Britain and the EU after Brexit
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Vernon Bogdanor, CBE, is Professor of Government at the Institute of Contemporary British History, King’s College, London.
He was formerly for many years Professor of Government at Oxford University. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, an Honorary Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences. He has been an adviser to a number of governments, including those of Albania, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Israel, Mauritius. Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and Trinidad. He has written numerous books, including Beyond Brexit: Towards a British Constitution, and Britain and Europe in a Troubled World.
Sponsored by the George Herbert Walker, Jr. Lecture Fund at Yale University, the European Studies Council, and Program in European Union Studies
That explanation of no populism or racist party in the UK was ridiculous. The UK has first-past-the-post electoral system, not a proportional one. One cannot compare the political results of the two different systems like that.
And please, trying to assert that Brexit itself is not populism is beyond the pale. The UK has a thoroughly populist government that is kin to Trumpism in the US. The same lying and gaslighting and anti-liberal nationalist rhetoric.
Of course you would say that because the extreme Marxists (Labour) cannot accept that people did not vote for them, you lost by 80 seats that is a MASSIVE loss and yet still no self reflections just same old smears and nasty comments about the Tories and Boris
@@andysmith3111 nothing to do with a discredited FPP voting system in which you can get into power even though more people vote against you than for you, then?
@@andysmith3111 Well, thank you for proving my point. And by the way, I am not British.
@@simoncolombo6640 Maybe the UK Patriotic voters didnt like seeing the sheer hypocrisy of the liberal leftys, you mention lying, is this like ted heath stating "no loss of sovereignty" as he stated that, he was giving away UK sovereign waters. outright lies from day 1. Or the lies nick clegg spouted, yeah the ``dangerous fantasy`` eu army. and the leave rhetoric was Patriotic over the eu nationalistic desires they want via the lisbon treaty.
@@marksavage1108 Again, thank you for proving my point.
"Attitude against immigration has softened due to Brexit." says Mr Bogdanor. Well the UK is not letting EU "immigrants" in the UK anymore. Is that what he means by a soft attitude? By definition this means having a more inward attitude. Also "No populist party in the UK parliament"? If Boris Johnson and a big chunk of the tory party are not populists, I don't know what populists are. If UKIP has never had MP's that is mainly due to the first past the post system whereas Germany and France have a proportional representation (with different degrees).
Dear Professor Vernon,
What a selective distortion of the Irish situation! The question I have to ask is if it is deliberate or if you believe what you say. The reality of brexit was always going to hinge in the six counties. The two fundamental documents governing that are the treaty leading to the Independence of Ireland (signed in 1921, enacted in 1922) and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
At about the 24min mark you say;
"In 1921, 26 counties in Ireland with catholic and nationalist majorities decided to exercise their right of self determination by separating from Britain to form what is now the 'Irish Republic' but sic counties in the North with largely protestant and unionist majorities exercised their right of self determination by deciding they wanted to remain in the united kingdom".
What a stunning distortion!
Sadly, this portrayal makes you appear to be more a partisan of the narrative of the UK state rather than a servant to the truth.
No mention of the Irish War of Independence?
No mention of the Imperial War Crimes in the brutal murder campaign by british and loyalist death-squads?
I cannot imagine any respectable academic trying to get away with the same characterisation of the American War of Independence against britain!
I wrote some notes just before Covid-19 and they might help to correct the impression you have given. Some of the numbers may be out of date by now.
Since the defeat of British forces at the end of the Irish War of Independence, the treaty agreed a temporary artificial gerrymandered entity comprising six of the nine counties of Ulster.
These six counties out of Ireland's 32 were to be "a protestant parliament for a protestant people" where the rigged local minority of Catholic nationalists would continue to be second-class citizens.
The temporary arrangement became semi-permanent, but that seems to be coming to an end because of changes to the two factors that brought the situation about.
Firstly: At the time of partition of Ireland, almost a century ago, there was a protestant unionist majority in the six counties. At the last census, in 2011, over 51% of all school attendees were registered as Catholic. Of the elderly, (people aged over 90) in the six counties, 64% are protestant and 25% are Catholic. That was the religious composition when these people were born back in the 1920s. Looking at those children and babies born since 2008, things change dramatically. The numbers are 31% protestant and 44% Catholic.
