What does the Brexit vote mean?

[Buster's Uncle]

You know, all I was saying is that, like just more speech is the correct reaction to wrong/offensive speech -not, for example,  maybe giving the wrong person any whoopin' they might deserve for saying such a horrible thing- the answer to bad democracy is more and better democracy - obey the ground rules until it hurts and beyond.  Work the system to make things right, but Thou Shalt Not Tamper with basic Democracy.

[DrazharLn]

"•Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

Interesting. So do you think it was that 33% that made the difference ?

I assume this is in relevance to my assertion that the leave campaign was mostly lies.

So, three claims:

1. decisions about the UK are not made in the UK when the UK is a member of the EU
2. the UK will have greater control of immigration outside the EU
3. the UK would have no say in how the EU expanded membership

Together, these claims underpin 95% of the stated reasoning of leave voters, as reported by the poll.

Claim 3 is the easiest. It's just not true. EU members get a veto on the addition of new members[3].

Claim 2 may become true, dependent on the exit negotiations (the EU has in all other cases required freedom of movement as a condition of membership of the european economic area (EEA), the free trade area we will want to retain access to[1]), but I believe that the underlying drive for control of immigration is based on the xenophobia and scapegoating that has been preached by the overwhelmingly right wing media and the right wing parties.

In fairness, the left has done too little to address the concerns people have about immigration, but I think they accrue less blame.

Immigrants are commonly blamed for higher stress on state resources, such as housing, healthcare and welfare and for displacing native labour. EU migrants to the UK consume significantly less from the state than natives or non-EU migrants and pay significantly more back in taxes, so they actually cause the state to have more resources, not less.

Migrants do, however, displace native labour[2] and this is a serious concern, but analysis indicates that even accounting for this, migrants have a positive effect on GDP. My view is that the government should act to manage the distribution of displaced labour and to improve training and redeployment prospects for the unemployed.

Claim 1 is the least wrong of these claims, but it's still overblown. Around 80% of EU legislation can be imposed on member states (the remaining 20% is subject to veto), and the UK has some special exceptions on some of the 80%. It is extremely difficult to assess what impact this EU legislation has on the UK and what proportion of UK law is influenced or overridden by EU law[0].

In practice the UK and especially France drag their heels or just don't implement EU legislation they don't like and there's not a whole lot that the rest of the EU can do about it.

Again, if the UK actually wants to remain a member of the EEA, it will likely have to implement 20-30% this legislation anyway (see Switzerland, Norway), but will lose its voice in the European Commision and European Parliament[1].

My view is that EU legislation is broadly beneficial and does not seriously affect parliamentary sovereignty. I challenge anyone to identify any EU legislation (other than the Common Agricultural Policy) that has a non-trivial negative impact on the UK. I'm sure some exists. I'm also sure that there's not much and that the EU passes fewer bad laws than the UK parliament.

\[0]: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
[1]: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a-norway-style-relationship-with-the-eu-entail/
[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf
[3]: https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/

This post isn't sufficiently referenced, but time is limited.

[Rusty Edge]

Thanks DrazharLn, I wasn't questioning your claims. I accept them. Thanks for the detail.

 To me, 1, the autonomy issue seems like a legitimate issue that might be voted upon in a democratic country. The degree of it is a matter of personal preference.  That's what I presumed Brexit was all about.

I was simply asking if that 33% of the exit vote concerned about immigration and border control was the "swing vote" that caused passage and surprised everybody, not whether they were well informed or right.

Or was that 33% faction more or less constant and noisy, and it was some other faction/reason/excuse  that allowed the measure to pass and surprise most everybody?

[DrazharLn]

I don't think the anti-immigration lot were a surprise -  we've known they were there for a while and both main parties have been trying to woo them. As for the surprise, the polls were predicting a very close vote for a long time, so it shouldn't have been a surprise - though of course it was. Personally, I was complacent, didn't think people would really vote for something so big for such poor reasons.

I agree that autonomy from the EU is a legitimate aim, my objection is that the campaign for that presented false arguments for it, so the democratic process is cheapened by voters not really getting what they voted for and quite possibly getting a lot more bad stuff than they were led to believe.

[DrazharLn]

Personally, I believe the anti-immigration lot are probably subject to an under-reporting bias anyway. Similar to the shy tory effect.

[Dale]

Regardless of the outcome and regardless of the information supply, democracy is democracy and it should be accepted.

In politics all sides deploy lies and deception. The winner is the side who deploys them more successfully.

[DrazharLn]

I don't think it is as simple as that, Dale.

Not all forms of democracy are equal, and a referendum on a highly technical topic by a deliberately misinformed electorate doesn't smack of due process to me.

