Passports and Brexit

“… stereotypical well-off, middle-aged or older, Tory voter.”

I agree with most of that but I’m not so sure about the “well-off” bit. Most analyses suggest the poor were more likely to vote leave.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities

Our instinct is to try and categorise the factions and define ‘typical’ leavers and remainers. We (and the media in particular) like a caricature to focus on. We like to see all leavers as Nigel Farage and all remainers as Siân Berry perhaps, but I don’t think it’s that simple with Brexit.

Certainly amongst the people I know, there were surprises. Many voted the opposite way to the way I’d have expected based on their circumstances and prior political beliefs.

Both sides build straw men to attack and I think that’s unfair. It isn’t helped because parliament largely lives up to the straw men we want, but I think it’s far more complicated amongst the voters.

I think you underestimate racists.

I’m pretty sure, actually we already have solid evidence for this, that they are perfectly willing to shoot a massive bullet in their own foot just to see a few 100s Poles leave the country.

The British (actually English) emigre communities in countries like Spain, a cheap place to retire to with a much better climate, voted strongly for Leave. You can live in these places while only speaking English, eating English food that you buy from English supermarkets, watching English television, reading English newspapers (not just on the internet, you can buy the print Daily Mail and Sun) and so on.

It would be both funny and just if they are forced back to England. Bognor Regis, look out, here they come.

I’m fairly sure the passport thing was whipped up by the newspapers. In general if there’s a crazy anti-EU thing it’s a fairly good bet that its genesis was in some tabloid newspaper story somewhere.

Dipper 09.09.19 at 9:08 am
“I just want what you’ve got John, which is to live in a sovereign state where we elect the people who make our laws. What’s so funny about that?”

You already had a chance, the WA, and turned it down. Now you want No Deal, but you have a shortage of MP’s willing to slit the UK’s throat.

I just want what you’ve got John, which is to live in a sovereign state where we elect the people who make our laws. What’s so funny about that?

Queensland isn’t sovereign, but still has political power, as Britain does in the EU.

Let me echo the others responding to Dipper 09.09.19 at 9:08 am

“I just want what you’ve got John, which is to live in a sovereign state where we elect the people who make our laws. What’s so funny about that?”

Presumably, someone who favored this outcome would have refused to participate in the referendum, recognizing that the appropriate body to address this matter is the HOUSE OF COMMONS, where the people’s ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES make the laws–including the law agreeing to join (or leave) the European Union.

So congratulations to Dipper: The House of Commons is valiantly striving to make the laws–although the Prime Minister (a man picked by 0.13% of Britons, and with a current approval rating below 33%) is doing his level best to frustrate the process of representative democracy.

Will they be in the long slow lines at customs with Americans and Russians and Chinese?

@nobody.really “where the people’s ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES make the laws–including the law agreeing to join (or leave) the European Union”

As I think I may have said several times previously, I didn’t ask for this referendum for those reasons. My view was a Remain vote would have been used by the EU to claim a mandate and go over the heads of Parliament.

“The House of Commons is valiantly striving to make the laws”. Much discussion on this over at David Allen Greenwhere I am why usual witty and erudite self. But this Parliament is not just making decisions, it is making the constitution to remove checks and balances. The Fixed Term Parliament Act means Parliament can keep going as long as it likes up to 5 years. This Parliament is now acting in breach of manifesto and personal commitment given, and the People have no means of recourse.

Burke said “No man should be judge in his own cause”. Well this lot are. I’d like an enhanced power of recall so when MP’s break commitments or cross the house they can face a by-election.

So this is where your unfettered unchecked Remain Parliament is going in all its righteousness. Demanding full access to all personal correspondence and electronic communication. Full Stasi. Absolute disgrace.

I arrived in the uk on Saturday for a week with my brand new non-EU passport (I think if you apply online from overseas you don’t get a choice of colours!) and was struck that the “uk+eu” line at immigration has been changed now with the addition of the white commonwealth countries, Scandinavia and the high income pacific. Interesting! So brexit bought you a longer immigration queue ! Well done!

Dipper trust us aussies when we tell you that being an independent action not part of a bloc comes with some considerable challenges you haven’t had to face for a long time and aren’t ready for. When you unmoored yourself from Germany and Italy you’ll discover noone wants to buy what you’re selling. Free trade agreements come at a cost, and you will quickly learn how steep it is.

@ Dipper
“Much discussion on this over at David Allen Green where I am my usual witty and erudite self.

Oh yeah? I click over to David Allen Green, and find this:

“It will be too late.

The door has shut.

The cat, the horse and the genie are out of their respective containers.”

Ok, I’ll grant you the witty and erudite part….

I find this obsession with sovereignty rather odd.

Often the analogy to people seems helpful to illustrate what is going on with countries. I can become member of a club to enjoy the club’s benefits. I can then rant and rave about having to pay membership dues and having to abide by the club’s rules, and say that that infringes on my free will to do what I want and to spend my money as I see fit. In consequence, I can leave the club again, and lose the benefits of being a member. Either way was my decision, my free will, whether to be a member or not to be a member.

It is a trade-off. You buy the benefits of club membership by having to follow certain rules. UK buys the benefits of EU membership by following certain rules. Either way is UK’s sovereign decision: either to be a member or not to be a member. No sovereignty is or was lost.

A problem arises only from the UK being in three minds about what to do. At least as of the referendum there was no majority for staying in the EU, but there is clearly no majority for any alternative solution either. It is nearly as if, collectively, the preference is for not being a member of the club but retaining the now accustomed benefits of membership.

From a very quick scan, they are invoking the Freedom of Information Act (see: https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1171168943685492737)

That would be the opposite of Stasi.

From ‘https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1171134305587859458’:

“Tory MP Nigel Evans criticises parliament for voting to force the government to disclose private messages about Brexit.”

Dipper, please note the word ‘government’. They are calling for government accountability and transparency, while you are trying to shut down Parliament in favor of pure executive power.

From: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1171134305587859458

“Tory MP Nigel Evans criticises parliament for voting to force the government to disclose private messages about Brexit.”

Dipper, that for government transparency and accountability. That’s the opposite of ‘Stasi’.

Where your argument breaks down is that if we consider the EU as a sovereign state (or something like it), then we have to conclude that the laws of the EU are made by institutions which are elected by the people of the EU (at least as much as this is true of the UK, or any other country).

No, they’re not. And honestly, I can’t fathom how you could have come to this opinion.

I have said it before, but I don’t think it helps pretending the Brexit vote is anything special politically. Compared to contemporary major political decisions in comparable countries (think the election of Trump, the election of Macron, the re-election of Merkel, the Lega/M5S coalition in Italy etc.), it is not particularly difficult to understand, there is little reason to suppose it was inspired by unusual political preferences, it was not particularly undemocratic, nor was it especially baroque or ill-designed in its process, nor is it particularly likely to have consequences out of the ordinary, nor does it appear to be especially unpopular, based on the results of the recent European elections and on opinion polls. In particular, I don’t think it helps pretending that Dipper’s “I just want what you’ve got John, which is to live in a sovereign state where we elect the people who make our laws” is meaningless or absurdly misguided.

What is relatively unusual, though becoming less so, is whose political preferences got expressed during the Brexit vote. Not si much what happened nor the likely consequences, but who won. If you don’t like it, put forth an alternative and campaign for it.

“I’m finding it hard to see that anything will happen to justify the massive effort involved.”

Then what is wrong with it? If Leave won’t change concrete rules/laws (i.e. if existing rules/laws will, by and large, be maintained), then the only change that Leave will create is who is making the decision (EU, or British Parliament).

And what’s wrong with the British Parliament making British laws that apply to British people? As Dipper said: “I just want what you’ve got John, which is to live in a sovereign state where we elect the people who make our laws.”

