Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[OttoVonBismarck]

I find these opinions troubling and naive, and I would suggest that such naivety directly explains much of Britain's current troubles if this naivety is a national norm.

One of the founding principles of the American constitution is that people are prone to flights of stupid passion, and that a political system should be insulated from that. The U.S. system is not a perfect system, but most democratic countries in the world have at least some level of insulation between government decision making and the stupidest flash in the pan opinion of a mob. At small group levels, flashes of stupid decision making are easier and more like to emerge than on a national level.

The Westminster system has some of the least safeguards as is against flights of irrationality in the electorate, but its one main bulwark has just been that to get some crazy ass thing done you need to actually win a majority in Parliament, which represents a number of elections all over the country. Removing even that minimal barrier is going to have a very predictable result, and it isn't good governance. The Brexit campaign itself shows the folly involved, a major decision committed to after a campaign filled with misinformation agents spreading propaganda, that won on a bare majority, and that had significant evidence of most of the country being opposed to it not long after the die was cast due to lack of taking the vote seriously.

There are larger principles at play than pure democracy, good governance is also a virtuous principle. If we let Rhode Island vote every year on whether to leave the United States, it certainly would have left by now. That doesn't mean that is a virtuous, or even particularly just outcome. Leaving a united country is a big decision, that permanently binds all people involved to the consequence forever in the future. Making it subject to fits of stupidity is, itself, a fit of stupidity.

[The Brain]

Is anyone in the UK arguing for making referenda legally binding? Or are we still talking about non-binding ones?

[Tamas]

Is anyone in the UK arguing for making referenda legally binding? Or are we still talking about non-binding ones?

The Brexit one was non-binding, won only on 2% (which means, what, 1.5% of the population, probably less?), yet nobody in or near government for a moment brought up the idea of not leaving the EU.

I fully agree with Otto it's a silly way of doing things and continuing this way will lead to ruin.

[Sheilbh]

I find these opinions troubling and naive, and I would suggest that such naivety directly explains much of Britain's current troubles if this naivety is a national norm.

One of the founding principles of the American constitution is that people are prone to flights of stupid passion, and that a political system should be insulated from that. The U.S. system is not a perfect system, but most democratic countries in the world have at least some level of insulation between government decision making and the stupidest flash in the pan opinion of a mob. At small group levels, flashes of stupid decision making are easier and more like to emerge than on a national level.

There are larger principles at play than pure democracy, good governance is also a virtuous principle. If we let Rhode Island vote every year on whether to leave the United States, it certainly would have left by now. That doesn't mean that is a virtuous, or even particularly just outcome. Leaving a united country is a big decision, that permanently binds all people involved to the consequence forever in the future. Making it subject to fits of stupidity is, itself, a fit of stupidity.

I think it is a national norm. Only around 50% of English people have an opinion Scottish or Welsh independence (we want them to stay); 35% think it's basically just a decision for them which English people shouldn't really have an opinion on - though most would be sad if Scotland left. Over 50% of all nations of the UK think Scotland should have an independence referndum and only 40% think the government should block that - because it's clearly an issue in Scotland and it's for them to decide. I don't think anyone wants to enforce the United Kingdom on a nation against its will and this is a positive shift from the British attitude and position in the 19th/early 20th century when they did that. We are a voluntary union and there is no strong anti-Scottish independence movement or politics in England, though there is an anti-SNP sentiment (which is more that if they were in a coalition in Westminster they'd be trying to get loads of special deals for Scotland - which is true and what they should be trying to do ).

And I think if you accept that there is a right to ask the question, then you're faced with who should make that decision. My view is that for something so fundamentally and such a big decision - it has to be the voters directly who make that decision. They should have their say on the core question and then let the elected politicians work out how to implement that and if, as in 2017-19, the elected politicians can't do that then you go to the voters again and ask them to resolve the question through an election - which they did in 2019. And I think that is a core difference with the US approach - gridlock in our system is what happens when it's broken down and the solution is to go to the voters so they can break the gridlock (especially after the Parliament Bills, so the Lords can't block a bill which the Commons passes if the government promised that bill in their manifesto). While that is built in to the US system, largely as a protection of minority interests but also as you say as a sort of cooling mechanism. I think the US system has that distrust of the majority and the risk of mob rule built in, I think the UK system is almost the opposite - it is strongly majoritarian especially with the decline of the monarch as an actor and then the Lords.

