Best case for Brexit I have seen (has nothing to do with immigration) Watch

ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
"Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...d-nothing-els/
2
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...d-nothing-els/
I agree that this piece was excellent. Funnily enough, I was about to start a thread on it, just before I saw this one. I already extracted what I think are the highlights of the piece for anyone who hasn't the energy for the whole thing, so I'll put it here:

With sadness and tortured by doubts, I will cast my vote as an ordinary citizen for withdrawal from the European Union.

Let there be no illusion about the trauma of Brexit. Anybody who claims that Britain can lightly disengage after 43 years enmeshed in EU affairs is a charlatan or a dreamer, or has little contact with the realities of global finance and geopolitics.

Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

For some of us - and we do not take our cue from the Leave campaign - it has nothing to do with payments into the EU budget. Whatever the sum, it is economically trivial, worth unfettered access to a giant market.

We are deciding whether to be guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether to submit to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy, with no right of appeal.

[...]

My Europhile Greek friend Yanis Varoufakis and I both agree on one central point, that today's EU is a deformed halfway house that nobody ever wanted. His solution is a great leap forward towards a United States of Europe with a genuine parliament holding an elected president to account. Though even he doubts his dream. "There is a virtue in heroic failure" he said.

I do not think this is remotely possible, or would be desirable if it were, but it is not on offer anyway. Six years into the eurozone crisis and there is no a flicker of fiscal union: no eurobonds, no Hamiltonian redemption fund, no pooling of debt, and no budget transfers. The banking union belies its name. Germany and the creditor states have dug in their heels.

Where we concur is that the EU as constructed is not only corrosive but ultimately dangerous, and that is the phase we have now reached as governing authority crumbles across Europe.

The Project bleeds the lifeblood of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable or legitimate at a European level. It draws away charisma, and destroys it. This is how democracies die.

[...]

You can equally argue that the high watermark of EU integration has passed: the Project is in irreversible decay. We are a long way from the triumphalism of the millennium, when the EU was replicating the structures of the US federal government, with an EU intelligence cell and military staff in Brussels led by nine generals, and plans for a Euro-army of 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships to project global power.

You can argue too that the accession of thirteen new countries since 2004 - mostly from Eastern Europe - has changed the chemistry of the EU beyond recognition, making it ever less plausible to think of a centralized, close-knit, political union. Yet retreat is not the declared position of the Five Presidents' Report, the chief blueprint for where they want the EU Project to go. Far from it.

In any case, even if we do not go forward, we may not go backwards either. By design it is almost impossible to repeal the 170,000 pages of the Acquis. Jean Monnet constructed the EU in such way that conquered ground can never be ceded back, as if were the battleground of Verdun.

We are trapped in a 'bad equilibrium', leaving us in permanent friction with Brussels. It is like walking forever with a stone in your shoe.

[...]

The Leave campaign has offered no convincing plan for our future trading ties or the viability of the City. It has ruled out a fall-back to the European Economic Area, the "Norwegian" model that would preserve - if secured - access to the EU customs union and preserve the "passporting" rights of the City.

The EEA would be a temporary haven while we sorted out our global trading ties, the first step of a gradual extraction. The Leavers have not embraced this safe exit - or rather, less dangerous exit - because it would mean abandoning all else that they have pledged so promiscuously, chiefly the instant control of EU migrant flows.

By this fourberie they have muddied the water, conflating constitutional issues with the politics of immigration. We risk a Parliamentary crisis and shrieks of betrayal if the Commons - discerning the national will - imposes the EEA option on a post-Brexit government, as it may have to do.

[...]

However unfair it may seem, the whole Western world deems Brexit to be an act of strategic vandalism at a time when Pax Americana is cracking and the liberal democracies are under civilizational threat.

[...]

