The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[edwin_m]

Agreed. We need to move on. What sticks in the craw a little is how so many remainers have failed to accept that the result went the way it did.

As stated earlier in the thread, democracy requires losers’ consent in order to function. That has been notable by its absence over the last three years.

Part of moving on is for people like you to stop making statements like that. We are not going to agree here on whether Brexit was right or not but it is accepted that it is going to happen and we have to make the best of it.

Personally I’m not convinced that no deal would be anything like the disaster that has been painted by project fear. The option of no deal needs to be kept on the table, and used, if the EU refuses to play ball and negotiate sensibly.

The EU has had no incentive whatsoever to negotiate a favourable deal with the U.K. since TM’s disastrous 2017 election result - that position has now fundamentally changed.

You are correct in that the EU holds all the best cards in this negotiation, and they will act in their own interest not in that of a country that is choosing to leave and has caused them a good deal of trouble in the process. In the fairly likely event of Scotland wanting independence, England will no doubt adopt a similar attitude.

The EU put the various options on the table early on, each with its own obligations, and it is up to the UK to choose their preferred dish from the menu and to pay the price shown next to it. If we choose to leave a much larger economy then we will inevitably be in a weaker position when negotiating with it, as we will also find in discussions with the US (Trump's attitude reminds me of a spider contemplating a juicy fly).

Some of the content of May's withdrawal deal (the Irish backstop and the "level playing field") was removed from Johnson's version, so is still open for negotiation assuming that deal goes through "as is". Hence the question arises of whether no deal should be used as a threat in those negotiations as it was in the previous rounds.

You provide no evidence to justify why you think no deal is relatively benign. I'd say impeding trade in essential goods with our main trading partners, and hitting our importers and exporters with tariffs, is a really big issue for an island that's not self-sufficient and for many years has been closely integrated with those partners. A deal with the US will see us stuffed and chlorinated by Trump - hardly "taking back control" - and deals with other countries will take years to get back to the position we enjoy from being part of the deals the EU has already struck. And incidentally Trump is now on the way to collapsing the WTO, which sets and enforces the rules we would rely on in a no-deal situation.

As no deal is far more damaging to the UK than to the EU, threatening it isn't going to change their position. When Johnson claimed to have achieved that back in October, it was actually because he'd changed his own red lines and adopted something he'd previously opposed. That deal could have been done in 2018 if the UK had wanted it then. The threat of no deal was removed on October 4, two weeks before the deal was actually struck, so clearly wasn't a reason for the so-called "change of mind" by the EU. ​

 

[43066]

To all those who were willing to be made poorer on a point of principle regarding sovereignty - personally, this is something I don't give a toss about, and I resent the negative effects I'm going to have to deal with over some issue that won't make a blind bit of difference to about 99.999999% of the population.

I find it extraordinary that you place so little emphasis on the importance of national sovereignty - something that many people have laid their lives down to defend.

It’s ironic that living in a benign, free country makes people take their freedoms for granted, and blinds them to the awful alternatives - just ask the residents of Hong Kong about how important they consider self determination!

You may not give a toss about sovereignty, and that is your right in a free country, but thankfully many of us still do and wish to defend it at all costs.

 

[Journeyman]

You may not give a toss about sovereignty, and that is your right in a free country, but thankfully many of us still do and wish to defend it at all costs.

I think the balance of sovereignty held nationally and that held at EU level is acceptable in terms of the benefits we gain. The world is a complex interconnected place these days, and isolating ourselves is an extremely retrograde step.

Who banged on the loudest about sovereignty during the referendum campaign? Jacob Rees-Mogg. The only reason he cares is that dismantling EU workers' protections and product standards will make him richer. So you'll excuse me if I find this an extremely lame argument.

The majority of hardcore Brexiteers in the public eye are absolutely stinking rich and got there by extremely dubious means. These people are not on your side and will happily watch you suffer as they pocket a few extra billion out of this.

 

[43066]

Part of moving on is for people like you to stop making statements like that. We are not going to agree here on whether Brexit was right or not but it is accepted that it is going to happen and we have to make the best of it.

I realise you have said you accept it, but it is clear that a great many still don’t!

Overall the remain side has consistently denied democracy since 2016. It’s extraohas taken two subsequent elections (and a European election) to even get to a position where it finally looks relatively certain that some form of Brexit will even be implemented.

You are correct in that the EU holds all the best cards in this negotiation, and they will act in their own interest not in that of a country that is choosing to leave and has caused them a good deal of trouble in the process. In the fairly likely event of Scotland wanting independence, England will no doubt adopt a similar attitude.