I'd add that from a legal perspective there is a strain of judgements by Scots law judges that states the Westminster parliament is not sovereign in Scotland because parliamentary sovereignty is a uniquely English constitutional concept - and the Westminster parliament cannot amend core provisions of the Act of Union. It's not developed because it's almost always obiter but their basic point is parliaments in Scotland and England voted on the Act of Union so it is not within the gift of Westminster to amend the terms on which Scotland entered the union (for example to start meddling with the Church of Scotland). In theory I suppose you'd need to establish and vote for a Scottish parliament that was a successor of the 1707 one to amend (or repeal) the Act of Union. I think having a referendum is an alternative way of addressing that.

I don't think there is a permanent standing right to an annual independence referendum - but I think if the terms of the union have changes (like Brexit) or there's clear support for independence - then it's appropriate to ask the question. And the point is that it isn't just about the principles of pure democracy but of consent of the governed (which I think has particular resonances within Scottish political culture because of the Declaration of Arbroath and the Covenant and these assertions - against an English King and a Scottish King of Scottish withdrawal of their consent to their government). So for me I think the time you ask the question is when that consent is in doubt, or if the terms on which they're governed are fundamentally changing.

Is anyone in the UK arguing for making referenda legally binding? Or are we still talking about non-binding ones?

They'd all be legally non-binding, but politically binding just like Brexit - and that's just partly the old theory that parliament has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and [...] that no person or body is recognised by the law of England [very Victorian] as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament". But also you're not asking people about a policy manifesto - that's what elections are for - and because there's a left and a right version of Brexit/independence and of remaining in the EU or UK and the referendum doesn't answer that question.

My view is a referendum is to get an answer to a single point of principle that is so important that it goes to how the system works and shouldn't be left to parliament: independence, Brexit, devolution. Basically questions of who has the right to make political decisions about me/us? I'm not a fan of Californian or Swiss style systems - but they're absolutely fine and appropriate and the political culture there.

The Brexit one was non-binding, won only on 2% (which means, what, 1.5% of the population, probably less?), yet nobody in or near government for a moment brought up the idea of not leaving the EU.

That's what I mean by a result being politically binding - I think if all sides accept that a referendum is legitimate - like Brexit or IndyRef 1 - then they are bound by the results.

And to my mind the only legitimate way you could not leave the EU would be to either win an election on an explicit promise to ignore the referendum/stay in the EU (the Lib Dems in 2019) or through a second referendum. That's what I mean by using a refendum to settle the principle of the issue, but it's then up to normal politics to make that real.

This was always the crisis of the 2017 parliament - that they might end up in a position through their own votes where they would have to choose between staying and rejecting the referendum or crashing out of the EU with no deal at all. I genuinely don't know which way that would have done - either option would have been incredibly chaotic.

[Tamas]

And I think if you accept that there is a right to ask the question, then you're faced with who should make that decision. My view is that for something so fundamentally and such a big decision

The question was asked a mere 6 years ago.

[Sheilbh]

The question was asked a mere 6 years ago.

And in that time the UK has left the European Union. That's a fundamental shift from Scotland's position in the union in 2014 - I get the government disagrees and I don't think their "settled will" approach is without merit - but to me leaving the EU is a huge change.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm actually not against secession as a fundamental concept, I'm against secession by 50+1 referendum and I am against secession being treated like nothing more than any other bill in Parliament. This applies to the United States as well. I actually of course support Lincoln's position which lead him to use force to keep the South in the Union, but I am not actually opposed to secession as a broad constitutional concept, but I do think it needs to be very clearly established how it should happen and with serious procedural steps involved such that someone dumping $5bn in advertising into it during a down election year or whatever can't sneak off with the state of California and make it into its own country.

While we don't need to go into deep specifics, I think multiple things have to be considered. For example imagine a hypothetical Texas secession:

1. I would want the will of the Texas people clearly understood. To me this means 50+1 is not valid, or at the very last, if 50+1 is the standard, it must be demonstrated through a series of such outcomes separated by a couple years in between. A cleaner option is that you use a higher threshold than 50+1.

2. I would want it clearly understood that until a secession is completed, Texans are American citizens, with rights and privileges our government has an obligation to look out for, which must inform the process.

3. As per #2, I would say any geographic blocs or regional areas with "historic identity" that wish to stage a counter-secession referendum during the transition period must be allowed to do so. Meaning if a portion of Texas wants to opt to stay with the United States, it has as much right to do so as Texas does to leave.

