Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

Tell me how wrote:

I'd be leaning towards it turning out to be more of the Anti-EU vote.

Not at all. I would expect a strong turnout of remain voters and in fact it is a good opportunity for Change UK to campaign on the pro-EU platform of 2nd ref/revoke and beat ukip, cons as well as Labour significantly. I expect either a draw or more pro-EU MEPs actually.

The leave camp tend to be people who are less educated and less politically active overall. Labour made an analysis of the referendum vote with respect gains/losses they could make by 2nd ref/revoke policy and it turned out that supporting Brexit would cost them way more than supporting 2nd ref/revoke. Also, it turned out that many of the people who voted leave in the referendum had never voted before and will never again , so what's the point of trying to fawning to them and being afraid of losing votes. The exact opposite is true for the remain voters - they tend to vote regularly, be politically active and it makes sense to count on their voice when thinking about policy.

This is one of the reasons cons and especially ERG are afraid of the EU elections. And of course it will be a quasi-referendum in a sense and show that Brexit isn't that much supported after all.

Tell me how

McGiver wrote: »

Not at all. I would expect a strong turnout of remain voters and in fact it is a good opportunity for Change UK to campaign on the pro-EU platform of 2nd ref/revoke and beat ukip, cons as well as Labour significantly. I expect either a draw or more pro-EU MEPs actually.

The leave camp tend to be people who are less educated and less politically active overall. Labour made an analysis of the referendum vote with respect gains/losses they could make by 2nd ref/revoke policy and it turned out that supporting Brexit would cost them way more than supporting 2nd ref/revoke. Also, it turned out that many of the people who voted leave in the referendum had never voted before and will never again , so what's the point of trying to fawning to them and being afraid of losing votes. The exact opposite is true for the remain voters - they tend to vote regularly, be politically active and it makes sense to count on their voice when thinking about policy.

This is one of the reasons cons and especially ERG are afraid of the EU elections. And of course it will be a quasi-referendum in a sense and show that Brexit isn't that much supported after all.

It's a dead rubber in terms of affecting change. Even if every MEP seat in the UK was filled with a pro-EU person, it still couldn't affect change or bring about a 2nd referendum.

I can't see many strongly Pro-EU people willing to burn effort and money in getting elected to something which they might be out of before their name sign has been fitted to their seat position.

Horsebox9000

looksee wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/06/uk/europe-brexit-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html

The glorious irony of CNN discussing the fact that the UK's electoral system needs to be torn up and start again. He's not wrong, but surely one of the few western voting systems worse than the UK's is the US's!

Actually appreciate the electoral college myself. Helps give a fairer representation of the what each state wants. If it was done by popular vote then California would be running the whole country.
To each their own

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trouble with history is that it is written by the victor.

For example, Chamberlain is vilified for his 'Peace in our time' appeasement with Hitler but what is not appreciated is that if Britain had gone to war with Germany in Sept 1938 instead of Sept 1939, they may well have suffered defeat. The extra year for war preparations did help - after all, the Battle of Britain was nearly lost. Churchill on the other hand is considered (by some) to be a war hero although we know a different side of his story which cost us a civil war.

History needs to be studied - but also understood.

Chamberlain should be remembered as the man who took Britain to war, instead he is vilified as an appeaser. It’s an insane retrofitting of history.

The worst are the Americans who talk about appeasement and Chamberlain every time they need to invade somewhere (and therefore have compared some tin pot Middle Eastern dictator to Hitler).

So they are accusing a man who went to war after the polish invasion as an appeaser when he US stayed out until it was attacked. Until Germany declared war in fact.

Anteayer

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Not everything british is bad, the common law system is fine. Losing it would be a loss.

To be quite honest I think that article is taking things to extremes. Changing the Irish legal system would be a gargantuan task with no benefit from an Irish or EU point of view.

The system interacts perfectly well with the ECJ and other EU bodies.

There also isn't a homogeneous legal system on the the continent and there hasn't ever been an EU push to create one. They may be based on civil code but there are significant variations in how different countries do things and there isn't a common system, just similarities.

Scandinavian law for example is almost a hybrid of the two and places a lot of emphasis on precedent, interpretation and legal custom. It's a LOT more flexible and familiar than say French law.

Also Malta and Cyprus use common law based systems far as I'm aware.

