Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Iormlund]

Yeah. There's purposeful tax evasion for sure, and less about not wanting to pay for private health care and more wanting to keep the nhs.

Though in large part I would be wary of attributing malice when ignorance works.
When I was in Sweden for 2 years I don't think I officially registered. Its just not something I was aware you had to do, we don't do that in the UK.
When I moved to Switzerland much later I had no idea how the health care system worked and that I had to pay for private insurance and there was no way out. I was working so I had to fit into the system but if I was just living off my savings... Then very believable I would not have registered if I could because there's just no awareness that this is necessary amongst Brits.

Google exists. It took me like 10 minutes to find out I had to do the Anmeldung and join a Krankenkasse.

[HVC]

would you think to even google it if this conversation didn't come up?

now people should be smart enough to look into matters when they move. However, people are rarely smart.

[Sheilbh]

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.

There were two elections when momentum could have been reversed. The result was the biggest landslide for the Tories in over 30 years and a government that was committed to hard Brexit or no deal. Voters had chances to reverse course and chose not to. So it doesn't matter whether it's a good or a bad policy, or whether it has issues or not - it's what the electorate have decided.

Edit: And I'd add having lived through the 2017 parliament and Theresa May's government the phrase that first comes to mind is not "dangerous irreversible momentum"

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.

I agree - I think that's what elections are for. Do you want four more years, or kick the bums out? And within that there's an ideological argument of what priorities or values voters want guiding government.

Generally I think referendums should only be for the relatively core parts of a system - how we vote, who governs us etc.

[Iormlund]

would you think to even google it if this conversation didn't come up?

I did google it before I moved to Germany.

There's even a EU portal called EURES where you can get advice on living/working in any EU country (also look for jobs, etc).

[Valmy]

There were two elections when momentum could have been reversed.

It was unlikely to be reversed because it gained this kind of legitimacy that only the blessing of the sovereign can bestow. The people pointing out the failures of the policy kind of looked like assholes, like they are challenging the entire democratic legitimacy of the system. Suddenly it is not just about disagreements about policy.

Brexit may not be the best example, but since this thread is about Brexit and all

[celedhring]

Personally I think political actors should avoid putting divisive issues up for referendum, and try instead working out compromises. Referenda should be used to confirm core constitutional changes after they have the approval of a majority of political actors. I.e. pass constitutional reforms with ample majorities.

But it's usually easier to punt on the responsibility and pass it to voters, I guess. And we don't live in times for compromise.

[Sheilbh]

It was unlikely to be reversed because it gained this kind of legitimacy that only the blessing of the sovereign can bestow. The people pointing out the failures of the policy kind of looked like assholes, like they are challenging the entire democratic legitimacy of the system. Suddenly it is not just about disagreements about policy.

Brexit may not be the best example, but since this thread is about Brexit and all

But isn't the response to that: Scotland?

The UK has had the politics of two referendums for the last 7 years. In one the losers were utterly beaten, in the other the losers are possibly going to get another go. A large part of that, I'd argue, is because Nicola Sturgeon is better at politics than all the Remainers/People's Vote lot put together (and in terms of Brexit Nicola Sturgeon's aim is not necessarily to stop Brexit, it is to enhance support for Scottish independence). She built the coalition, made the argument and won people to the idea of a second referendum despite the sovereign. The opponents to Brexit - for various reasons in this thread - failed to do that.

I do think that there was no way parliament could overrule the referendum - the Lib Dems ended up supporting revoking Article 50 without a second referendum. But, in my experience, even the most ardent remainers were very uncomfortable with that.

Personally I think political actors should avoid putting divisive issues up for referendum, and try instead working out compromises. Referenda should be used to confirm core constitutional changes after they have the approval of a majority of political actors. I.e. pass constitutional reforms with ample majorities.

See I'd say if there's a change that has the approval of a majority of political actors there's no need to go for a referendum

[Zanza]

I can think of two referendums I participated in.

One was in the late 90s on a reform of German grammar and orthography. It was rejected in Syt's and my home state (I voted for the new rules). Which was utterly ridiculous because the rest of Germany as well as Switzerland and Austria had decided to introduce it. The referendum was overruled a year later by the state parliament. 

The other referendum was on a very big infrastructure project in my state. That one was clear enough to actually just vote yes or no. I voted in favour and my side won. It actually pacified the situation.

[Admiral Yi]

Ballot initiatives are de facto referenda.  There's almost always one on the Iowa ballot and I think I've voted no to every one.

The last one was about convening a Constitutional Convention.  Bone headed.

[celedhring]

Never voted on any referendum.

There was the NATO membership referendum in 1986, but I was too young to vote ofc. We have some referendums at the local level - mostly city councils asking citizens about infrastructure projects - but never in a town where I've lived in. Personally I see these as a way for councils to avoid having to own up to their decisions...

Then there's the "other" referendums, but I didn't vote on those 

[Valmy]

Ballot initiatives are de facto referenda.  There's almost always one on the Iowa ballot and I think I've voted no to every one.

The last one was about convening a Constitutional Convention.  Bone headed.

Yeah we have them all the damn time in Texas. "Should your municipality take out a bond to build this new park?" How exactly am I supposed to make this call without all the context that went into that decision?

I usually vote yes since I have always been in a rapidly growing community that always needs new infrastructure and voting no rarely leads to better ideas being introduced by the city council

Usually just a few years later: "are you sure you don't want this? Because we think you want this." OK FINE why did you bother asking us in the first place?

[Sheilbh]

Voted in two - alternative vote and Brexit (lost both). But in my lifetime there's been those two plus the Good Friday Agreement referendum and the devolution referendums (including the North-East's Regional Assembly). And the various local referendums on mayors and council tax rises (awful Cameron-Osborne reform ).

I do not like policy referendums or ballot initiatives at all

[Syt]

Since I've moved to Austria there's been one nationwide referendum IIRC: whether mandatory military service should be maintained or abolished. The populace voted in favor of maintaining it.

Vienna has had a few non-binding votes on a few issues, e.g. whether the subway should run 24 hours on weekends and before public holidays (yes), whether there should be a an city toll for cars (no), whether Vienna should try to apply for the 2028 Olympics (no), whether utility companies should be protected from privatization (yes), etc. Usually pretty straightforward topics. It's used quite infrequently (1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 1991, 2010, 2013). Usually there's a couple of questions on the ballot. However, turnout is consistently under 50% for these.

[Admiral Yi]

There was a pretty big one back in the 30s. 

[Sheilbh]

So Johnson announced that the Novavax vaccine (I think with MHRA right now) will be finished in the "North-East of England".

Journalists are now pointing out where in the North-East:


This is definitely one of those things that feels like the writers have gone too far