Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Loki]

Time to get rid of that whole pesky parliamentary supremacy.

[Hazir]

Ya gotta remember one important thing though: it's never been all that clear just to what extent the British govt. actually represents the British people

Yeah, that s true, but it was an easy mistake. How could we know even they don't take their constitution too serious?

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah, that s true, but it was an easy mistake. How could we know even they don't take their constitution too serious?

They don't have a constitution.

[Loki]

Yes, they do. A constitution doesn't have to be codified.

[Hazir]

They don't have a constitution.

You joined the fact-free zone?

[Aimless]

Guys, come on. You wouldn't take that constitution seriously either.

[Hazir]

Appearantly there's a plan now to federalize the United Kingdom on the principle of 'pooled sovereignty'. I don't know if the other nations should enter in such a deal before the English explain in detail what they exactly mean when they use the word sovereignty.

[Aimless]

I don't know if it's hilarious or infuriating that they choose to do this after dragging NI and Scotland out of the EU.

[Aimless]

If they do this I hope they name it The Federation of the United Kingdom

[LittleFuzzy]

They don't have a constitution.

Yes, they do. A constitution doesn't have to be codified.

It may not have to be codified but there does need to be something that marks it as different or above general legislation. There is no such thing in the UK. There is the current majority of Parliament, nothing else. Parliament can do whatever it wants, in whatever sphere of governance it wants, with no de jure or de facto limits on its authority beyond the will of the people to be governed. Anthropological suasion is not a constution, even an uncodified one.

[Hazir]

I don't know if it's hilarious or infuriating that they choose to do this after dragging NI and Scotland out of the EU.

I guess they hope to avoid a slew of exit referenda.

[Hazir]

It may not have to be codified but there does need to be something that marks it as different or above general legislation. There is no such thing in the UK. There is the current majority of Parliament, nothing else. Parliament can do whatever it wants, in whatever sphere of governance it wants, with no de jure or de facto limits on its authority beyond the will of the people to be governed. Anthropological suasion is not a constution, even an uncodified one.

Yep, deep in the fact free zone.

[Aimless]

It may not have to be codified but there does need to be something that marks it as different or above general legislation. There is no such thing in the UK. There is the current majority of Parliament, nothing else. Parliament can do whatever it wants, in whatever sphere of governance it wants, with no de jure or de facto limits on its authority beyond the will of the people to be governed. Anthropological suasion is not a constution, even an uncodified one.

It's worse than that. In practice, the highest status is enjoyed not by laws but by unwritten conventions. The Brits however consider themselves to have a constitution. As someone once said, it's a matter of self-respect because no state is properly dressed without one. It's just that the British constitution doesn't differentiate between wearing your underpants on your head over your hat on the one hand and using a sock to cover your giblets on the other. As long as the Queen doesn't try to stop you (although she can, in principle) it's all kosher.

[Aimless]

Yep, deep in the fact free zone.

I think it's a legitimate position to take because the British constitution is so goddamn' weird. As long as one acknowledges that, from the British perspective, there most certainly is a British constitution. It just can't be effed, so to speak

[Hazir]

It's worse than that. In practice, the highest status is enjoyed not by laws but by uwritten conventions. The Brits however consider themselves to have a constitution. As someone once said, it's a matter of self-respect because no state is properly dressed without one. It's just that the British constitution doesn't differentiate between wearing your underpants on your head over your hat on the one hand and using a sock to cover your giblets on the other. As long as the Queen doesn't try to stop you (although she can, in principle) it's all kosher.

I think the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are very much written.

[Loki]

It may not have to be codified but there does need to be something that marks it as different or above general legislation. There is no such thing in the UK. There is the current majority of Parliament, nothing else. Parliament can do whatever it wants, in whatever sphere of governance it wants, with no de jure or de facto limits on its authority beyond the will of the people to be governed. Anthropological suasion is not a constution, even an uncodified one.

A constitution defines the relationship between different parts of the government and between the government and the governed. Nothing about a constitution requires it to be difficult to overturn. You're conflating constitutions in general with the American manifestation.

I think it's a legitimate position to take because the British constitution is so goddamn' weird. As long as one acknowledges that, from the British perspective, there most certainly is a British constitution. It just can't be effed, so to speak

It's a position in opposition to just about all British constitutional scholars. Also, note the fact that there are constitutional scholars. Last I checked, the British constitution predates the American ones by many centuries. To argue backwards and say that any constitution must have what the American ones does is plain silly. There are at least half a dozen other first-world democracies that practice a similar system of parliamentary supremacy.

