe there's a Burkean small-c conservative argument in favour of instutitons and requiring overwhelming votes for radical change to those institutions.

But to look at Scotland - and I don't think it'll be that close - but if 51% vote Yes, I don't see how we can legitimately force those people, who are a majority, to stay in a union they reject. Even though, as you say it will be far harsher than leaving the EU (especially when Scotland won't be in the EU when they leave the union).

The problem I have here is that the Union is 313 years old and I don't want to see it overturned, irrevocably, by a transient and small lead by nationalists. In a general election we just lose for the next five years (at most); if the electorate have made a mistake they get to put it right next time. But with things like EU membership or the Union there is no next time.

[Zanza]

Spain has publicly stated that they have no qualms about an independent Scotland joining.