Brexit matters

[Richard Scott]

You could say that Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Gibraltar were dragged out against their will, as all three voted to Remain.

Furthermore, they were also dragged out by a government that they never voted for.

If everyone in Scotland had voted to remain then we wouldn't have left.

 

[Enthusiast]

If everyone in Scotland had voted to remain then we wouldn't have left.

But of course they didn't. 67.2% of the Scottish voters turned out and 62% of them voted to remain. So in fact just 41% of Scots eligible vote voted to remain. But just another "if". I understand that the residents of Acacia Avenue, just round the corner from me, also voted to remain by a hefty margin. But unfortunately for them (and the Scots) it was the UK that had EU membership and it was that membership which was being decided upon.

 

[RT4038]

Maybe a big difference is the famous quote from David Cameron shortly before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which was "If you vote "No" to independence, Scotland will remain a member of the EU".

Cameron said this live on TV - after all, Bucks Fizz did have a song called The Camera Never Lies.

Which was quite truthful, based on the information known at the time.

Or are you suggesting that, having made such a truthful comment, this disbars having any referendum on the subject in the future?

 

[Annetts key]

This argument about which part of the U.K. voted which way is not getting us anywhere. As with any administrative boundary, it partly depends on where the “magic” boundary line is drawn in the sand, and the voting system used.

As is also the case with the boundaries used in our system for voting for MPs in Westminster. Coupled with our voting system for said MPs.

IMHO, the voting system used previously for electing MEPs is far better than the first past the post system used for Westminster MPs. But it’s obviously different and more complex.

Maybe if our governments had taken the election of MEPs more seriously, and had adopted the same voting system for Westminster MPs as used for MEPs, turnout for the European elections would have been higher. But, that’s something that we will never likely know.

But regardless of the actual turnout for any election, as long as the process is followed correctly, the result is valid.

Some local elections have even worse turnouts that those of the European elections. But the results are still valid.

Anyway, if the voters in the brexit referendum had experienced a different voting system for Westminster MPs, would there have been less disaffection with politics in this country, and would this have led to less of a protest vote in the referendum? Hence affecting the result?

 

[tomuk]

This argument about which part of the U.K. voted which way is not getting us anywhere. As with any administrative boundary, it partly depends on where the “magic” boundary line is drawn in the sand, and the voting system used.

As is also the case with the boundaries used in our system for voting for MPs in Westminster. Coupled with our voting system for said MPs.

IMHO, the voting system used previously for electing MEPs is far better than the first past the post system used for Westminster MPs. But it’s obviously different and more complex.

Maybe if our governments had taken the election of MEPs more seriously, and had adopted the same voting system for Westminster MPs as used for MEPs, turnout for the European elections would have been higher. But, that’s something that we will never likely know.

But regardless of the actual turnout for any election, as long as the process is followed correctly, the result is valid.

Some local elections have even worse turnouts that those of the European elections. But the results are still valid.

Anyway, if the voters in the brexit referendum had experienced a different voting system for Westminster MPs, would there have been less disaffection with politics in this country, and would this have led to less of a protest vote in the referendum? Hence affecting the result?

We had a referendum on a version of proportional representation and the public indicated they weren't interested. As regards disaffection with politics it is arguable that a PR system like the d'hondt method that is reliant on party lists ie you vote for the party not the person would make the MPs less accountable and further divorced from the electorate.

 

[ainsworth74]

As regards disaffection with politics it is arguable that a PR system like the d'hondt method that is reliant on party lists ie you vote for the party not the person would make the MPs less accountable and further divorced from the electorate.

Good job that other systems with more accountability whilst also providing a better proportional result are available then!

 

[tomuk]

Good job that other systems with more accountability whilst also providing a better proportional result are available then!

The other poster was referring to the European elections where the d'hondt method is used. The referendum rejected Alternative Vote (IRV), I suppose there is also STV, single transferrable vote. Which system would you suggest.

 

[Annetts key]

Well, IMHO first past the post is the worst system. But the point is not which system should be used. But whether a more representative system would allow the voters in general elections to feel that they actually have a voice that is heard.

In many constituencies in this country, many voters feel ignored by politicians. Hence my question: if the voters in the brexit referendum had experienced a different voting system for Westminster MPs, would there have been less disaffection with politics in this country, and would this have led to less of a protest vote in the referendum? Hence affecting the result?