I would rather that the various factions and parties present their vision for the future of the UK's relationship with the EU and then that a General Election be held. Or that negotiations be held and a referendum decide if the negotiated deal be accepted.

[Buster's Uncle]

-Possibly that last thought wouldn't be fooling with the democracy of it in a bad way...

[DrazharLn]

Unclear what you mean, BU.

[Buster's Uncle]

Or that negotiations be held and a referendum decide if the negotiated deal be accepted.

Nigh-impossibly tricky in practice, but democratic and thinking in the right direction.

Again, I tend -STRONGLY- to think Leave was the wrong call - just, if you can't block a stupid referendum happening or win it --- it's really bad to have a thing like that not explicitly labeled NON-BINDING and then make noises about not following through.  As Dale said, you have to honor the rules if you don't want to destroy the system.

---

Anyone have any thoughts about both sides in the aftermath forming circular firing squads and generally -definitely more Labour than Tory- playing out an episode of House of 'Tards?

[DrazharLn]

The Tory one is depressing but expected. The Labour situation is more complicated and it's not clear to me how much of it is centrist Labour continued attempts to retake the party and how much is MPs who were willing to work with Corbyn giving up on him.

The rules defining the electorate for the leadership election are fishy, too. No votes for party members who joined in the last 6 months, but anyone can pay £25 for a vote? Very strange thing for an ostensibly socialist party to do.

I'm interested to see if Corbyn will make any concessions or if another left candidate will appear. I don't rate Angela Eagle or Owen Smith.

[Dale]

I don't think it is as simple as that, Dale.

Not all forms of democracy are equal, and a referendum on a highly technical topic by a deliberately misinformed electorate doesn't smack of due process to me.

I would rather that the various factions and parties present their vision for the future of the UK's relationship with the EU and then that a General Election be held. Or that negotiations be held and a referendum decide if the negotiated deal be accepted.

Oh I totally agree.  In 1999 we went down a similar path with a referendum on becoming a republic.  It failed, but only just (54% nationally opposed).  The Yes side suffered the same issue the Remain side suffered.  They failed to explain WHY their path is better.

And if the question were put today, we'd face the same situation Britain did the other week.  The Yes campaign (or Leave if you will), has all the ammo.  Why suffer under a Head Of State that isn't Australian?  The Queen has no relationship with Australian people.  Why should the Australian Constitution be "at the will of the English Parliament"?  When in reality, whilst technically true, a complete deceit.  Our Head of State is actually the Governor-General, who for as long as I've known has been an Australian (currently General (Rtd) Sir Peter Cosgrove, a VERY popular Australian military man and Nationalist).  The only real power the Queen has anymore under the Australia Act, is to dissolve the Executive.  The Governor-General holds all the power as HoS.  And honestly..... whilst the English Parliament could repeal the Australia Act (which enacted the Australian Constitution), do you think it would have any REAL effect?  The World Govt's recognise Australia as a sovereign nation under UN Guidelines, so Australia exists independently of any ties to English Parliament.

But how the hell is the No (or Remain) side supposed to explain all that??   

And after all that, in deceiving the people, getting the Yes mandate, there would be no plan on how to leave the Commonwealth, or what sort of Republic to become!

[Buster's Uncle]

And why in God's name would Oz want out of the Commonwealth -as opposed to the Monarchy- anyway?  Where would you find wars to get involved in?

[Dale]

And why in God's name would Oz want out of the Commonwealth -as opposed to the Monarchy- anyway?  Where would you find wars to get involved in?

Really?  You have to ask?   
http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/071-MarrickvillePeaceGroup.pdf

Executive Summary
 The US alliance is at the core of Australia’s defence strategy.
 It  has  led  Australia  into  multiple  wars  of  questionable 
benefit. 
 The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is an example. 
 An  enlightened  strategic  policy  would  keep  us  out  of 
unnecessary conflicts. 
 The US alliance compromises Australia’s independence 
 It raises regional tensions 
 It is not in Australia’s best interests. 
 Despite  these  considerations,  since  2009  there  are  many 
examples  of  how  Australia  continues  to  move  closer  to  the 
US,  militarily.   
 No  coherent  reasons  for  continuing  along  this  path  have 
been provided by the Australian government. 

[Buster's Uncle]

...I believe that's a Commonwealth issue, as in the US is a British ally and 'stralia is a dependable contributor in Commonwealth military actions, but Bindi Erwin hasn't dated it, so I'm not claiming to know enough to try to hold that hill...

Admit it, though; Oz has not bent over backwards to stay out of foreign wars - Tracy Ullman said so one time...