If the only substantive change that Leave will create is increased sovereignty for the British, then your opposition must be towards that: increased sovereignty for the British, right?

anon

Z,

It may not be special in terms of what voters want, but there are two problems: First, what they wanted was based on disinformation resulting from decades of lies. The EU was demonised, and people were given the impression that you can leave a club while retaining its membership benefits. There was no informed decision. Now it could be argued that is always the case, in any democratic decision – how many voters ever understand all the competing electoral platforms and their trade-offs? Fair point, but, second, yes, the referendum was “especially ill-designed”.

It was the equivalent of giving somebody the impression that a much better house is free for the taking than the one they currently occupy, then asking “do you want to move out of this house?”, and, when they assent, claiming that they have given you the mandate to have them sleep in a cardboard box under the bridge. A well-designed referendum would have taken place after having drawn up a thorough and realistic plan for the future outside of the EU, one that is honest about the downsides of that decision.

anonymousse

“I’m finding it hard to see that anything will happen to justify the massive effort involved.”

Then what is wrong with it?

The massive effort involved! Putting a massive effort into leaving things exactly as they are is obviously foolish.

That is, granting the assumption that nothing will be changed, which I doubt. I don’t think, judging from his past writings, that it’s John Quiggin’s opinion either. The problem as John Quiggin is defining it is not putting a massive effort into producing no changes, but rather putting a massive effort into producing no benefits. If there were massive benefits to be derived, they might justify a massive effort; but massive changes with no benefits don’t justify a massive effort.

And what’s wrong with the British Parliament making British laws that apply to British people?

Nobody has argued that there’s anything wrong with it, or acted as if they suppose there’s anything wrong with it. The whole time the UK has been a member of the EU its Parliament has continued to make laws for its people, and the EU has never suggested that it shouldn’t or tried to stop it.

There are, obviously, differences between the structure of the legislative institutions of the EU and those of the UK, but no more than the difference between the structure of the legislative institutions of Germany, the UK, France, and other EU member countries, not to mention non-EU countries

“No more” is doing a lot of work here if you don’t specify what counts for you as a significant difference and what principles you hold to be so crucial that deviating from them opens a completely new political system (I found interesting the first chapters of Die nieuwe politiek van Europ by Luuk van Middelaar on that topic).

I’d be interested to see your explanation of how EU laws are not made by institutions elected by the people of the EU.

Every democratic country I know of elects a Parliament which has legislative initiative, holds the power of taxation and fixes the budget. Every one of them. The day the Parliament got these powers is often remembered as an important date in the march towards democracy, and the day it lost it (as Venezuela did in 2017) is often the day the country devolves in an autocracy. The European Parliament has none of these powers. In addition, since 1748 at the latest, it has been well understood that a democratic system requires independence of the legislative branch from the executive branch, so that in every democratic country I can think of right now, when the head of the Executive branch also holds part of the legislative power (as it usually does, through executive orders, for instance), it is either elected directly by the people in public campaigns which are largely open, or it is selected by the Parliament (usually within the context of a public campaign which is largely open). The Head of the European Commission, who is already exceptional in the democratic world in that it holds the entirety of the power of legislative initiative, is not selected in either ways. Not only is this situation in theory, but in practice it would take a lot of chutzpah to pretend that Ursual von der Leyen has been selected by even an approximation of either procedures.

In addition to this chasm between the European system and the rest of the democratic world even in terms of the definition and apportioning of the powers of the legislative branch, there are countless slightly less significant but still huge differences, like the existence of a dual system of legislative approval (through the Parliament and the Council), the special procedure of Article 289 and the consent procedure which strips the Parliament even of the power of amendment etc. At this point however, the real question has become “in what sense are the legislative bodies of the EU even remotely like that of usual democratic states (that of its members, for instance)?”

Sometimes, one reads replies running roughly as follows: the European Commission is selected by head of states, which have been elected or appointed by people who have been elected, and the Council is formed of ministers which have been appointed by people who have been (appointed by people who have been) elected. This transitivity property of democracy though multiple cycles of multitiered elections and appointments is not logically wrong, it is just a ridiculously low bar to pass. If EU laws are deemed to have been made by institutions elected by the people of the EU in that sense, then so also are the laws of Iran, China and Venezuela made by institutions elected by the people (five seconds of game theoretic analysis explains what kind of political systems favors multitiered system of elections, electoral colleges and successive appointments, and what kind of systems rely primarily on direct elections of the bulk of the electorate).

Then you should be pleased that I didn’t pretend it was meaningless or absurdly misguided. It’s not meaningless, and it’s not absurdly misguided, but it is inaccurate.

FWIW, I wasn’t thinking about your answer, but rather about @13.

“That is, granting the assumption that nothing will be changed, which I doubt. I don’t think, judging from his past writings, that it’s John Quiggin’s opinion either.”

??? The whole point of the post was for John to quote his own words from three years ago that he didn’t think anything significant will be changed.

“I’m finding it hard to see that anything will happen to justify the massive effort involved…So, after a successful Brexit, Britain will be a little poorer and more isolated than before, but otherwise largely unchanged.”

anon

I also notice that Z, like oh-so-many Brexiters, has dropped all of those promises about prosperity.

[Ignoring the 142 words those elipses neatly ignore, or – you know – just asking someone for clarification of their position rather than assuming it (which considering they are on CT is pretty rude in itself)….]

As I’ve said before, I don’t like to try and guess what someone is thinking, preferring to analyse what they say and do. If, however, I were forced to guess why someone might have some objections on the basis of one sentence alone (and not the many, many posts where they have exhaustively laid out their position, with citations, data, etc.), I would look at what they wrote:

“So, after a successful Brexit, Britain will be a little poorer and more isolated than before, but otherwise largely unchanged”

one might (just maybe, you understand) imagine that John Quiggin’s objection is to the “poorer” and ” more isolated” bits in that sentance, rather than the “ otherwise largely unchanged” bit.

You know, in the sense of “well Mr Smith, you will of course never walk again, but otherwise your life will be largely unchanged.”

In other news, it turns out that if you want to discuss what someone has written, it is rather useful to actually read it. Otherwise, to those capable of “scrolling up” and “looking at what you’ve said”, you might look a bit of a fool. Astounding that, I know, but it is one of those useful tips one picks up in life…..

@38

‘My guess is that a significant number of Brits have had enough of all the silliness, and will back Bojo as long as he can bring the current nonsense to an end. Labour has now pretty much (lost) all credibility and I say that as a Corbyn supporter.’

The polls would certainly seem to agree with you, at least at the moment. Labour started to tank in the polls when they abandoned Corbyn’s careful cultivated ambiguity over Brexit and became a much more obviously ‘remainy’ party. The more BoJo earns the emnity of the chattering classes (especially over issues which normal people don’t give a shit about like ‘competence’ and ‘sticking to procedures’) the more he zooms ahead in the polls. You would have thought liberals would have learned their lesson after the Trump debacle, but apparently not.

Z

I could go through your post line by line and find some points I agree with and others for which there are valid challenges to be made.

But on reflection I’m unsure of the value of that.

What I’m thinking about now is: how relevant are the points you raise to Dipper’s concerns?

If the structure of the EU was changed to reduce the differences between its legislative procedures and those of member States; if the European Parliament was granted the power to initiate legislation; if the head of the European Commission was directly elected by the voters of EU member countries–would Dipper then say, ‘That meets my concerns, I’m satisfied with these new arrangements, I no longer desire UK withdrawal from the EU’?

There’s no way to be sure without a response from Dipper, but would you be prepared to hazard a guess of your own?

What J-D and notGoodEnough said.

It is not just about the system of government under which you live, it is about who you share that with and whether between you there is a sense of mutual obligation and understanding.

It would meet the democratic standard for New Zealand to become a state in Australia, or Canada to become several states in an expanded United states of America. I sense amongst ‘little New Zealanders’ and ‘little Canadians’ there isn’t much appetite for such moves, and I suspect for the same reasons many in the UK are not keen on being in the EU under European law etc, which is that New Zealand doesn’t have a particular problem that becoming part of an expanded Australia would solve, but becoming part of an expanded Australia would leave it open to exploitation by Australians who can see extra resources and opportunity for them and have no obvious reason to make the lives of New Zealanders better.

