Arts in the UK post-Brexit

[ahinton]

Theorising aside, we’re all going to find out in relatively short order what it means. And whatever one’s view on the merits, none of us will have any tangible influence over that outcome. That in itself I find profoundly depressing and that is what I also believe will be the long term legacy of this lunacy.

Sadly I struggle to share such vestige of optimism as you express here; I don't for one moment believe that "we're all going to find out in relatively short order what it means", unless one of those court case outcomes scuppers the entire thing, for it seems far more likely that none of will know what the effects of any ind of Brexit will be for a very long time and possibly never. The one part of what you write with which I have to agree is that "whatever one's view on the merits [ro otherwise might be], none of us will have any tangible influence over that outcome"...

[Pabmusic]

Whilst all of that is true, the fundamental difference is that, whilst the Queen's consent is required for the formation of a government, it is not required for the implementation of a referendum result; this is because, as ff correctly points out,

If a General Election candidate in a constituency polls more votes than any other candidate, he or she is elected. That result is legally binding.

Whichever party wins the most Commons seats is entitled to form a government. That result is also binding. Only in the event of no party winning a majority of the seats might negotiations take place to try form alliances, or a coalition, able to carry out a programme of policies through Parliament.

So there is a difference between the legally binding status of General Election results and referendum results.

There is a misunderstanding here. The monarch's consent is not needed to form a parliament. The convention is that it is sought, but it isn't necessary. That's what the English civil war and (especially) the Glorious Revolution were about. Parliament - not the monarch nor the government, not even 'the people' - is supreme. Even the Queen rules only at rhe will of Parliament. One of the more shameful episodes was when Brexiteers tried to prevent Parliament voting on EU withdrawal, calling judges "enemies of the people".

[ahinton]

There is a misunderstanding here. The monarch's consent is not needed to form a parliament. The convention is that it is sought, but it isn't necessary. That's what the English civil war and (especially) the Glorious Revolution were about. Parliament - not the monarch nor the government, not even 'the people' - is supreme. Even the Queen rules only at rhe will of Parliament. One of the more shameful episodes was when Brexiteers tried to prevent Parliament voting on EU withdrawal, calling judges "enemies of the people".

True as some of that insofar as it goes, there remains a fundamental difference between what can be done following the outcome of a General Election and what can be done following that of a referndum - inevitably, as the latter is an instrument that in and of itself has no legal validity whatsoever.

[Pabmusic]

True as some of that insofar as it goes, there remains a fundamental difference between what can be done following the outcome of a General Election and what can be done following that of a referndum - inevitably, as the latter is an instrument that in and of itself has no legal validity whatsoever.

Yes. And as far as referendums are concerned, they are simply guages of popular opinion. Cameron said in Parliament that the vote would not be binding, just advisory, but the Government has since treated it as if it
is. That doesn't make it so - only Parliament can do that.

[ahinton]

Yes. And as far as referendums are concerned, they are simply guages of popular opinion. Cameron said in Parliament that the vote would not be binding, just advisory, but the Government has since treated it as if it
is. That doesn't make it so - only Parliament can do that.

Indeed - but what sort of government in its right mind would subject a country with a longstanding tradition of Parliamentry democracy (and the procedures that accompany and endorse its principles) to an advisory only and non-legally binding instrument on so important an issue for the future of that country for generations to come?

[Lat-Literal]

I haven't read most of this, I'd like concrete examples of genuine fears. Over a quarter of university students are far eastern. Another block is Indian etc. One further quarter is for now EU. What is the worry? That white town Europe will be lost to browns/yellows? I'm not getting the point. I'm consistent here - I'm not for boosting whities. I want the numbers down.

[Beef Oven!]

Yes. And as far as referendums are concerned, they are simply guages of popular opinion. Cameron said in Parliament that the vote would not be binding, just advisory, but the Government has since treated it as if it
is. That doesn't make it so - only Parliament can do that.

And Parliament did, so all's well that ends well.

[Pabmusic]

Indeed - but what sort of government in its right mind would subject a country with a longstanding tradition of Parliamentry democracy (and the procedures that accompany and endorse its principles) to an advisory only and non-legally binding instrument on so important an issue for the future of that country for generations to come?

It's a very good example of the problem with simplistic 'democracy' that Thomas Jefferson foresaw - "If 51% of the people want one thing, and 49% want another, you do what the 51% want and ignore the 49%. That is mob-rule".

The referendum was very poorly managed, particularly in not having a required 'buffer' - say a minimum "yes" vote of 65% (a common way of avoiding some of the Jefferson problem). But especially by not treating the vote as advisory (note how some people consider it untouchable now). Yet the obnoxious Farage was saying, when it looked as if the "No" vote might win, that he'd demand another referendum because the result was so close.

The only good thing is that, under our constitution, anything can be reversed at any time. Still be prepared for a second referendum. We cannot yet tell what will be the final outcome - except that we'll all be worse off because of the huge cost incurred so far.

[Beef Oven!]

It's a very good example of the problem with simplistic 'democracy' that Thomas Jefferson foresaw - "If 51% of the people want one thing, and 49% want another, you do what the 51% want and ignore the 49%. That is mob-rule".

The referendum was very poorly managed, particularly in not having a required 'buffer' - say a minimum "yes" vote of 65% (a common way of avoiding some of the Jefferson problem). But especially by not treating the vote as advisory (note how some people consider it untouchable now). Yet the obnoxious Farage was saying, when it looked as if the "No" vote might win, that he'd demand another referendum because the result was so close.

The only good thing is that, under our constitution, anything can be reversed at any time. Still be prepared for a second referendum. We cannot yet tell what will be the final outcome - except that we'll all be worse off because of the huge cost incurred so far.

Oh dear, ''obnoxious Farage'' - The Ad-hominem approach. Often happens when people don't like the outcome of a democratic process.

It's a shame that these threads must descend into name-calling when people don't like a certain outcome. But I understand that that's what internet chat rooms are like - goes with the erritory, I suppose. Could have been an interesting discussion otherwise .....

[ahinton]

And Parliament did, so all's well that ends well.

But to date it hasn't ended at all, let alone "well". Let's wait and see what the courts decide and how Parliament decides to respond if either or both decide in favour of the electorallydisaffected ex-pats. In the meantime, the sheer to-ings and fro-ings and internecine squabblings of those in "power" over what to do and what might be acceptable to whom seem to have precious little to do with "the will of the people" and all to do with "my Chequers is bigger than your Chequers" posturings, ensuring nothing besides the perpetuation of the slippery slope approach to a situation in which it looks ever increasingly likely that, on 30 March next year, most people won't even know whether or not they're part of a Brexited society...

[french frank]

It's a very good example of the problem with simplistic 'democracy' that Thomas Jefferson foresaw - "If 51% of the people want one thing, and 49% want another, you do what the 51% want and ignore the 49%. That is mob-rule".

The referendum was very poorly managed, particularly in not having a required 'buffer' - say a minimum "yes" vote of 65% (a common way of avoiding some of the Jefferson problem). But especially by not treating the vote as advisory (note how some people consider it untouchable now).

This is the point about the argument that '17.4m people voted for this' (whatever "this" was): it would be a 'democratic outrage' to ignore their view. Yet it is not a 'democratic outrage' to completely ignore 16.1m people, plus those who were denied a vote in the first place.

In a General Election, there is some sort of logic to say that British citizens living abroad should not be allowed to vote if, during the entire lifetime of the newly elected government (4-5 years), they are not likely to be returning to live in the UK. But that does not apply to a huge constitutional change likely to affect their own country, of which they are full citizens, when they return. To me, that seems like an unprecedented 'democratic outrage'.

[Pabmusic]

This is the point about the argument that '17.4m people voted for this' (whatever "this" was): it would be a 'democratic outrage' to ignore their view. Yet it is not a 'democratic outrage' to completely ignore 16.1m people, plus those who were denied a vote in the first place.

In a General Election, there is some sort of logic to say that British citizens living abroad should not be allowed to vote if, during the entire lifetime of the newly elected government (4-5 years), they are not likely to be returning to live in the UK. But that does not apply to a huge constitutional change likely to affect their own country, of which they are full citizens, when they return. To me, that seems like an unprecedented 'democratic outrage'.

Thank you. I was not allowed to vote because I live abroad, even though almost all my income is taxed at source in the UK. So I am a British tax-payer.

[Beef Oven!]

This is the point about the argument that '17.4m people voted for this' (whatever "this" was): it would be a 'democratic outrage' to ignore their view. Yet it is not a 'democratic outrage' to completely ignore 16.1m people, plus those who were denied a vote in the first place.

In a General Election, there is some sort of logic to say that British citizens living abroad should not be allowed to vote if, during the entire lifetime of the newly elected government (4-5 years), they are not likely to be returning to live in the UK. But that does not apply to a huge constitutional change likely to affect their own country, of which they are full citizens, when they return. To me, that seems like an unprecedented 'democratic outrage'.

Democracy is a process ff, not an outcome. You need to get over the fact that you didn't get your way in the referendum.

[french frank]

Democracy is a process ff, not an outcome. You need to get over the fact that you didn't get your way in the referendum.

Beef Oven, you keep saying that but in fact you contradict yourself if you deny the possibility of another vote - perhaps you don't? And there's really no need to add "You need to get over the fact that you didn't get your way", with or without a winky. I removed the reference to Mr Farage because I know that, given a chance, you will seize on such a throwaway remark and entirely ignore the substance of the argument put by Pabs and amplified by me. As you have now done twice.

[MrGongGong]

"Arts in the UK"

Or a soapbox ?