Brexit and the Future of Britain with Vernon Bogdanor
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2024
- Vernon Bogdanor examines how Britain will fare outside the European Union. How will Brexit affect British politics? Will 2020 Britain become 1972 Britain?
A lecture by Vernon Bogdanor, Emeritus Professor of Law
13 March 2019 6pm (UK time)
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
At the time of writing, it appears that Britain will leave the European Union on 29th March at 11 pm British time, 12 midnight Continental time. How will Britain fare outside the European Union? And how will Brexit affect British politics? Will the Britain of 2020 become like the Britain of 1972, the year before we joined the European Community, precursor of the European Union - or has our 46 year membership of European institutions led to irreversible changes in our constitution and system of government?
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
As an American I now have a much better understanding of how the UK Government operates and why Brexit was/is significant. Thanks to Professor Bogdanor and Gresham College for another excellent lecture!
Thank you Gresham College for providing us with the opportunity to listen to these lectures. Very interesting.
One year after , 15 days before the exit, Boris has still not understood the idea of national sovereignty and trade deals.
The Uk should not have been allowed into the EU without a written constitution.
A superb lecture. Concise but also dense with context long forgotten and rarely ever repeated in the U.K. press.
Brexit always had a context that belied the core rationale behind the EU.
Already subscribed. Liked and shared. And many thanks to Professor Bogdanor. I have so far enjoyed every one of his posted lectures.
Interesting to hear in hindsight.
Great talk. Comprehensive.
The summary of all this is that the British system is a mess. High time it becomes a normal country with a constitution guaranteeing basic rights. As it stands the British people are vulnerable to losing all their rights and freedoms on the whim of the politics of the day. Who in their right mind can think that that is a sound position in a modern democratic world?
@@alganhar1 That flexibility, funnily enough, always tend to reside with those in power. We have seen in many circumstances, most poignantly in 1930s Germany, what that flexibility can lead to. The whole point of basic rights (aka 'inflexibility') is the protection of the vulnerable. So yes, I am in favour of a restraint on power. And given the mess Britain is in, with its make-it-up-as-you-go non-constitution, that once the foundations of your entire democratic system are being shaken - as is the case at present - there is no basic set of principles to fall back on. And those vaunted 'British values'? Well, we have clearly seen what they are worth in recent times (think Windrush scandal for instance). I'd rather have 'European values' any time.
A written constitution is worth no more than what the elites are willing to accept. The judges, who are their representatives, will determine the meaning of it, whatever it says.
@@JRobbySh What is ambiguous about a constitution that forbids any form of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion sexial orientation, etc.? Like the Dutch constitution, or the South-African one for that matter?
@@JRobbySh Yes a constitution is not a guarantee for power not being abused BUT it is a major hurdle for anyone aiming to do that.
See it like this: You play a board-game with some others. While there is a rule-book and everyone knows it's content one or two atill try to cheat (with maybe some minor success). The cheaters might get some short-term advantage, but they'll get called out and feel some consequences set up by those they cheated on.
But if there are no written rules, then there're no consequences for cheating, because technically there are no "cheaters". These non-rule-breakers will use the lack of basic conditions to their advantage and exploit the rest, who sooner or latrer will lack the influence to fight back.
It is always better to have a general constitution than none.
@@JRobbySh bingo. The UK actually made a smart move leaving the EU (world government proxy for that part of the world). Did anyone think that TPTB would make it easy on them? Sadly, the UK didn't prepare adequately for the economic hit, but as other EU members (germany) wisen up and leave, their hand grows stronger. The first into the fray always gets bloodied, but that hardly means they are wrong.
It is very interesting to listen to though it takes us in the UK little further forward but then again, he is an academic and in that context his lecture should be viewed. The one thing that he did say though early on which does explain the mess our Parliament is in over Brexit is that the majority of our MPs and the Lords would gleefully revoke Article 50 if they thought they could get away with it, the Establishment does not want a "Supreme People" at any price :)
If only they would
Where the hell do you think the majority of the MP's come from? The bloody supreme people put them there. The fact is the Supreme People is lost lost lost and a few fast talking sharpers like Farage couldn't be more delighted.
It's one of the contradictions of using referendums in the UK. Under our system and laws, Parliament is sovereign and always has been. Even a legally binding referendum cannot be fully binding on Parliament, as Parliament can simply withdraw the "legally binding" bit at any time. It raises very profound questions about our rather antiquated "constitution".
@R G Hmm...this is all a year old and things have moved on quite a lot. Ultimately democracy is very flawed in many ways but, it is far superior to the alternatives. You are quite correct about institutions being important, one person, one vote by itself does not deliver democracy, the counting of those votes and total trust in the whole process is also crucial. However, the key exposure of the whole Brexit story and regardless of which way you and I voted was the blatant and very public way in which not just our political but also cultural institutions set out to undermine the expressed wish of the majority on the matter. We can hope that in due course our "institutions" learn from the experience because the 'partisan' nature of their behaviour over Brexit undermined trust in their specific areas of expertise which is not a good thing because we need trusted institutions.
What a shame that a summary of this lecture wasn't made available to the public before the Brexit vote.
@Stouffer Love that !! :)
Name something that has been gained and that is making things better for the people of the UK please. Thanks.
Leaving the EU.
The first part was a fascinating unbiased examination of constitutional issues raised by EU membership, devolution and by Brexit. The second part was a description of the peace aims of the EU founders and it's current role. It's role in bringing together countries in the Balkans while accepting that France and Germany would not go to War if the Union disolved is balanced. Also he does not make the claim that the EU has somehow defended Europe, that has been NATO, rather that it keeps it's members from fighting each other. I think that can be overstated, the truth is that democracies do not generally go to war with one another, and it is authoritarianism rather than nationalism that leads to war.
It's often said that old generals always fight the last war, it's also true that old peacemakers try to prevent the last war being fought again. It's a noble aim but it can blind them to different threats. My fear about the EU, is that as it engages in further closer union, it will conflict and over ride national governments. We see already in Greece, Italy, Hungary and Poland the EU exercising it's power, sooner or later it will provoke rebellion, how will it respond? It's institutions are not democratic, or open, and while it my democratise as it unifies more closely, the attitudes to voter power of its leading figures suggest reforms are unlikely to give any genuine democratic power over it to the people. The future threat may not be a Europe of warring nations, but rather of uprisings and civil wars put down by and increasingly authoritarian EU.
Lee Hallam - Some did not notice that the EU are its member states and they have representatives hat decide together on important matters. Not to mention a parliament with over 600 members from all member states. Some people did not notice that member states agreed to common rules put this in treaties. So if countries break treaties they agreed to then they get reminded about it. Surprise actions have consequences.
@@TorianTammas And clearly you have not noticed that the European Parliament can only vote on what the unelected European Commission tells them to vote on.
Always wondered what Fabricant's hair did on it's day off.
No Q&A?
Given the complexities of Brexit, what is the best way forward? Which course of action maximizes UK benefit?
Remain
@@th8257 Honestly I don't think they can rejoin after this even if they wanted to. Should the UK even remains 'UK' after a no-deal. Rejoining itself is not an easy process... and they are unlikely to regain the level benefit they use to have. There might be enough arrogance in them to prefer suffering the consequences just to avoid the humiliation of u-turn.
@@biocapsule7311
Remaining was still an option at this time.
Best options now?
Independent Scotland joins the EEA with a vue towards joining the EU in due course.
Ireland reunified within the EU.
Wales, because of English geriatrics, will probably get stuck with England, but there is some chance it may follow the Scottish path.
England takes 20 years to realise it's not a superpower and then spends another decade to join the EU.
@@theother1281 No, there is no 'remain' anymore, contractually the UK left. There is only 'rejoin' as an option and that in itself is not a likelihood even if majority of the UK wants. Because the 27 have to sign off on it and not everyone of them are likely to do so without wanting something. It is already told to the UK quite sometime ago that when the withdraw agreement signed it is done. That was why Johnson was so eager to sign it in the first place, so that he can tell the public he "got it done".