– and if Dipper has a problem to live under a ”system of government” which is far more ”progressive” than the system of government he lives under now – that’s actually much more his problem than ours.

@54

“He:
”It’s certainly true that the City of London as a whole backs Remain, as do the rich generally”
Me:
as do young Brits generally…”

That is of course true. What one infers from that is a whole other ballgame. There seems to be a tacit belief that ‘all’ young people are poor and ‘all’ (or at least ‘most’) older people are wealthy, something which is obviously not true.

Here’s a short article about Brexit and young people: I can’t vouch for its veracity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b8d097b0-3ad4-4dd9-aa25-af6374292de0

Dipper, I would be interested in your thoughts on the WTO.”

I’m not sure what you want me to say here. I’m not an expert in international trade. But I like the idea of independent organisations providing certain guarantees and legal mechanisms in international affairs. One of my main issues with the EU is the use of what should be independent functions to push an aggressive agenda of federalism without any concept of independence or fairness. For instance, I’d be happy to submit to WTO opinions on the feasibility of a soft border in Ireland, but would never accept any EU verdict on the same issue as they have a clear partial agenda.

I’m not a WTO terms Brexit fanatic. I’d like a trade deal with the EU, as well as trade deals with other nations such as Australia and Canada.

Z 41: I don’t think anybody here disputes that the institutional setup of the EU has shortcomings, but your arguments do not justify your claim that these shortcomings are of an entirely different order than those of so-called democratic nation states. For example, in the US the president, appointed by an only partially representative body, has veto power over all legislation. The current president, need I remind you, lost the popular vote by 2 million votes. Legislation also requires the consent of two chambers, one of which is by design non-representative, while the second chamber has also at times been dominated by a minority party. In the UK, the PM is appointed and the legislature is so unrepresentative that a party representing barely one third of voters may yield absolutely unrestricted power. The French parliament, if I am well informed, is also hardly representative of the electorate and need I remind you that France has been shaken by huge protests and riots because large parts of the population feel unrepresented by their political institutions.

I find Z’s apologia for bourgeois nation state democracy rather surprising given his often expressed critical views of same institutions. I would not refer to the institutions of countries like the US and UK as democratic in any meaningful sense. They are perhaps better than outright dictatorship but they are so obviously flawed that comparing those institutions favorably to those of the EU has no credibility to me.

I think Dipper is at least more straightforward when he states: “It is not just about the system of government under which you live, it is about who you share that with and whether between you there is a sense of mutual obligation and understanding.” The institutional setup is really beside the point, Dipper doesn’t want to share “his” polity with the wrong people. Of course he already does, because large portions of the UK itself do not share his “understanding” of the world. Homogeneous nation states are a fiction and have always been, but that fiction is indispensable to many people and no rational argument will disillusion them.

TM@62: “I would not refer to the institutions of countries like the US and UK as democratic in any meaningful sense. They are perhaps better than outright dictatorship”.

Much virtue in your “perhaps”. Some people would prefer “indisputably, and by a very long way”.

But you may be writing from experience. How much time have you spent living under dictatorships, or talking to survivors who have done so?

And which if any institutions would you call democratic in a meaningful sense?

Dipper

I hazard the guess that what John Quiggin would like you to say is why you are prepared to accept compulsory directives from a supra-national body when that body is the WTO, but not when it is the EU.

What I would like, on the other hand, is for you to explain your objections to federalism.

Stephen

I agree that the institutions of countries like the US and the UK are better by a long way than outright dictatorship, but I would say exactly the same about the institutions of the EU.

Dipper

TM quoted your exact words, which were ‘It is not just about the system of government under which you live, it is about who you share that with …’

Who is it that you don’t want to share your system of government with, and why?

As a (non-UK) EU citizen I also find these kinds of discussions extremely interesting. For some time I was wondering if the sovereignty argument was based simply on a failure to understand trade-offs and the requirement to accept shared rules when interacting with others (therefore my club member analogy).

Dipper’s language makes clear that this is not so. The problem instead appears to be that many brexiters see the EU as an enemy instead of a club. Unfortunately that means that no conversation or argument can be had, because once you see somebody as out to hurt you any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as a trick or lie meant to take you in.

It is also fascinating what this says about the two sides in this controversy (and, by extension, similar controversies that are cast in parallel terms). Urban, mobile, citizens of nowhere like myself are often called arrogant for believing that leavers / Trumpists / rural conservatives / etc. vote against their own interests because they are ill-informed or mistaken. But I must say, when faced with, for example, the alternative of (a) assuming that somebody who clearly has no idea what the common market is and how it works may be ill-informed or (b) assuming that somebody who argues for the benefits of the common market is a vile traitor who really does not believe in those benefits but instead lies because he wants to sell the nation out to an evil empire I kind of have a strong opinion on who is the better person.

(And the same for e.g. “you are wrong, a Green New Deal would actually create lots of jobs” versus “you treehuggers deliberately want to destroy our economy because you hate your own country”.)

@ notGoodenough

The UK joined the Common Market in 1973. Since then its been through two name changes. Our government signed further treaties principally Maastricht and Lisbon. On neither of these did it give a referendum.

Today we have the UK Prime Minister being in essence charged with a Thought Crime in that whilst his action was perfectly legal the courts are now deliberating on what he was thinking.

Every state has restrictions on who can live there. For a state to function properly people need to feel some sense of commonality. Belgium, for instance, doesn’t have this as it is split between two groups who seem to be permanently locked in argument, hence their love of the EU because it saves them from themselves.

@68
Yes: I can’t be alone in finding the usage of the language of anti-imperialism by Dipper and Tim Worstall rather mind boggling. Can either of those two fine gentlemen point to any previous enthusiasms in their prior life for other anti-imperialist struggles? Scottish independence? Welsh independence? A united Ireland? In 1982 were Tim and Dipper to be found waving Argentinian flags and demanding that Argentina keep ‘Las Malvinas’? Or cheering in 1999 when Hong Kong was returned to China?

Or is it, by chance, only English nationalism of which they are in favour and might it be the case that the only ‘anti-imperialist’ struggle to which they have ever committed themselves in reality is the ‘struggle’ for England (sorry, Britain, what was I thinking?) to ‘liberate’ itself from the ‘shackles’ of the EU ‘Empire’?

@66 ignoring for a second the ridiculous comparison with the Irish independence movement, you seem to be rewriting history (again) and, yet again, obfuscating the extent to which this entire clusterfuck is all the Tories’ fault.

Please remember that we are in this disaster area because, in 2017, Theresa May took it upon herself to call an election which she then lost (i.e by not winning it) and was then forced to go into a coalition with the extreme-right wing terrorist-associated DUP (an act which, with your new found enthusiasm for Irish nationalism, I expect you will condemn vociferously). It is the DUP that has been the main sticking point in sorting out a deal with the EU (i.e. the notorious backstop).

Also: while it’s true that one can criticise Labour’s decision not to back an early election, who was it who introduced the disastrous Fixed Term Parliament Act? Why it was none other than ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron, another of his epic fuckups, which has now turned out (surprise!) to be yet another of his complete disasters.

And let’s not even mention Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson’s current record as PM.

Despite what you are constantly implying, no one is trying to overturn the referendum. And again, despite your grotesque comparisons of the EU to the racist British Empire, the EU don’t seem to care too much about whether or not we leave (indeed, there are plenty of people, especially in France, who will be quite happy about it. The French didn’t want us in in the first place remember).

As you would be the first person to insist in other contexts, all the major political parties voted to ‘accept’ the referendum (they didn’t have to do that). And apart from the Monster Raving Loony Pa-, sorry, I meant the LibDems*, no major political party has promised to overturn the results of the referendum, and the LibDems will probably backtrack on this, as they backtrack on all their promises.