The EU put the various options on the table early on, each with its own obligations, and it is up to the UK to choose their preferred dish from the menu and to pay the price shown next to it. If we choose to leave a much larger economy then we will inevitably be in a weaker position when negotiating with it, as we will also find in discussions with the US (Trump's attitude reminds me of a spider contemplating a juicy fly).

Some of the content of May's withdrawal deal (the Irish backstop and the "level playing field") was removed from Johnson's version, so is still open for negotiation assuming that deal goes through "as is". Hence the question arises of whether no deal should be used as a threat in those negotiations as it was in the previous rounds.

You provide no evidence to justify why you think no deal is relatively benign. I'd say impeding trade in essential goods with our main trading partners, and hitting our importers and exporters with tariffs, is a really big issue for an island that's not self-sufficient and for many years has been closely integrated with those partners. A deal with the US will see us stuffed and chlorinated by Trump - hardly "taking back control" - and deals with other countries will take years to get back to the position we enjoy from being part of the deals the EU has already struck. And incidentally Trump is now on the way to collapsing the WTO, which sets and enforces the rules we would rely on in a no-deal situation.

As no deal is far more damaging to the UK than to the EU, threatening it isn't going to change their position. When Johnson claimed to have achieved that back in October, it was actually because he'd changed his own red lines and adopted something he'd previously opposed. That deal could have been done in 2018 if the UK had wanted it then. The threat of no deal was removed on October 4, two weeks before the deal was actually struck, so clearly wasn't a reason for the so-called "change of mind" by the EU. ​

The EU basically consists of four or five main benefactors which bankroll the project. The U.K. is the second largest (IIRC) contributor to the project, so I completely the reject the argument that the EU holds all the cards - money talks, and the deck is a lot more evenly stacked than that.

No deal isn’t my preferred option but it must be kept on the table in order to negotiate properly - surely that’s just common sense? I would far rather walk away than end up a vassal state of the EU - but my strong preference would be a sensible trading agreement.

How was any kind of proper negotiation supposed to take place when the remain stacked Parliament was doing its best to thwart Brexit at every turn - the EU were simply playing a waiting game, hoping that the referendum result would be overturned.

 

[TrafficEng]

<Snip>The threat of no deal was removed on October 4, two weeks before the deal was actually struck, so clearly wasn't a reason for the so-called "change of mind" by the EU.

What happened on October 4 to change the legal position in relation to our Article 50 notification?

And if the threat of 'no deal' was removed, then was Jezza and his candidate in my area lying to me when they said the threat of 'no deal' was real and could happen in January or at the end of 2020?

 

[Journeyman]

How was any kind of proper negotiation supposed to take place when the remain stacked Parliament was doing its best to thwart Brexit at every turn - the EU were simply playing a waiting game, hoping that the referendum result would be overturned.

But that Parliament was democratically elected in 2017. Are you saying you don't accept that result?

That's more than a bit hypocritical. Quite apart from anything else, May's deal would have passed if people like Boris Johnson had voted for it.

 

[Starmill]

I accept that Brexit is going to happen now. However, I'm never going to agree with it making any sense at all. It will make us worse off, remove many rights we've enjoyed for decades, diminish our influence and make many everyday things more difficult and expensive. It's really, really screwed up the functioning of the UK as well, and makes Scottish independence more likely, something I'm strongly opposed to (I live near Edinburgh).

I agree entirely.

 

[Starmill]

To all those who were willing to be made poorer on a point of principle regarding sovereignty - personally, this is something I don't give a toss about, and I resent the negative effects I'm going to have to deal with over some issue that won't make a blind bit of difference to about 99.999999% of the population.

This is a good point.

I think that the large majority of the people who voted to Leave did and still do expect no decline in living standards whatsoever, because that is literally what they were promised they would get. A few zealots may well see it differently.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've said for a while that the BBC will regret sucking up to the Tories and, as if by magic, this gets released.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack

Downing Street is threatening the future of the BBC by insisting it is seriously considering decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee, while boycotting Radio 4’s Today programme over the broadcaster’s supposed anti-Tory bias.

No 10 pulled ministers from Saturday’s edition of the Today programme and sources said it intended to “withdraw engagement” from the show in future.

 

[Starmill]

I think the balance of sovereignty held nationally and that held at EU level is acceptable in terms of the benefits we gain. The world is a complex interconnected place these days, and isolating ourselves is an extremely retrograde step.

