Legacy of the fraudulent referendum

At what point did we give up sovereignty of out own parliament?

I actually think that we're on the very edge of giving it up now, Maybee with manipulation of the Commons debate programme to give only minimum time for the scrutiny of important legislation and a PM who refuses to abide by the Ministerial Code for himself and his ministers.

The thing is, I don't think the Brexit voters who were swayed by the 'loss of sovereignty' argument had any idea about what Parliamentary Sovereignty actually means, or even thought that it has anything to do with Parliament.

I think they just had a vague notion that the UK was being bossed about by other countries and they didn't like it...

Ah, so now we want babes in arms to vote! Of course, I was referring to those who voted.

The people, voters or not, did not authorise the Referendum, Parliament did and by a massive majority. I agree that it was a far-reaching constitutional change but, sadly, our own Parliament treated it with all the finesse of a drunk betting the house on a toss of a coin.

It seems our Parliamentary voting system is undemocratic so a government who wins by a large majority has no validity; but when we have a Referendum, the result can be ignored because those who vote are too easily led!

Claims of 'incalculable' damage of Brexit to future generations are to say the least 'incalculable'. It depends on how 'the ever closer union' develops and what our position would have been within the EU. Heseltine has at least been clear that, if we were to have influence within the EU, we must not be semi-detached, outside the eurozone. It would have been better at the time of the Referendum if Remain had argued this position. I suspect they didn't because they knew they would not win that argument.

varian

The majority of people in the UK were not hoodwinked by the brexit liars - only 17m out of a population of 67m voted for this insanity.

The lies, cheating and foreign interference, combined with the power of the tax exile billionaires who control the rightwing press, managed to hoodwink just enough people on that one day.

It was outrageous that such a far reaching constitutional change could be made on the whim of a tiny number of voters and pushed through by an undemocratically elected government party which most voters voted against.

The damage to our country, to the futures of our children and grandchildren is incalcuable.

Please do elaborate, an undemocratic elected Government. Wonder the electoral commission didn’t have something to say . The Gov as bad as it is at present , was elected by the rules of our Country, not the rules you wish for.

Ah, so now we want babes in arms to vote! Of course, I was referring to those who voted.

Why didn't you say that then? Oh I know. Because "the majority of the people in the UK" sounds much better than a "scant quarter of the population."

Oh do leave off. A 'scant quarter of the population' including around 20m people not entitled to vote!

At the time of the Referendum, there were 46.5m people registered voters of whom 72.2% or 33.2m cast their vote.

Yes, fair enough, but you said "the majority of the people in the UK". And any way you cut it that was wrong. Just like the £350 million claim was wrong.

In a democracy no government can be elected without the support of the majority of those who voted Linclass

Democracy = rule of the majority.

As long as we elect our government by FPTP, we should not describe the UK as a democracy.

Because of our undemocratic FPTP electoral system we have a government party who got a "landslide" majority of eighty seats on the basis of a minority of votes.

Of course it is not possible for the Electoral System to challenge it as FPTP is the system we have, almost alone amongst European nations - the only other undemocratic country in Europe is Belarus.

Cunco

Oh do leave off. A 'scant quarter of the population' including around 20m people not entitled to vote!

At the time of the Referendum, there were 46.5m people registered voters of whom 72.2% or 33.2m cast their vote.

At the time of the fraudulent referendum it was estimated that there were around 3 million EU citizens living here, many for most of their lives, working, paying taxes and contributing to our country in many ways, who were not entitled to vote.

That estimate has now been revised to around 5 million.

Of course we don't know for sure how they might have voted but I can tell that of the many I have spoken to, I have not heard one of them support brexit.

I have a story related to scrapping red tape.

My husband was H&S Officer for a Waste disposal company. He was very strict with the rules as people were working in dangerous surroundings and risk was high. The UK company was bought out by an American firm who wanted to cut corners. My husband refused and was made redundant and all the rules and processes he'd put in place were scrapped.

One week later there was an explosion at the factory and a man (my husband's best friend) was killed instantly.

Red tape is there to protect us. Those who seek to remove it aren't always doing it for good reason and they are seldom the ones to suffer when things go wrong.

Sorry to take you down a leafy lane, but this 'tear up red tape' aspect of Brexit worries me hugely. It is not always a good thing.