@@biocapsule7311
Remain was an option when the writer you replied to wrote.
The majority of the UK population is probably irrelevant as the UK is unlikely still to exist by 2025. Dead Union walking one might say.
The majority of Scots are already pro EU and the EU will probably be happy to embrace them just to annoy the English.
And, as I said, it will probably take 30 years for England to get over it's egotistical delusions.
The sovereignty of the people in practice means the sovereignty of the scurrilous individuals that are good at manipulating the people. And the people are notoriously easy to manipulate, I am sorry to say, for example, and quite simply, by stating as facts whatever they want to hear, as the success of Donald Trump sadly attests.
Look at what is happening now and say again what you said about democracy in the UK
What I (an American) don’t understand is that while the Scots are adamant about declaring their sovereignty vis-a-vis the English, they seem to have no reservations about surrendering sovereignty to the European Union.
There is no sovereignty in Scotland, it is a myth. Scotland is a region, called a constituent country, not an actual country. Look up any list of countries in the world, Scotland is not on it. The UK is.
Countries do not give up sovereignty to the EU, not like the communist block, members can leave whenever they want. Countries in the British empire had to fight to get their freedom, the UK just said it was leaving. The whole thing is a farce.
The one is not nearly like the other. Because of the Union, Scots had actually almost no right to decide on Scottish matters, until they were allowed to create some form of devolved government. So, the only sovereignty they were allowed was when the UK parliament said they could have some. In the EU case, EU law has very definite areas of competence, things like trade, some kinds of product regulations, copyright law and so on, mainly things that are about the internal market. Above that, the EU can not make any laws, which is a written principle. Also, most big decisions in the EU require not only the decision of the Parliament and Commission but also the agreement of the countries themselves, represented by the heads of state or government, so Scotland would have (some could even say disproportionate) say in matters, equal to that of Germany and France.
GH1618 Scotland is a vassal. They are ruled by Westminster and its English majority. To have a regional parliament is standard in many democratic countries.
@Stouffer How about: "The whole concept of "UK independence" has nothing to do with independence. It`s about hating the Europeans." Sounds about right to you?
@Stouffer Correct about the SNP symbol. It is an "Odal" or "Ethel" Rune which stands for "homeland", However, it is upside down, which actually gives it a negative meaning. Maybe they should turn it the right way up and try for another independence referendum.
The argument that parliament abrogated its sovereignty with the adoption of the European Community Act is fundamentally misleading. Although it is true that parliament decided to give up some power to transfer that to the courts, the simple fact that this same parliament can withdraw from the EU and thus revoke that transfer shows that parliamentary sovereignty was never lost.
One of the toxic paradoxes of Brexit is that the very act of Brexit itself reveals that one of the arguments put forward in favour of Brexit ("taking back control") is in fact false: control was never lost and ergo cannot be taken back. No surprise then that in the actual real world this supposed act of "taking back control" results in a severe loss of actual control.
Your thesis is interesting but unproven, since we've so far been prevented from actually regaining control, nor would May's deal or one like it grant that control back & I still believe it is lost.
@@beardyface8492 No you have not been prevented from regaining control. However what the UK has been pursuing as a policy was one of wanting to regain control but refusing to accept the consequences of regaining control.
For example:
regulatory divergence on either side of the Irish-Irish border results in a factual hard border. The presence of border infrastructure might be mitigated or made unnecessary through advanced technology currently unavailable. The UK has committed to preventing such infrastructure under all conditions. The only logical result of those two demands is that regulatory divergence must wait until the technological arrangements are in place; THAT is the backstop, nothing more, nothing less. It is not an infringement on the UK's sovereignty but rather it is the practical result of TWO choices the UK has made 1) Brexit, 2) maintaining a border-free island of Ireland.
Now consider what the UK government proposes: its proposal is that the UK must be allowed to diverge in terms of regulation before alternative arrangements are workable while it also promises not to put infrastructure on the border. Having no infrastructure in the absence of regulatory alignment means opening up the border to smuggling and crime … it violates the UK's obligations under the WTO rules and it represents a factual loss of sovereignty: a country that cannot sustain its border-regime. Smuggling and illegal imports & exports will undermine not just the EU's market-regulations but also the UK's. Hence the UK's suggestion to simply not enforce as a means of keeping the border clear of infrastructure is a capitulation of the state. Obviously neither Ireland nor the EU are going to capitulate in that manner. The hard border with infrastructure thus arising would be the result of again two UK choices: 1) Brexit + regulatory divergence and 2) breaching the GFA agreements. The fact that the UK claims it would not place border infrastructure does not make the "hard border" go away … it merely makes it unmanageable for the UK and leaves the field wide open for well-organised para-militaries to make a financial (and probably real) killing.
The whole backstop issue neatly shows the reality of the point: the act of Brexit itself results in a loss of sovereignty. The reason for it is simply: pooling sovereignty actually gives you more sovereignty, not less. It is like sharing a laugh giving you actually more pleasure than laughing somewhere on your own.
@@frankwitte1022 We'll see.. we're not out yet.. I'm still far from convinced we will be.
Then by your own argument, we haven't "lent" sovereignty, but lost it, demonstrated by the fact we can't get it back.
Now you may argue if you wish that the 2016 referendum went the wrong way, I contend that the 1975 one did.
As I understand it, the NI border can be dealt with using existing technology, but not overnight, implementation would take around 3 years. Dealing with that period "might be tricky", I'll grant that.
My own issue is rather the lack of democracy with the EU setting rules, & I apply Tony Benn's test for that "If you can't vote the buggers out, you don't live in a democracy". Clearly the council of ministers can't be voted out, test failed. The whole system to my mind is bass-ackwards, in simplistic terms the EU parliament holding roughly the position of the house of lords & the council of ministers roughly that of the commons, & with about zero accountability to the people.. a situation I find objectionable, that sort of disconnect ultimately leads to revolutions, the last armed conflict in NI is nothing to the last one in Europe.
De Gaulle was right to veto our membership, & had the reason right too, we don't fit, it's a shame his replacement didn't share that view.
Now we have a mess which will take at least as long to clean up as our membership lasted.
"Although it is true that parliament decided to give up some power to transfer that to the courts, the simple fact that this same parliament can withdraw from the EU and thus revoke that transfer shows that parliamentary sovereignty was never lost"
Until the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 there was no legal mechanism to exit the EU. Therefore, parliament did indeed abrogate its sovereignty at the time of adopting the European Community Act.
I reckon a sort of unofficial motto of the former Austrian imperial territories is, "that which is hopeless is not serious". So to that end I'm optimistic about the future. Folk on the other side of the Adriatic from me tend to take this stuff pretty seriously across all politics and ethnicities. Hope is alive :)
I wonder how he would frame his lecture 15 months on in the light of the general election result and COVID - 19.
Uncertainty is the only true description of reality 😜
The charter is now recognisted as compatible with the un charter by virtue of rulings at the court of human rights meaning the uk is bound by virtue of un treaty when we pass out of the eu if parliment does not incorporate it into uk law voluntarly.
Given that the un is an entity different from the eu, Parliament would be free to abrogate it.
Terrific lecture. I have been wondering why more of the Brits had not noticed the sudden appearance of popular sovereignty and its implied precedence over parliamentary sovereignty.
Harold Bridges Ive been having this conversation over the media drumming into the masses that ‘will of the people ‘ is telling them they have some sort of constitutional power.
Actually, the referendum was ADVISORY, to avoid the precedence of "popular sovereignty" over parliamentary sovereignty. Cameron and Parliament promised to implement the outcome, as did both main parties at the last General Election. The struggle to implement it is because so many MPs are Remainers, with many increasingly acting in bad faith, seemingly desperate to give their power away. A key point in the lecture is that Cameron's talk of "sharing sovereignty with the EU" was nonsense, as sovereignty was actually being transferred, as claimed by Brexiteers.