Me too! I felt sovereign enough as both a Brit and a European under the both the existing provisions and the Cameron Renegotiation. I have been saying that for four years. Along with expressing all of the monumentally large economic and cultural benefits the Membership brought. Seems that almost half of the country thought the same way and still do.

 

[43066]

I think the balance of sovereignty held nationally and that held at EU level is acceptable in terms of the benefits we gain. The world is a complex interconnected place these days, and isolating ourselves is an extremely retrograde step.

In the end that comes down to a value judgement - needless to say I don’t think the benefits are worth the loss of sovereignty and self determination. I doubt we will ever agree on that point.

I don’t really understand why the EU couldn’t have just been an economic trading bloc, without the federalist superstate nonsense.

I could stomach free movement if it came with economic benefits of EU membership, but without the relentless, federalist drive towards becoming a superstate. I don’t think the EU should have a constitution, a national anthem, an army etc.

Who banged on the loudest about sovereignty during the referendum campaign? Jacob Rees-Mogg. The only reason he cares is that dismantling EU workers' protections and product standards will make him richer. So you'll excuse me if I find this an extremely lame argument.

Clearly I’m not privy to JRM’s personal motivations for wanting Brexit. But sovereignty and erosion of workers rights are two completely different topics, and they aren’t mutually exclusive - it’s quite possible to want more of the former, without also wanting to erode the latter!

In any case, surely we should determine workers rights etc. ourselves? It strikes me as very strange that we live in a parliamentary democracy, yet people seem to want rights and obligations to be imposed on us from an unelected, undemocratic third party.

That’s all well and good when you agree with what they are imposing - but what happens when they implement something you don’t agree with?

The majority of hardcore Brexiteers in the public eye are absolutely stinking rich and got there by extremely dubious means. These people are not on your side and will happily watch you suffer as they pocket a few extra billion out of this.

Much like Gina Miller then .

 

[Starmill]

I've said for a while that the BBC will regret sucking up to the Tories and, as if by magic, this gets released.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack

Anti-media narrative from the Prime Minister isn't new, and seems likely to become the new normal. He will be hostile to anyone who challenges him, whoever they are.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The EU basically consists of four or five main benefactors which bankroll the project. The U.K. is the second largest (IIRC) contributor to the project, so I completely the reject the argument that the EU holds all the cards - money talks, and the deck is a lot more evenly stacked than that.

Our contributions meant we did have influence, which is why we had a rebate, no Schengen, etc.

But if we've left, those contributions end, as does the influence they bought.

So now we're left settling the divorce bill. We stick two fingers up and don't pay, so the EU will exclude us. That will damage us a lot more than it will damage them. So they can squeeze more money out of us.

The EU doesn't hold all the cards, but the simple fact remains that our trade with them is more important economically to us than them. That's not to say no deal won't hurt them too- it will- but it'll hurt us more.

 

[43066]

But that Parliament was democratically elected in 2017. Are you saying you don't accept that result?

That's more than a bit hypocritical. Quite apart from anything else, May's deal would have passed if people like Boris Johnson had voted for it.

It’s not a real parliament. It’s merely an echo chamber which rubber stamps legislation originated by the commission.

I absolutely reject the primacy of EU law and the supremacy of the ECJ over the U.K. courts in matters of EU jurisprudence (which extends over a great many areas nowadays) - there should simply be no such thing as EU jurisprudence, in my view!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don’t think the EU should have a constitution, a national anthem, an army etc

The EU doesn't have an army.

Of course it has to have a constitution- terms of membership- just like any organisation has to. The local parish hall has a constitution.

As for anthems, again, so what? My high school had an anthem for crying out loud.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s not a real parliament. It’s merely an echo chamber which rubber stamps legislation originated by the commission.

The Commission is selected by the leaders of national governments to represent their interests. It originates legislation before the parliament examines it.

That's precisely how Westminster also operates. The PM selects his Cabinet to represent his interests, and- de facto if not de jure- only the Cabinet get to originate legislation.

You might not want a supranational parliament creating legislation that binds us. Fine. Though you might want to look a bit more closely at the WTO that the Brexitists so adore.

Now, of course the fun starts. To trade with the EU we will need to negotiate access, and that will involve agreeing to some of their rules. Except now we won't have any say.

 

[43066]

The EU doesn't have an army.

Of course it has to have a constitution- terms of membership- just like any organisation has to. The local parish hall has a constitution.