One hopes that Brexiteers now understand what they face, and therefore what they must do to uphold British credibility if they win. We must be an even better ally. But by the same token, the people of this country have every right to take this one chance to issue their verdict on four decades of EU conduct.
1
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
A Brexit, given the current constitutional importance of EU policy, will most likely result in a written constitution (which will inevitably grant unprecedented powers to the courts). The Parliament will never be sovereign in the Diceyan way. There's no middle-ground.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by *Stefan*)
A Brexit, given the current constitutional importance of EU policy, will most likely result in a written constitution (which will inevitably grant unprecedented powers to the courts). The Parliament will never be sovereign in the Diceyan way. There's no middle-ground.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(1) You just made this up.

(2) It is, at best, tangentially relevant to anything said in the article.
2
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
(1) You just made this up.

(2) It is, at best, tangentially relevant to anything said in the article.
(1) As I said - "most likely". What exactly do you expect? That Parliament will be 'sovereign' in the word's full meaning? Let's not joke ourselves here. It'll either be a written constitution or things will stay as they are.

(2) And...? I replied with reference to the OP's highlight (ie the title itself).

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...d-nothing-els/
And to quote Clinton, "Its the economy stupid."

Sovereignty never put food on the table. What is the point in our own undemocratic, lying, two faced, self interested politicians having full control when everyone is starving?
3
reply
TheyHateUs
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
2
reply
KimKallstrom
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
And to quote Clinton, "Its the economy stupid."

Sovereignty never put food on the table. What is the point in our own undemocratic, lying, two faced, self interested politicians having full control when everyone is starving?
lol Why don't you take that condescending horse manure and tell it to the Greeks? Embarrassing.
3
reply
Abstract_Prism
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by *Stefan*)
(1) As I said - "most likely". What exactly do you expect? That Parliament will be 'sovereign' in the word's full meaning? Let's not joke ourselves here. It'll either be a written constitution or things will stay as they are.

(2) And...? I replied with reference to the OP's highlight (ie the title itself).

Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think leaving will result in a codified constitution. Britain's constitution changes only as need demands, and leaving the EU will not force constitutional change. We had an uncodified constitution before joining the EU, remember. What makes you think that leaving the EU wold force constitutional reform?

Besides, giving the judiciary more powers wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
0
reply
Nathanielle
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Abstract_Prism)
What makes you think that leaving the EU wold force constitutional reform?
The British people wanting to have more influence on their government, which is contradicting to the electoral system in the UK, which can basically leave a lot of people without representation in the House of Commons, just because the supporters of their party are so scattered, they would never be able to be win enough seats representing their actual percentage of the British population. Hence maybe he means that? Leave clearly is also an expression of total distrust in British politicians. (Who may now just use the EU as scapegoat for their own faults.)
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by KimKallstrom)
lol Why don't you take that condescending horse manure and tell it to the Greeks? Embarrassing.
Almost as embarrassing as the use of the word 'lol'.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Abstract_Prism
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Nathanielle)
The British people wanting to have more influence on their government, which is contradicting to the electoral system in the UK, which can basically leave a lot of people without representation in the House of Commons, just because the supporters of their party are so scattered, they would never be able to be win enough seats representing their actual percentage of the British population. Hence maybe he means that? Leave clearly is also an expression of total distrust in British politicians. (Who may now just use the EU as scapegoat for their own faults.)
The British people don't want electoral reform though, reflected in the 67.9% 'No' vote in the 2011 AV referendum.

I don't think that a leave vote is an expression of distrust in British politicians. I think it is an expression of distrust in European politicians.
0
reply
Nathanielle
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Abstract_Prism)
The British people don't want electoral reform though, reflected in the 67.9% 'No' vote in the 2011 AV referendum.

I don't think that a leave vote is an expression of distrust in British politicians. I think it is an expression of distrust in European politicians.
Well, and who are the British Representatives in the EU? It is pretty common, that government say "they do that" and then do another thing and you find out, they were not against it at all, but actually helped to promote that law.
0
reply
Abstract_Prism
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Nathanielle)
Well, and who are the British Representatives in the EU? It is pretty common, that government say "they do that" and then do another thing and you find out, they were not against it at all, but actually helped to promote that law.
A leave vote wouldn't make sense if people didn't trust British politicians more than European ones. Why would people choose to be governed by people who they didn't trust?