It’s just that with the disastrous Tory FTPA, and with the results of May’s disastrous decision to call an election in 2017, leaving the EU has turned out to be quite difficult to manage. There’s no conspiracy. If the Tory party had been remotely competent, we would be out by now.

*And the soon-to-be ex-Labour MP Tom Watson.

notGoodenough and TM misunderstand my position so as to essentially have it backwards (then there is Barry, who thinks I’m a Brexiter, which is funny, and who thinks I have dropped pretense of prosperity, which does not even reach that level).

I do find the prorogation of the British Parliament by an unelected PM to prevent a bill to pass a flagrant violation of ordinary democratic norms. Consequently, I also consider the permanent inability of the European Parliament to pass a bill a flagrant violation of democratic norms, which is permanent. When the Parliament has been stripped of the entirety of its power by an appointed body, as in Venezuela in 2017, the violation is still more extreme. That prorogation was to prevent the Parliament to pass a bill on a trade deal and more generally on international relations, a gross violation of people’s sovereignty, in my views. Likewise, I consider the fact that the Council may (and usually does) completely bypass the European Parliament on the exact same issues an even more serious violation of people’s sovereignty. When the power to deal with those issues is entirely in the hand of an Islamic Council, as in Iran, the violation is still more extreme. I do consider the American Electoral College a manifest attempt to suppress the expression of the political will of the majority. Consequently, I consider the even more layered system of appointment, nomination and validation of the European Union an even more manifest attempt to suppress the expression of the political will of the majority. When the system is still more multitiered, as in China, the violation is even more extreme. I am troubled by the veto power of the American President, and though I am partly convinced by the argument that it is a check on the potential tyrannic power of the Congress held by someone who has an equal claim to represent the people, I think that on balance I would prefer it removed, if I were American. Consequently, I am even more troubled by the fact that Head of the Commission does not even need to exercise a veto to prevent a bill, while having essentially no claim to being a representative of the will of the electorate and by the fact that the Council can completely bypass the Parliament on essential issues, like. When that blocking power is exercised by an appointed leader, as in Iran, the violation is still more extreme.

Some people here seem to agree that Johnson’s suspension of the Parliament, Trump’s election despite losing the popular vote or his veto power are problematic, and I assume that they believe that Venezuela’s suspension of the Parliament, the Chinese system or the Iranian Islamic Council are problematic, but the European system, which lies in between, is mysteriously fine by them. I admit I can’t imagine any standard that results in that conclusion.

@notGoodenough if your argument is that the difference is how many layers there are between your vote and the representative, then I would ask you what exactly is the limit? 1, 2, 10? Where does it go from democratic to undemocratic? Or is it more of a gradient – a direct vote is democratic, voting for someone who votes is less so, and so on…?

I admit that question took me off guard (I thought its answer was well known since Condorcet, at the very latest). It is an easy mathematical observation that the rules of the electoral system are not neutral, and that vastly different outcomes can be obtained through elections, depending on how they are organized and the votes tallied. It is also easy to observe that with every systems of rounds, cycles, layers, subdivisions of the electorate… you introduce, you allow more manipulation of the results with the electorate staying the same. Aside from being mathematically true, it is also quite historically well-known: the existence of the Electoral College allows the election of Bush or Trump, the outcome of the second round in France is frequently very different from what a single round system would have produced etc. In fact, it is so well-understood that every anti-democratic system in History, from France’s Ancien Régime to the Segregated South to today’s Hungary relies heavily on such contraptions. Also, the European Union.

@J-D What I’m thinking about now is: how relevant are the points you raise to Dipper’s concerns?

Why do you ask that question? You asked me to explain in what sense laws in the EU were not made in remotely the same way as in other democratic countries, according to me, and I answered. The impact this has on Dipper is unknown to me, but if I were to hazard a guess, as you invite me to do, it is nil.

@TM and need I remind you that France has been shaken by huge protests and riots because large parts of the population feel unrepresented by their political institutions.

You don’t need to remind me. Nor do you need to remind the family and friends of Steve Maia Caniço. Need I remind you that this remark was rather nasty and quite a bit xenophobic?

Hidari@73: asking if Dipper and Tim Worstall had any “previous enthusiasms in their prior life for other anti-imperialist struggles? Scottish independence? Welsh independence? A united Ireland? In 1982 were Tim and Dipper to be found waving Argentinian flags and demanding that Argentina keep ‘Las Malvinas’? Or cheering in 1999 when Hong Kong was returned to China?”

Well, I can’t answer for them. For myself, I have felt some enthusiasm for a range of anti-imperialist struggles, which I’ve not had the need to express here: in former times for the struggles against German imperialism in Europe, more recently for an independent Kurdistan and Tibet, for a free Kashmir, for the happily achieved liberation of rather a large number of former Soviet satellites, for the struggles of the constituent parts of Yugoslavia to break away from the domination of Belgrade, for the independence of Taiwan, for the current pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong … but I fear you may regard these as the wrong sort of anti-imperialism.

However, when it comes to your “anti-imperialist struggles”: if you think that Scotland has been the victim of “imperialism” you are living in a world of your own. It is a strange kind of imperialism that allowed the not too distant Blair government, in which the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer [= Finance Minister], Lord Chancellor [= Justice Minister] and Foreign Minister were all Scots, in which votes on an English matter could be decided by the contribution of Scottish MPs. Or the current system in which Scotland receives more government funding per head than England (not that I complain about that; with an unhealthy and ageing population, worse climate, great expanses of sparsely inhabited wilderness, and a large number of islands that must not be allowed to become isolated, they fully deserve it).

The union of Scotland and England was by mutual agreement, Scotland being effectively bankrupt at the time (look up the Darien Scheme, intended to ruin England and Holland but backfiring disastrously). The union of England and Wales was under a Welsh dynasty that had by a sort of reverse takeover come to rule England.

The recent struggle for a united Ireland involved an attempt by an essentially fascist movement to seize control of a neighbouring territory without the consent of its inhabitants. If that wasn’t imperialism, I don’t know what would be.

Ditto, in spades, the attempt by the Argentine military junta, who had imprisoned, tortured, and murdered rather a large number of their own people, to capture the Falklands.

And if you think that the predictable Chinese government treatment of Hong Kong is not imperialist, I have no hope for you.

Have a nice day.

@ Dipper 71

(1)
You directly compared military occupation of another country to the UK signing treaties as part of the EU.

You also complained about people “rephrasing problems in incorrect ways that mean you can express some kind of supposed moral authority whilst avoiding discussing actual issues”.

Since I apparently need to explain this far more clearly: my point is that when you engage in ostentatiously hyperbolic liberties (for example, were you to intimate that people who are pro-Remain are big city elitists who are pro child-rape), it seems that you are holding yourself to a different standard than everyone else.

I find that rather odd.

(2)
Since you raise the subject: In 1975 there was a referendum (1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum) “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”.

This was the first national referendum ever held.

It was, as far as I can tell, the only one, until the national referendum on AV in 2011.

It would seem that the UK government made a lot of decisions without a referendum. Is your position that every decision made without a referendum is undemocratic?

And if the source of your contention is something more along the lines of “I object to the UK handing over sovereignty without a referendum”, then it would seem your objection is to the actions of the UK and not the EU. Which you propose to resolve, by handing over more power to the UK government. Which you then object to, as acting in an undemocratic way. So is the problem the UK government and Parliament has too much power over its citizens, or not enough?

(3)
There currently are restrictions on who can live, or even visit, the UK. Are you asserting that no such restrictions exist?

(4)
“For a state to function properly people need to feel some sense of commonality.”

The word “some” is doing a lot of work there. Do you think that you have more of a sense of commonality with literally everyone from the UK than you do with someone from any other part of the EU? Do you think that that is reciprocated? Or is your suggestion that, when Brexit has occurred, we should have a “Dipper-britishness” test – and anyone who deviates to strongly from your positions must be exiled? I suspect there may be some UK people who would object to that….