As for anthems, again, so what? My high school had an anthem for crying out loud.

It seems to want an army.

Your local parish hall can’t overrule the Supreme Court, though. I reject the concept of “fundamental rights” for “EU citizens” over and above national law imposed by domestic parliaments.

It’s been obvious to me for a very long time that that there are factions within the EU which have no respect for national identity, and wish to create a European superstate.

That’s simply something I don’t want this country to be any part of.

 

[Starmill]

Now, of course the fun starts. To trade with the EU we will need to negotiate access, and that will involve agreeing to some of their rules. Except now we won't have any say.

There is literally no escaping or denying this. If it has been said once it has been said a thousand times.

 

[43066]

That's precisely how Westminster also operates. The PM selects his Cabinet to represent his interests, and- de facto if not de jure- only the Cabinet get to originate legislation.

The commons originates the legislation which is then passed to the Lords for amendment but ultimately the Lords cannot frustrate legislation originated by the commons (I forget the minutiae of the process of the passage of a bill through parliament, but that’s the gist of it).

That’s a fundamentally different animal to a “parliament” that just votes on amendments to legislation presented by a different chamber (and has it sent back again and again until the answer is right).

It’s a system I find deeply sinister. Hence voting to leave the whole shebang!

You might not want a supranational parliament creating legislation that binds us. Fine. Though you might want to look a bit more closely at the WTO that the Brexitists so adore

The WTO isn’t committed to “fundamental rights”, “ever closer union” and the creation of a supra national superstate, though.

 

[Journeyman]

It’s not a real parliament. It’s merely an echo chamber which rubber stamps legislation originated by the commission.

I was talking about the UK Parliament.

I absolutely reject the primacy of EU law and the supremacy of the ECJ over the U.K. courts in matters of EU jurisprudence (which extends over a great many areas nowadays) - there should simply be no such thing as EU jurisprudence, in my view!

Well, it wasn't up to you.

 

[43066]

I was talking about the UK Parliament.

Apologies misread. Yes I did accept the result of the 2017 election - I certainly wasn’t calling for a rerun of it because the results didn’t go the way I wanted them to.

Well, it wasn't up to you.

No, but in 2016 it was up to me (along with 17.4m others) to say we no longer want any part of it.

 

[Esker-pades]

I find it extraordinary that you place so little emphasis on the importance of national sovereignty - something that many people have laid their lives down to defend.

It’s ironic that living in a benign, free country makes people take their freedoms for granted, and blinds them to the awful alternatives - just ask the residents of Hong Kong about how important they consider self determination!

You may not give a toss about sovereignty, and that is your right in a free country, but thankfully many of us still do and wish to defend it at all costs.

Parliament has always been sovereign.

2017 Government White Paper "The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union" - Page 13, Paragraph 2.1:

The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. The extent of EU activity relevant to the UK can be demonstrated by the fact that 1,056 EU-related documents were deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in 2016. These include proposals for EU Directives, Regulations, Decisions and Recommendations, as well as Commission delegated acts, and other documents such as Commission Communications, Reports and Opinions submitted to the Council, Court of Auditors Reports and more.

My emphasis.

Parliament has always been sovereign. Some people just don't feel like it is. Again, talking to a feeling with a fact is probably pointless. I feel obliged to point it out though.

 

[43066]

Parliament has always been sovereign.

2017 Government White Paper "The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union" - Page 13, Paragraph 2.1:

My emphasis.

Parliament has always been sovereign. Some people just don't feel like it is. Again, talking to a feeling with a fact is probably pointless. I feel obliged to point it out though.

On the contrary, the EU certainly doesn’t seem to think so!

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548

Precedence of European law

According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law.

The precedence principle guarantees the superiority of European law over national laws. It is a fundamental principle of European law. As with the direct effect principle, it is not inscribed in the Treaties, but has been enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) makes provision for the primacy of EU law over UK domestic law, in the relevant areas.

Supreme Court (ie the highest UK Court) judgements can be appealed to the ECJ.

 

[Esker-pades]

On the contrary, the EU certainly doesn’t seem to think so!

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548



The European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) makes provision for the primacy of EU law over UK domestic law, in the relevant areas.

Supreme Court (ie the highest UK Court) judgements can be appealed to the ECJ.

This has brought us up to a fantastic essay question.
"If EU law is supreme, can Parliament be sovereign?"

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...n-law-is-supreme-can-parliament-be-sovereign/
I'm not going to quote the whole essay here, but I'll take 2 important paragraphs.