In the US Louisiana uses a French inspired civil code based legal system and so does Québec in Canada. In both cases their legal systems are different from their respective federal legal systems but it still works just fine. Scotland also uses a hybrid system that's partially based on civil code and is very different to English or Irish law but it's coexisted in the UK legal system since the 1700s without any issue, even sharing the Westminster parliament as part of its legislature.

There's also a huge commercial advantage to Ireland's legal system when the UK leaves (assuming they ever do) as it's both very familiar to companies who've been operating in the UK and is also very familiar to American companies as it's not a million miles away from US common law in many respects either.

I honestly can't see the being any sudden push in Europe to create a single legal system. It would be a massive and problematic task in most countries, not just Ireland.

I'd say well probably just see a layer of EU law continue to evolve as it has been doing for many years now.

Irish law will inevitably continue to diverge from English law but it's not as if that's necessarily a totally negative thing. It was always a distinct legal system but it's also been diverging significantly since independence - the biggest change probably being the addition of a layer of constitutional law and a written constitution.

We're just going to have to be a lot more active with interacting with the EU bodies and also probably need to be talking a to our Scandinavian counterparts much more too as we've more legal common ground with them even if it's not the same common law structure they've a system that's a bit closer to ours in a lot of ways.

The biggest change is that we'll have to be more active with how we parse and interpret EU directives and so on. We also need to work with Cyprus which uses common law and Malta with its hybrid of both.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Anybody know why they rubbed out the faces of the people standing on each side of Farage in that photo?

Probably because the article is making comments that it cannot attribute to the Brexit supporters that are in the background and is afraid that they could sue for being accused of supporting NI loyalists (something that most have zero interest in) by association just because they're standing behind Nigel. Especially when you consider just how anti-British the article actually is,

road_high

Donald Trump wrote: »

In fairness, they are a national public broadcaster. And not everyone would be reading and researching things on the internet. So all they are doing is keeping people up to date. Even if there are no real "developments" it doesn't mean that they should be just using that time to squeeze in another episode of Fair City.



RTE can't really have any conclusions when the main protagonists in the drama haven't even figured out what they want to ask for themselves!

Exactly do a brief run down on things but not these continuous “life is going to end as we know it” sensationalism and cameras on the borders things. Really just going around in circles at this stage, none of this is new

GM228

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with common law is it is driven by precedent which can be not a good thing. Looking back just thirty years, our society has changed beyond recognition, so why should the legal system be driven by the decisions made over a century ago?

That is actually one of the reasons why common law is a good thing, it evolves with time and is very flexible, civil law is very rigid and slow to respond to changes in the modern society.

There are countless scholarly articles on them, both have their pros and cons, however as someone who has intensely studied the law both historically and in the modern era I would much prefer a common law system over a civil law system which can be too predictable and inflexible, there are good arguments that common law provides a more just justice system than civil law.

Infini

Anteayer wrote: »

To be quite honest I think that article is taking things to extremes. Changing the Irish legal system would be a gargantuan task with no benefit from an Irish or EU point of view.

To be fair I'd agree on this, changing an entire system of legal interpretation is literally the nuclear option and would only be a viable one should all other avenues of fixing things be impossible.

Realistically IMO the only problem with our current legal system would likely be the ridiculous compo culture like that forcing those daycares to shut down due to exorberant insurance hikes from compo parasites winning cases on shaky or extremely controversial reasons. Beyond that though I dont see much of a reason for such drastic changes tho.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not as simple as that.

If there are three seats, then the quota is 25% of the valid poll, while it is 20% for four seats. So a different quota will affect the counting, and possibly the third and fourth seats. There would have to be two separate counts, one for three seats and one four four seats.

Obviously, this is a nightmare.

Leo was on RTE 1 today saying that the extra seat will have to be allocated based on an extra (duplicate) count. Because the quota will be different for Dublin and Ireland South, they will conduct the count assuming no extra seat, and then do a complete recount on the assumption of the extra seat.

Dublin will go from 4 seats to 5 seats, so quota will be 20% and then 16.66%. The last seat could well be different in the second case for 5 seats, and maybe even the last two seats may be different. Lots of fun if the MEP on the fourth seat of the four seat count loses it when the 4th and 5th seat are declared for the five seat count.

I can see a path beaten to the high court.

Capt'n Midnight

trashcan wrote: »

I don't see why we should lost the common law system. I'd be very surprised if we ditched it, and on what basis would we come under pressure to do so ? We come under the CJEU and the ECtHR so that should be enough.

What % of our GDP depends on US multinationals based here because of common law ?

Can't see us changing anytime soon.

iguana

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did a subject called CSPE at school. Civil, Social & Political Education. Didn't appreciate it in hindsight but it should have been a core subject. People should know how the government is structured, how the President/Monarch works and their powers, a bit about the courts, etc...

Usborne do a great kid's book called Politics for Beginners which is a good starting point about different systems of government and how it operates on various levels. It's a simplistic book but good for primary school aged kids. I got it when my son was 5 and we use it to help him understand things he sees on the news but can't understand.

Igotadose

Infini wrote: »

To be fair I'd agree on this, changing an entire system of legal interpretation is literally the nuclear option and would only be a viable one should all other avenues of fixing things be impossible.
.

Seems like there've been other articles from lawyers/barristers/... that show them slavering at the thought of huge amount of 'legal engineering' that need to be done to implement Brexit - it is, after all, a legal agreement, and I've never met a lawyer that didn't want to bill huge amounts of hours. So, I'm taking this with a substantial grain of salt, the government should priortize more pressing problems that throwing out the legal system, which would make huge amounts of politicians and lawyers happy, but those of us that would have to foot the bill would likely as not, get our money's worth.

Especially as so many politicians were solicitors and this could be their retirement gravy train, keep working on the legal engineering of replacing the common law system with another one, after they've driven the effort to change the system politically. Nice work if you can get it.

Naah, the more I think about the idea, the less I like it. Better to spend their effort fixing the current system, the compos, the enormous amount of convictions without jail time, ignoring societal-impacting lack of sentencing for things like not paying child support, and so on.

Anyway, still seems like this is a good subject for another thread.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not as simple as that.

If there are three seats, then the quota is 25% of the valid poll, while it is 20% for four seats. So a different quota will affect the counting, and possibly the third and fourth seats. There would have to be two separate counts, one for three seats and one four four seats.

Obviously, this is a nightmare.

Leo was on RTE 1 today saying that the extra seat will have to be allocated based on an extra (duplicate) count. Because the quota will be different for Dublin and Ireland South, they will conduct the count assuming no extra seat, and then do a complete recount on the assumption of the extra seat.

Dublin will go from 4 seats to 5 seats, so quota will be 20% and then 16.66%. The last seat could well be different in the second case for 5 seats, and maybe even the last two seats may be different. Lots of fun if the MEP on the fourth seat of the four seat count loses it when the 4th and 5th seat are declared for the five seat count.

I can see a path beaten to the high court.

But people would vote differently if there was extra seats.

You can't run an election and simply change the rules.

Totally unacceptable that in order for the UK to take back control the whole democratic process in Ireland needs to be messed with.

Anteayer

It's just someone theorising on what could happen. They raise very valid points and we do need to be a lot more active about how we interact with European law as we won't be able to rely on a larger neighbour's interpretations but, it's not a bad thing for Irish and English law to diverge - that's basically what being independent is about. We picked one path and they've picked another.

Also many of the concepts that have bled into Irish common law from European sources have been positive.

You could argue the benefits and disadvantages of common law Vs civil code all day. They're both capable of being extremely good legal systems. For example, Ireland has been codifying criminal law for a long time based on initiatives from our own systems and that's seen as a very positive move by most as it makes things simpler, more transparent and consistent.

However, it's extremely unlikely that Ireland will be ripping up a centuries old legal system to replace it for the sake of harmonising with a system that doesn't exist.

I think we're going to just see more code in Irish law both from our own sources and from EU influences.

Systems evolve and I really just don't see there being any reason to panic about English Law no longer being in the EU. We just need to build stronger links with other legal systems that are closer to how we so things within the EU and that's probably Scandinavian Law. It's not just one homogenous system and is unlikely to ever be in our lifetimes.

Also we've a legal system that's probably more active and has more academic supper than at any time in its history. So it should be well able for it.

Like most things with Brexit there are two sides to this legal issue. The big positive being Ireland could potentially become a major centre for dispute resolution in commercial law, if our legal system gets it right as were very similar to what corporates have been dealing with in English Law and you can actually reference cases from Common Law jurisdictions to inform how you deal with cases here. So it's easy enough to port a lot of contracts and so on into Irish law, much more easily than into say French or Dutch law.

GM228

Anteayer wrote: »

It's just someone theorising on what could happen. They raise very valid points and we do need to be a lot more active about how we interact with European law as we won't be able to rely on a larger neighbour's interpretations but, it's not a bad thing for Irish and English law to diverge - that's basically what being independent is about. We picked one path and they've picked another.

Irish and English law diverge on many aspects and always have and you can look at any jurisdiction around the world for interpretations of law if you wish.

Leaving the EU does not change that, in terms of interpreting EU law, the ultimate interpretation of EU law where there is a question of it's application comes from the ECJ, not other member states.

Anteayer

GM228 wrote: »

Irish and English law diverge on many aspects and always have and you can look at any jurisdiction around the world for interpretations of law if you wish.

Leaving the EU does not change that.

They have but I'd still argue that a fully independent Irish legal culture (rather than system) took a long time to really establish. You'd a lot of hangover.

The bigger issue is that we will just have to be more active as the big common law jurisdiction next door won't be doing any of that anymore.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trouble with history is that it is written by the victor.

For example, Chamberlain is vilified for his 'Peace in our time' appeasement with Hitler but what is not appreciated is that if Britain had gone to war with Germany in Sept 1938 instead of Sept 1939, they may well have suffered defeat. The extra year for war preparations did help - after all, the Battle of Britain was nearly lost. Churchill on the other hand is considered (by some) to be a war hero although we know a different side of his story which cost us a civil war.

History needs to be studied - but also understood.

The nostalgia filter has lot to answer for.

There's a film on Talking Pictures soon called "The Ship that Died of Shame" it's about the hardships and criminality at the end of WWII. Wouldn't fit into the Brexiteer worldview.

The other view of 1938 is the Western betrayal

Czechoslovakia was a democracy with a large army and good defences and arms industries. When Germany invaded France a quarter of the tanks used were Czech. Poland was defeated so easily because the Western Allies didn't attack Germany to take the pressure off. Had the French taken the relatively undefended Ruhr maybe the dynamics would have changed, Stalin considered Germany the greater threat and might have even changed sides.

Of course you won't need to explain that to any of the countries in Eastern Europe. Countries that have Vetos if the UK misses any deadlines.

The UK is up against a united front.

10000maniacs

Purgative wrote: »

I've not lived in the UK for 11/12 years * but Farage was always a joke, a blokey bloke joke. Someone you'd meet down the pub and get fed up with before too long.





Spitting Image would have destroyed him.

That's a a very interesting observation. If Spitting Image was around now, would it have ridiculed the likes of Rabb, Mogg, Davis, Bridgen, Francois, Gove and even May into oblivion by now?
A sad loss when it was taken off.

BonnieSituation

iguana wrote: »

Usborne do a great kid's book called Politics for Beginners which is a good starting point about different systems of government and how it operates on various levels. It's a simplistic book but good for primary school aged kids. I got it when my son was 5 and we use it to help him understand things he sees on the news but can't understand.

That's a fantastic book. It's where i learned about why FPTP was a crock of shít.

Tell me how

10000maniacs wrote: »

That's a a very interesting observation. If Spitting Image was around now, would it have ridiculed the likes of Rabb, Mogg, Davis, Bridgen, Francois, Gove and even May into oblivion by now?
A sad loss when it was taken off.

Looking at the world today and accusations of bias within media organisations any producers of a satire programme would have had accusations thrown at them from the first scene that they were trying to attack the persons views and positions instead of being satirical.

Making a programme which would make people laugh at Mogg, Sammy Wilson, Francois, Farage, Corbyn, May etc could actuallymake people think of them with humour instead of listening to what they're saying and realising that it is not logical or reasonable.

I would love to have seen it mind.

Spitting image (for all the love I have for it, tbf) didn't exactly bring down Thatcher or any of her horrific policies. A modern version would have the same problem.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Spitting image (for all the love I have for it, tbf) didn't exactly bring down Thatcher or any of her horrific policies. A modern version would have the same problem.

True, wasn't it Tory in-fighting? Some things never change.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True, wasn't it Tory in-fighting? Some things never change.

Various things such as her increasing Euroscepticism and the Poll tax fiasco.