(5)
“Belgium, for instance, doesn’t have this as it is split between two groups who seem to be permanently locked in argument, hence their love of the EU because it saves them from themselves.”

Well, shall we leave to one side your apparent mystical ability to read the minds of every single person from Belgium?

It is a good thing for such a statement that the UK has been of a single mind regarding every topic up until the Brexit vote. Otherwise it would look like you were making a very bold pronouncement on the basis of very little fact.

@ Z 75
I am not sure where I mad assertions regarding your position, but since this is something I typically try to avoid you have my apologies.

I think, however we may be talking past each other a little?

You talk a bit about prorogation, but since this is a topic I did not mention I assume that is directed elsewhere, and will instead address the comment directed at me.

“Some people here seem to agree that Johnson’s suspension of the Parliament, Trump’s election despite losing the popular vote or his veto power are problematic, and I assume that they believe that Venezuela’s suspension of the Parliament, the Chinese system or the Iranian Islamic Council (IIC) are problematic, but the European system, which lies in between, is mysteriously fine by them. I admit I can’t imagine any standard that results in that conclusion.”

For me, I would not make that assertion, nor would I say the European system is “mysteriously fine”. I would say all systems have pros and cons. Some have more pros than cons, others vice versa.

responding to @notGoodenough
I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I misunderstood you. I am not an expert, so I hope you will forgive me if my terminology is incorrect, but I believe it will be sufficient for my meaning.

“It is also easy to observe that with every systems of rounds, cycles, layers, subdivisions of the electorate… you introduce, you allow more manipulation of the results with the electorate staying the same.”

While I think the exact degree any particular system is flawed may be debatable, and dependent on the system in question, I am prepared to accept your assessment as axiomatically true (tentatively, as I hold all positions). However, as you yourself point out, people seem to be able to make a differentiation between the UK and the Iranian Islamic Council (IIC). I would venture that the UK is – at least to some extent – perhaps a shade more democratic than the IIC. Perhaps you would agree?

In that case, we can see that not all systems are equal, and not all equally problematic.
Indeed, as I pointed out, the UK itself is not a perfect democracy. This does not mean, however, I view it as unreasonablly undemocratic – merely that it is a system which has its faults. I believe I can object to what I perceive as faults in the UK system without advocating for its destruction, and indeed may view it as something which has more pros than cons and thus is worth maintaining (while naturally seeking to improve it).

Similarly, I could say that the EU is not a perfect democracy. This does not mean, however, I view it as unreasonablly undemocratic – merely that it is a system which has its own faults. I believe I can object to what I perceive as faults in the EU system without advocating for its destruction, and indeed may view it as something which has more pros than cons and thus is worth maintaining (while naturally seeking to improve it).

There isn’t, therefore, a “mystery” where I think the EU is perfect but all else is flawed – I do not hold that position.

I simply am unconvinced that the difference in democracy between the UK and EU is so large that removing the UK from the EU would be worth paying any price. That does not mean I hold the contrary position (that staying in the EU would be worth paying any price). It merely would seem reasonable to me to assess what the price being payed is, and whether it is worth what is achieved in return.

I don’t believe that that is a position inconsistent internally, nor do I believe it is excessively unreasonable. Indeed, I would venture that many people across the Pro-Brexit to Pro-Remain spectrum will have done that very thing (though perhaps coming to different conclusions as to what the pros and cons of EU membership are and whether they are worth it).

As you say, the EU is not a perfect democracy. However, I would venture I have yet to see a perfect democracy – perhaps one day I will, but I don’t think I will hold my breath.

Dipper

For a state to function properly people need to feel some sense of commonality.

This seems to raise the question of why you don’t feel that sense of commonality with the people of other EU members. Perhaps, however, the problem as you perceive it is not that you don’t feel that sense of commonality with the people of other EU members but rather that other people in the UK do not (or so you perceive) feel that sense of commonality, in which case the question raised is why (if you’re correct) they don’t feel that sense of commonality. When people don’t feel a sense of commonality—or when people do feel a sense of commonality, for that matter—it’s not something that happens without a reason.

@J-D What I’m thinking about now is: how relevant are the points you raise to Dipper’s concerns?

Why do you ask that question? You asked me to explain in what sense laws in the EU were not made in remotely the same way as in other democratic countries, according to me, and I answered. The impact this has on Dipper is unknown to me, but if I were to hazard a guess, as you invite me to do, it is nil.

Interpretation and relevance depend on context.

In this instance, Dipper made a comment suggesting that there was a lack or deficit which was the cause of his desire for the UK to leave the EU: that is, there was something he wanted which was not available under the jurisdiction of the EU but would be available in a country independent (that is, not a member) of the EU.

I suggested in response that the thing Dipper wanted was in fact available from EU institutions. You responded that it wasn’t. I asked you for more information. You then gave specific details to demonstrate the difference between EU institutions and national institution.

In context, you were giving details to show the inaccuracy of a response I made to a complaint of Dipper’s: so it’s relevant to consider how significant the details you supplied are to meeting Dipper’s complaint. In the meantime, Dipper has posted other comments indicating that the complaint is not (or not only, or not mostly) about specific institutional structures, which suggests that the details you supplied are of little or no significance to meeting the burden of Dipper’s complaint.

In other words, even if you are right about the ways in which EU institutions are less democratic than national institutions, that’s not what Dipper’s complaint is about (or only a small part of what it’s about); even if EU institutions were as democratic as national institutions, Dipper would still have the same complaint about EU membership (or mostly the same complaint). Also, at the risk of repeating myself, this is relevant to our exchange because the comment of mine to which you were responding was itself a response to Dipper’s complaint and should be understood in that context.

Further, I suspect Dipper’s position is, in this particular respect, representative: I suspect few if any Leavers support withdrawal because of the restrictions on the European Parliament or would drop their objections to EU membership if the Parliament’s democratic power were enhanced.

Stephen

The union of England and Wales was under a Welsh dynasty that had by a sort of reverse takeover come to rule England.

That’s a distortion; but delving into the historical details would be irrelevant to most of this discussion, and even to most of the comment from which I’ve quoted this one sentence.

Stephen @77
‘The recent struggle for a united Ireland involved an attempt by an essentially fascist movement to seize control of a neighbouring territory without the consent of its inhabitants. ‘

The IRA was based in West Belfast, Derry and South Armagh. What ‘neighbouring territory’ were they trying to seize control of? Southern Ireland? The inner Hebrides? The Isle of Man?

@82

‘On the subject of immigration and Britishness, consider the case of the homophobic assault on Gareth Thomas. He is a gay rugby player who was assaulted by a group of Somalis.’

Was he now. You may be right. Perhaps there are facts about this case not easily available on the internet. But a brief perusal of relevant internet sites only talks about Gareth Thomas being attacked by ONE person (not a gang), who was a child, legally, at the time of the attack (16) , and who has subsequently apologised.

The reports that I find made no reference to his ethnicity, but one newspaper did describe him as a ‘local lad’.

As I say, perhaps Dipper has access to information conduits denied to the rest of us lesser mortals: I am prepared to be corrected here.

Dipper

A nation is like a large family, in that you might not like them but they are yours, and if things go wrong there is an expectation that you will help. If you dismantle that notion then that means there are people at the bottom of the pile about whom no-one cares.

There are people at the bottom of the pile about whom nobody cares. Is the reason that they have no family to care about them? Often it is, but often it isn’t. Is the reason that they have no nation to care about them? Possibly sometimes it is, but usually it isn’t. Whatever your expectation, in reality people who are in trouble are sometimes helped by family members, sometimes not; sometimes helped by other people in the same country, sometimes not; sometimes helped by people from other countries, sometimes not.

(Conversely, it’s fairly common for family members to be precisely the people who create each other’s problems.)

Forming alliances with people in distant lands at the expense of worrying about the people who live next door doesn’t seem particularly progressive to me.

The category of people you should try to help does not consist of people from your own family, or people from your own neighbourhood, or people from your own country, but rather of people you are able to help. Of course your capacity to help people who are familiar or nearby is greater than your capacity to help people who are unfamiliar or far away, but if you are in a position where you are able to help a foreigner, ‘because they’re foreigners’ is not a good reason not to. I refer you to the parable of the good Samaritan for a famous expression of this point of view.

On the subject of immigration and Britishness, consider the case of the homophobic assault on Gareth Thomas. He is a gay rugby player who was assaulted by a group of Somalis. People who openly favour a multi-cultural society instead of a concept of British values suddenly get very upset when one of those cultures involves beating up gays, and say (rightly in my opinion) we should be a society which values all people and gays and lesbians should be free to be openly gay and lesbian. Which is to say that we as a society should have common values. A kind of Britishness. When it comes to equal rights for women and gay rights, I’m all for those to be included in a notion of ”Britishness’.

Is it the case that gaybashings are not perpetrated by British people? No, it is not the case, and I don’t suppose you imagine that it is. If people said they wanted to draw attention to the problem of gaybashing in Britain, I would think it suspicious if they chose to do so by using the example of a gaybashing perpetrated by Somali people rather than a gaybashing perpetrated by British people.

I want people to treat each other well, but there’s no good reason to bound this desire at the borders of my country. Treating people well isn’t an expression of ‘Australian values’ or ‘British values’, it’s an expression of decent values which people of any background in any country ought to share. I am aware, of course, that many people don’t behave decently, don’t treat each other well, and don’t uphold these values, but that too is not something that is determined by national borders or national background. When people say that gaybashing, for example, is ‘un-British’ or ‘un-Australian’, they are only one or two steps away from saying that it’s the sort of thing that is to be expected of foreigners and to be regarded as unremarkable, and therefore ignored, when it happens in foreign countries. My capacity to affect what happens in foreign countries is nil or close to it, but then, my capacity to affect many things that happen in my own country is equally close to nil. The relevant values are exactly the same. If you say that they’re ‘British values’, aren’t you drawing borders around them, and why would you want to do that?

The moral and even legal legitimacy of the current borders of northern ireland is… kind of central to the whole northern ireland problem, no? That the current border represents a valid polity is the view of only one group in the debate, so to accept the relevence of anything derived from the current borders is to accept the validity of the current borders.

Question-begging, no? The argument is worthless; evem if you agree with the conclusion that northern ireland in its current form is a polity that should exist you can’t do it this way.

@ John Quiggin

That link (https://www.epi.org/blog/free-trade-in-moral-hypocrisy/). This seems to be pointing out that global trade is making workers in developed countries worse off by putting them in direct competition with workers ins out America/Asia/Africa. That may be true, but what seems also apparent is that international trade has been hugely successful in lifting millions out of poverty round the world.

The continent that is missing from that uplift is Africa, and even that seems to be improving on many indices.

All that liberalisation of global trade and the boom in global financial markets seems to be working.

My native Yorkshire culture featured such standard things as regular domestic violence, women not being allowed their own money, dislike of foreigners and gays. That culture has been challenged and largely changed for the better. No-one seriously said that we live in a multicultural society so if the men of Yorkshire want to treat their women as punchbags that’s acceptable. If its reasonable to tell Yorkshiremen their behaviour is not acceptable (which it is) I’m not sure why anyone else should be spared.

Born and brought up in postwar SY, I have never considered myself to be in receipt of a native Yorkshire culture (your compendium of violence, homo and zeno phobias). Certainly, the newly discharged KOYLI (of my childhood) had been brutalised by their experiences in Changi. One such “surrender monkey” would savagely beat his wife, in the street, every Saturday night. Trauma, not culture, that was. (it certainly traumatised me. ) But the teetotal, swearbox, Methodist steelworkers would not tolerate wifebeating. Nor did they countenance homosexuality; yet their grandchildren do. That’s the nature of our Hegelian world-culture. So spare me the Ken Loach bollocks, Mr Dipp.

@ Dipper 82, 92, and 93.

Perhaps your trying to lead to a big picture look to explain why you’ve come to the conclusions you have – fair enough. The problem with that is it feels a lot like trying to hear a story from someone who has to stop every few minutes to go back to some part they’ve forgotten.

You seem (at least to me) to be making arguments against things people haven’t said, and making passionately talking about topics people haven’t even raised. For example, you jump from Brexit to Somalian immigrants engaging in gaybashing (though as Hidari points out, that story may not be as you frame it). Then you talk about multiculturalism (a topic only you raise), then about not allowing countries to pass laws we don’t like (something no-one has suggested). Trying to untangle all this is….a lot.

I don’t say this to criticise you, but just to explain that if I miss something or get something wrong it won’t be intentional – it is because I am genuinely struggling to follow your train of thought. I will try and respond as best I can, and perhaps we can see where we go from here?

”Foreign gaybashing”

When, for example, J-D pointed out the problematic assumption that gay-bashing is a “foreign thing”, you said “That is pretty much the definition of multiculturalism. That that’s what those folks do.”

Really? You are going to seriously argue that gaybashing is culturally significantly more prevalent in France or Germany, than it is in the UK? With the DUP forming part of our government? Maybe I am wrong on this, but I would not say that there is a marked difference in anti-homosexuality between France, Germany, and UK (though, to be clear, any level above 0 is too much and should be reduced).

Multiculturalism

You talk about domestic abuse in Yorkshire, finishing with “If its reasonable to tell Yorkshiremen their behaviour is not acceptable (which it is) I’m not sure why anyone else should be spared.”

Has anyone on this thread actually advocated that the UK (whether or not it is part of the EU) does not, nor should it be allowed to, venture opinions on foreign affairs?

You take a – frankly speaking – bizarre turn when you start talking about multiculturalism. I could, for example, go on a long point about diplomacy – how this wouldn’t be only allowing “a nation to pass laws providing their former colonial masters agree”, this would be laying out consequences for actions not agreed with (if you genuinely can’t see the difference, try thinking about the differences between negotiating a bank loan and robbing a bank).

I mean, you do realise that there are options between “we must rule everyone with an iron fist” and “we cannot ever disagree with anyone, ever”, right?

WTO and the EU

Here you vaguely approach the topic again, before veering off into the shrubbery.

[First a slight digression]

“Some in the EU now say ‘the EU isn’t about trade, it is about avoiding war’. It sounds so nice, but the implicit threats in that statement are quite stark.”

Once again you seem to conflate someone venturing an opinion with a threat. You did this on a previous thread when an Irish politician made comments about the potential impact of a hard border, so let me see if I can clear this up for you:

If someone says “I will burn down your house”, that is a threat. If someone says “Nice house you have there, shame if it were to burn down” that is an implicit threat. If someone says “great wobbling wombats Dipper, don’t throw lighted Molotovs in your house or it will burn down” then they are offering an opinion, not threatening to burn down your house. Try to mark the difference.

[Digression over]

“You may argue that the UK had a seat at the EU table, but it was unable or unwilling to use that to protect the rights of UK citizens in the opinion of the majority of the UK electorate who expressed an opinion.”

Except that the majority of the UK electorate haven’t expressed that opinion. As many have pointed out, the Brexit was straight up “in or out”. Not “are there criticisms you would like addressed”, or “please rank options in order of preference, Norway style, Hard Brexit, Remaining a member…etc….”. I would personally have preferred the latter, but it was what it was – stating that the majority of the UK have an opinion when that lacks citation is not exactly helpful. However, if you, personally, feel that the UK “was unable or unwilling to use that to protect the rights of UK citizens”, then why do you think this will be resolved by giving more power to the people you think won’t represent you?