Interesting thread from Prof Michael Dougan which touches on the concerns Coastpath mentions

Start

Easy, today of all days, to let other important developments slip by without critical attention they deserve. But let’s not underestimate serious threats contained in Johnson’s “Brexit Freedoms Bill”. A short thread, starting with his usual lies, then highlighting 2 key threats:
1) we can take it for granted that this announcement is shrouded in the same deceptions and distortions as every other initiative from Johnson’s Regime. E.g. we’re told many EU rules carried over into UK law upon withdrawal are completely lacking in any democratic legitimacy...
2) ... an outrageous claim, not least since all of those EU rules (even whatever minority UK itself did not positively vote for) were adopted under a system explicitly & repeatedly endorsed by Parliament itself. But then, Johnson doesn't hold Parliament in much regard: see below!
3) E.g. we’re told those retained EU rules have a “special status” that is incompatible with UK’s sovereignty & independence – even though it was Parliament itself that positively decided to create that “special status”, not just during UK membership, but also upon UK withdrawal.
4) E.g. it's amazing that, although Johnson's Regime hasn't finished its review/brought forward any concrete proposals, they can already provide an exact figure (£1 billion) for how much their plans will “save”. Presumably, that's not all from putting crowns on pint glasses...
5) ... and as many others have already correctly said: whatever figure for "red tape savings" Johnson makes up here, will still pale into utter insignificance compared to the vast and unnecessary costs & disruption created across UK economy and society by his Extremist Brexit
6) E.g. it’s surprising to read that, among fields Tories regard as a triumph of “Brexit freedom”, is public procurement – obviously no mention of the vast & shocking scale of corruption, nepotism, fraud & negligence with public money that led one of their own ministers to resign
7) But all those lies & propaganda are there just to distract us from main content of what they are planning. Because this sketchy, shady proposal for a “Brexit Freedoms Bill” contains 2 main threats – each individually worrying but which together should seriously concern us all
6) 1st threat: making it easier for ministers to change law of the land under their own authority. Apparently “taking back control” is very boring: imagine have to wait for Parliament to make the rules! Surely Johnson's Regime should have even more powers to legislate for itself?
7) 2nd threat: the potential scope of such powers. What Johnson snidely dismisses as “red tape” is capable of covering our individual rights & regulatory standards across every imaginable field: employment, environment, consumers, oversight in fields from finance to chemicals…
8) Even though we're offered little detail, it's clear from scope of their official review & from range of concrete examples that they do reference, that this is not intended to be an exercise covering only a few fields or limited to some minor / technical details. Far from it.
9) Put those two threats together = Johnson is suggesting that he & his Brexitists be given even more powers to dismantle even more of our basic rights & protections, but without the inconvenience of having to do so even through the ordinary legislative process. I.e. a power grab
10) When this Bill is published, we need to scrutinise scope of powers Johnson wants to grab, degree of scrutiny Parliament might still exercise, impact on devolved institutions & their competences… & then every single proposal it enables will demand equal scrutiny of its own.
This “Brexit Freedoms Bill” is no mere circus bread for gullible Brexit zealots & no red herring to distract from Partygate. This has all the signs of another deliberate prong in the multifaceted attack by Johnson & his Hard Right Tories on liberal democracy in the UK. Vigilance!

End

twitter.com/mdouganlpool/status/1488202524364529665

Thank you so much for this Maizie. Prof Dougan is the most experience academic on International Treaties- and he has been warning of severe consequences for the UK from the beginning. Huge respect for him.

varian

Cunco

Oh do leave off. A 'scant quarter of the population' including around 20m people not entitled to vote!

At the time of the Referendum, there were 46.5m people registered voters of whom 72.2% or 33.2m cast their vote.

At the time of the fraudulent referendum it was estimated that there were around 3 million EU citizens living here, many for most of their lives, working, paying taxes and contributing to our country in many ways, who were not entitled to vote.

That estimate has now been revised to around 5 million.

Of course we don't know for sure how they might have voted but I can tell that of the many I have spoken to, I have not heard one of them support brexit.

There are only a few European countries that allow non citizens to vote in either major elections, or referendums, no matter how long they have lived or worked in said country, France Germany and Spain being amongst those that do not allow this. Most allow local voting, as we do.

1000s and 1000s of BRITISH citizens living abroad were NOT allowed to vote.

Thanks for posting that article MaizieD One of the main concerns I had about Brexit was the removal of a second stage of guidance/checking on the actions of our government. I always felt before that the eyes of the EU watching each country helped to protect us all from any actions by nefarious governments. All protection gone now and, as the article says, the PM is taking his chance to dismantle our basic rights & protections without the inconvenience of having to do so even through the ordinary legislative process.

This is why the likes of Cummings, Johnson and Rees Mogg drove Leave. They want all the power without being answerable to anyone. Brexit gave it to them.

One of the things that I took away from my politics lectures at uni is that Parliamentary Sovereignty and democracy are closely entwined. I am truly shocked to find that MPs are willing to surrender their powers to the Executive (which represents the crown, whose 'tyranny' the Civil War was fought to remove) and return us to basically a dictatorship.

