[MGR1]

I'll de-lurk again and qoute these two posts I found in the TotalWar Center Political Mudpit thread on Brexit:

Is that not based on a misconception about what democracy is? The point is to elect people who can represent your interests better than you could ever do. Electing politicians is similar to picking the mechanic that fixes your broken car, your dentist to fix your teeth, your GP to recommend treatment for your illness. You wouldn't go to any of them either saying "this is what's wrong and here's what you're going to do to fix it. That's defeating the point.

So if there's a disconnect betwen what people say is wrong and the policies their politicians enact, then consider they may not be betraying you, but simply doing the best they can. So they should because if a hard brexit goes through and it works out badly, the same people who expressed that whish will be ready to crucify the politicians that made it happen.

So there's the problem with modern day democracy and referenda in particular: the lack of accountability on the part of voters who can gratuitously blame their politicians for the consequences of their votes. It could not be clearer in this instance: The people voted leave and at the next GE they voted to have it implemented by remainers How was that ever going to work. And yet everyone's saying "get on with it already!"

..... Which is of course as i think we all have discovered part of the issue. The Brexit Referendum was specifically on leaving the EU- the future relationship, shape of the UK et al are all still in the prerogative of Parliament. May's deal can technically indeed be counted as 'leaving' (as is a Norway style deal, a Canada style deal etc). The issue being that brexiteers and remainers have many different groups inside these two overarching camps that all have competiting conceptions of what the future relationship will look like, both among parliament and the general public. Its why A) Brexit is toxic politically- there is no 'winning' particularly as there is no 'dominant' faction inside these groups- for instance my parents are brexiteers who despise the idea of a 'no-deal' and also hate May's deal for varying reasons. B) A lot of people (quite fairly) misunderstand the British parliamentary system and the role of referendums within it (i.e. they're horrid for it ). Once you've given your 'basic' marching orders (Leave) its entirely up to your MP's, the government and parliamentary parties how they do this. Providing the UK essentially is not listed as being 'part of the EU' everything was up for grabs the minute the referendum result was announced. Naturally many will feel betrayed or that this is unfair- they are right, but the UK does not have the mechanisms for the greater influence of direct democracy on policy beyond blunt (and kinda crap as we've seen) simple questions. What's worse is of course as the result is essentially stunted for purposes beyond the 'yes/no' for membership- and it was so close, anyone and everyone in parliament can use it- soft brexiteers, and even reamainers can and have been using it to legitimize their position, ERG style brexiteers, use it for their purposes, anyone can adopt the result as part of their platform and spin it. The referendum beyond providing a possible overall angle, is essentially useless (and indeed if somehow the Lib-dems got it, their quite clear they would overturn the whole thing- and arguably that's a legitimate position as they can point to the whole 'change mind/too hard' argument- whatever you think of that or not, the UK system allows them to do that, and again given the result with little to no parliamentary consequences of any meaningful scope as any support they'd garner to get into office, would be from remainers- thus in a GE platform they would be justified in doing so as fulfilling a manifesto promise). Again as i ranted before- the next GE can potentially see brexit overturned if a party who wins (or even gets into coalition with someone) promises in their manifesto to scrap brexit/rejoin (if its the GE shortly after).

We could be in the absolutely ridiculous situation given the perfect storm of non-sustainable result, no effort put in to 'win' the war and create a sustainable consensus post-referendum, the UK's parliamentary system and how how GE's spread the focus of issues to a broader level- where literally a year after we've left the EU, we join them again...

So i'd echo this- Anything that 'leaves' the EU as an official member fulfills the referendum. If people expected more, then we needed a reformed parliamentary system with a greater emphasis on direct democracy and not a model that actively tries to limit public opinion. The other constraints being brexit is very much 'party politics' and that again Parliamentary arithmetic favours remainers, and its highly unlikely this will change at the next GE given how constituencies work and also how the focus will probably once again (like 2017) be on the domestic front as Corbyn again shifts to the Conservatives failings here as politically its fertile ground.

Both points sum things up rather well, IMHO.


Mike.