In or out?

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

Universities take a knock post-Brexit

European academic bodies are pulling back from research collaboration with UK academics, amid post-Brexit uncertainty about the future of UK higher education.

While post-Brexit Britain might remain inside the European research funding system, academics in other countries are nervous about collaborating with UK institutions.

UK-based academics are being asked to withdraw their applications for future funding by European partners.

[Dave B]

Universities take a knock post-Brexit

European academic bodies are pulling back from research collaboration with UK academics, amid post-Brexit uncertainty about the future of UK higher education.

While post-Brexit Britain might remain inside the European research funding system, academics in other countries are nervous about collaborating with UK institutions.

UK-based academics are being asked to withdraw their applications for future funding by European partners.

This is going to cost us, in capital and reputation, even if article 50 is not activated I think. I would not trust any British politician in the top 50% by rank.

Well, except Dr Sarah Wollaston maybe.

[Tetenterre]

TT, that's a very good, measured and reasonable letter.

Not my composition; based on a pro-forma provided by the RAS.

[Nick]

So Farage has fallen on his sword. Any more Brexit idiots to go?

Yup, drop us in it then duck the blow-back (they think).

All those who got us into this unnecessary fucking mess are beneath contempt.

That would be Brussels, then....

[Nick]

But where are we?

General: At the arse end of a referendum, the outcome of which most of us (I assume) do not like.
Specific: Fluid situation, so currently impossible to "nail" down.

To continue the fluid analogy, better to go with the flow, and try to influence the direction of flow, than to swim against the tide and fail.

what it is that we are trying to make work

The situation we are in (whatever that happens to be). I favour the notion of finding a democratic way of reversing the decision of the referendum (I don't know sufficient about politics or constitutional law to know how possible that is)

I don't think it is, nor do I think it is desirable. This is not to say that we should decide everything by referendum, but when every major party bar one supported Remain, but yet Leave won, it shows that there are flaws in democracy too.

but, if that turns out not to be possible, then I suggest that people of sincere intention (is that better?) might be inclined to put as much pressure as they can on those who are negotiating on our behalf to retain as much as possible of what was positive about EU membership with respect to, inter alia, trade, human rights, gender equality, anti-discrimination...

As already posted, I very much agree that we should seek such things as we think are desirable.

Some of these were helped by the EU, but ISTM that nearly all Remainers start their explanations with "I know that the EU has its faults, but...." And when those faults include condemning millions to generations of unemployment, and fostering extreme politics of left and right, consider the possibility that the faults are so big that a new beginning is required, extremely painful though it may be.

Furthermore, what would you say if, as it evolved, the EU stopped being a beacon for all the things you hold dear, and instead began to throw its weight around? Would it be right to prevent the Opposition gaining power, just because you like the current government? What is important is the structure, rather than any current policies.

I am also somewhat concerned by creeping EU imperialism. I don't think it is wise, or just, or helpful, for a pan-European institution to impose its views, under threat, upon citizens, just because of the views of others. How would you feel if, instead of the job destroying EU, we were uniting with the economically active but politically loony USA? We could have all the "pooled sovereignty" you like, but do we want US gun laws, say? Of course not. I don't like the smell when we are told that EU membership forces upon us laws or "rights" that we wouldn't choose ourselves.

So yes, we should be encouraging free trade (which the EU hates, btw...) along with the spread of the rule of law, sound money or whatever your particular interest is. But let's try to do so by other means than oppressive imposition against the will of the people.

(And yes, I am aware this post contains generalisations, but I'm only speaking in general terms.)

[Dave B]

Yup, drop us in it then duck the blow-back (they think).

All those who got us into this unnecessary fucking mess are beneath contempt.

That would be Brussels, then....

Agree there, Nick, politicians are shit heads regardless what political colour they are or where they work. Fucking-up is part of the game.

And high level pen pushers and bean counters are much the same the world over.

Trouble is the only real alternative would never work due to the very human failings that make the above so.

[Alan H]

Yup, drop us in it then duck the blow-back (they think).

All those who got us into this unnecessary fucking mess are beneath contempt.

That would be Brussels, then....

[Nick]

TT, that's a very good, measured and reasonable letter.

Not my composition; based on a pro-forma provided by the RAS.

Good of you to admit it, but my opinion remains, and hope you'd agree with my sentiment, despite not being the originator.

The RAS are still wrong about domicile, though...

[animist]

But where are we?

General: At the arse end of a referendum, the outcome of which most of us (I assume) do not like.
Specific: Fluid situation, so currently impossible to "nail" down.

To continue the fluid analogy, better to go with the flow, and try to influence the direction of flow, than to swim against the tide and fail.

there is no flow, just a referendum result, and I think that, as time goes on, the moral force it has may start to subside (another flow analogy). I am wondering whether both sides in the debate failed to mention clearly (unless I missed every time they did so) that the referendum was not legally binding. We don't seem to know where we are constitutionally, since no country has left the EU before. Parliament cannot be totally excluded from the process to Brexit as it must repeal its own legislation, so the question arises of whether MPs will feel enslaved to a popular "decision" which most of them believe to be not only misguided and ill-informed but dangerous

[Alan H]

I am wondering whether both sides in the debate failed to mention clearly (unless I missed every time they did so) that the referendum was not legally binding. We don't seem to know where we are constitutionally, since no country has left the EU before. Parliament cannot be totally excluded from the process to Brexit as it must repeal its own legislation, so the question arises of whether MPs will feel enslaved to a popular "decision" which most of them believe to be not only misguided and ill-informed but dangerous

It seems clear that we must go through whatever constitutional process we have in place before pushing the Article 50 button and that Parliament is the major player here. Remember that MPs are elected to serve their constituents as they see fit, and their job description says nothing about pushing through change voiced in a non-binding referendum, especially in areas (such as here) where 60% of their constituents who voted voted for remain.

[Tetenterre]

[snip] but when every major party bar one supported Remain, but yet Leave won, it shows that there are flaws in democracy too.

IMNSVHO a major flaw is that there are no penalties (I favour the return of the pillory (*))for misleading the electorate.

*Not really. But it sometimes does have an unhealthy appeal.

[Tetenterre]

TT, that's a very good, measured and reasonable letter.

Not my composition; based on a pro-forma provided by the RAS.

Good of you to admit it, but my opinion remains, and hope you'd agree with my sentiment, despite not being the originator.

I do. If I didn't, I'd not have used it.

The RAS are still wrong about domicile, though...

I passed on your comment to the author yesterday; thanks.

<grammar_nazi>
BTW, it's "RAS is..."
</grammar_nazi>

[animist]

I am wondering whether both sides in the debate failed to mention clearly (unless I missed every time they did so) that the referendum was not legally binding. We don't seem to know where we are constitutionally, since no country has left the EU before. Parliament cannot be totally excluded from the process to Brexit as it must repeal its own legislation, so the question arises of whether MPs will feel enslaved to a popular "decision" which most of them believe to be not only misguided and ill-informed but dangerous

It seems clear that we must go through whatever constitutional process we have in place before pushing the Article 50 button and that Parliament is the major player here. Remember that MPs are elected to serve their constituents as they see fit, and their job description says nothing about pushing through change voiced in a non-binding referendum, especially in areas (such as here) where 60% of their constituents who voted voted for remain.

I totally agree Alan - I wonder, why is Article 50 actually necessary anyway? Most countries who are EU members will have passed their own laws in order to join, so, should they wish to leave, they will need to legislate accordingly. More research needed by me on EU law!

[Alan H]

agree Alan - I wonder, why is Article 50 actually necessary anyway? Most countries who are EU members will have passed their own laws in order to join, so, should they wish to leave, they will need to legislate accordingly. More research needed by me on EU law!

I've posted several link to David Allen Green's blog posts on this very subject and there have been other articles by lawyers looking at this point. David's latest: Parliament, Article 50, and the Leave Paradox

The news that there may be a legal case about whether any Article 50(1) decision has to be by Act of Parliament perhaps creates a paradox for the Leave side.

The paradox can be characterised as follows:

Leave Supporter: “We want our own Parliament to be sovereign on matters to do with the EU!”

Response: “Like on whether to Leave then?”

Leave Supporter: “No.”

Those who campaigned Leave so as to uphold Parliamentary Sovereignty are now unhappy at prospect of Parliament being sovereign about whether to Leave.

[Nick]

<grammar_nazi>
BTW, it's "RAS is..."
</grammar_nazi>

Oh, probably!

But can't RAS also be a collective noun (or something.....) ? It wasn't the RAS itself that wrote the letter, and one wouldn't say (for example) "the French is wrong about...."

Mind you, some thing right just sound wrong. "None was available" for example... Ho hum.

[Nick]

General: At the arse end of a referendum, the outcome of which most of us (I assume) do not like.
Specific: Fluid situation, so currently impossible to "nail" down.

To continue the fluid analogy, better to go with the flow, and try to influence the direction of flow, than to swim against the tide and fail.

there is no flow, just a referendum result, and I think that, as time goes on, the moral force it has may start to subside (another flow analogy).

Maybe my analogy is clumsy, but you have rather confirmed what I meant. To try another way of putting it, looking ahead, circumstances may dictate that leaving the EU takes on rather a different form to the disaster predicted by remainers, as alternatives are found to keep the good bits, as it were. To look to find those ways is so much more productive than trying to re-run a referendum, just because the last was lost.

I am wondering whether both sides in the debate failed to mention clearly (unless I missed every time they did so) that the referendum was not legally binding. We don't seem to know where we are constitutionally, since no country has left the EU before. Parliament cannot be totally excluded from the process to Brexit as it must repeal its own legislation, so the question arises of whether MPs will feel enslaved to a popular "decision" which most of them believe to be not only misguided and ill-informed but dangerous

Various MP's will doubtless decide to vote remain, and yes, I can see your point. (A parallel might be capital punishment, which might be mandated if ever put to a referendum). The key difference, I think, is that the referendum was part of the Conservatives' manifesto, so the government should pay regard to it. I also think there would be a pretty severe fall-out if MP's (in Labour heartlands, for example) went against "the will of the people". Labour have already lost Scotland; I don't think they'd want another melt-down (if there's any party left to melt down....).

[animist]

Maybe my analogy is clumsy, but you have rather confirmed what I meant. To try another way of putting it, looking ahead, circumstances may dictate that leaving the EU takes on rather a different form to the disaster predicted by remainers, as alternatives are found to keep the good bits, as it were. To look to find those ways is so much more productive than trying to re-run a referendum, just because the last was lost.

what bits are these? Have you read the posts from Alan H and me on the practicalities of leaving the EU? There is not going to be picking and choosing of the best bits of EU membership or time to develop some "new order" which you seem to think is possible

Various MP's will doubtless decide to vote remain, and yes, I can see your point. (A parallel might be capital punishment, which might be mandated if ever put to a referendum). The key difference, I think, is that the referendum was part of the Conservatives' manifesto, so the government should pay regard to it. I also think there would be a pretty severe fall-out if MP's (in Labour heartlands, for example) went against "the will of the people". Labour have already lost Scotland; I don't think they'd want another melt-down (if there's any party left to melt down....).

well quite, what have Labour MPs who are strongly anti-Brexit got to lose? The issue is surely big enough to make MPs, not just Labour, risk their seats. Not that, given the closeness of the result, that is inevitable. The fiasco reminds me of Bertrand Russell, who said that democracy was the best form of government, since however stupid its elected legislators were, the people who elected them must be even more stupid! Unfortunately the super-stupid and the politicians who deceived them have been allowed to create chaos for all of us

[Alan H]

Gove is gone, so it's now between Leadsom and May and unless Leasom pulls out, it'll be up to Tory members to decide.

Are we in for Thatcher re-born?

[Nick]

Maybe my analogy is clumsy, but you have rather confirmed what I meant. To try another way of putting it, looking ahead, circumstances may dictate that leaving the EU takes on rather a different form to the disaster predicted by remainers, as alternatives are found to keep the good bits, as it were. To look to find those ways is so much more productive than trying to re-run a referendum, just because the last was lost.

what bits are these? Have you read the posts from Alan H and me on the practicalities of leaving the EU? There is not going to be picking and choosing of the best bits of EU membership or time to develop some "new order" which you seem to think is possible

Why the hell not? Why is the discovery of a cure for cancer (say) dependent on Europe being stuffed by political ambition? If scientists are grappling with such unknowns, are they going to throw in the towel and retire, just because people don't want a united states of Europe? Don't scientists co-operate across the Atlantic? If the reason that the EU don't want to discuss scientific research co-operation, then that is a further damning indictment of a morally bankrupt bureaucracy. And I might ask you if you have read my reference to the International Space Station and SERN?

Various MP's will doubtless decide to vote remain, and yes, I can see your point. (A parallel might be capital punishment, which might be mandated if ever put to a referendum). The key difference, I think, is that the referendum was part of the Conservatives' manifesto, so the government should pay regard to it. I also think there would be a pretty severe fall-out if MP's (in Labour heartlands, for example) went against "the will of the people". Labour have already lost Scotland; I don't think they'd want another melt-down (if there's any party left to melt down....).

well quite, what have Labour MPs who are strongly anti-Brexit got to lose?

I've never heard of a Labour MP who wasn't completely committed to the party, have you? They have all spent years climbing the greasy pole, in unglamorous ways. Are they really going to condemn their party to oblivion by being (as much of the electorate will see it) so undemocratic? Or are they just going to cave in to the thugs from Momentum? Difficult choice. Be selected and lose, or deselected and lose. Hmmm...

The issue is surely big enough to make MPs, not just Labour, risk their seats.

From sheer pragmatism, I don't think so. Look at Mrs May, for instance. MP's can't change anything if they aren't elected. That's the difference between Parliament and the internet!

Not that, given the closeness of the result, that is inevitable. The fiasco reminds me of Bertrand Russell, who said that democracy was the best form of government, since however stupid its elected legislators were, the people who elected them must be even more stupid! Unfortunately the super-stupid and the politicians who deceived them have been allowed to create chaos for all of us

I do what I can to steer people away from stupidity...!

[animist]

Why the hell not? Why is the discovery of a cure for cancer (say) dependent on Europe being stuffed by political ambition? If scientists are grappling with such unknowns, are they going to throw in the towel and retire, just because people don't want a united states of Europe? Don't scientists co-operate across the Atlantic? If the reason that the EU don't want to discuss scientific research co-operation, then that is a further damning indictment of a morally bankrupt bureaucracy. And I might ask you if you have read my reference to the International Space Station and SERN?

oh OK, if that is what you're talking about, ie specialist contacts, then yes I dare say they will continue though they may well be hampered if the idiocy of Brexit does come to pass. That has nothing to do with a new order or with how Britain is to continue exporting its goods outside the Single Market, and I do wish you would actually address this central issue

]I've never heard of a Labour MP who wasn't completely committed to the party, have you? They have all spent years climbing the greasy pole, in unglamorous ways. Are they really going to condemn their party to oblivion by being (as much of the electorate will see it) so undemocratic? Or are they just going to cave in to the thugs from Momentum? Difficult choice. Be selected and lose, or deselected and lose. Hmmm...

exactly, they lose either way; so, as you think that Labour has no future anyway, then why should its MPs not stick with their views?

The issue is surely big enough to make MPs, not just Labour, risk their seats.

From sheer pragmatism, I don't think so. Look at Mrs May, for instance. MP's can't change anything if they aren't elected. That's the difference between Parliament and the internet!

you miss the point again. No, MPs can't change anything once they are no longer MPs, but they may, while they still are MPs, be able to effect a huge change, ie the erosion and eventual abandonment of Brexit in the face of the problems it poses. What do you mean about Theresa May, BTW?

[Nick]

oh OK, if that is what you're talking about, ie specialist contacts, then yes I dare say they will continue though they may well be hampered if the idiocy of Brexit does come to pass.

OK, good. It won't be as easy, but it won't be so tied to any future stupidity that the EU may venture into. Nor will it be seen as supportive of it. Scientists may be experts, but only in their own field.

That has nothing to do with a new order or with how Britain is to continue exporting its goods outside the Single Market, and I do wish you would actually address this central issue,

Your wish is my command (on this occasion, at least...)! Britain will continue to export its goods throughout the world, including to the Single Market (which is just 7% of the world's population). If you think common rules are so important, I take it you are fully in support of TTIP? More seriously, yes, it will be a disadvantage in some ways, but the Single Market is really just a customs union, seeking to penalise its competitors, and export unemployment. It is the EU who are threatening tariffs, but that is totally negated by the fall of sterling and the saving of £10-15 billion a year in fees. It is political interference by the EU which is impeding trade, and their refusal to discuss matters of mutual concern, not our exit. And as previously posted, I have doubts that we can just pull up the drawbridge against migrants. There will be real fallout from this, as the great unwashed get angrier. As the Duke of Wellington said, news is never as good or as bad as first reported.

]I've never heard of a Labour MP who wasn't completely committed to the party, have you? They have all spent years climbing the greasy pole, in unglamorous ways. Are they really going to condemn their party to oblivion by being (as much of the electorate will see it) so undemocratic? Or are they just going to cave in to the thugs from Momentum? Difficult choice. Be selected and lose, or deselected and lose. Hmmm...

exactly, they lose either way; so, as you think that Labour has no future anyway, then why should its MPs not stick with their views?

Only because I think they will support their party first, while defending their pro-EU views, rather than leave. Let's see if we can remember this question when the next election comes!

The issue is surely big enough to make MPs, not just Labour, risk their seats.

From sheer pragmatism, I don't think so. Look at Mrs May, for instance. MP's can't change anything if they aren't elected. That's the difference between Parliament and the internet!

you miss the point again. No, MPs can't change anything once they are no longer MPs, but they may, while they still are MPs, be able to effect a huge change, ie the erosion and eventual abandonment of Brexit in the face of the problems it poses. What do you mean about Theresa May, BTW?

Mrs May believes that the best she can do, as a pro-EU politician, is to accept the result and work within it. She considers that a better way of pursuing her objectives than going down with the ship. There is no EU Party, is there? If there were, then yes, I would expect it to be a defining moment for their MP's, but not as party politics is currently constituted. I really don't think enough MP's will take your view to make any difference, but that is just an opinion. Again, we shall see soon enough!