Are they totally ignorant of their powers as part of the Legislature which holds the Executive to account? Many of them have PPE degrees. I can only assume that they learned very little from the Politics element.

Cunco

Oh do leave off. A 'scant quarter of the population' including around 20m people not entitled to vote!

At the time of the Referendum, there were 46.5m people registered voters of whom 72.2% or 33.2m cast their vote.

"A scant quarter of the population" is, strictly speaking, correct. The population of the UK is approximately 66 million, of whom just over half of 33.2 million voted to leave the EU.

Current 18 year olds were only 12 or 13 at the time of the referendum and didn't have a chance to vote on their own future.

These comments about the democratic deficit of our leaving the EU has prompted me to examine the position when we joined the EC.

We joined the EC without a Referendum on 1 January 1973. After the surprise Conservative win in 1970, Prime Minister Heath signed the Treaty of Accession on 22 January 1972, introducing a Bill in Parliament a few days later. The important Second Reading of the Bill passed with a majority of just 8 [309 to 301] after Heath made it a vote of confidence.

In the election of 1970, the Conservatives won 330 seats, achieved through 13.1m votes. This was 46.4% of the UK vote (around a third of the electorate and, if you insist, about 24% of the population.)

In the election of 2019, after an EU Referendum, the Conservatives won 365 seats, achieved through 14.0 m votes. This was 43.6% of the popular vote (around 29% of the electorate and, if you insist, 21% of the population).

Interestingly, in 1970, the Liberals under new leader Jeremy Thorpe lost half theirs seats to just 6, achieved by 2.1m votes or just 7.5% of the UK vote. Nevertheless, in the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, those 6 votes may have made a great difference to the passage of the Act, the future of the government and our membership of the EC (now EU).

And in 1707 Scotland entered Union with England based on the bribery of a few aristocrats.

Your point?

On a serious note....

The Leavers clearly got more votes in the referendum than the Remainers.

However "half the population" didn't vote to leave.

Just call me a pedant.

In the election of 1970, the Conservatives won 330 seats, achieved through 13.1m votes. This was 46.4% of the UK vote (around a third of the electorate and, if you insist, about 24% of the population.)

I didn't vote in the 1970 GE, being too young by 1 year (voting age still at 21 then) Was membership of the EC an issue in that election? I don't recall it being so, but I'm ashamed to say that I didn't take much interest in politics at that age.

(I do remember being very happy that we were joining the EC )

Which makes comparison with the 2019 GE quite difficult as it was, for the tories, a single issue, Get Brexit Done, which really skewed the voting. However, it is noticeable that 57% of the voters didn't vote to 'Get Brexit Done'. If the 2019 GE is being treated as a 2nd Referendum (which I have seen it argued) then the considerably more voters were against than for.

(You've missed the 1975 membership referendum, untainted by foreign influence, dubious funding and 'dark ads', when 67% of voters approved our membership.)

So I'm really not sure what you are 'proving' here.

However, as you appear to be a thinking sort of person I sincerely hope and trust that you are appalled at the government and PM that 2019 GE has unleashed on us.

I didn't either, as it was my first year in UK, and not elegible to vote. I took on British nationality in 73.

I have voted every single time then- knowing 100% that my vote would go straight in the bin due to where I lived and the First Past the Post system, which is totally undemocratic and leaves huge numbers knowing their vote will never, ever count.

MaizieD: according to the BBC, the voting age in 1970 was dropped to 18 for the first time. It seems many younger voters failed to register.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge70.shtml

I thought my point was simple enough. If, as is claimed, there is a democratic deficit in our leaving the EU, by the same token there was a democratic deficit in our joining.

I am well aware of the 1975 Referendum result and I may do a similar comparison with 2016 sometime. It was very lop-sided affair but the issues were better addressed by politicians and the media than in 2016. Even so, many voters thought they were joining a Common Market' whereas the EC was always far more.

I do think Bo-Jo should go but I am not so dismissive of the 2019 result. If you are given two choices and one is Jeremy Corbyn, it is no wonder people voted Conservative. I don't expect you to agree.

Why not. I totally can get that. I almost did not myself.

In 1970, I was 19, but not elegible to vote as a foreigner- became British in 73.

MaizieD: according to the BBC, the voting age in 1970 was dropped to 18 for the first time. It seems many younger voters failed to register.

Oooh, you're right (though it wasn't mentioned on your link, I had to look elswhere). Perhaps I did vote in 1970 then. Not that I would have voted tory. I have never voted tory..

Interestingly, the BBC link makes no mention of joining the EC being an issue in the election campaign.