 

[adrock1976]

We had a referendum on a version of proportional representation and the public indicated they weren't interested. As regards disaffection with politics it is arguable that a PR system like the d'hondt method that is reliant on party lists ie you vote for the party not the person would make the MPs less accountable and further divorced from the electorate.

The Alternative Vote that was put to a referendum under the Cameron-Clegg government was not proper proportional representation at all. It was simply a slight modification on FPTP where if the candidate who got the most number of votes but was less than 50% of the total votes cast, then the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated and votes redistributed accordingly until there was a candidate who reaches or passes the 50% mark.

For the 2010 General Election, the Alternative Vote would not have changed the result according to a model that was done.

Under the FPTP system used in the General Election, there are quite a lot of safe constituencies, meaning that there are a lot of wasted votes and across a region, the voters could end up with a government that was not voted for. Proper proportional representation means that all votes count (as long as greater than 5% when looking at Germany and Denmark) and voters do at least get governments that have been voted for.

Taking Scotland (and also my native West Midlands minus the SNP as they have never stood candidates outwith Scotland), in General Elections since 1979, it has not had the government it has voted for. The voting patterns are below:

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)

1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)


2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was my former one of Glasgow North East from Speaker* to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)

2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP

2019 - Mainly SNP (increased to 48 constituencies, including the unseating of the Lib Dem leader at the time Jo Swinson. Her lips moved with every single word she spoke which explains how Swinson lost her seat), got Conservatives

No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, but this topic would be better in a new thread in the General Discussion section rather than here.

*My former MP in Glasgow Springburn/Glasgow North East was Michael Martin who sold out and embraced Blair's New Labour project until 2001 when he became Speaker. He was forced to resign when he directly became a subject of MP expenses row. Also, Martin really loved Springburn so much that he did not reside there, but in Bishopbriggs which was in a different county (Dunbartonshire, with Glasgow being in Lanarkshire), and a different Constituency Labour Party (Strathkelvin rather than Maryhill and Springburn).

 

[Revilo]

The Alternative Vote that was put to a referendum under the Cameron-Clegg government was not proper proportional representation at all.

The lesson here is never have a referendum…the losers will always dispute the result on some excuse and demand another.

 

[SteveP29]

The current twisted logic is remain actually got what they wanted by loosing the referendum.

The argument is this:
Remain said its very likely we would be poorer if we left. Leave said we would be richer and anything else was fake news.

As we are poorer directly as a result of brexit and it's what remain predicted that means remajn got what they wanted.

This was a guy at work

I do hope that his line manager was listening or heard what he said, he must then have seriously been thinking about the kind of responsibility he has been given in his role and whether he is capable of carrying it out.

Why would anyone want to be poorer?

They're all the 'I had it hard growing up/ in early adulthood, so everyone else should too' crowd

 

[E27007]

Why would anyone want to be poorer?

Italy, the Italians are seemingly happy with a decade of shrinkage of GDP and high unemployment while locked to the Euro currency and Brussels.

 

[edwin_m]

Italy, the Italians are seemingly happy with a decade of shrinkage of GDP and high unemployment while locked to the Euro currency and Brussels.

But even the current right wing government is not proposing to leave the EU. For some reason public support for leaving has dropped in many other EU countries after they saw what happened to the UK.

 

[E27007]

But even the current right wing government is not proposing to leave the EU. For some reason public support for leaving has dropped in many other EU countries after they saw what happened to the UK.

For Italy it would worse, to restructure and stimulate their economy, Italy would probably negotiate to abandon the Euro currency, imagine the wrath of Brussels if Italy suggested ditching the Euro

 

[Cloud Strife]

Italy, the Italians are seemingly happy with a decade of shrinkage of GDP and high unemployment while locked to the Euro currency and Brussels.

They're free to leave. They won't, because they know fine well that the south will completely collapse without EU funds being used for widespread corruption there. If the south collapses, the north will collapse because so many people will leave the south for the north.

The issue with Italy and Greece is that they have a huge, huge amount of tax dodging. Their economies under the Lira and Drachma were essentially based around deliberately devaluing the currency so that it would wipe out the losses from unpaid taxes, so when they joined the Euro, it should have been accompanied by structural reform to improve tax collection. But it wasn't, and they didn't have the political stability to see through meaningful reforms. The end result was that they've been trying to run their economy on the basis of the Euro without having the ability to interfere with it.

