Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Syt]

Question to Brits: who (when?) was the last PM that was widely respected in the population?

[The Minsky Moment]

British Prime Ministers are so envious of the prestige of US presidents, their motorcades, airforce1 and all the bling of power 

What they don't realize is that American Presidents envy them for their at least theoretical control over a unitary legislature.  You can bet Joe Biden would be willing to give up some motorcade escorts for that.

[Josquius]

Question to Brits: who (when?) was the last PM that was widely respected in the population?

The first few years of Blair I guess.

[Richard Hakluyt]

British Prime Ministers are so envious of the prestige of US presidents, their motorcades, airforce1 and all the bling of power 

What they don't realize is that American Presidents envy them for their at least theoretical control over a unitary legislature.  You can bet Joe Biden would be willing to give up some motorcade escorts for that.

I think this why reform of the House of Lords never works. One obvious reform would be for "Lords" to be elected via proportional representation as a counter-balance to the first-past-the-post Commons. But if they did that then the Lords would have democratic validity and there would never, or hardly ever, be a government majority there. So Blair got rid of most the hereditary peers and replaced them with crony appointments, the Lords thus carry on being toothless; amazingly they actually often manage to do good work, but that may be due to their lack of power so only public-spirited Lords take the trouble to attend and work.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf when you say that the UK isn't sovereign over Northern Ireland you come across as having brexiteer brainworms.

I'm really surprised it's controversial - I mean, I don't particularly care/fetishise sovereignty. States limit their sovereignty all the time and, in the EU, pool their sovereignty in exchange for more power. You know, in global trade negotiations, the EU is a sovereign in a way that, say, Belgium isn't. Similarly Eurozone countries do not have sovereignty over monetary policy.

And in Northern Ireland in particular it's complex and there are multiple overlapping sovereignties, which the EU is definitely part of (though may not have realised that when it signed up to the Northern Ireland Protocol ).

If he leaves before Christmas,  he can blame all issues that occur after the end of the Brexit transition period on others and claim that Brexit would have been a success if it just had been done right. Similar to people like Farage, Hannan etc.

Yes. Although he was actually in a position in power. Farage wasn't - he's never been an MP and his parties have only ever had 2 MPs, and Hannan was a fringe MEP.

In part this is why I kind of respect Gove - he stayed in government, he argued for May's deal because it was achieving Brexit which would always mean compromise etc. He's one of the few who's been willing to own the campaign and the implementation.

Or he comes back as senior advisor for PM Gove next year...

Tory MPs and cabinet minister hate Cummings and he basically thinks they're all useless and thick as mince. I don't see a way back even under Gove. I think in large part it probably reflects Johnson's power - when he was elected as leader, then won a big majority he could ignore the opinion of the MPs and the cabinet, but now his poll ratings have fallen and he might cost them seats so he has to listen.

I think this why reform of the House of Lords never works. One obvious reform would be for "Lords" to be elected via proportional representation as a counter-balance to the first-past-the-post Commons. But if they did that then the Lords would have democratic validity and there would never, or hardly ever, be a government majority there. So Blair got rid of most the hereditary peers and replaced them with crony appointments, the Lords thus carry on being toothless; amazingly they actually often manage to do good work, but that may be due to their lack of power so only public-spirited Lords take the trouble to attend and work.

Yeah the Lords are pretty good at the things they do. I know someone who was invited to brief some Lords on some fairly technical legislation and he was very impressed at how much of the detail they knew and understood.

And they do have power if governments don't have a democratic mandate for legislation. So I think the contentious clauses in the IMB won't get passed because that wasn't in the Tory manifesto, so they can't force it through with the Parliament Act.

Question to Brits: who (when?) was the last PM that was widely respected in the population?

For a prolonged period, I'd say Blair. I think Brown was widely respected at the peak of the financial crisis because that was very much within his skillset. I think there was general public support/respect for the government during the early phases of covid but that has dissipated.

But the wider context for this is it's very rare for governments to have net satisfaction in the UK (this only goes up to 2019, but the picture for 2020 isn't that different):

[Threviel]

I don't think you define sovereignty the same way.

For me, an organization is sovereign over an area when it has the last say. So, for example, Belgium is fully sovereign over its trade policies, it's just that it has to leave the EU to act on its own. Belgium has decided to let the EU handle its trade policies, but it can at any time decide to leave the EU and there's nothing the EU can do about that.

The UK is fully sovereign over NI. It has made treaties limiting what happens in NI, but the UK can, at any time, decide to break those treaties.

The EU is fully sovereign in its reaction to what the UK does in NI, but it has no, none what so ever, sovereignty over NI itself.

[Josquius]

British Prime Ministers are so envious of the prestige of US presidents, their motorcades, airforce1 and all the bling of power 

What they don't realize is that American Presidents envy them for their at least theoretical control over a unitary legislature.  You can bet Joe Biden would be willing to give up some motorcade escorts for that.

I think this why reform of the House of Lords never works. One obvious reform would be for "Lords" to be elected via proportional representation as a counter-balance to the first-past-the-post Commons. But if they did that then the Lords would have democratic validity and there would never, or hardly ever, be a government majority there. So Blair got rid of most the hereditary peers and replaced them with crony appointments, the Lords thus carry on being toothless; amazingly they actually often manage to do good work, but that may be due to their lack of power so only public-spirited Lords take the trouble to attend and work.

I've thought of a hybrid here. Something like PR of course, perhaps on a regional level. One term only, terms last some ridiculously long time like 10-20 years. 1/4 of the lords seats voted on at once.
Oh, and of course elections are ran like before the 70s with no party names mentioned on the paper.
I wonder on top of this though whether we could copy Hong Kong a bit/go back to the old days and have some university seats, doctor seats, etc...

[The Brain]

I'm really surprised it's controversial - I mean, I don't particularly care/fetishise sovereignty. States limit their sovereignty all the time and, in the EU, pool their sovereignty in exchange for more power. You know, in global trade negotiations, the EU is a sovereign in a way that, say, Belgium isn't. Similarly Eurozone countries do not have sovereignty over monetary policy.

The conventional view is that soveriegnty isn't limited by a country signing agreements. You are still sovereign. It's certainly the case in Sweden, an EU member. The Swedish constitution unequivocally puts the Swedish people as the fount of all political power.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah maybe. I'm using it to describe the state of things as they are, not a possibility that could be based on the residual powers of the state.

For me I'd say states cooperating for example in the UN are limiting their sovereignty, in the same way as individuals deciding to enter into a contract - like a group of homeowners - that limits their behaviour are limiting their sovereignty.

The EU is still unique because it creates and enforces laws (and - as I say - on the international stage in trade negotiations and certain bits of anti-trust the EU is a sovereign like China or the US, that's part of its strength) so to my mind the EU is itself a sovereign made up of the surrendered/pooled bits of sovereignty of member states. The fact that it's voluntary doesn't change that it's a law making and enforcing body that negotiates with other sovereigns (in certain areas). In a similar way to individuals and the state, we give up bits of our sovereignty and let the state decide/act for us. I don't think sovereignty is a great thing that we should be trying to attain or fetishising because ultimately if we're fully sovereign breaking the limits on our sovereignty, then chances are so is everyone else and we're not very big.

In theory all states could assert their sovereignty at any moment - the war of all against all - but they don't. I'd argue, say, Syria or Russia are more sovereign in that respect but I'm not sure it's worth it (in the same way as within a state it's not worth it). So even though the UK leaves the EU, or Belgium could, they leave in accordance with the laws and rules of the EU (Article 50). All member states could abandon the limits of the UN and settle territorial disputes by force like the 17th/18th century world, but they don't because they have reduced the scope of their sovereignty.

In Northern Ireland there is a role for Ireland through North-South cooperation, there is a strong role for the UK government on non-devolved matters and especially if powersharing collapses, there is a role for the Northern Ireland Executive, there is a role for the EU - but, ultimately, (unlike the rest of the UK) sovereignty rests with the people of Northern Ireland in whether they will be in the UK or not. And on that point it's worth noting the alternatives for Northern Ireland involve the EU. It will either be: a part of the UK (with the Northern Ireland Protocol), or a part of the Republic (like German reunification). So whatever decision the people make the EU will be involved in Northern Ireland.

[Sheilbh]

On Cummings people on Twitter noting that he'll leave be leaving as he said he would in his blogpost, that he would make himself redundant by January:

[The Larch]

Sheilbh, by your definition I feel there wouldn't be a single fully sovereign state in the whole world, as every country enters into international treaties, agreements, conventions, etc.

[Threviel]

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to doing so.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

I would argue that the UK has supreme legitimate authority over NI and that it has the legal right to that both de facto and de jure.

All external factors that seemingly limits that has been agreed to by the UK as the sovereign actor.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, by your definition I feel there wouldn't be a single fully sovereign state in the whole world, as every country enters into international treaties, agreements, conventions, etc.

Yeah - I think the most sovereign state in the world is probably North Korea. It's not a good thing in the same way as the most sovereign individual is probably in some country utterly broken by civil war - a warlord is sovereign in a way that I'm not. I wouldn't change places at all.

Modern states do not have the sort of absolute, untrammelled sovereignty that states did in the 17th - early 20th century. It isn't that they're better, it is that in various ways - democratic politics, checks and balances within a constitution, human rights laws, international agreements, pooled sovereignty like the EU - we have limited and constrained their sovereignty.

[The Larch]

Sheilbh, by your definition I feel there wouldn't be a single fully sovereign state in the whole world, as every country enters into international treaties, agreements, conventions, etc.

Yeah - I think the most sovereign state in the world is probably North Korea. It's not a good thing in the same way as the most sovereign individual is probably in some country utterly broken by civil war - a warlord is sovereign in a way that I'm not. I wouldn't change places at all.

Modern states do not have the sort of absolute, untrammelled sovereignty that states did in the 17th - early 20th century. It isn't that they're better, it is that in various ways - democratic politics, checks and balances within a constitution, human rights laws, international agreements, pooled sovereignty like the EU - we have limited and constrained their sovereignty.

Ok then, so we can agree that your definition is not really useful for our current discussion then. 

[Threviel]

Very few, if any, states have absolute sovereignty, so in that sense you are correct.

The UK has exclusive sovereignty on the other hand,