@@alexanderperry1844 You are being too literal-minded. In theory the referendum is not binding, but in practice it is. Thus, the Commons and the Government feel obliged to carry it out even though they do not want to do so. This gap between the theoretical weight of the referendum and its political weight brings to my mind the difference between the theoretical divine right of kings and Charles I getting his head severed by the Puritans. That is to say, a revolution has occurred for the British Constitution, even if the body politic has not yet realized it.
@@haroldbridges515 Perhaps, but I think that the politicians are actually scared of the ballot box. Even now, note the reluctance of MPs to countenance a second referendum, and their absolute desire to avoid the European Elections, without being able to make a credible claim of delivering on Brexit. The main parties are even worried about the Local Elections being hijacked by Brexit. If Brexit is delivered and proves successful, I think that we will have seen the end of referenda, as all other things can be settled within Parliament. The problem with the EU is that it was mostly pursued by politicians on all sides of the House, who deliberately set out to mislead, lie or simply ignore the electorate. This was acknowledged by Heath and admitted by Blair, who continues with his messianic certainty. As such, only UKIP offered an alternative, which was increasingly supported across most of the country in EU elections.
Actionnan
1) Meaningless. Parliament is sovereign.
2) Ditto
3) Wrong
4) Wrong
5) Gibberish. I have no idea what youre trying to say. Is English not your first language, tovarich ?
Aa subsequent events have shown, the concept of the sovereignty of the people trumping the sovereignty of Parliament has not actually happened. In fact, it was a rather odd assertion for him to make, given that there has been no legal movement in that way. Quite the opposite. Court cases since have confirmed that parliament is sovereign.
Im not sure i was convinced either, but that distorts his point a little imo. He meant the people became defacto, not legally, sovereign, as they had asserted the power to make Parliament do what the people wanted even in a case where Parliament was bitterly opposed to it. The courts can say what they want, doesnt matter. In fact, thats a big part of his whole point. Without a constitution the courts don't figure into this, no matter what they think. In the UK courts don't decide who is sovereign or any of that. Thats an EU thing. Parliament now has sovereignty on loan from the people.
I think the speaker, Mr Bogdanor, in his opening gets so much wrong, and to be honest I expected better if someone who speaks so eloquently. Firstly he talks about the sovereignty of the people winning over that of parliament without seemingly understanding that 37% voted to leave the EU (more than the 30% that voted remain, but 37% nonetheless) and secondly referendums and elections in general z in most countries of not all, these days are won by those with the most funding to pump out propaganda and the EU Referendum was no different. It was never the will of the majority of the people, it was, very cleverly, won by Vote Leave because they could offer every kind of Brexit to anyone with a gripe against the EU that they're read or heard repeated many times that just wasn't true. l, something that has been borne out by what has happened since we've left. Sovereignty is a myth, trotted out get people to support a government or regime when they need a policy implemented, which nearly all the time has major bad consequences for those being persuaded by those in power or with money (at home and abroad) to vote or get behind it for nationalistic reasons, because of the idea that they are different from us and want to do is harm. It's classic divide and conquer tactics and get the public fall for it over and over again.
@@mattpotter8725 7
It has always been about sovererignty of the people not members of parlement. Therefore the parlement must listen to the people.
Always? Since when?
@@mididoctors since Oliver cromwell
@@mos9738 He was a military dictator who banned Easter and Xmas and closed down Parliament.
Try since the Bill of Rights in 1690 ... no, that gave more power to Parliament and dealt with royal powers.
Okay, maybe even further back?
The Magna Carta? Nope. That deals with the City of London, the right to a trial by jury, and the Church of England. Everything else has been repealed.
Common Law? Open to discussion but it's obviously being ignored at the moment.
Mididoctors is right I'm afraid. Scary isn't it?
So, how's that all working out?
Devastation, ruination are words rthat spring to mind. The actual experience of Brexit is the best advert against brexit and for the EU ever! I think we'll be attempting to rejoin by the next decade. We will be weaker, impoverished and humiliated on world stage by then - but at leasts it will shut down these yapping muppets for a generation to come.
@@bbbf09 And you can bet those muppets will go down with the ship still yapping.
Great lecture, as always from my favourite Prof
What we really need in Europe and the rest of the world, are small populist parties doing their jobs properly and representing the people - the two party system is SO flawed and anti-citizen both in the UK and the US and in almost every country where it exists. We have to pay for it but don't get a say in it. No-one phoned me from the tory party or labour to ask ME whether the vote was appropriate or acceptable but I hear all the large donors had a hotline. This cannot be right in 2019. I would also like to point out that this is 2019 and we have all come to realise that it's governments who wage wars, tell lies generally about almost everything and are untrustworthy generally.
You know the rest of europe doesn't have a 2 party system...
@@huginnmuninn2155 perhaps I should have said "dominant party system" rather than two party system - you're right to point this out. thank you
Do we need more regional strenght ? Yes ,Do we need populism? Shure not.Because that never worked out.
What we need are people in power who know what they are doing.Not stupid,yesterdays ideologies.
Fuck the left, fuck the right .This world has a lot of problems which need solution ,urgently.
Economic worldwide,climate change,healthcare.over population,poverty,nuclear weapons ,education and it goes on and on.
World should be ruled by intelligent people not by slogan shouting populists or nationalists.
People need to have trust in rulers because not each and everyone can cope with daily politics.People have to work,rise their children and live their lifes.Minorities have to be respected.
Democracy ,in fact, doesnt exist .Todays demoracy is dictaorship of the masses which ,in this media related society,is easily manipulated.
Look how the Nazi party in Germany came to power,It was done,mostly by newspaper and radio.
What we need is education and common sense.
@@queenstreetsystems In the Netherlands the only benefit the largest party has is that is allowed to try and form a coalition first. Which is a fine way of doing things I believe. I agree that a two-party system isn't great as it only creates divide and both parties never represent the opinion of their voters properly. But populism isn't the right way to go. Populism generally equates empty promises which will never be fulfilled.
@@seventhflame The Dutch system is as flawed and anti-citizen as the UK system is. It might be convenient for the corporately sponsored MPs to be in some sort of group where they can back each other up but that is not a democracy, it is a parliamentary democracy.
If the Dutch had had proper representation a couple of years back, they also would not be in the EU right now - in fact it's highly likely that half of the EU countries would have used referenda PROPERLY and got the heck out of the filthy, corrupted and evil institution which most of the EU countries citizens don't even want to be associated with, let alone be part of it
The Referendum and more importantly the MEP elections sent a powerful message to
the political class including my local MP: in a democracy the people are sovereign.
How many times have you heard a politician spout 'we are the servants of the people,
I am here to serve' only to go on and ignore what he said and do as he pleased?
I mentioned this to my local MP: that politicians need to learn the lesson of the MEP
election, things have changed. The people didn't like what the politicians were up to
and spoke decisively. He's sent letters in the past to us constituents saying while he
acknowledged our views he wasn't bound by them because we live in a Parliamentary
democracy (my summary). On that point he's correct, for now.
We the people have spoken, we the people will not be denied. Some MPs have recognised
this: 'I wanted to Remain but my constituents wanted to leave, so I voted Leave'.
Well done. I should add most of these were Labour MP's.
Most Conservatives are I'm afraid are still deaf. Time will tell.
Yes, and when a 'no-deal' finally come into full force, your economy collapse overnight, follow by the government itself collapsing from the inability to deal with the avalanche of problems. What would that have proven? The elite will point to this and blame the people for inability to make good choices. You didn't like what your politicians is up to and yet follow them in blaming your problems on the EU. So far all you have shown is your idea of democracy is for you to avoid taking responsibility. You think if you shouted 'democracy' loud enough, people will somehow overlook that you voted in ignorance. Your country will collapse in ignorance.
@@biocapsule7311 two years latter your comment is perfect
Need to move quickly in respect of free trade agreements between gb aus can and nz
Very interesting, but I do not accept the idea of public sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty. After all, it was parliament who approoved the 2016 referendum in the first place. The public did not seize the decision, it was granted to them by parliament. Surely it was the Cameron government was at fault in promising something which it had no realistic plans for? Cameron had already indicated he would resign if the country voted to leave. In my view, the problems arose because the 2016 vote was for a vague "idea" which was open to all kinds of interpretation, it was not a choice between one plan or another.
All the points presented by Vernon Bogdanor were fully and strongly answered by the people of this country both in the 2016 referendum and in the last general election. Yes mr Vernon Bogdanor the power is with the people, not with the elites or even parliament. People are sovereign. That’s also called democracy.
What happens when the "sovereign people" change their mind - as one is surely allowed to do in a democracy? In any case, it is supposedly parliament which is sovereign.
In addition- on what legal basis did a non-legally-binding vote become legally binding? It seems to me the question is simply not asked.
The referendum came about, at least in part, because the Conservative government were worried the Conservative party might split. The public were not educated regarding the rather vague question and were lied to by the parliamentarians. The result might well be an even greater distrust of politicians.
Way too smart and prescient.
So welcome to nationalism sir!
I have only one question- I’ m no expert, historian or indeed anything much. But can some one give me a few quick examples of where nationalism has worked?
Actually saying - if GB does not develop its own, "one" constitution the doors is open for conflict due to field abuse by Westminster vs Wales, Schotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Listening to supporters of Brexit who claim to want to restore sovereignty to GB may change their point of view when it comes to the sovereignty of Schotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To put it in the words (though out of context) of Mitch McConnell (leader of the US Senate) "it's OK when we do it" and may not see the point. If not addressed properly, that will then lead to nationalism - no need to point out what that will mean. So GB has a long way ahead, it will be full of struggles and conflict - hope most of them can be settled peacefully. In the end it will be the Brittisch way - I honestly wish the GB people luck, strength and a good cup of tee on that journey. So long old fellows 😉
alganhar1 Thank you for your constructive response.
I agree with you on the Welsh - my wife studied in Cardiff 😉 and I well remember the discussions on the lenguage. My point was though that as much as we currently may not see any reason for secession, not establishing a constitution may eventually lead to a development that opens doors for it.
What’s a Parliament and a Brexit?
A parliament and a Brexit are whatever the EU says they are like everything else because the EU is a totalitarian pile of crap.
Best post winnar. Top score
The 2016 referendum was consultative. If, as Bogdanor asserts, it had the effect of making "The People" sovereign, it was only for a day. It certainly restored parliamentary sovereignty, which is a curse unique to the British state, where politicians of just two parties maintain an all-powerful closed shop of successive majority governments on a minority of votes cast, which at times can be as low as 35%. He correctly points out that a written constitution and parliamentary sovereignty are incompatible but fails to add that perhaps the former is preferable as it could entrench popular sovereignty, including the rights of 67m people, permanently. Furthermore how can he explain, given the nature of the pre-referendum debate where the question of a hard brexit never raised its head, that the UK in the event ended up with the hardest of brexits?
We didn't end up with the hardest brexit, ie WTO terms, we left with a deal.
Oddly this makes the argument for both remain and leave. There is no doubt it is fact based and that has been sadly lacking. The truth is that the UK electorate were lied to down the line when they were told repeatedly that joining the EEC did not have any significant impact on sovereignty when the opposite was the case.
Also during the 2016 campaign it was repeatedly stated that the impact of the EU on UK law making was minimal, another untruth. So you can argue that we cannot leave because we are too enmeshed with the EuU but you cannot simultaneously argue that that enmeshment is minimal. It's one or the other.
My view is you need to get out now because the direction of travel is only going in one direction but the opposite argument is also supported by this talk. Very interesting, thanks for posting it.
? The UK people WERE told that joining Europe would impact sovereignty - the evidence is quite clearly there if you actually look. It's been one of the great myths of the brexiteers that nobody was told about the sovereignty issues, when in fact there are reems Reems of evidence which confirms that the issue was discussed intensely
There is a BBC interview with Enoch Powell, the arch brexiteer, on the night of the 1975 referendum results. The clip is available in CZcams. He, the arch brexiteer, confirms that the issue of loss of sovereignty was discussed and made quite clear during the referendum campaign. His exact words were:
""I make no complaint of the pro marketeers, particularly people like Edward Heath and Peter Kirk, they've been beyond criticism in that they have made it perfectly clear that to remain part of the common market is to renounce national status for Britain. They say the nation state is obsolete and we are to recognise it."
This underlines the little worried place Britain has become. Its not at all small and should not worry. I think its governments have serially failed its people since ww2 hence the grab for brexit fix. I am shocked at how backward is the UKs civil society and that European improvements are rejected and mocked.
@Paul Gavin Wow. Did I make that comment. Help me please? What is the tyranny. Something is sensible if implemented via a democratic scheme I beleived. (Why would farage join again?) Please say.
Why did leaving a political organisation of sovereign countries turn into such an emotional drama?
Because the EU wants to eventually dissolve that sovereignty and make the nation states of Europe cease to exist. People love their country and believe that they should be permitted to belong to one and to make their own laws and define their own immigration laws. The EU is a growing Empire and now wants an army, which they swore previously wouldn't happen. See Clegg. The BBC has been pumping EU propaganda down our throats for decades now so they obviously love it. Why? They love power and capitalism for the very rich, and socialism and cancellation of people's votes for the poor. See what the EU did to the poor in Greece and you will learn. If you care about having your own country, it is a drama when pompous elites try to remove your country and dissolve it into an authoritarian empire that is the EU. Perhaps you think I am committing Hate Speech. The EU would think so. It is a bureaucratic enterprise so May loves that. The bigger the bureacracy, the more jobs for mediocrities.
@@RkristinaTay Where does this claim come from? Is this based on a study? if so please share the link! If it is a gut feeling one can ask why has the UK a rebate, a ton of opt outs, no Schengen, no EURO and so on. Not to mention that every member states has one commisioner and a veto. The claims you mentioned seem not to add up.
Because ethno nationalist sentiment is daft.
@Simon John Is this assumption is based on what study? Please give a link and author. It would have been nice to see the arguments for that claim as well. Or do we have a personal gut feeling. If so thanks for sharing. By the way even the British government concluded in a white paper the Parliament has always been sovereign.
@@TorianTammas No one has to provide a "study" or a "link" to have an opinion. Some people have life experience and an open mind, and see through the waffling crap and injustice.
Let's hope that the recent challenge against the PM's possibly illegal extensions to the exit date receives a Judicial Review and comes down in favour of the fact that the UK actually left the EU on 29th March, 2019 so that we can move forward and create a fair and just political system for ourselves.
Brexit was about reforming the UK system of governance?
@@mididoctors It wasn't, but it's shown so many failings in the system that it should.
This comment didn't age very well did it?!!!
@@mattpotter8725 Nope. 😅
The very eminent Vincent Bogdanor has a very significant blind spot that he will not address - which is that parliament has contraints as a consequence of the British constitution - Magna Carta and tge declaration of Rights are foundation documents in our constitution and parliament cannot ignore them or repeal them so 'the crown in parliamenr cannot make whatever law it wishes - it is constrained.
Tony Blair went against that notion. Convention restrained Parliament, but Blair overturned the conventions by positive law.
@@JRobbySh Tony Bliar.
Why did the "new" UK parliamnet inherit Magna Carta and the declaration of Rights along with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty when in Scotland the people were sovereign? Did England annex Scotland. Is the union of equals in fact a lie?
🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Great perspective. Prevent WW3 a worthy aim. Members give up some sovereignty though. Over time, EU expanded Maybe the EU too
Joining "Europe"..🤦♂️
Interesting lecture. May I suggest the Professor make it more engaging in order to maintain focus for a wider audience, please? ( Things like rhetorical questions, asking for audience participation, checking audience understanding of the points, increased fluctuation of speaking volume, and pace?) Good use of pauses. Good use of humour. Thank you. Visuals? Powerpoint? props?. How about periodically moving to stand next to the lectern, in order to remove the static barrier between the lecturer and the audience. A brighter coloured tie and/or bright top pocket handkerchief might help with visual engagement as well. Also, please memorise more of the text so that more eye contact and scanning of the audience can be facilitated. Remember the left-hand side of the audience for eye contact more often, please. Did the audience have copies of the key points of the text in handouts? Good use of case studies, anecdotes, and scenarios involving key public figures. This grabs the audience's attention and interest by clarifying the real-life application of Law, bringing Law to life. Good use of maxims to maintain the attention of the audience, i.e. 'pattern interrupt' technique. Good emphasis on the final point by repeating it in French. I enjoyed this lecture. Thank you.
Yes The lecture does seem to assume you can tie your own shoe laces
Or, just focus on what he is saying, and think about it. It seems that you need peripheral cues to sustain you. If you like thinking, this is a great talk.
and numbers, graphs, pictures!
Brexit is like the English Reformation, with the break from a continental court, the papacy.
He keeps using the phrase “The reformation of 1660” but,surely,he means “the restoration of 1660”?
Circus Britannicus Brexitus...
bbyyuuuhahahahahahahahahahaha!!
I like that 😅😅
@Stouffer remainiac... Cool😎 I was getting bored of calling myself a remoaner.
The EU had many opportunities to change it's ways, it didn't and we all know what happened next.
Vernon who?
Dear Prof Bogdanor... You and I know it's all about the pound... Britain will never ever give up the pound... If we had remained in the EU.. One day.. Someday..2025.. 2030 2040. Britain would have had to give up the pound..to remain in the EU.. .. NOW WE NEVER EVER WILL.
There should have been a referendum in 1993 - 4 Maastricht referendum... But that was never ever gonna happen..major 21 majority.. & Smith? Blair / brown in opposition...
Look at your parlament and government and enjoy. Shifting the power from courts to these meaningful institutions will be such a pleasure.
Remarkable how this considerations have entirely missed the main issue, namely that Brexit was motivated and will affect the constitutional order of the British Union.
After Brexit, the Brits will finally have the undiluted democratic right to put good, old-fashioned British carbon into their own atmosphere! That's how you solve 21st-century problems--with strength and vigor, not namby-pamby crap like cooperation and science, and shit.
The brexit referendum of June 2016.. Was.. Is.. And always will be.. An absolute disgrace.... There should have been 4 separate referendums that day.. England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland.. We vote 3-1.. We leave... If it's a 2 - 2 draw.. We remain.... The result was a 2-2 draw
An interesting lecture, as always by professor Bogdanor, but I wish he'd refrain from remarks containing the simplistic view of the origins of the first world War in closing remarks.
Thankyou, I agree ... Chris ... Norwich England
Also, let Him differentiate from a/ Nationalism and b/ the National Interest
If parliament doesn't reflect the wishes of the people then it is illegitimate and must be abolished.
That's called throwing out the baby with the bath water.
If it cannot be understood by Biddies in the Basement it probably isn't true. People have an instinct about the right way to go. Nationalism should have absolutely nothing to do with racism; nor should controlling immigration, much better for race relations than uncontrolled access here.
And yet history shows nationalism has always been linked with racism, prejudice authoritarianism, fascism and war.
@@denisdaly1708 Whatever Marxist theory may say, the working class is often the most patriotic class. So much for international proletarian solidarity. Nationalism and belief in the nation state(s) is an important bulwark to the spread of Communism, together with fascism the most destructive, misguided polity ever. Disparate nationalisms within Europe is why the EU fails. It is right that the democracies of the West help set other enslaved, impoverished nations free.
Nationalism and racism are both essentially the same thing. A kind of primitive tribalism which says that the tribe is good and other tribes are to be viewed with suspicion.
Toothpaste is out of the tube…🇬🇧💶💷…😅
One year on this looks so dated.
Two years on I’m not so sure. The dust is beginning to settle. And Westminster is fighting to centralize
@@hugogreen4916
Westminster has been fighting to centralize since Cromwell.
I thought that the UK was a strong believer in human rights.
That is, at bottom, a French (Jacobin) notion. The rights of man, and all that. which, however, in practical terms whatever the government said they were.
Only the Human Rights of minority groups, foreigners and convicted criminals Soren.
@@hogwash9140 pitty England a sort of China i Europe, good economy a nonfunctional government and no human rights. Time to get a constitution, the American one will do after Brexit. Why not join the Trumpets and get rid of the monarchy, no need for a queen vhen the Scottish leave.
Too complex to exit the EU? Isn't this the precise Brussels message?
@Stouffer Well the anglosaxon immigrants were overrun by foreign powers and the latest foreign rule where the Normans. So not much of the original owners of the British Isle the celts remains.
@@TorianTammas The Celts invaded from continental Europe - they weren't the 'original owners'...
The orderly brexit is orderly only if the sovereign government of Britain makes it orderly.
@Stouffer Well, there is things that you could do fairly recently in the last 1000 years that seem to be rather difficult now. Just jump on a ship and try to take back control of Hong Kong to find out. (..take back control of America, India etc)
Any other then that: Yeah. Right. You could manage without the EU for 1000s of years. You could manage without electricity too (Indian tribes in the rain forrest prove it can still be done!) , without the internet ( just look at North Korea) You can also survive without modern medicine and without fertilizers and so forth. The question is: Why would you wanna do that?
TorianTammas hardly. The Normans never formed more than 5% of the population of the British Isles
Nationhood protects the state and the people, theres nothing wrong with Nationhood
Linkin Park! Alright!
I thought it was the UN that kept the peace together with German feelings of guilt.
Na. I'm afraid the education levels in the UK are shocking.
@@denisdaly1708 Whereas you are better educated? Then explain why 'Na'.
@@denisdaly1708 I did understand when I voted that Leave means Leave !
@@chrislambert1617 clearly you didn't understand. May have thought you did.
@@mididoctors Iam stating to you that "I did know" I've always recognised that the EU is essentially a Federal Project and that the UK should accept to be perhaps a Little less well off to retain their Sovereignty
There is no hope of that
Whilst I respect Professor Vernon Bogdanor and have enjoyed his many lectures, and he very much a Remainer, as is apparent here. The origins of the EU lay in the 1920's with many various movements wanting to transcend the European nation states, including the communists and nationalist socialists. These mostly involved the political gathering of different states into one single state. The founder of the EU (Jean Monnet) alone had a different vision. He proposed a supranational authority designed to siphon off control from the nation states, whilst leaving the nation states seemingly intact, such that the various populations would not notice what was going on until it had become a fact they were used to. This vision was behind the establishment of the Franco-German Coal and Iron Agreement, which started the EU project.
The EU (and seemingly Professor Bogdanor) frequently proposes the equation "EU Membership = Peace in Europe". Personally, I think this is a long stretch, and may even prove erroneous. As the saying goes, "Good fences make for good neighbours". Far more important has been NATO and the American presence in Europe, but I would argue that the determining factor is actually democracy. Democracies DO NOT attack each other. Even the recent spat between Pakistan and India was defused by both sides, both countries being democracies. This is why the Brexit referendum MUST be acted upon in good faith, and why the long term future of the EU depends upon it getting the REAL consent of those it increasingly governs.
I think his conclusions about where Europe could head towards, if the bonds that keep EU and Europe in tact start to weaken, is a very sane warning.
@Stouffer Has the UK abolished Manchester or Scotland? The UK is the only existing super state in Eurooe.
German ethno nationalisim wanted a mult nationalistic order withGermany on top based on amoungst other things, bogus science and racial theory. This " the EU is a Nazi project" trope is often field by those of a national ethno bent in my experience.
@Stouffer how did we manage before? With varying degrees of success and failure liberally dosed with small to medium sized wars and the odd large one.
Title changes to Brexit and the fall of Britian!
1973 - 2016 we were always reluctant Europeans..
..
We never got Europe.... It was never gonna be just an Efta.. It was always gonna be a USE..... I 've not been to skool.. The only degrees I know are.. the 3 degrees 90 degrees.. And the 3rd degree..
What really boils my piss in this vid is the reason Bogdanor made the elementary error of wholly dismissing the pertinent fact that sovereignty may, ultimately, rest with the people. I use the word 'may' in a diplomatic sense - cos, let's face it, it does lie with the people. Sovereignty does not just fall out of the sky. Upon what has Parliament been based 'til now? If we fall back on God and Monarch, we are now in a spot of bother. Such institutions are falling foul of modern trends. In a shootout between a constitution backed by the people and one backed by God, I know where I'd place my bet. Forget past glories, this is about now and the future.
How exactly would you establish that sovereignty doesn't lie with the people given that there's no one central document detailing precisely why it does not? Also, Locke seems to suggest that it does lie with we the people - even if Locke tries to have it both ways with careful language and disclaimers of a semi-pregnant kind. Books of authority are very much a part of our constitution and remind us how things which may or may not be real are very much alive in the world, as they may be acted upon by those who construct things upon that which may or may not objectively exist. Ergo, it's real, in some sense. The British constitution - government constrained by law - is very much a part of an exercise in building things because they work - irrespective of whether they are real or not. You judge it by application and results. This is something literal-minded Marxists and rationalists have never understood. It seems Boggy wants to dip his central European bread into their soupy madness.
Neither side can claim a total victory here - but surely one side has more sense attached to it than the other. However, the wind is in the sails of establishment figures who lie and dissemble in a manner that would shame a Marxist historian. It seems to come down then to the most powerful truth claims - not in terms of consistency, sense and logic - but rather who has the biggest bunch of academically trained bullshitters at their disposal.
Also, the justification for past rebellion seems to lie in interpreting the matter in a manner which, ultimately, places people and place above parliament. However, the elite has always had an ambiguous relationship to this most troubling notion. Boggy seems to have fallen for the old trick of placing a legal positivist/realist claim on the matter and then declaring 'That wraps it up then!' Funny how he can go back to Hobbes to overthrow Locke and no one notices.
However, no such thing as the 'sovereignty of Parliament over the people' can be shown to definitively exist in our constitution and the answer can only lie in wide interpretation. By interpretation, the elite mean 'the opinion of the elite' and not something which may allow the elite to be trumped in our troubling times. This insistence on Parliament's sovereignty is simply bollocks! It's complicated bollocks, but bollocks nonetheless. In fact there is more precedent for claiming the opposite view. It's just distorians, whether conscious or not, are too busy lying for vested interests - be they Marxists or constitutional 'experts'.
This is a howler and he needs to acknowledge it because errors like this are used to justify the coup attempt which is currently taking place. That coup looks like it will eventually fail because that coup has always to be successful. The will of the people need only triumph once and the whole thing is done and fucking dusted. Such a challenging scenario may be rare and our constitution may survive. However, we now know the power of intellectual bias in our affairs need to be balanced as this has very real consequences for our constitution. Such 'common-sense' arguments are a way of blocking the will of the people. If Boggy read history, a bit more objectively, he'd see the need to challenge and check his own powers.
My feeling is ...what is it now? I mean who cares what Locke thought. Next to no one. That's the problem with populist referendums they are of the moment conducted often with context by people I'll informed. None of this will rub off on them. There's loads of leavers in this comment section who don't realise he just called them idiots and think he supports BREXIT 🤬
@@mididoctors I don't think refs work either - they are devices to protect parties. The two main parties are now a central plank of our constitution - and this is generally unremarked.
I also think it is important what Locke thought and what he constructed. It is part of our constitution as it stands - and he gave us a wimp out clause for tyranny.
Just as important is the idea we can trace to Hume - that 'experts' tend to stupidity - and wisdom is with bulk of the people. This has been proved right again during Brexit.
God rules as the creator, and it is this fact alone that means that the monarch ought to be account. You appeal to the right of revolution , but revolution means civil war or at least division.
If everyone had seen this talk before the referendum we would not have left
It would only have been labelled as part of "Project Fear".
@@brendansheehan7714 We are still waiting for the fear we were promised by the experts.
All you need to know about Brexit is contained in this middle class enclave. 379 listed comments as of 21st Nov 2022 and only a single mention of immigration under one of the comments. Brexit happened because of mass immigration into exclusively working class areas. The government rejected the referendum, then increased mass immigration, with the support of all the other main parties. That is the reality, no matter how much your privilege allows you to spin it otherwise.
🥱 you won get over it
Did you vote leave? Are you complaining at the outcome? If you didn't bother to find out what brexit entailed then you can't really complain can you.
I just pick up some little frases of that man. He thinks that germany is like 1914. Bevor the first Worldwar. Is he some kind of crazy? Germany today is totaly different. We don´t have a Kaiser and we are a part of the EU. The british kind of still have a problem. Even over a time of 100 years. What´s going on?
Scotland Had a Vote and We Voted too Stay in the EU, England Vote Leave No Deal = 01/01/2022 Associate Membership of the EU. The Tory haven't got the Balls to stand up and tell the Truth just continue Blaming everyone Else for there Greed and Power..
You talking about pi minutes that it is a crucial moment in potential people's life but what about the configurable crimes which you have enormously convicted over the individual people for example child abuse massive amounts of people in the early 90s were affected by child abuse until eventually brought outlaw system where you generally do not attack innocent children but it is in your state that you did the same mistake when many individual adults were in school and you commonly whipped them
Ain't that a sign of child abuse where you have fitted massive amounts of parents Minds to go into child abuse in the first place forcing those innocent children back in the early 80s and 70s putting them in a conviction of a crime which you were written down and waited very patient it's processing in the 90s
why did the British empire collapse?
They ran out of money, it was extremely expensive to keep up and they were virtually bankrupt after WW2. It was not really a collapse in the normal imperial sense, more an ordered run down into a Commonwealth.
The impression I gained from those I spoke with in the 60's who fought in WW2 was that they identified more with the ordinary people in the Empire than with the ruling classes. They were not going to allow themselves to be used to oppress people they had fought shoulder to shoulder with against Germany and Japan.
@@nickjung7394 Interesting point. You mean back then the government listened to the people? How refreshing.
Hog Wash very difficult not to listen when there are several million men who had just fought a war, were scared of nothing and were not going to allow themselves to be treated the way their fathers were after the First World War.
All empires eventually collapse. That's why there are none now. The cost of keeping them running eventually becomes more than they're bringing in. They rot from within. The British empire was in decline long before the wars, but out involvement in the wars hastened their end.
The reason why do another brexit because she wants to repeat history
"Nationalism means war" Francois Mitterrand. Brexit is promoted by nationalists.
I wish David Cameron had listened a much MORE to you.. Sir... at OXFORD....did you tell Cameron to have an EU referendum... Prof Bogdanor.. You only tell us what is.. What was... You don't tell us how it should have been... Tell us the future that is waiting for us.. The shape of things to come.... Prof Bogdanor.. You are a football pundit describing.. Analysing the game...brilliant stuff.. . I want you to tell us what you would have done if you were PM...
.....
Bogdanor shows tendency of a strong order at the end of his speech....pro EU seemingly on the basis of the notion that ‘nationalism means war’. That is one interpretation of events 1914-45 but it would not fit values attached to the same word ‘nationalism’ in 1848 - where creative moment was achieved across Europe centred on common identities struggling under Imperial Rule of various kinds - and which is possibly the real character of things in the present resistance to communistic world governance.
What this lecture slyly does is make us think of the first kind only and of the constitutional pickle resulting from Brexit.
That constitutional pickle is also an opportunity given to reorganise our house and fortify our legal practices. (Like uproot sharia?)
He states that the economic unification of France and Germany was the main purpose of the to-be-EU but he doesn’t mention that everyone else have been sucked into pay for this while remaining outside effective political influence.
EU = Paris-Berlin-Brussels ? A power triangle ?
He didn’t mention the deceit of the public made in the 1975 referendum by concealing this political purpose.
He didn’t mention the totalitarian character or tendency of the EU.
He didn’t mention the corporatist direction of the body (EU) through an unelected commissariat and the rubber stamp nature of MEP’s
He didn’t mention the unaudited finances of the EU - or the fiscal disgrace and concealment of power and intention by such.
He didn’t mention the two traditions of Roman Law - the refined one of the British system and the relatively brutish one going under developments from Grotius onwards in Europe.
He didn’t mention the accusatorial nature of European Law.
He didn’t expound on the character of the ECJ (or lack thereof!)
He didn’t appreciate the versatile responsive humorous refined detailed characterful nature of the British parliament in all its deliberations.
He didn’t take in the possibility that because of progressive generational ‘ignorance’ of tragic common experiences that Peace might only ever be possible for 100 years before a breakdown of order is inevitable.
Notional All-Peace - is he John Lennon smoking dope?
And - for my money - he didn’t put the two articles he mentioned from the Lisbon Treaty Articles 21 and 13 under perspective of a Sacramental view of life, preservation of the Numinous dimension, and possible self-lobotomisation by a legal only view in respect of what is most precious - though little recognised - in the religious dimension of life.
And very curiously - given that he cites the unification of the economies of France and Germany as some form of guarantee against European aggression towards Russia - he doesn’t mention current high levels of EU rhetoric against Russia in the context of its steady and increasing tendency to re-arm and militarise.
The lecture was very interesting for the details shown at the fronts of colliding constitutional systems.
It strayed into the political but not in a usefully comprehensive way - just selectively.
It was deeply informed but not far-seeing.
Not deep in the necessary way.
Nationalism is War, as Mitterrand correctly summarised. Sadly the accumulated wisdom of the 20th century has been cast aside by the nationalism of Brexit (which is very specifically English nationalism, the Welsh being an almost totally subject people). One's only hope is that, whatever now happens to Britain, the European project prospers, goes from strength to strength, free of the British burden, and maintains peace. The only significant difference, a consolation in fact, in the 21st century is that Britain, or even England, cannot play a major role in drawing the Continental powers into war as it did in the 20th. Britain has decisively left the European table after 500 years of involvement, greatly diminished..
Churchill was a big fan of the idea of the EU as a means to foster peace - but with Britain outside
This is detailed legal argument, a little arcane for an iconoclast like me.
What would happen if Scotland left England and joined with Ireland to form a Celtic alliance and then Wales joined them and we had a situation where England finds it self outside the EU and surrounded by EU members. Could they absorb England like an Amoeba absorbs a little nutrient? We could be back in the EU but not as equal members.
My personal view is: We should have not gone into Europe in the first place [we should have emphasised our commonwealth more.] but having gone in and remained a member for so long we should have remained a member, as coming out will, after such a long time cause us a lot of damage. Both Europe and ourselves were damaged but Europe will recover quicker than ourselves.
Actually, as we still need Europe it was folly to come out.
The use of the word Brexit is so that the media, politicians & academics don’t have to use the word FREEDOM. They would look pretty stupid advocating reversing, or revoking freedom. India was involved with the UK longer than the UK’s involvement with the EU & they & S Africa didn’t have this problem leaving their empire.
So this means the British Government will again have the right to make any laws it likes; that's a worry because if Britain gets a Donald trump the people will have a major problem.
Now that the British People know what is involved departing
from the EU in reality. The choice to choose between the Prime Ministers deal
and Remain MUST be put back
to the People.
Every argument the Far Right put up in order to deny this legitimate argument,
only makes their rhetoric more benign, and their grip on reality less sound.
What are these politicians afraid of?
In reality, if we do leave Europe with No
Deal, the amount of hardship we face will make the 2008 crash look like a pick
nick.
We will welcome back the IRA (our own personal terrorists).
They will probably join forces with Al-Qaeda and attack this
Island from both sides.
Thanks allot Boris!!
You should try writing novels. You've certainly got a vivid imagination.
What they know is that Parliament never meant to leave, despite what the government said before the vote, and what Parliament said after the vote.
In Britain Parliament is Sovereign and not the people, and this has been the Status Quo since 1264. Brexit has no legal standing.
Volume 49 of the Journals of the House of Commons (1783). Page 663 goes on to say:
". . . all Sovereign, Legislative, and Judicial Powers are the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated those their Original Powers to others, in Trust, for the Benefit of the Community, yet the Rights themselves are reserved by the People, and cannot be absolutely parted with by the People to those Persons who are employed to conduct the Business of the State.”
It continues, “That the Constitution of England is held by the King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the People, in Trust, for the Benefit of the People; and though these Trustees may regulate and improve the Constitution, yet they cannot alter or subvert it without committing Treason against the Nation . . . That Magna Charta, or THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, . . . the Constitution of England, which are in and by them respectively declared
Should have exposed Ted Heath's Monstrous Lies.
And what were those lies?
@@109joiner 'There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty' Edward Heath, June 1971.
@@MrDavidht And how is that a lie? Britain never lost sovereignty, only in the imagination of Brexiteers.
@@109joiner Re-watch the lecture.
I only heard the pros of the EU (according to the gospel of Brussels) and it was at the very end of the long talk. The majority of the talk emphasized the complications to the UK of getting out and it hinted at all the mayhem that would ensue once Brexit is realized. ....highly manipulative .....
To repeat your words: I only heard the pros of the -EU- ROUND EARTH (according to the gospel of -Brussels- BOFFINS). The majority of the talk emphasized the complications to the -UK- -of- -getting- -out- FLAT EARTH THEORY and it hinted at all the mayhem that would ensue once -Brexit- -is- -realized- FLAT EARTH THEORY IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED. ....highly manipulative .....
@Stouffer The UK did not exist 1000 years ago. Some Kings and Lords made war about pieces of land.
@@alganhar1 Lets just lean back and see in 2025 what the UK does to itself. Why does it have to be such a drama to leave a political organisation of sovereign states?
There are those that talk and those that do. The time has come for those that do. The vast majority of our lousey political elite of all sides have mainly had jobs in the law - time to dump these talkers and replace with doers
martyn fenton given they’re educated in law, it means they’ve been educated in the constitution. That makes them qualified to talk on the subject. You aren’t.
@@traceyflynn5616 yes but I have worked in business and they haven't. All I'm saying is its too top heavy in Lawers or do you disagree
Martyn fenton - Soon a very costly disaster will be a lesson in economy. When the UK loses up to 100 billion a year, because politicians did not understand international trade, the EU, the single market and customs union. It is sad that many people will suffer as jobs will be lost and tax revenue be less. So social services will be cut in times of need.
@@TorianTammas where do you get your figures from?
britain is not in the eu. britain is a land. uk is in eu, uk is a corporation
1. Under the Constitution in Common Law, the Sovereignty of the Electorate transcends the sovereignty of Parliament because without the public, parliament would not exist - under 1868 Oaths Act any public servant had to swear a judicial oath where...
"and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God."