Ask yourself why smaller Euro countries like Slovakia haven't had the same issues, and you've got your answer.

 

[E27007]

They're free to leave. They won't, because they know fine well that the south will completely collapse without EU funds being used for widespread corruption there. If the south collapses, the north will collapse because so many people will leave the south for the north.

The issue with Italy and Greece is that they have a huge, huge amount of tax dodging. Their economies under the Lira and Drachma were essentially based around deliberately devaluing the currency so that it would wipe out the losses from unpaid taxes, so when they joined the Euro, it should have been accompanied by structural reform to improve tax collection. But it wasn't, and they didn't have the political stability to see through meaningful reforms. The end result was that they've been trying to run their economy on the basis of the Euro without having the ability to interfere with it.

Ask yourself why smaller Euro countries like Slovakia haven't had the same issues, and you've got your answer.

The situation of Italy, acknowledged as a key founder member of the EEC, and Italy as an industrial and banking economic super-power on long-term decline for 15 years.
It is a puzzle, that such a key member of the Eu is allowed to wither and decline. To those who told me Britain too would wither outside the Eu I would ask them to explain the situation of Italy, a key member state, it is clear from the example of Italy, there is actually not a great deal of economic security in being a member of the Eu.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, IMHO first past the post is the worst system. But the point is not which system should be used. But whether a more representative system would allow the voters in general elections to feel that they actually have a voice that is heard.

In many constituencies in this country, many voters feel ignored by politicians. Hence my question: if the voters in the brexit referendum had experienced a different voting system for Westminster MPs, would there have been less disaffection with politics in this country, and would this have led to less of a protest vote in the referendum? Hence affecting the result?

It's an interesting question. Personally I don't think it would make any difference. To be clear, I don't support FPTP: I think it's fundamentally undemocratic that groups like the LibDems and the Greens get so few seats compared to their votes, and that some voters feel unable to vote for the party they want to vote for because of issues like splitting the vote and their party has no chance in their seat etc. But that's not the reason people felt ignored in a way that motivated them to vote for Brexit. No-one voted for Brexit because they were frustrated at not feeling able to vote for the Greens at the previous election!

The kind of 'feeling ignored' that has led to disillusion from Westminster and in 2016 contributed to the Brexit vote is more to do with, people feel they are struggling and the Government is not hearing them or solving their problems. They feel ignored because they can't get a GP appointment without a silly system of phoning dozens of times at 8am. Or because they can't find somewhere decent to live at a price they can afford. Or because they perceived that if they expressed their concerns about immigration they'd just get branded a racist instead of having anyone listen to their concerns. Or because on top of all their struggles they keep seeing (often misleading but emotionally compelling) stories popping up on their Facebook feeds of MPs apparently living a life of riley and claiming all sorts of things on expenses. And then - ironically - the impression people had of politicians not listening got compounded when, even after a majority voted for Brexit in the referendum, lots of politicians kept trying to come up with reasons why we should remain anyway/have another referendum/whatever.

While there are good arguments for PR, PR is not by itself going to solve any of those problems.

Going into what will solve those problems is probably getting off topic for this thread, but very quickly: Personally I think we need the Government (including the whole civil service and culture around Westminster, not just the Tories or any one political party) to be much more open about what problems it can't solve, and much more dynamic about the problems it can solve. I mean like - lack of housing and lack of GP appointments have both been well known problems for at least 20 years, stretching back even to the Blair Government. Yet still, no Government has either solved them or given a convincing account of why they can't solve them. That's an example of why people feel disillusioned. And like I say, PR is not going to fix that.

 

[Intercity 225]

The situation of Italy, acknowledged as a key founder member of the EEC, and Italy as an industrial and banking economic super-power on long-term decline for 15 years.
It is a puzzle, that such a key member of the Eu is allowed to wither and decline. To those who told me Britain too would wither outside the Eu I would ask them to explain the situation of Italy, a key member state, it is clear from the example of Italy, there is actually not a great deal of economic security in being a member of the Eu.