A stay vote reflects distrust in British politicians and faith in European ones.

A leave vote reflects distrust in European politicians and faith in British ones.
0
reply
Nathanielle
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Abstract_Prism)
A leave vote wouldn't make sense if people didn't trust British politicians more than European ones. Why would people choose to be governed by people who they didn't trust?

A stay vote reflects distrust in British politicians and faith in European ones.

A leave vote reflects distrust in European politicians and faith in British ones.
1) People are not necessarily acting rationally, otherwise we wouldn't have had so much problems througout history.

2) One can also vote leave, because one trusts neither nor, but think, hey, at first I get rid of them and in the second step rid of the others... as well as one can trust both in the EU and the House of Commons, but have a problem with certain politicians ... you vote stay because you prefer Cameron over Boris Johnson, or the other way round ... and Cameron the Prime Minister is actually for Stay, so I would say, those having faith in the British Government are more likely to vote stay, those wanting a change, are more likely to vote leave ... (more likely, because I think, not everybody will decide over something influencing decades, based on the like or dislike of politicians who won't be around when a lot of us are still in their prime, but the system will be around... should be about systems, not current politicians)
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by ByEeek)

Sovereignty never put food on the table. What is the point in our own undemocratic, lying, two faced, self interested politicians having full control when everyone is starving?
They can be removed without having to go through a bloody revolution.

You bring up the starving masses... Have you seen what the EU technocrats are doing to Greece et al?

(Original post by KimKallstrom)
lol Why don't you take that condescending horse manure and tell it to the Greeks? Embarrassing.
So you are anti-austerity now?
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
They can be removed without having to go through a bloody revolution.
How? If someone arrives with no papers where do you send them? You are aware that sending someone back to their home country requires the consent of that country? If they say no, we are lumbered. Nothing to do with the EU, but having the border in Calais helps.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Abstract_Prism)
I don't think leaving will result in a codified constitution. Britain's constitution changes only as need demands, and leaving the EU will not force constitutional change. We had an uncodified constitution before joining the EU, remember. What makes you think that leaving the EU wold force constitutional reform?

Besides, giving the judiciary more powers wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
EU policy has had significant consequences on the British constitution. Not only were the courts given extra powers, but the very way Parliament worked changed in an unprecedented manner. It would be very unrealistic in my opinion to expect everything to revert back to how it was (and a written constitution would be the way to solve this).

[Ref to this article for a nice counter-argument to the original point of view - also read Hoffmann LJ in ex p. Simms if you access the judgment]

But that would go directly again to what the 'leave' campaign has be shouting endlessly. Neither democratic, nor condoning the 'sovereignty' argument.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by *Stefan*)
EU policy has had significant consequences on the British constitution. Not only were the courts given extra powers, but the very way Parliament worked changed in an unprecedented manner. It would be very unrealistic in my opinion to expect everything to revert back to how it was (and a written constitution would be the way to solve this).

[Ref to this article for a nice counter-argument to the original point of view - also read Hoffmann LJ in ex p. Simms if you access the judgment]

But that would go directly again to what the 'leave' campaign has be shouting endlessly. Neither democratic, nor condoning the 'sovereignty' argument.
If Brexit happens, who exactly is going to force a Parliament that believes in it's own inherent sovereignty to cede power or establish a codified constitution?
1
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
If Brexit happens, who exactly is going to force a Parliament that believes in it's own inherent sovereignty to cede power or establish a codified constitution?
You probably haven't been following late constitutional affairs (that is, of the past 3 decades) if you believe Parliament is, or believes for that matter in its 'inherent sovereignty'.

The concept has long lost its importance.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (101)
49.03%
No (105)
50.97%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise