My view on Brexit

[WellSpyder]

In the UK the idea of public service is still a real idea. The term "civil servant" is very much in use. Those who hold political or administrative offices are there to serve us. The unelected EU officials feel a lot more like political overlords than servants.

Very interested to see someone else articulate this view. Having been a UK civil servant for around a dozen years, and also been involved in a number of meetings with EU officials in Brussels, I found myself feeling quite strongly that there was a difference of approach between UK civil servants trying to do their job as best they could and EU officials seeing their job as being about personal aggrandisement. No doubt this was and is very unfair, probably on both sides, but it certainly has an impact on how desirable it feels to be "ruled from Brussels".

[Al_U_Card]

"ruled from Brussels".

Power sprouts from Brussels? Ouch ;)

 

Meanwhile, George Soros and Nouriel Roubini predict gloom and doom if Brexit occurs.

 

Now they couldn't be wrong, could they?

 

They surely have big, crystal balls. :)

[Trinidad]

Very interested to see someone else articulate this view. Having been a UK civil servant for around a dozen years, and also been involved in a number of meetings with EU officials in Brussels, I found myself feeling quite strongly that there was a difference of approach between UK civil servants trying to do their job as best they could and EU officials seeing their job as being about personal aggrandisement. No doubt this was and is very unfair, probably on both sides, but it certainly has an impact on how desirable it feels to be "ruled from Brussels".

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

 

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:

There is no proportional representation due to the district system.

The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

 

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

 

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

 

Rik

[1eyedjack]

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

 

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:

There is no proportional representation due to the district system.

The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

 

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

 

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

 

Rik

I fear that you may be confusing politicians with civil servants. They are different. Yes Minister is compulsory viewing.

[Trinidad]

I fear that you may be confusing politicians with civil servants. They are different. Yes Minister is compulsory viewing.

I was referring to the way Vampyr uses the term, which I thought was the framework of the discussion (emphasis mine):

In the UK the idea of public service is still a real idea. The term "civil servant" is very much in use. Those who hold political or administrative offices are there to serve us.

 

I think I watched most episodes of 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes Prime-Minister', but the idea that this is compulsary viewing is rather Brittish. Other countries have their own way of depicting the relation between politics and administration. But, while we are talking 'Yes, Minister': Apart from showing painfully accurately how the administration influences (if not 'rules') the Brittish government, 'Yes, Minister' also illustrates very nicely how Brittish ministers are mixed (if not 'torn') between governing (as a minister) and controlling the government (as an elected MP).

 

But all these details are not so relevant. What is relevant is that it is entirely normal for a Brittish civil servant to look upon EU civil servants as an entirely different breed. That is because there is a difference between how British civil service works and how civil service works in other European countries. Not better/worse, just different.

 

Rik

[WellSpyder]

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

 

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:

There is no proportional representation due to the district system.

The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

 

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

 

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

 

Rik

I'm sure there is something in your comment that political cultures are simply different (or, more specifically, administrative cultures, since my point was intended to be specifically about officials rather than politicians). I'm not sure that is the whole story, though. I think the culture of the UK civil service changed between, say, the 1960s and the 1990s, partly perhaps as a result of Mrs Thatcher's attempts to roll back the frontiers of the state, and the notion that public spending is a "good thing" and that "government knows best" became less embedded in how things were done. What I saw of EU administration felt like a step backwards.

 

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

[Vampyr]

 

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

 

I think it is the fact that the members of the government are also MPs. in other countries, eg the US, the Executive Branch is completely separate from the Legislative Branch. And of course, a President could and often does have a minority of his party in Congress. So parliamentary oversight is OK but who is watching the watchers.

[Trinidad]

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated.

 

In the UK, cabinet ministers can (must?) also be a member of parliament. This means that parliament is intertwined with the body it is supposed to oversee. Would you find it acceptable if the board of Unilever would be on the British Food Safety Board, deciding whether food is safe to consume?

 

Still, this is not relevant. The point is that things in the UK are different from things in Brussels. No big news: Things in Spain or Latvia are also different from things in Brussels. That is what happens when different systems work together. To present the fact that Brussels works in a different way than London as an argument against co-operation is silly: Or are all your colleagues clones of yourself?

 

Rik

[1eyedjack]

Parliamentary oversight, at least in the UK of secondary legislation, is a theory rather than a practice. The reality is that most legislation is secondary legislation and most of that legislation goes through "on the nod" with virtually no scrutiny. Even some of the primary legislation gets far less parliamentary time allotted for debate than it should.

 

Not sure that this has much bearing on Brexit. Perhaps it is an argument for Bremain.

[Zelandakh]

In the UK, cabinet ministers can (must?) also be a member of parliament.

Can yes but not must. They can also be in the House of Lords. Occasionally a PM wants to appoint someone to cabinet from outside both houses and in in that case they receive a peerage. The last time I can remember this happening was Peter Mandelson. A person can also attend cabinet meetings without being a cabinet minister and in this case they do not need to be in either house.

 

As for parliamentary oversight, it is a fine idea but history shows that it is rarely effective. Tony Blair was often accused of bypassing cabinet through "armchair government" but it had little bearing on him as he was seen as a winner of elections and that is the only oversight that really counts at the end of the day. In practice, the ability of the government to "buy" executive positions in combination with a voting system that provides minority governments (by popular vote) with huge majorities means that the only real scrutiny comes from the electorate.

[helene_t]

My own limited experience with eu bureaucracy is that it is very professional. I would say that uk is not bad either but the political interference in what ought to be nonpartisan professional decision making can be alarming. Oh well maybe I have just been unlucky and shouldn't stereotype so much.

 

It uses to be so that UK had very limited influence on the EU bureaucracy because British bureaucrats don't speak French, but my impression is that English is becoming more widely used. I think that if British civil servants believe they could do some things better then they should be more active in applying for jobs in Brussels.

[WellSpyder]

The point is that things in the UK are different from things in Brussels. No big news: Things in Spain or Latvia are also different from things in Brussels. That is what happens when different systems work together. To present the fact that Brussels works in a different way than London as an argument against co-operation is silly: Or are all your colleagues clones of yourself?

I don't think I have presented the fact that Brussels works in a different way from London as an argument against cooperation at all. I agree that would be silly. But I think it is equally silly to assume that any way of doing something is as sensible as any other way of doing it. I have worked in different departments within the UK, too, which have very different bureaucratic cultures, and I have clear views about some of them being more effective from the point of view of serving the public interest than others.

[helene_t]

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated.

It works like that in France where the presidental election and the parliamentary election are seperate. Similarly in Italy and Germany, but there the power of the president is much more limited, and in practice the connection between government and parlament are quite strong. Probably the influence from the government on the voting of the parlament majority is a bit weaker in the Netherlands and Germany than in the UK but is there really that much of a difference?

 

In Denmark, the ministers tend to be MPs but I think it matters little in practice since they don't have time to fullfill their MP role anyway and just vote with the party weep, or abstain.

[cherdano]

Maybe a few more thoughts on how Brexit would affect Universities, i.e. my corner of life.

 

In world-wide university rankings, British institutions very often do exceptionally well (4-5 in the top 20). Well, that's probably a bit of an overstatement by those rankings, but they are still excellent in international comparison. Where does this come from? Partly of course from great traditions, but partly it is due to the fact that British Universities are better at attracting international researchers and students than any other country in Europe. Part of that is due to language, part due to culture, part due to tradition.

 

A successful Brexit would undoubtedly make a dent into that ability to attract international talent. Maybe EU researchers would now need VISAs to work there. Maybe not. But even if not, it would send a message. If you follow Brexit coverage in the US media, there is hardly any article in the last few days that does not point to the infamous "Breaking point" campaign poster Nigel Farage. (In case anyone hasn't seen it yet - it has been compared to Nazi propaganda, and the comparison doesn't exactly look like the usual hyperbolic Goodwin's law comment:

.)

 

So a vote for Brexit would - whether that's fair or not - mostly be seen as a vote against immigrants. Whether the UK follows up with making immigration more difficult, it would certainly make it more difficult for any institution that wants to attract international talent.

[cherdano]

Finally, an episode of vox.com's "The Weeds" podcast (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/17/11958446/the-weeds-mass-shooting-gun-control-orlando), as well as a few other articles. has sharpened my thinking about the consequences of Brexit a little bit.

 

Those who favour Brexit hope (I think) that the UK would still get access to the free market, without having to abide by EU regulations and the freedom of movement. That just seems unlikely. First, there is the example of Norway. They have to abide by both. And have to contribute to the budget as well - roughly 900 million Euros per year gross. And Norway's access to the single market was mostly about oil - something EU countries are happy to buy from Norway anyway.

One of the biggest export industries of the UK are, obviously, financial services. Netherlands would have a selfish interest to make that export more difficult, as Amsterdam would undoubtedly benefit as a financial center if it becomes more difficult for London to sell them to EU companies. To a lesser extent, the same holds for Germany and Frankfurt. (Frankfurt may not actually be a big international center of finance, but it certainly looks that way to Germans.) Meanwhile, Eastern European countries might see a Brexit vote as a slap in their face, as they may see the Brexit campaign as mostly targeting their citizens. There is just no guarantee that they would choose to act rationally and do what's in everyone's best interests; they might just opt to get in a bit of revenge and make things difficult for the UK - especially if the UK insists on making immigration more difficult.

And meanwhile, there is of course the incentive to make an example of the UK, in order to deter others who might think of seceding from the EU.

 

All in all, I find it difficult to imagine an outcome of negotiations where the UK continues to be able to export to the EU as freely as it does now, without having to abide by EU regulations and freedom of movement, and without contributing to the EU budget (obviously to a smaller extent than currently).

[cherdano]

One more post: here is an interesting argument in favour of Brexit that I had not heard before:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11974600/brexit-eu-euro-disaster

Short version: a British exit would make it easier to save the Euro. The EU could become the set of countries who have adopted the Euro and could then much more of a "United states of Europe". This would make the enormous transfer payments from rich to poor regions a possibility that are necessary to save the Euro.

[fromageGB]

Those who favour Brexit hope (I think) that the UK would still get access to the free market, without having to abide by EU regulations and the freedom of movement.

I think you might have this wrong. Many of us do not want a Norway model, and are convinced that UK will be able to trade quite happily independently. The EU has been a steadily declining part of our trade, and as one of the bigger economies I can't see much difficulty in continuing to buy goods from anywhere, and selling what little we do.

 

But it does not look like it is going to happen. Stock market manipulators have pushed the FTSE up 5% over the last few days as short sellers have cancelled their bets. Incidentally, this is another failure of the EU: they years ago planned to introduce a share trading transaction tax but haven't the balls to implement it. The vast majority of share trades are automatic, programs buying and selling for tiny gains, and a tax would stop that. Share prices are not moved by you and me (or pension funds etc) investing or withdrawing, but by gambling. Apparently when Tobin tax was tried in Sweden, bond trading fell by 85%. Sorry, it should be pet peeve thread. A bigger peeve is people selling shares they don't own, and the EU hasn't even looked at that.

[barmar]

Can yes but not must. They can also be in the House of Lords.

What does that mean? The House of Lords is part of the Parliament.

[barmar]

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated.

I'm not really that familiar with European governments, but what does "government" mean if it doesn't include Parliament? Here in the US (at both the federal and state levels), the legislature is just one component of the government.

 

Is it like the distinction between the Board of Directors of a company and the executives of the company?

[helene_t]

Is it like the distinction between the Board of Directors of a company and the executives of the company?

Yes. This may be a language issue. On this side of the pond we say "government" when Americans say "cabinet". I don't think there is a British word for cabinet+parlament (would you also include the queen? what about the civil service, the military, the police and the courts?) but I am actually not sure about the British usage.

[Zelandakh]

What does that mean? The House of Lords is part of the Parliament.

This is true but Member of Parliament, which is the term used in the post I was responding to, generally refers only to those elected to the lower house.

[barmar]

Yes. This may be a language issue. On this side of the pond we say "government" when Americans say "cabinet". I don't think there is a British word for cabinet+parlament (would you also include the queen? what about the civil service, the military, the police and the courts?) but I am actually not sure about the British usage.

Yeah, seems like a difference in language. We use "government" to mean all the organizations involved, split into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. And "civil servant" usually means ordinary employees of the government (in ordinary corporations we call them "individual contributors"), not the elected and appointed officials who run it; while the officials are technically also employees (they get their paychecks from the same places), we don't usually use the term for them. Civil service jobs are the kind you can apply for just like a job in any other organization, they're often unionized, etc.

[cherdano]

Watched a bit of BBC last night. Remarkably, every politician who came on air said the essentially same thing: "This vote just goes to prove I have been right all along." That was before the results were known.

 

Of course, it also goes to show I have been right all along. It has always stunned me at how condescending and patronising a large number of English (*) politicians sound. I can just never quite lose the impression that they think they and their buddies from the same elite boarding schools and fancy private clubs in Oxbridge etc. know what's best for the country, and they just have to somehow get all the other idiots along in the ride.

Turns out much of rural England feels the same way as I do, and decided to vote against what most of their political leaders recommended them to vote for.

 

(*) I do mean English - Scottish politicians do seem to strike a different tone, and it's not just the accent.

 

Why do I post this? I am really curious whether others here I agree.

[cherdano]

But just in case it wasn't clear, the vote did prove I was right all along!

[shyams]

Watched a bit of BBC last night. Remarkably, every politician who came on air said the essentially same thing: "This vote just goes to prove I have been right all along." That was before the results were known.

 

Of course, it also goes to show I have been right all along. It has always stunned me at how condescending and patronising a large number of English (*) politicians sound. I can just never quite lose the impression that they think they and their buddies from the same elite boarding schools and fancy private clubs in Oxbridge etc. know what's best for the country, and they just have to somehow get all the other idiots along in the ride.

Turns out much of rural England feels the same way as I do, and decided to vote against what most of their political leaders recommended them to vote for.

 

(*) I do mean English - Scottish politicians do seem to strike a different tone, and it's not just the accent.

 

Why do I post this? I am really curious whether others here I agree.

 

Agree with you.

There is an idiom about "cutting off the nose to spite the face". The political class were probably much despised by many.

The Brexit vote was a huge two-finger salute to all British (especially English) political class. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK (including the disaffected population who chose to vote Leave) is hurt more over the long term.