2. Without Sovereignty there is no Democracy, they're basically two sides of the same coin.
3. When Edward Heath signed away our Democratic Sovereignty to the EEC, (see FCO 30/1084), he did so without public consent but disguised it as an economic referendum which ended economic nationalism, freedom and independence and paving the way towards subsequent control to the EU.
4. Those politicians who say they should have a final vote under democratic principles are those who's allegiance is not even to the UK but to foreign uber wealthy vested interests which conflicts to the very issue of allegiance mentioned under the 1868 Judicial Oaths Act in point (1)
5. The EU and their global elite paymasters want to deceive, manipulate, dumb down, sedate, dominate, decimate, infiltrate and intimidate us by destroying our sovereignty, solidarity, unity, privacy, integrity, morality, community, democracy, heredity, property, family, sanity and our identity through cultural Marxism, confirmation bias, neoliberalism, neo-feudalism, virtue signalling and its own self-serving lobbied monopolistic mainstream media echo chamber where we are encouraged to give them our wealth and they give us their debts. They hate referendums because they hate the idea of power being transferred from the established elites to the common man or people power - they want a version of 'democracy' which is top down not grassroots - they believe they have a right to LIE to us for their own ends, So, what kind of Govt does that? The EU - its why we want out. The European Parliament doesn't even have the power to make or amend laws, their role as MEPs are just advisory, the executive power lies higher up in the unelected, unaccountable EU Commission and the Bilderberg steering group who groom and select EU Officials.
6. It's a Dictatorship, pure and simple.
I don't think I've ever read such hysterical misleading junk in my life.
That's because we did not join the European at all was elected as a joinable Cause now we have left the European it is the same scenario as last time we are selecting a new leader to bring us back into the European again and this is what the guy is stating repeating history as history is repeating itself many times over but looking for a new and relations and law systems
The first lock is the transition period, which lasts until at least 2021. We must
hand over an estimated £39 billion for nothing, be bound by EU law and take
orders from an unelected Joint Committee operating under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Will the EU27 agree an equitable free trade agreement before the end of 2020? Unlikely, since all the goodies they want in the “future partnership” are set out in the Northern Ireland backstop, which kicks in automatically on 1st January 2021 unless superseded by a
partnership” agreement. Full ratification by all Member States is required
before any such agreement can come into force. Achieving this in time to avoid
entering the backstop would be nothing short of miraculous, even if the EU
agrees to extend the transition period for one or two years. So it is more pay
with no say and a likely doubling of the Brexit bill to £80 billion, to be paid with
no reference to British MPs.Not only does the backstop carve out Northern Ireland a an EU province and set a border in the Irish Sea, it creates a partial “customs union" that requires us to implement EU trade tariffs and with no decision making powers.
Under highly restrictive “non-regression clauses”. the UK also agrees to
implement all EU emimnmental. competition, state aid and tax harmonisation laws, with the unelected Joint Committee and the ECJ once again able to punish us for any perceived backsliding. British farmers will be locked into a subsidy regime well below support received by EU27 farmers , who nevertheless
retain tariff-free access to the UK. British agriculture would be decimnted. It
means we could not support British businesses, give ourselves a competitive edge in new technologies where we excel. strike independent trade deals or diverge in key policy areas Such as good regulatory and tax Free EU access to UK fisheries to sit down as a marker for negotiation future “deal”
The Political Declaration replicates all the onerous “non-regression” clauses of
the backstop and requires even more surrender of sovereignty via participation in and funding of the EU’s aerospace and defence programmes, free access to UK waters for EU fishermen, a full customs union and common trade policy, free movement by the backdoor under “mobility” clauses, EU control of UK agriculture via the state aid rules and in general full adherence to the acquis communautaire in all policy areas.
Dear Vernon, May I remind you that power belongs to the people. That power is lent to those who are elected to Parliament and can be withdrawn through the ballot box at a subsequent election. The people can, through a referendum, indicate their wishes and in a democracy, those wishes should be carried out by the Government. This is especially true if the people are told by the Government that the choice shown in a referendum will be honoured. The problems over BREXIT have arisen because attempts have been made to either compromise or defeat the wish of the people to leave the EU. Those who voted to leave knew exactly what they were voting for, namely: to leave all that would tie us in to the EU and its undemocratic system of government and once again to be a free, democratic, independent, sovereign nation, governing ourselves in every aspect of national life and trading with the world.
Power only belongs to the people when they are voting, after this its in the hands of the Government
I'm half English/German and I do hope the EU project succeeds for mainland Europe ...however, I don't want to be a part of it and I do not identify as European. We are quite different! In my opinion, the cost of EU membership (on a number of levels) is too high. If there's one thing I do know about my German family is that they LOVE their rules and regulations! It's something in their psyche. That's fine, but from my British perspective, things have gone too far with the EU - and the thought of "ever closer union" coupled with even more legislation, depresses me.
I'm in my 50's and have always voted. Labour mostly, but more recently Conservative. IF parliament fails to deliver a meaningful exit that relinquishes us from the EU's "4 freedoms" I'll be forced to vote for UKIP in the future, ironically, something that the referendum was supposed to prevent.
10thumbstrum The UK will lose up to 100 billion every year. This means less jobs, hard for men in the 50s to get a good job. The tax revenue will accorsmding to the government be 10 billion less. This means austerity will get worse. If the UK is sold out to the US then NHS will be privatized and costly for each person.
@Barry Kelly With that age comes experience and knowledge. We usually call this wisdom, but I'll excuse your ignorance if you're young and foolish.
@@TorianTammas Oh I'm all for the privatisation of the NHS! I have private health care because health care on the NHS ranges from OK to terrible. I think it's wrong that I don't get a TAX rebate for my NHS contributions, so I like millions of others in the UK effectively
pay twice! The NHS should be replaced with the far superior German style health care system. Regarding the economics of leaving the EU, yes, growth will be slower for a few years and some will lose their jobs, but a minor recession is a small price to pay. I haven't had "a job" since 1999 and most of my family are also self employed. We will all sink or swim when the tide comes in.
i am in exactly the same position half english half dutch and i toally agree with you, i also spent years in germany and it is true everything runs by rules very different psyche as you say. we as english dont belong united in a european confederation and i say that speaking 4 fluent european languages, its a tragedy what parliament is doing right now, hopefully the bulldog nature of the brits will prevail but time is running out.
It would be interesting to hear how you feel now about that?
How do you feel, Professor, about the competency of the EU to organise the protection of their people given the recent debacle over German media lies about the vaccine and the EU’s inability to secure early supplies?
what German media lies were those then?
@@mikay7771
That is a natural mechanism of britain, always hate and lie about nations that do better.
At first it was the french, than the spanish, the USA/germany and nowadays germany because britain is a colony of the usa today.
UK Mayday Action : Redirect Council Tax payments to a personal savings account (so "Wankers" pay YOU interest) then inform your council that any accumulated arrears will be paid when Brexit is achieved as promised to you and the 17+ million Brexit voters - Fight back now and regain control with this action (share this idea) - WWG1WGA !
Nothing a local council can do about Brexit
@@chrissywallace9177 - Hi Chrissy, I know that but if everyone took the same action they would try do something about it - besides the longer they take the more I make (not alot) but at least my point is clear "they do what's expected of them and then, so will I"
Good luck with that
You sound like a nut job
unsurprisingly the argument against a referendum on the issue as to whether the UK should remaining a part of the EU, was supported by the EU's leadership and those of the UK's political class! And Parliament, in their attempts to subvert and frustrate the mandate given by the voters on this issue, in order to retain their control and power over the political process and the 'subjects' of the Realm, and to pursue their own chosen course of Remaining in the EU, came within a hair's breadth of destroy our 'democratic' process in an act against the peoples of the UK & NI not entirely dissimilar to the acts of treason committed by Charles I.
only 43000+ views, how disgusting