McGiver

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Czechoslovakia was a democracy with a large army and good defences and arms industries. When Germany invaded France a quarter of the tanks used were Czech. Poland was defeated so easily because the Western Allies didn't attack Germany to take the pressure off. Had the French taken the relatively undefended Ruhr maybe the dynamics would have changed, Stalin considered Germany the greater threat and might have even changed sides.

A bit OT, but thanks for mentioning it.

It was one of the few liberal democracies in Europe in fact. Not only Nazi Germany got significant part of Czechoslovak territory for free as a gift from Chamberlain and Daladier, which empowered and allowed Germans to annex the rest of Czechoslovakia as all key defenses were situated in the border region given away prior, but along with that territory they captured not exactly small amount of military equipment as you mentioned, also military technology concepts and most importantly important industrial and labour base which supplied the Nazi war machine later on.

As for the tanks - the Czech tanks were at least on par if not better than the German ones in 1938, what to speak of the British, French or Russian ones which were inferior at that stage. Germans actually incorporated the Czech tank concepts in their later tank designs.

Chamberlain is rightly viewed as very complicit in the "betrayal" and his failed appeasement is given as a lesson that one can't appease dictators and tyrants. What is a bit unfair though that the UK is viewed as the primary culprit in this "Western betrayal" whereas it is the French who were the ones who failed to honour their commitments, because they had a direct alliance treaty with Czechoslovakia whereas the UK didn't, the UK were allies of France who were in turn allies of Czechoslovakia.

So UK is viewed through this prism in Czech Republic, on the other hand UK were strongly pushing expansion of NATO and the EU to the CEE region and this is not forgotten, furthermore the UK laissez-faire, less regulated capitalism when it comes to economic policy has been traditionally preferred in the Czech Republic (at least by the centre right and right wingers) than the French dirigisme or the German regulated centre ground, so you could say UK has been absolutely more of an ally to the Czech Republic in the EU despite the WW2 issues. This is evident by similar opinion about the Euro and the fiscal compact (which wasn't ratified only in the UK and CZ).

Czech position on A50 extension is basically yes but with specific conditions attached.

Anteayer

I think the above also highlights how lacking in depth the more jingoistic and tabloid view of Europe that's driving many of the debates in the media and brexiteer circles actually is.

There's a sense that the EU is just France or Germany and it totally ignores the rest of the member states who often have points of view that aren't quite at odds with those two. There's also this unchallenged idea that the UK played no part in shaping the EU which is just totally false.

Some of the jingoistic nonsense spouted by the tabloids and some backbenchers who are clueless or deliberately ignore history also caused offense in quite a few member states.

Purgative

Deleted User wrote: »

Spitting image (for all the love I have for it, tbf) didn't exactly bring down Thatcher or any of her horrific policies. A modern version would have the same problem.

True, but I think these types -JMR, Bojo, Redwood and that nasty little Francois - are quite happy to be disliked, even quite enjoy it - but they wouldn't like being laughed at.


The more "normal" politicos Ken Clarke, Grieve, Cooperare still capable of ridicule and parody just would make less of a dent.


Maybe I'm just on a big nostalgie kick.:o

I robbed this from thepropertypin.com but it is relevant here as well, mainly it is a speech by a German MEP from the AfD party.


Basically she is saying that if the EU had been more accommodating to the UK before the Brexit referendum, the remain vote would have won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IcW4eo4uM

She is also lamenting the fact that without the UK, the EU becomes very French dominated, something that Germans will find uncomfortable.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically she is saying that if the EU had been more accommodating to the UK before the Brexit referendum, the remain vote would have won.

And we're right back to 1938.

Appeasement doesn't work if it only fuels demands for more. We still don't know what the UK would be satisfied with. But we do know it's more than many of the 27 are prepared to put up with.



BTW Leo has said we won't use our veto on an extension. It's like May promising to quit if her deal goes through or the ERG promising to vote for it if the the DUP do which doesn't mean much.

We can't use our veto on an extension because we need to keep good relations with the UK. More practically there's 26 other vetos out there so it's very unlikely we'd be in a position where we'd need to use because someone else would have stepped in by then.

Anteayer

I don't think it would have to be honest and I don't agree with that German MEP. The leave argument was never about practicalities. It's largely an emotional argument and you pick and choose and even make up facts to fit that emotion.

No matter what the EU had granted the UK is wouldn't have been enough and even as it stood the UK had a vast array of ouotouts and also a big rebate of its membership fees every year and that wasn't enough.