4. I would say that America has vital interests in Texas, and legal and fiscal claims to portions of Texas. There must be an appropriate settlement of interests between both parties. That settlement must then be approved by some form of referendum AND the legislature of both Texas and the United States. For example Texas would be required to take with it some pro-rated portion of the national debt, it would be required to make just compensation for any Federal assets in Texas, it would be required to make right various Federal investments made in Texas--for example significant military, NASA, and other Federal interests are in Texas. Texas doesn't just get those, they get the land and they have to pay for it, but the military and scientific assets would be transferred to the United States. There would also need to be a deal on movement, trade, resettlement rights of Americans in Texas who want to move into the United States etc.

[Sheilbh]

I'm actually not against secession as a fundamental concept, I'm against secession by 50+1 referendum and I am against secession being treated like nothing more than any other bill in Parliament. This applies to the United States as well. I actually of course support Lincoln's position which lead him to use force to keep the South in the Union, but I am not actually opposed to secession as a broad constitutional concept, but I do think it needs to be very clearly established how it should happen and with serious procedural steps involved such that someone dumping $5bn in advertising into it during a down election year or whatever can't sneak off with the state of California and make it into its own country.

I agree with this but I think the procedural steps in the UK are set out in law for Northern Ireland as part of the GFA and domestic British law. And in a way the position being adopted by the government is basically to take that legal position and apply it as the rules for when there'll be a referendum in Scotland. So the procedure is that you need a referendum and the condition in Northern Ireland and now Scotland is that there needs to be a clear view that a majority want independence/unification. And, of course, the power to organise a referendum in the UK rests with Westminster so the Scottish government need to convince the UK government to support a referendum (which implies both sides will be bound by the result).

I agree it shouldn't be a flibbertigibbet thing - I think there is something to this line Gove adopted of a referendum only if it is the settled will of voters.

While we don't need to go into deep specifics, I think multiple things have to be considered. For example imagine a hypothetical Texas secession:
1. I would want the will of the Texas people clearly understood. To me this means 50+1 is not valid, or at the very last, if 50+1 is the standard, it must be demonstrated through a series of such outcomes separated by a couple years in between. A cleaner option is that you use a higher threshold than 50+1.

2. I would want it clearly understood that until a secession is completed, Texans are American citizens, with rights and privileges our government has an obligation to look out for, which must inform the process.

I disagree with a super-majority in any context but totally agree on the second point.

3. As per #2, I would say any geographic blocs or regional areas with "historic identity" that wish to stage a counter-secession referendum during the transition period must be allowed to do so. Meaning if a portion of Texas wants to opt to stay with the United States, it has as much right to do so as Texas does to leave.

I've got no issue with this - but it doesn't really apply to any of the nations in the UK - arguably the UK helped create an "historic identity" in Northern Ireland precisely through a counter-secessionary movement (that transitioned from being about Irish unionists to a Northern Irish unionist identity).

4. I would say that America has vital interests in Texas, and legal and fiscal claims to portions of Texas. There must be an appropriate settlement of interests between both parties. That settlement must then be approved by some form of referendum AND the legislature of both Texas and the United States. For example Texas would be required to take with it some pro-rated portion of the national debt, it would be required to make just compensation for any Federal assets in Texas, it would be required to make right various Federal investments made in Texas--for example significant military, NASA, and other Federal interests are in Texas. Texas doesn't just get those, they get the land and they have to pay for it, but the military and scientific assets would be transferred to the United States. There would also need to be a deal on movement, trade, resettlement rights of Americans in Texas who want to move into the United States etc.

Oh I totally agree. There is no sense that the day after Scotland votes "yes" it becomes independent. It would be for both governments to then negotiate an independence settlement - covering, as you say, national debt, pensions, defence (especially as the nuclear fleet is based in Scotland), currency, NATO etc.

It would take a few years to reach a settlement and I generally support the idea of a confirmatory referendum - I think there should have been one in Brexit (although it would have been technically impossible because the EU position was it can't negotiate the future relationship until the UK is a third country). No one is talking about Scotland being in the UK the day of a referendum and independent the day after.

[OttoVonBismarck]

At the end of the day being committed to the idea of 50+1 secession is synonymous with being committed to eventual disunion. It's something I could never support in my own country and I find it confusing anyone thinks any country can work that way.