And you seem to completely miss the point here. You have complained about the EU exerting control “over UK sovereignty”. Fair enough. Then, as is being pointed out, the WTO also exerts control and you respond “no, its fine if its more control, I just object to us being able to veto things we don’t like”. Eh?

Britishness

This….is where you lose me a lot.

“Which is to say that we as a society should have common values.”

OK, good. I mean, there are people in the UK I will not share many common values with, but in principle I am fine with the idea of finding common ground.

“A kind of Britishness.”

Why Britishness and not Europeaness? What values do you think are critical that are only evinced in Britain and not, for example, in France or Germany?

You talk a lot about cultural identity. Fair enough, I too enjoy Blackadder and Monty Python.

Where you lose me is in your implication that people in the UK, including me, must share more common values with each other than with anyone from the EU.

And that seems…unsupported?

I probably have far more in common with a Chemical Engineer in Spain than I do with Kray twins. Does that mean I am not part of the UK? Does it mean they would not be?

It seems to me that this is the problem with trying to elevate Britishness as a unique identity – it is so fuzzy and loose that the “values” you say are critical would apply to many, many others. And, as J-D pointed out, if you say “fairness” is a “British value”, it would seem either you have to agree it is equally a “German value” (in which case we have common values, so not really an objection to being in a union with them) or that the people of Germany do no – comparative to Britain – value fairness to the same extent. To me, either you should concede the argument, or you should define a uniquely British value as an example of something we don’t share with the rest of the EU.

My closing remarks

As I have previously said, the way I view the EU is an organisation which confers benefits on its members, while also imposing rules.

If your position is that you think that the benefits (which may include, but is not confined by, many of the things alluded to by others) will not be harmed by leaving, or are not worth the price paid by following the EU rules, then I can at least understand that (while not necessarily agreeing). I would say your objection seems to be aimed at the British MEPs rather than the EU, but OK.

But it seems you have some other deep-rooted objections which either you haven’t explained or I haven’t understood. If you want to continue this conversation I am up for it, but I think unless we can bridge the gap you may be better off talking to others on this thread.

Dipper

That is pretty much the definition of multiculturalism. That that’s what those folks do.

Citation needed.

Foreign nations do all sorts of things I personally don’t like, such as compulsory hijabs etc. But, if we take the issue 0f, say, the illegality of homosexuality in certain African countries that used to be part of the British Empire and are now independent, surely that independence was gained so that they can pass laws with which their former colonial masters disagree? What kind of independence is that allows a nation to pass laws providing their former colonial masters agree?

I am not advocating something like Poynings’ Law, requiring the permission of one country for the making of law in another. It is the case that I don’t evaluate the laws of my own country by whether they are ‘un-Australian’ or ‘un-un-Australian’ (if that is the correct antonym), but by whether they are bad or good laws, and I evaluate the laws of other countries also by whether they are bad or good laws, not by whether they are, for example, ‘un-Ugandan’ or ‘un-un-Ugandan’. Laws criminalising homosexuality are bad laws in whichever country they exist or have existed (as they used to exist in mine), and they are bad laws for the same reason in whichever country.

My native Yorkshire culture featured such standard things as regular domestic violence, women not being allowed their own money, dislike of foreigners and gays. That culture has been challenged and largely changed for the better. No-one seriously said that we live in a multicultural society so if the men of Yorkshire want to treat their women as punchbags that’s acceptable. If its reasonable to tell Yorkshiremen their behaviour is not acceptable (which it is) I’m not sure why anyone else should be spared.

I agree entirely and I’m not sure whether you think you have some reason to imagine otherwise.

That all said, how is any of this supposed to be relevant to evaluating UK membership of the EU? If there are any values which you would like the UK to promote, but you consider it is being hindered from promoting by EU membership, you have not made clear what they are. If there are any examples in which you consider the UK is being hindered by EU membership from doing the right thing, you have not made clear what they are. If, to pursue an earlier example, EU membership were hindering the UK from doing something about gaybashing, that would be a good argument in favour of the UK leaving the EU, but so far it doesn’t seem as if that is your reason. If, to pursue another earlier example, EU membership were hindering people in the UK from helping those for whom things have gone wrong and resulting in more being left uncared-for at the bottom of the pile, that would be a good argument in favour of the UK leaving the EU, but so far it doesn’t seem as if that is your reason. If, to take up another example you’ve just raised, EU membership were hindering the UK from restraining men from using women as punching-bags, that would be a good argument in favour of the UK leaving the EU, but so far it doesn’t seem as if that is your reason.

Notice that I am capable of imagining, quite easily, the kind of argument that would provide support for UK withdrawal from the EU. It’s an empirical observation on my part and not an a priori assumption that Leavers aren’t offering this kind of argument. It’s not the case that I start from the position that there could be no good arguments against EU membership. There could be, quite easily, in theory. But since Leavers don’t seem to be offering them, it’s hard to avoid suspecting that they don’t operate in practice.

Dipper: “My native Yorkshire culture featured such standard things as regular domestic violence, women not being allowed their own money, dislike of foreigners and gays. That culture has been challenged and largely changed for the better. ”

And every single such challenge would have come from the left, with the right supporting ‘traditional values’.

Barry @ 94

Confessions, projections, call them what you will. The right in all its flavors proceeds from the assumption that everyone else — inside or outside the familial or ideological boundaries — is to be feared, despised, and ultimately subdued. However one explains its persistence in human affairs, politics as sadomasochistic pornography is definitely a thing — 88, shithole countries, cucks, incels, “Ich bin braun weil Deutschland so bunt wird,” MAGA, etc.

If this pitiful calliope of dread has to be allowed to tootle and wheeze its way through our shopping mall parking lots until evolution finally stumbles on the resolution to humanity’s inherent neurological contradictions, so be it. Eternal recurrences, the return of the repressed, the sins of the fathers — the saddest thing about us as a species is that, at least from the perspective of a single life, we never seem to learn a damned thing….

Collin sreeet@91: “The moral and even legal legitimacy of the current borders of northern ireland is… kind of central to the whole northern ireland problem, no? That the current border represents a valid polity is the view of only one group in the debate.”

Seen from an ignorant Australian Irish perspective, that may well be so. Seen from a bit nearer, the view of all major groups inside Ireland, north and south, as proposed in the Good Friday Agreement and validated by referenda with massive majorities, is that the current border does represent a valid polity, but one that might later be changed by democratic means.

The only groups currently opposing that are the murderous irreconcilable physical-force republicans, denounced by Sinn Fein and all other parties, the ones who brought such undemocratic triumphs as the Omagh bomb. I would prefer to believe that Collin Street has no idea about what he says.

re IRA and Southern Ireland, there’s Sean O’Callaghan’s account, but we only have his word.

@ Barry And every single such challenge would have come from the left, with the right supporting ‘traditional values’. yes, but a reminder that the Government that made Gay marriage legal was the Cameron one. The conservative Party is essentially a party that enables managed social change. Or at least it used to be.

Brexit is precisely the opposite of that liberalization. No. Brexiteers generally want more open trade, but hold the UK government for managing the consequences of that.

@ Orange Watch “use the UK’s seat at the EU table to influence EU trade regs” if that was all the EU was I’d enthusiastically support it. But it is about creating an Empire. And that’s according to a man who should know, Guy Verhofstadt

#107

Yes, and not only would I disagree with it, I would say it is an exceptionally ignorant statement – just consider that if it were true, several academic disciplines – e.g. but not only sociology, history, political science – would be without merit.

An inescapable consequence of being more “conservative” than most is that most people will regard your positions as being needlessly conservative, and will hold you responsible for the negative consequences of the (percieved to be needlessly conservative) policies that you support.

This is true for all things, obviously.

@ John Quiggin “I wasted a minute watching the video. He didn’t say that”

If he wasn’t saying the EU is an empire, why did he go on about this being a world of Empires? Did he say “India is an empire, China is an Empire, the USA is an empire, but we are not an Empire?” No he didn’t.

If someone says “These things are empires. We should be more like these things” that’s pretty much saying we should be an empire.

Dipper: “Brexiteers generally want more open trade, but hold the UK government for managing the consequences of that.”

Brexiteers are for abandoning an open market with 500 million people, and trade treaties for probably a billion more, for pie-in-the-sky promises which they’ve proven they can’t produce. In the meantime they are basically considering whether or not to expel a few million ‘foreigners’ from the UK.

That’s not open trade, it’s xenophobia mixed with BS.

Dipper@107:

And yet you enthusiastically support WTO regulation, despite that not being merely trade regs – nor are they particularly democratic. Their trade regs come with requirements, and those requirements are meant to protect or install certain practices and structures in states subject to its policies. Which leads us back to John Quiggan’s observation that you don’t appear to understand what the WTO is and/or does. Or perhaps you count on the UK’s position as a traditional imperial power in the global north to ensure that the WTO will structure undemocratic agreements in your favor rather than to your detriment, despite your dramatically reduced leverage, simply because reasons?

I’ll defer to JQ’s judgement re: your link, as I’ve neither desire nor time to devote to InfoWars-level paranoia, especially when you seem unwilling to consider well-documented and public conspiracy from the WTO.

@ Barry

I said “but hold the UK government for managing the consequences of that.” Being in the EU makes it impossible for the UK government to manage the consequences, hence leaving. ‘NAFTA doesn’t require Canada to have open borders and accept US jurisdiction over its laws’ is now on auto-repeat

“We have all witnessed the Brexiteers move ‘Leave’ to being ‘No Deal’”. The number of Leavers who want No Deal as a preferred end state is small. Most want a deal, but regard being able to walk away as an essential element in negotiating a deal. The specific reason for wanting to walk away right now is the use of an interpretation of the GFA as guaranteeing open borders as a device to prevent the UK from leaving. If we leave without a deal then that forces an acceptable solution to be delivered between UK and EU around the border in Ireland, and then we can discuss a deal.

@ Orange Watch

I’m not aware of the WTO requiring unlimited migration from any nation I agree a deal with, or requiring me to pay money to countries I do a trade deal with, or requiring me to accept their laws, give extra rights to their citizens, or give other nations the right to control my armed forces. The bar is pretty low here for the WTO to be preferable to the EU.

Orange Watch:

Aside: A 1981 conversation about Europe with a Belgian colleague who emphasized that his country, unlike mine, had never had much real self-determination, and that Europe provided the best option to gain some influence over their own affairs. It made an impression on me, so I’m familiar with the case you make. That said, the African Union may have a different perspective on Belgian history.

Still, if I were Guy Verhofstadt and I wanted to send a message that Europe should “use solidarity and mutual aid to become a counterweight that can resist imperial influence” I would not start with the words “The world order of tomorrow is not based on nation states or countries, it is a world order that is based on empires.” I would instead start with the words “[…] it is a world order that is based on empires and alliances.” or “[…] it is a world order that is based on empires that we Europeans must resist.”

I don’t know Mr. Verhofstadt or his views, but I still think Dipper’s is the most likely reading, and your interpretation seems to me like wishful thinking. But maybe I’m just incapable of conceiving of actors who are not victims nor victimizers.

Dipper@119:

You may argue the bar is lower, but this was not the standard you argued before. You argued that getting out of the EU would prevent foreign undemocratic bodies from exercising control over the UK’s internal matters and/or promoting the interests of UK citizens over those of foreign citizens. This is patently false if the UK goes from the EU to “just WTO” rules; not that the imposition of outside interference would be reduced, but that it would be eliminated. I’m not going to defend specific claims I didn’t make even if you’d rather I did in order to let you avoid defending overly broad claims that you did make.

I think Dipper’s position is clear. It’s all about (the wrong kind of) migrants. As long as they can be kept out, it’s OK for Britain to be dictated to by the US on foreign policy, the WTO on trade policy (defined to include any kind of regulation whatsoever), and so on.

@ Orange Watch. ” getting out of the EU would prevent foreign undemocratic bodies from exercising control over the UK’s internal matters … This is patently false if the UK goes from the EU to “just WTO” rules” Show me one case of a nation having to implement internal domestic laws passed by the WTO, or an individual arguing that their rights are not determined by the parliament of that nation but by the court of the WTO.

re Verhofstadt and Empires, it is a statement that is clear in its intent but is deniable. If he didn’t mean to say that the EU is an Empire, he could, in the middle of a speech about how the world is constructed if Empires, say “but of course the EU is not an Empire”. But he didn’t.

@ John Quiggin “I think Dipper’s position is clear. It’s all about (the wrong kind of) migrants.” No. That’s the EU’s position that states their citizens must take precedent over citizens from the rest of the world. And show me one nation that has completely open borders to anyone from anywhere. Just one.

@ Hidari. Maastricht created an EU citizen with a right to reside anywhere in the EU. If they are self-supporting and law-abiding they cannot be removed.

Hmm, what “extra rights” to EU nationals in the UK have compared to British nationals? Well, because the EU allows free movement of labour, it deprecates laws that would in practice prevent people from being able to take up jobs because their families would be excluded from the country of employment. So non-EU spouses of EU nationals can go and live with them if they are resident in the UK. But the UK government, which has over the years toiled with great ingenuity to exclude people from the Indian subcontinent, has put in place laws – such as the minumum income requirement for spousal visas – that make it more difficult for UK citizens to live on the territory with their non-EU spouses. (Of course lots of non-south-Asians also get caught by this.) There’s a great irony in the fact that Brexiters attack EU free movement as “discriminatory” against the rest of the world but then complain about “extra rights” which are a consequence of the British government’s desire to … discriminate against the rest of the world.

Incidentally, nearly all countries grant “extra-rights” to non-nationals for some purposes. For example, although (as we saw in an earlier exchange) the US is a scandalous exception to this, most countries grant non-nationals an immunity to military conscription. Extra rights right there! (Other similar examples, where countries are bound not to be quite as shitty to foreigners as they are to their own governments can easily be found.)

Oh … and Dipper is right that no country in the world has (de jure anyway) completely open borders. But parts of Latin American come pretty close.

Zamfir@128:

Thanks for some missing perspective. That passage makes a lot more sense after hearing it. It was not unambiguous, and while the bulk of it lent itself to the interpretation I ended at, I did assume that he’d chosen his words poorly in one or two spots. The possibility that he’d been dog whistling to his opponents had never occurred to me, but it makes more sense than a straight reading meant only to persuade rather than to provoke the precise angry reactions it did from British nationalists.

@ Zamfir @ 128.

Yes. Understood. The European Parliament and the European Commission have a clear interest in a Federal Europe that is not necessarily shared by member states. And yes, they are at the edge of the Overton Window. I keep listening for voices of European Leaders pulling them back, but they never do. Instead, slowly, bit by bit, they repeat what Verhofstadt has said.

He is at it again today with what he won’t accept the UK doing. I know he is trolling us. But the Lib Dems invite him over to speak at a UK party conference, and there is very little push back from any other part of the UK political establishment. So I think I’m entitled to be of the opinion that what he says is what is going to happen.

It seems Boris Johnson has finally started to understand the single market yesterday, maybe Dipper will get there eventually as well.

@ J-D what your objection to a federal system is.”

Federal states usually exist for a reason, usually to stop people killing each other.

A Federal EU is not the best way to either govern ourselves or the best basis for relations with our neighbours. The EU doesn’t not exist to solve a problem the UK has, hence we have become a resource for the EU to exploit to solve its problems.

I don’t see New Zealand in any hurry to join the Australian Federation.

I see that we got past the passport issue, so we can spend more of our time drawing out the arguments of Brexiteers. There’s a certain level of entertainment in watching someone avoid stating the true deplorable reasons for their political position.

I would add that Dipper has shown support for an executive he favors running as an unaccountable – well, dictator.

He, like all of the other right bleating about ‘liberty’, is against freedom.