Let me help you with your puzzle:

1. Italy hasn’t been an industrial, banking and economic superpower since the days of The Roman Empire

2. The Italian economy benefitted enormously following the foundation of the EEC and the subsequent establishment of closer trading relationships with it’s neighbours

3. Italy’s growth has since slowed but this is commonplace with western mature democracies over the same timeframe - including all the G7

Does that solve your puzzle for you?

 

[AlterEgo]

Italy is almost a third world country masquerading in the clothes of Western Europe.

 

[edwin_m]

Well, IMHO first past the post is the worst system. But the point is not which system should be used. But whether a more representative system would allow the voters in general elections to feel that they actually have a voice that is heard.

In many constituencies in this country, many voters feel ignored by politicians. Hence my question: if the voters in the brexit referendum had experienced a different voting system for Westminster MPs, would there have been less disaffection with politics in this country, and would this have led to less of a protest vote in the referendum? Hence affecting the result?

It's an interesting question. Personally I don't think it would make any difference. To be clear, I don't support FPTP: I think it's fundamentally undemocratic that groups like the LibDems and the Greens get so few seats compared to their votes, and that some voters feel unable to vote for the party they want to vote for because of issues like splitting the vote and their party has no chance in their seat etc. But that's not the reason people felt ignored in a way that motivated them to vote for Brexit. No-one voted for Brexit because they were frustrated at not feeling able to vote for the Greens at the previous election!

I'd say there's a more indirect causation. The way UKIP forced Brexit onto the political agenda was enabled by FPTP, because splitting off a faction of the Tory vote would have had a disproportionate effect on that party's chances of staying in power. This doesn't on its own explain Brexit, because there had to be a largeish group of the public who were in favour of it for that technique to work. And that was partly due to the Westminster government using the EU as a convenient scapegoat for their own failings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd say there's a more indirect causation. The way UKIP forced Brexit onto the political agenda was enabled by FPTP, because splitting off a faction of the Tory vote would have had a disproportionate effect on that party's chances of staying in power. This doesn't on its own explain Brexit, because there had to be a largeish group of the public who were in favour of it for that technique to work. And that was partly due to the Westminster government using the EU as a convenient scapegoat for their own failings.

Maybe. That's tricky because it's becoming very hypothetical. Maybe UKIP wouldn't have caused the Tories to panic under PR, but it's hard to predict. Under PR, the Tories would have had no expectation of getting a majority at Westminster - the norm would be for the Government to be formed by making a coalition or a confidence-and-supply agreement after negotiations between the parties. And under PR, UKIP would have had at least about 80 MPs in the 2015 Parliament - maybe more once you account for people who might have voted UKIP but didn't because of FPTP. So in 2015, with PR, UKIP would have had a strong bargaining position in any coalition negotiations. Since they were basically a single-issue party, their negotiating position would probably have been something like, 'Just give us a referendum and we'll let you do whatever you want in every other policy area. What harm can it do to just let the people decide?' That would potentially be quite a tempting proposition for the Tories (or for Labour, for that matter) if it made the difference between them forming a Government or not forming a Government.

Like I say, very hypothetical, but I'm not convinced that the Brexit referendum wouldn't have happened eventually under PR, given that all the main causes of disillusion with Westminster would likely still be there.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The situation of Italy, acknowledged as a key founder member of the EEC, and Italy as an industrial and banking economic super-power on long-term decline for 15 years.
It is a puzzle, that such a key member of the Eu is allowed to wither and decline. To those who told me Britain too would wither outside the Eu I would ask them to explain the situation of Italy, a key member state, it is clear from the example of Italy, there is actually not a great deal of economic security in being a member of the Eu.

It has to be said that the idea of Italy as an industrial and banking economic superpower is rather laughable. Yes, the northern half of the country, stretching roughly from Pisa to Ancona and all points north is wealthy and well developed, but the rest?

Italy is in decline because they simply refuse to accept the truth: that they have major issues that need to be resolved. Italy has a major VAT gap, with some estimates putting the gap at as much as 30% between what is collected and what is owed. Then there's the simple fact that tax evasion is a way of life there for many people.

Italy is not and will never be an industrial or banking super power. It's a country that sits at the top table because of its size, not for any other reason.