[The Brain]

Secession isn't always about keeping slavery.

[Tamas]

Meanwhile an idea was leaked that there'd be an "amber plus" list where in effect notice would be given on countries which are worsening and thus might be moved to the red list.

Apparently, there was such a Tory outrage over this, that the idea has been canned.

I guess this also means that no country will ever go on the red list now because it would be unpopular.

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile an idea was leaked that there'd be an "amber plus" list where in effect notice would be given on countries which are worsening and thus might be moved to the red list.

Apparently, there was such a Tory outrage over this, that the idea has been canned.

I guess this also means that no country will ever go on the red list now because it would be unpopular.

Where would Amber Plus fit in our clear and easily understandable RAG system of Red, Amber, Green and France Lists?

As interesting is that there was a massive briefing war Johnson and Sunak's teams to take credit for blocking it. According to the Times: "Sunak: Dump travel rules to save holidays"; according to the Telegraph: "PM steps in to save holidays on Continent". Needless to say PM's in a strong position don't normally have this sort of situation on their hands.

Meanwhile the ratings of cabinet ministers from ConservativeHome's surveys (of Tory members so the selectorate for the final run-off):


Blessedly it looks like the risk of Prime Minister Patel has abated for now But I still suspect we'll see a leadership change before 2023/4 because Johnson needs to get back into more private sector earnings - I think a lot of Tory MPs are now ideologically opposed to further restrictions and if that happens I think there'll be a big revolt. I also get the sense that they've realised that all their (accurate) worst fears about Johnson are true and they maybe are starting to outweigh the benefits of his ability to win over voters.

Edit: Oh and of course in his efforts to win back support on the backbenches, the first thing Johnson is going abandon? Apparently planning reform

[Tamas]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/03/call-for-action-as-uk-driver-shortage-hits-supermarket-shelves

I think they have removed it since but in the morning in the article summary, leftist Guardian mentioned that "firms are offering to pay more but that makes things worse".  If you read the article that came from smaller firms blaming Tesco's £1000 signup bonus for making things worse by removing their drivers.

[Sheilbh]

It doesn't! It's from the industry association:

Tesco is among firms that are offering incentives of £1,000 or more to lure HGV drivers to work for it. Rod McKenzie of the Road Haulage Association said firms were offering "big bucks" and signing-on fees to drivers. "This is a real problem because all they are doing is buying talent from somewhere else. They are not creating talent," he said.

"We may be paying them more, which is a good thing, but we need new drivers. My challenge to the companies is: why not spend some money on recruiting and training new drivers?"

So I don't disagree with the second point about those companies spending some money on recruiting/training new drivers - and I think government has a role here. There's clearly demand - I'd offer subsidised or free HGV training courses for anyone who wants it.

But the "big bucks" and "just buying talent from somewhere else" is basically a complaint someone could make about the transition from serfdom to wage labour: "pls - do not tempt our underpaid workers away"

I think one of the huge issues with supply chains in the UK is the incredible and brutal power of the supermarkets - which is part of the reason we pay far below the European average for food. That is the bit that makes my "just pay them more" view difficult because the supermarkets are incredibly powerful and absolutely rinse their suppliers so it will be really difficult to pass costs on to them (and us) at this stage. My view is the supermarkets will treat this as a temporary covid/Brexit pinch point for as long as they can and I don't think they will move commercially on their very aggressive pricing terms until they are basically in a position where the choice is: move on that (allowing higher wages/costs further down the supply chain) or face shortages that will actually cause them business problems.

I think the interesting thing is that I read about hauliers basically running a list of supermarkets by preference based on how flexible they're being around some issues - so especially key is if the supermarket is sticking to their terms on late deliveries and charging hauliers or deducting from their fees for late deliveries. I think I read that Lidl is the least popular and having issues getting hauliers to do their jobs because they will not move on their ability to deduct/charge for late deliveries.

[The Brain]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/03/call-for-action-as-uk-driver-shortage-hits-supermarket-shelves

I think they have removed it since but in the morning in the article summary, leftist Guardian mentioned that "firms are offering to pay more but that makes things worse".  If you read the article that came from smaller firms blaming Tesco's £1000 signup bonus for making things worse by removing their drivers.

I was today years old when I learnt that Arla is the name of the entire multinational dairy organization of which Swedish Arla (the original "Arla") is part.