Where, then, does this leave us? If EU law is supreme, can Parliament be sovereign? The answer is ‘yes’. Parliament can insist that domestic legislation — either generally, or in respect of particular Acts — is to prevail over EU law. This follows because the default primacy enjoyed by EU law in the UK is itself attributable to an Act of Parliament — that is, the 1972 Act — and Parliament remains capable of amending, overriding or even repealing that Act. In Miller, the majority’s analysis reinforces the view that Parliament has remained sovereign throughout the UK’s membership of the EU, albeit that the majority also suggests that while EU law has effect in the UK thanks to the 1972 Act, EU law can also (and should) be thought of as a “direct”, “independent” and “overriding” source of domestic law. The Miller majority fails to make clear how its analysis relates to the position adopted by the Supreme Court in the HS2 case.

The general conclusion — that Parliament remains sovereign, the EU supremacy principle notwithstanding — is subject to an important caveat: that while, as a matter of domestic law and politics, parliamentary sovereignty can be exercised in spite of the EU supremacy principle, it does not qualify or limit that principle. This seems to take us back to our original problem: that the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of EU law appear to be fundamentally incompatible. But this is not in fact so. Their reconciliation can be achieved by recognising that they operate in different legal spheres, albeit that those distinct spheres may, and do, come into contact with one another. Parliament is sovereign as a matter of UK law. In contrast, the EU supremacy principle is binding upon the UK as a matter of EU, and so ultimately international, law. So while the UK as a State is bound by its Treaty obligations to abide by EU law, this does not in itself require parliamentary sovereignty to be denied as a domestic legal principle.

 

[EM2]

It’s been obvious to me for a very long time that that there are factions within the EU which have no respect for national identity, and wish to create a European superstate.

That’s simply something I don’t want this country to be any part of.

But it's OK for factions of the UK to have created a United Kingdom superstate? To have no respect for the national identities of Scotland, or Wales, or Cornwall, or Mercia, or Wessex?
Or even to have created a British Empire, with no respect for the national identities of India, or Ghana, or Egypt?

 

[43066]

This has brought us up to a fantastic essay question.
"If EU law is supreme, can Parliament be sovereign?"

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...n-law-is-supreme-can-parliament-be-sovereign/
I'm not going to quote the whole essay here, but I'll take 2 important paragraphs.

That is just an essay, arguing a debatable point, written by goodness knows who!

The fact is that UK law has been subservient to EU law for many years now - by dint of the ECA 1972 - and as further evidenced by the fact that Supreme Court judgements can be appealed to the ECJ.

That is not a situation I consider to be acceptable.

If you really want to get into the meat of it (I reckon I’m about to out-geek you here) read the Van Gend en Loos judgement.

I may even have written a few essays on it myself, back in the day .

 

[43066]

But it's OK for factions of the UK to have created a United Kingdom superstate? To have no respect for the national identities of Scotland, or Wales, or Cornwall, or Mercia, or Wessex?
Or even to have created a British Empire, with no respect for the national identities of India, or Ghana, or Egypt?

Whataboutary of the highest order .

 

[Esker-pades]

That is just an essay, arguing a debatable point, written by goodness knows who!

"Mark Elliot is Professor of Public Law and Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He also served, from 2015 to 2019, as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution."

The fact is that UK law has been subservient to EU law for many years now - by dint of the ECA 1972 - and as further evidenced by the fact that Supreme Court judgements can be appealed to the ECJ.

That is not a situation I consider to be acceptable.

If you really want to get into the meat of it (I reckon I’m about to out-geek you here) read the Van Gend en Loos judgement.

I may even have written a few essays on it myself, back in the day .

This is why I asked what you meant by 'sovereignty' earlier. The fact that the word is ambiguous means that one can have such a debate. I'm really happy to get into the meat of it. It's a really debatable point. I love this sort of thing. When I have time, I'll do more research and writing. In the meantime, we're probably at an impasse given that we'll just quote bits of essays at each other.

 

[EM2]

Whataboutary of the highest order .

Just asking the question.

 

[TrafficEng]

I've said for a while that the BBC will regret sucking up to the Tories and, as if by magic, this gets released.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack

Unfortunate that the Guardian writer didn't find the space to mention that women (more likely to be at home when the door is knocked) and people on low incomes (for obvious reasons) are disproportionately likely to be dragged through the courts for not having a licence.

They could at least have linked to one of their previous articles so we could read the heart rending stories ourselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases