When will Brexit Happen

[fromageGB]

May has been the one in the hot seat and is still the best bet of getting parliament to stand up, show some leadership and act in the interests of the people. Nobody else has helped. Corbyn just plays party politics.

Of course she is, it is the prime minister in this country that makes decisions, and is almost as important as John Bercow (joke). She can make MPs stand up, but what she does is entirely what she wants to do (rumour is that vote number 4 for the same plan nobody agrees with is coming early next week) and is not in accordance with party policy, nor in accordance with the manifesto, nor in accordance with the referendum result, which means that she does not command respect. So leadership by definition, but not in the interests of the people.

 

Corbyn has the job of opposition leader, and regardless of manifesto pledges (you are permitted to drop those if you are not elected) his prime purpose in life is to oppose the government and bring it down. I hope he succeeds, rapidly.

 

Edit : After a successful vote of no confidence, Theresa May has 14 days to regain "the confidence of the house" and there is no limit to the number of times she can ask for a new vote on the same motion. I reckon that's 28 votes then.

[shyams]

A discussion at the Dail Eireann (Republic of Ireland parliament) today

 

https://youtu.be/bBntpqVqqQo

[helene_t]

Having said that, while I hope Brexit does not happen, the EU has become a bloated expensive bureaucracy of fat cat bureaucrats imposing their will on sovereign member states and economies. It needs serious reform. It causes massive damage on member states economies and cultures despite the good things that come out of greater economic and political cooperation.

While I would agree somewhat about the fat cats (the EP in particular is way too expensive), I am curious what you mean by imposing their will and causing massive damage. As I see it, the EU just does what the member states agree on.

 

Maybe I am biased because most of the things that come out of Brussels is something I happen to agree with (stricter environmental regulations, consumer protection, human rights, harmonization of industry standards).

[Cyberyeti]

While I would agree somewhat about the fat cats (the EP in particular is way too expensive), I am curious what you mean by imposing their will and causing massive damage. As I see it, the EU just does what the member states agree on.

 

Maybe I am biased because most of the things that come out of Brussels is something I happen to agree with (stricter environmental regulations, consumer protection, human rights, harmonization of industry standards).

 

The EU absolutely does NOT do what the member states want. Tusk would not be in his job if they did (his own country Poland said under no circumstances to elect him). Fishing and agricultural policies also caused massive damage.

 

There's also the fiasco of countries being allowed to join the Euro when they were nowhere close to meeting the criteria because the greater Europe project can't be allowed to be derailed by inconvenient facts.

[thepossum]

While I would agree somewhat about the fat cats (the EP in particular is way too expensive), I am curious what you mean by imposing their will and causing massive damage. As I see it, the EU just does what the member states agree on.

 

Maybe I am biased because most of the things that come out of Brussels is something I happen to agree with (stricter environmental regulations, consumer protection, human rights, harmonization of industry standards).

 

Its hard for me to discuss all the pros and cons I see with the EU and how it has changed. It would take pages but here a few thoughts....

 

The Eurozone economic system is dominated by a few big economies and has stood in the way of many countries managing their own economies to take account of their specific issues.

 

There are many good areas of cooperation between EU countries in terms research, environment, human rights, trade etc. However much of the bureaucracy is unnecessary and expensive.

 

I think ideally it should be reformed and trimmed. Also, anyone who knows about the EU knows about the level of wealth and luxury the bureaucrats have, all paid by poor workers and businesses in member countries.

 

 

The biggest danger I see is that the extreme leave debate has been hijacked by fascism and Tory self-interest rather than the interests of the people. But many people in the UK (and other countries) totally missed out on the benefits. Certain regions and classes benefit much more and the ordinary worker and many businesses do not see the positive aspects.

 

 

I hoped the UK remained in EU but I understand why people wanted to leave. I think a loser union with smaller central bureaucracy and control would be good

 

PS Is an expensive European parliament really necessary. What do they actually do except live it up on their big salaries and banquets every night

[cherdano]

I think the Brexit votes in parliament might be Arrow's impossibility theorem in action. I'll have to think about the numbers more carefully, but for now I'll note the following: if we restricted parliament to the three options of

- pass a amended deal with the stated goal of a customs union ("soft brexit"),

- pass May's deal as it is,

- crash out without a deal,

and you asked every MP to rank their preference in order, you'd easily get votes for all six possibilities.

 

I think you might get similar results with other examples of three options (say, revoke article 50/soft Brexit/May Brexit).

[helene_t]

I think the Brexit votes in parliament might be Arrow's impossibility theorem in action. I'll have to think about the numbers more carefully, but for now I'll note the following: if we restricted parliament to the three options of

- pass a amended deal with the stated goal of a customs union ("soft brexit"),

- pass May's deal as it is,

- crash out without a deal,

and you asked every MP to rank their preference in order, you'd easily get votes for all six possibilities.

 

I think you might get similar results with other examples of three options (say, revoke article 50/soft Brexit/May Brexit).

 

If the absolute majority rule was applied we would probably find that soft brexit wins from all the other alternatives. If that's the case, it wouldn't be impossible (in Arrow's sense) to make a decision that is the consensus choice. But it could still be impossible for other reasons. I expect that some MPs want one thing but want something else to appear from their voting record. For example, it could be a strategy to vote against everything (including "no deal") to make sure that "no deal" happens, but that it is someone else's fault.

[johnu]

I'm changing my vote to any of the last 4 choices.

[y66]

Partha Dasgupta, the Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge, proposed in February that Parliament should scrap its “up or down” voting system, which is unable to cope with situations when there are three or more options, and use Condorcet's method to ask each MP to submit a ballot that allows him or her to pick both a first choice and then a second choice if the first is not available. Professor Dasgupta grants that a flaw of the Arrow Theorem type could arise but thinks it is highly unlikely. He said he and Eric Maskin have demonstrated formally that the probability a flaw of the Arrow Theorem type will arise under Condorcet’s method is lower than that under any other voting system, adding "Brexit has been an extraordinarily divisive issue for the UK, and no option will satisfy everyone. However, parliament can break the current stalemate and produce a truly democratic outcome if the House of Commons adopts Condorcet voting."

[PeterAlan]

You can appeal a decision of the nation's highest court to the European court, and some of the judgments it comes up with are extremely odd

This is often misrepresented: the [European] Court of Justice is only the final court in matters of European Union law; its jurisdiction does not extend to domestic law in general.

[Cyberyeti]

This is often misrepresented: the [European] Court of Justice is only the final court in matters of European Union law; its jurisdiction does not extend to domestic law in general.

 

Most of the cases are that national law is incompatible with EU law.

[PeterAlan]

You can appeal a decision of the nation's highest court to the European court, and some of the judgments it comes up with are extremely odd

Moreover, it is incorrect to say that "you can appeal a decision ...": cases for the Court of Justice have to be referred by the relevant national court (or EU institution), not by an individual appellant.

 

The UK has a good record in relation to cases with the Court of Justice, both in the number of referrals (relatively low) and in terms of their resolution: for example, see Institute for Government's report.

 

Most of the cases that the press and some politicians highlight for criticism have nothing whatsoever to do with the [European] Court of Justice, the one that is an European Union institution; instead, they are judgments of the entirely separate European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] in Strasbourg, which is concerned with alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Convention (drafted 1950; came into effect 1953) was created under the auspices of the Council of Europe (established 1949), which both pre-dates and is entirely separate from the European Union and its predecessors. (Incidentally, the United Kingdom played a leading role both in the establishment of the Council of Europe - it was created by the Treaty of London - and in drafting and promulgating the Convention on Human Rights.) Again, the UK has a good record at this Court too, both in the number of referrals and in their outcomes.

 

UK courts are required under the Human Rights Act to take account of ECHR judgments, but they are not bound by them.

 

Leaving the EU (if it happens) would not affect the UK's obligations under this Convention, and in particular would not remove us from the ECHR.

 

I focused initially on the Court of Justice, since your remark was in response to a question about the "EU judicial body" and the "EU charter", but I felt your response was potentially misleading. It has suited mendacious politicians and others to conflate the two entirely separate and different Courts, and to spin ECHR judgments with which they take issue as reasons for leaving the EU: please do not add to this confusion.