[Hazir]

Loki is right, the English type constitution was the norm before roughly the latter half of the 18th century. It's utter rubbish to say it's not a constitution any longer because innovations in other countries tend to rely on comprehensive written documents. The role of the Acts of Parliament in the constitution forming process lies in the accident of that Parliament's existence prior to codified constitutions becoming the norm. The Brits didn't have the luxury of a separate constituent assembly.

[Aimless]

It's a position in opposition to just about all British constitutional scholars. Also, note the fact that there are constitutional scholars. Last I checked, the British constitution predates the American ones by many centuries. To argue backwards and say that any constitution must have what the American ones does is plain silly. There are at least half a dozen other first-world democracies that practice a similar system of parliamentary supremacy.

That is actually interesting, what other first-world democracies not only have a principle of parliamentary sovereignty but also a constitution that is, in theory, easily changed* by the legislature?


* pretending for a moment that the UK constitution really is easily changed in all respects.

[Aimless]

I think the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are very much written.

I was just expressing my belief that the unwritten conventions may be the highest-ranked parts of the British constitution by what I believed to be Fuzzy's criteria.

[Loki]

That is actually interesting, what other first-world democracies not only have a principle of parliamentary sovereignty but also a constitution that is, in theory, easily changed* by the legislature?


* pretending for a moment that the UK constitution really is easily changed in all respects.

Parliamentary supremacy, in practice, means that it's easy for the legislature to change the constitution. It allows each parliament to undo anything done in the past.

According to the always correct wikipedia (), Israel, New Zealand, Italy, and weaker versions in Australia, Canada, India, and Finland.

[LittleFuzzy]

Parliamentary supremacy, in practice, means that it's easy for the legislature to change the constitution.

It is, in fact, as simple and easy as Parliament doing anything else. They don't have a constitution, they have legislation. There is no definition between different parts of government, there's just current parliamentary whim.

[Hazir]

If you look at the glacial pace with which the British constitution is changed in reality I think there can be reasonable doubt about how easy it actually is to change it. Changes started to the role of the house of Lords started under Blair have still not reached their completion. Also, the Lower House can only force through changes of the constitution for which it has an explicit mandate of the voter.

[Loki]

It is, in fact, as simple and easy as Parliament doing anything else. They don't have a constitution, they have legislation. There is no definition between different parts of government, there's just current parliamentary whim.

Right, there's no monarchy, no Commons, no Lords, no rules regarding how each is appointed and how each interacts with the others.

[Hazir]

I was just expressing my belief that the unwritten conventions may be the highest-ranked parts of the British constitution by what I believed to be Fuzzy's criteria.

Fuzzy's criteria are pulled from his ass so I don't value them too much. The British constitution is not so much unwritten as not written down in a concise document. Some pieces of it though stand out more than others. The UK Parliament's website by the way has a subsection on constitutional legal issues.

[Loki]

Yes, that's why I use the word codified. It's made up of many documents, just not all in the same place.

[GGT]

It is, in fact, as simple and easy as Parliament doing anything else. They don't have a constitution, they have legislation. There is no definition between different parts of government, there's just current parliamentary whim.

But even the US (with its Constitution that separates powers between branches of government) is facing the same dilemma: a dysfunctional political climate.

It's not like our Constitution makes things any easier --- it probably makes it harder when SCOTUS decides political speech (and dark money) is protected under the 1st Amendment, or that states can make their own laws regarding guns (or military grade assault rifles) under the 2nd Amendment. The end result is a politically fractured US.

Even though the UK has its own political divides, at least they're not talking about getting rid of their NHS or gun bans. Are they?

[RandBlade]

There was never a doubt that there would be some sort of trade relationship. What this shows is that the US now has to do what little it can to assuage investors' anxiety brought on by this daft move and that the UK's position is about as unfavorable as Obama and Froman said it would likely be. Sure, you're in the queue, but you're at the back of it.

No we're not in the back of the queue, we are either in the exact same position or edging slightly ahead. Obama basically said that we would be forced to wait until after TTIP had been concluded before we could start our own negotiations (that would be back of the queue). Now all talk along those lines has vanished and there are suggestions either that the UK could join TPP (which would be bumping up the queue) or potentially the TTIP could include a post-Brexit UK as a signatory (which would be exact same position in the queue).