 

[E27007]

It has to be said that the idea of Italy as an industrial and banking economic superpower is rather laughable. Yes, the northern half of the country, stretching roughly from Pisa to Ancona and all points north is wealthy and well developed, but the rest?

Italy is in decline because they simply refuse to accept the truth: that they have major issues that need to be resolved. Italy has a major VAT gap, with some estimates putting the gap at as much as 30% between what is collected and what is owed. Then there's the simple fact that tax evasion is a way of life there for many people.

Italy is not and will never be an industrial or banking super power. It's a country that sits at the top table because of its size, not for any other reason.

Perhaps I exaggerated, I considered that Italy prior to the Great Recession of 2008/9 to be an Eu powerhouse, a member state exhibiting strong year-on-year growth in GDP and rubbing shoulders in the economic clubhouse of Germany/France/ UK.
As for banking, the Italians as considered to be the mother country of modern banking, historians of banking point to the Italian merchant banks all the way back to the 14th century.
Italy has still not recovered the GDP figures of 2008, more than a decade of negative and non-growth in GDP, stagnation and structural unemployment, have you noticed the number of young Italians employed in London ?
As a former powerhouse partner of the EU, I think Italy is long gone
My puzzle is about the EU not coming to the rescue of the economy of Italy, Any answers?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Italy is in decline because they simply refuse to accept the truth: that they have major issues that need to be resolved. Italy has a major VAT gap, with some estimates putting the gap at as much as 30% between what is collected and what is owed. Then there's the simple fact that tax evasion is a way of life there for many people.

Italy is not and will never be an industrial or banking super power. It's a country that sits at the top table because of its size, not for any other reason.

If that's the case, isn't that something the EU should be concerned about? After all if, as you say, there is a mass culture of not paying taxes in Italy, that should allow Italian businesses to undercut businesses in other EU countries that do pay their taxes, so that would seem to undermine the whole point of having a single market with single EU-wide rules. Which then begs the question, why hasn't the EU done something about it. (And on a related note, doesn't that provide a small additional reason not to be in the single market?)

 

[Intercity 225]

My puzzle is about the EU not coming to the rescue of the economy of Italy, Any answers?

The EU is providing Italy with all the benefits of membership - how the Italians utilise those benefits is really down to them. Contrary to the belief of some, it’s not the EU’s job to run the entirety of it’s member states’ affairs.

What extra do you think the EU should do in order to "rescue" Italy?

Anemic growth is a completely different proposition to bankruptcy e.g. Greece in 2010.

 

[najaB]

My puzzle is about the EU not coming to the rescue of the economy of Italy, Any answers?

What, precisely, do you expect the EU to do?

 

[tomuk]

But even the current right wing government is not proposing to leave the EU. For some reason public support for leaving has dropped in many other EU countries after they saw what happened to the UK.

So the drop in support for leaving the EU has no connection with either the Covid pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I note that one of the biggest falls in support to leave the EU was in Finland.

 

[najaB]

So the drop in support for leaving the EU has no connection with either the Covid pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Well, yes. The UK hasn't exactly weathered either storm particularly well, and there's a definite case to be made that EU membership would have helped with the former* if not the latter.

*Note that the oft-quoted "vaccine success" happened while we were still following EU medical regulatory rules.

 

[Intercity 225]

Well, yes. The UK hasn't exactly weathered either storm particularly well, and there's a definite case to be made that EU membership would have helped with the former* if not the latter.

*Note that the oft-quoted "vaccine success" happened while we were still following EU medical regulatory rules.

An argument could be made that it also affected the latter - the UK’s influence on the world stage has certainly diminished post-Brexit.

Evidenced by the fact Putin met with Macron and Scholz in the run up to the war but not Johnson. Had we remained in the EU I’m certain that the British Prime Minister would also have had a face to face meeting with the antagonist prior to a major global event.

 

[E27007]

What, precisely, do you expect the EU to do?

Assist the italian economy by the Eu budget, take Poland, Poland receives 3 Zloties from the Eu budget for every two Zloties from Poland, is that not what the Eu is about? While a Euro currency member state is attached to the Euro currency and the Eu Growth and Stability framework there is minimal wiggle room for a member state in trouble to self-dig its way out by internal measures. How else can a member state adjust its economy towards growth? Isn't that the policy of the Eu, Policies to pursue mutual growth and development ?