Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

Tory high faluting inner workings is one thing, why people voted for Brexit is another different one.

[Sheilbh]

Tory high faluting inner workings is one thing, why people voted for Brexit is another different one.

Absolutely. And that's always the risk of democracy. Often highly esoteric and narrow questions of policy that government/ministers might want to fix are opened up to a campaign with all of the campaigners, political entrepreneurs like Farage and, ultimately, the people who actually decide what's being voted on.

I think it's up there with Ted Heath deciding to go for an election after strikes forced the UK into a three day week and he wanted a mandate to clamp down on the unions with the slogan "who governs Britain?" and the people decided anyone but him. There's something similar here - Cameron and Osborne wanted to save the City, voters wanted to cut immigration and in offering that choice Cameron and Osborne seriously undermined the City (plus the rest of the British economy).

Edit: And this is something that Cameron and Osborne should've been aware of. They'd absolutely trounced home in the referendum on a narrow change to voting system by changing it from being about the voting system into a referendum on their coalition partner Nick Clegg. Instead of whether AV was a good idea or fairer the key issue became: do you always want the Lib Dems to be the kingmakers? And all sane voters hate the Lib Dems so, obviously, answered no. But on Europe and, in my view, on Scotland they were arrogant and hubristic mistaking being able to beat a Labour government after the biggest financial crisis since the depression, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for genuine political nous/skills

[Josquius]

There's a quote often attributed to Henry Ford, though which is sadly apocryphal, which I often use in my day-job and it really applies to referenda based democracy:
"If I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses".

We elect people specifically because we don't all have the time to be an expert in political happenings. The system delegates that work by design. Referenda ignore this and leave very important decisions in the hands of people who can't all be expected to have the time to do full research into them.

[Sheilbh]

Totally agree. And I think by defnition a referendum clarifies/simplifies a complex issue with lots of trade-offs into a yes/no debate - and the voters may choose to focus on bits of that issue that decision-makers don't want them to. I think Cameron was very arrogant in his ability to win and careless with referendums.

Having said that I think that the consent of the governed matters and if you're proposing a substantial change in that system (such as changing the voting system) you should get that through a referndum rather than it just being for representatives and similarly I think if there are signs that bits of your constitutional settlement no longer have broad support - then I think a referendum is the way to sort of re-consent. I think that's true of the bits of the UK union and I think it was true of EU membership - even though I think Cameron's decision making and campaign was atrocious.

[Tamas]

Totally agree. And I think by defnition a referendum clarifies/simplifies a complex issue with lots of trade-offs into a yes/no debate - and the voters may choose to focus on bits of that issue that decision-makers don't want them to. I think Cameron was very arrogant in his ability to win and careless with referendums.

Having said that I think that the consent of the governed matters and if you're proposing a substantial change in that system (such as changing the voting system) you should get that through a referndum rather than it just being for representatives and similarly I think if there are signs that bits of your constitutional settlement no longer have broad support - then I think a referendum is the way to sort of re-consent. I think that's true of the bits of the UK union and I think it was true of EU membership - even though I think Cameron's decision making and campaign was atrocious.

Fair enough but then the vote should actually settle things. Not a retarded referendum between the status quo and an undefined mass of possibilities. And, if a decision was made, like re. Scottish independence, do not revisit it every 5 years.  And I know circumstances changed etc. but that doesn't matter. Tell me a single year where you couldn't point to something and say "circumstances have now changed, I want out!"

[Admiral Yi]

I find it a little ironic that Squeeze is essentially repeating the argument used by elites in the past to justify their exclusive right to political power (i.e. superior wisdom).  I'm thinking of the Roman Senate and the early days of limited suffrage English parliaments.

Universal suffrage effectively dismissed this claim.

In a universal suffrage system if the voters are stupid and make stupid choices, that's because that's the nature of true democracy.

[Zoupa]

If citizens worked 20 hours a week and had time to devote to delving deep into the issues, with disinformation somehow exterminated then yeah sure true democracy is great.

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough but then the vote should actually settle things. Not a retarded referendum between the status quo and an undefined mass of possibilities. And, if a decision was made, like re. Scottish independence, do not revisit it every 5 years.  And I know circumstances changed etc. but that doesn't matter. Tell me a single year where you couldn't point to something and say "circumstances have now changed, I want out!"

Yeah and I think there is a risk of neverendum. For me I don't particularly think the change in circumstance matters, I think the mandate does. In the 2017 Scottish election the SNP weren't calling for a second referendum, in this election they are - and part of their argument to voters is that circumstances have changed. I don't think we can pretend voters are ignorant or don't know what they're voting for if they now elect an SNP government (with a majority or with other pro-indy parties supporting them). That government might not have a legal mandate to organise a second referendum, but it's clear they have a political mandate and that the consent of the Scottish people to remain in the union is in doubt. So in my view, if they win, there should be a second referendum.

But I think the referendum gives an answer from the voters - it's then for the normal political system to respond to that. It's up to the normal political system to produce possibilities, build coalitions to support them and get public support through an election if possible. In our system if the politicians can't do that then it goes back to the people in an election. The 2017 parliament couldn't resolve the issue - and I genuinely don't know what they would have done if we ended up in the nightmare scenario of either no deal or revoke Article 50. But the 2019 election produced a majority that can - and the voters knew what that would mean when they took their decision.

I find it a little ironic that Squeeze is essentially repeating the argument used by elites in the past to justify their exclusive right to political power (i.e. superior wisdom).  I'm thinking of the Roman Senate and the early days of limited suffrage English parliaments.

There's always been the two arguments - the voters don't know as you say, or that voters can be bought. Women would be incapable of reasoned decision or just won over by their husbands decisions. Or the working class would be like a mob that you could buy. I think they're both nonsense.

I don't support direct democracy on everything like the Swiss, or California occasionally and I think there are loads of technical policy issues that are best decided by representative politics. Although I'm really interested in the way participatory democracy like citizens assemblies can contribute to that process - the example of Ireland has been really interesting and a lot more nuanced than I think people would expect. I think that might be important where there are difficult questions of distribution - for example the politics of climate, or may help inform politicians on moral issues which are free votes in the UK like assisted suicide.

But I think for core parts of the democratic system - like how we vote or who governs us - that a referendum is necessary if you're making a change, or there are signs (for example through repeated elections returning an SNP majority or a Sinn Fein majority in Northern Ireland) that support for that system is being challenged. And I think once voters have made a decision it's up to politicians to implement it and the only way to reverse that decision is another referendum.

[Admiral Yi]

If citizens worked 20 hours a week and had time to devote to delving deep into the issues, with disinformation somehow exterminated then yeah sure true democracy is great.

Which explains why retired people and the unemployed always make such astute political choices. 

[Sheilbh]

If citizens worked 20 hours a week and had time to devote to delving deep into the issues, with disinformation somehow exterminated then yeah sure true democracy is great.

Which explains why retired people and the unemployed always make such astute political choices. 

Or, indeed, politicians

[Admiral Yi]

Yes Shelf, I agree that there are issues that are beyond the scope of the average voter to decide.  But, that doesn't change the fact that in a democracy the voter is sovereign.  So the only way to carve out technocratic exceptions to rule by the collective is to get the collective to agree to it.

[Sheilbh]

Yes Shelf, I agree that there are issues that are beyond the scope of the average voter to decide.  But, that doesn't change the fact that in a democracy the voter is sovereign.  So the only way to carve out technocratic exceptions to rule by the collective is to get the collective to agree to it.

I get that voters are sovereign in theory, but has it ever been true in practice? Isn't the more normal experience that a representative body of some form or other declares itself the sovereign representatives of the people/state and, occasionally, ask if the voters endorse them?

But I agree, I think to carve out a technocratic exception you need a broad consensus across political actors that an area is suited to specific expertise and that there is no ideological clash in that area. The best example of technocratic decision making in the modern world is central banking. In the past it has been contested and it might be again, but for now I think that broad consensus exists in most countries.

It hasn't impacted central banking but I think one of the big things that's happened in British politics in the last 5-6 years with both Corbyn and Johnson is a collapse of consensus to some of the areas that became quite technocratic under New Labour and Cameron. And there were hints in what John McDonnell was talking about that if Corbyn won that might have even gone for the BofE too.

[Josquius]

I find it a little ironic that Squeeze is essentially repeating the argument used by elites in the past to justify their exclusive right to political power (i.e. superior wisdom).  I'm thinking of the Roman Senate and the early days of limited suffrage English parliaments.

Universal suffrage effectively dismissed this claim.

In a universal suffrage system if the voters are stupid and make stupid choices, that's because that's the nature of true democracy.

Well yes. It could be taken to that extreme of the people don't even know enough to decide who they want to be in charge.
But that's taking it to clear extremes. Real life lies in a balance. Complete and total democracy in the anarchist sense is a bad thing, total autocracy is also a bad thing.
The sweet spot lies in the middle with specialist representatives who are elected to grasp the complicated ins and outs towards the simplified ends they presented in the election.

[Admiral Yi]

Well yes. It could be taken to that extreme of the people don't even know enough to decide who they want to be in charge.
But that's taking it to clear extremes. Real life lies in a balance. Complete and total democracy in the anarchist sense is a bad thing, total autocracy is also a bad thing.
The sweet spot lies in the middle with specialist representatives who are elected to grasp the complicated ins and outs towards the simplified ends they presented in the election.

And who has the authority to decide if we reach this blissful balance or not?

[Valmy]

I have already spoken a bit on the dangers of having the sovereign directly make the calls. If a king is sovereign then he needs to have ministers he can fire if his policies do not work. Likewise a sovereign population needs to have politicians they can fire if a decision, even a popular one, turns out to be the wrong call. If the people are continually making the calls, and the calls are bad, then it weakens their position as a sovereign. Maybe people might start thinking that the people are unfit to rule themselves, who knows what might come next? Hence why I think Republicanism is a stronger system. The representatives take the fall.

Just like the good God appointed Tsar being betrayed by his corrupt ministers kind of falls flat when the Tsar is seen to be directly doing the fucking up.

And likewise I have mixed feelings on the tradition of having decisions reached by the elected officials being signed off on by referendum because why did we elect these people in the first place if they are not allowed to make decisions? But on the other hand it does make voters aware of what stupid decisions their elected representatives are making so it does have a positive role to play.

So we get "Brexit means Brexit" even when the policy is having problems, because since the sovereign decided it takes on a dangerous irreversible momentum no matter how bad the decision was which points to the danger of over-using it.