Pretty much every single treaty of the EU and its predecessors made it perfectly clear that this was a political project with political and social union as its ultimate goal. That has been the guiding principle pretty much right from the outset, since long before the single market came into being. Like I said, it's like saying regular sex and better finances are the purposes of establishing a loving, committed relationship. The loving relationship part is the point. Sex and finances are important features.

I couldn't give a hairy rats arse. As I've said to death this is not the way it was interpreted in the UK, nobody seemed in any hurry to suggest that we were interpreting it wrong and either way bygones are bygones and we need to look to the future not the past. Do we stick with a political and social union we don't want and grumble that it isn't what we wanted, or do we prevent you guys from having a political and social union you allegedly do want, or do we leave? Given we don't want a political and social union and you allegedly do want it, then the latter seems logical.

Yes yes I realize you've suddenly fallen out of love after a lifetime together, and maybe there never was any true love from your side to begin with, and certainly you should be allowed to file for divorce if you're so unhappy and so certain that this can't be fixed. But that doesn't mean you get to lie about how this went down.

Not lying, the way we always interpreted it was that this was an economic deal and not a political union. If you invite a girl to live with you and she in front of you repeatedly says to everyone that you're "just friends" and are living together as housemates in separate bedrooms and you intend something more than that then maybe you should set the girl straight rather than just ignore it and proceed with what you want accordingly?

We have never said we were going for a political union. Either way as I've said we need to move on. If you want that sort of union you can go ahead without us but why should we stay on board as unwilling partners?

No, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't know what your own side really thought. You keep making the mistake of thinking that everyone voted for the same reason as you. Unfortunately, they did not. I can see how you might have gotten a different impression from previous discussions. You've concluded that only a small portion of your electorate are outright racists and that that must mean that the attitudes that enabled Brexit must be good. Unfortunately, racism is just the extreme end of the spectrum and that small portion is likely also an underestimation. Xenophobia is far more widespread. Islamophobia is more widespread. Opposition to immigration is more widespread. And, surprise surprise, a desire to reduce immigration was one of the most important reasons--if not the most important--given by voters for choosing to leave the EU. The implied promise (lie) was to drastically reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. Oops.

No after 16 years here on this forum you still don't seem to understand the single most important aspect to my thinking. I believe people are individuals, I don't believe we are mindless drone copies of each other. I categorically DO NOT believe that everyone voted for the same reason as me, any more than I believe everyone voted for the same reason as Nigel Farage, David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn. I believe over 33 million individual people voted for their own reasons.

As for the promise (lie) to drastically reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands that was a claim made by David Cameron, who was backing Remain. Vote Leave never gave a figure to reduce immigration down to, the tens of thousands claim is Cameron's. Oops.

[Hazir]

So, now that this whole leadership election thing is all but out of the way. When is the new PM ready to do business. Or should we assume she's still a Remainer trying to keep at least one foot inside the door? Which of course isn't all that much different from having one foot outside the door.

[RandBlade]

Unlike most people here, I was in the UK in the seventies of the 20th century. It felt a bit like stepping into a third world country. Pleasantly affordable though, I remember chauffeur driven Bentley's on that trip. I wonder if it's going to be like that again.

Yeah you do realise we were members of Europe for most of the seventies? That by the winter of discontent we'd been a part of Europe for nearly a decade?

What changed after the seventies wasn't membership of Europe it was Thatcherism. It was rolling back the frontiers of the state. Or as Thatcher herself put in famously in Bruges

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.

Parts of modern Europe with centralised failures of governance are resembling more and more our centralised failed state of the seventies. Those who refuse to learn the correct lessons from history are doomed to repeat it.

[RandBlade]

So, now that this whole leadership election thing is all but out of the way. When is the new PM ready to do business. Or should we assume she's still a Remainer trying to keep at least one foot inside the door? Which of course isn't all that much different from having one foot outside the door.

May has made it clear that she will not invoke Article 50 right away and will instead look to start negotiations straight away first before invoking Article 50 straight away. Quite sensibly too IMO. There is no point invoking Article 50 at least until after the French Presidential Election at the very earliest, given that Hollande isn't going to be re-elected and France and Germany will be critical to a deal, why waste months of the two year window on a dead lame duck? After the French elections we will be in the run up to the German elections so we may as well get those out of the way. At least there barring a complete shock Merkel will win again, albeit on another Grand Coalition basis. Once that is out of the way I suspect the negotiations behind the scenes will be quite advanced and Article 50 will be invoked, probably with the rough outline of a deal to join the EEA already agreed.

Leadsom has said she would invoke Article 50 immediately and won't seek the EEA but she won't be PM.