The young population is overwhelmingly Catholic and nationalist. They are likely to continue the population trend. Elderly and dead protestant unionists are unlikely to reverse the birth rate for obvious reasons.
The future has been born and the past is dying.
That gap will only grow.
Secondly: At partition the GDP per capita in the six counties was twice that of the twenty six counties. In 1920, about 80% of the industrial output of Ireland came from three counties centred on Belfast. The remaining 20% spread over the other 29 counties. By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland, with a population of nearly 400,000 and it was growing quickly.
Now the GDP per capita of the Republic exceeds that of the UK. It exceeds twice that of the six counties. The industrial output of the Republic is now ten times that of the six counties. Exports from the Republic are about €90bn while exports from the six counties are about €6bn.
The economic future is clear.
That gap will only grow.
Since the two main factors for the creation of the failed six counties entity have reversed there is a general agreement of the inevitability of the reunification of all the counties of Ulster in a united Ireland. The instability of Brexit makes it desirable for the UK to solve its impossible problem of leaving the EU while simultaneously keeping the current porous non-border in Ireland.
The only way to do that is to withdraw from Ireland once and for all.
The question that raises is: "How much harm and poverty do Irish protestant unionists in the six counties wish to inflict on their own children in order to display their hatred for their Catholic fellow countrymen?"
And how much harm do they want to inflict on Britain for aiding and abetting them over the years?
The sane part of the protestant community will vote for reunification with the Republic. Sectarianism is all very well for football matches but it's not worth destroying the future of your children.
It's nothing personal. Just enlightened self-interest. And business is business!
Brexit cannot escape this historical context and any attempt to ignore it is a distortion of the inescapable reality.
The history of britain has been determined by its relationship with the Continent and the history of Ireland has been determined by its relationship with britain.
The british priority has been to ensure that there was no secure unity facing it across the channel and the Irish priority was to seek help from the premier Continental power.
The british nightmare was a unified opponent across the channel with a foothold on the island of Ireland.
That old military reality is now an economic one.
Brexit puts the british economy at a selective disadvantage in the largest market in the world.
How can one expect a person born and raised in angerland ever hope to have a clear view of history, they are all feed shit and lap it up like a dog laps anothers vomit..... This is what they think is an example of a educated person. no wonder England if finished. victims of their own bullshit.
Great comment.
Excellently put and may I add that two counties namely fermanagh and Tyrone were nationalist controlled and were not giving a say on wanting to join the 26 counties as they surely would have.Also Derry city an80% nationalist City was dragged into the six counties against its citizens says as was South Armagh.The six counties did not vote to stay in UK but was rather a land grab by gerrymandering
I think that’s unfair on the Professor; this is a Constitutional Law lecture so he is skirting over a lot of history. If you search for his November 2022 Gresham Lecture on the “Ulster Question” you will see he covers a lot of your points in what I think is a fair way.
Good luck trying to get something on mutual recognition of qualifications. The US states do not have it between themselves. The EU is not going to give to a third country what is a benefit of membership.
judging by the quality of British "leadership" it is surprising that even Britons to recognise their own qualifications
May I ask a question about "The US states do not have it between themselves.". You mean a degree from (e.g.:) a Texas Uni. is not recognized in (e.g.:) Oklahoma? Thanks in advance.
@@Pier-wy6dd
Various US states have varying degrees of non-recognition of qualifications from outside a given state.
Mu own experience, as a truck driver in the US North East, is that it is easier and cheaper to be a trucker in the EU than in the USA.
@@gloin10 From outside I see just one country: U.S.A. How the Legislation and administration is (between States), I am afraid, I have not a clue. In any form, thanks again.
@Marlboro Light
No, you were TAKEN for a ride...
It is not clear that the Brexit vote was the result of largely working class votes and therefore a response of working class people to "unrestricted immigration.". Studies have been done which showed the preponderance of actual numerical votes for Brexit was the result of middle class votes in the countryside and the small towns of the South of England. Where majorities formed for Brexit to the North the numbers were not that high as so many did not vote, but in the southern counties, west, east and central there were thumping majorities.
please watch this brilliant documentation about tax evasion and offshore banking @
Theres no working class. That's a Germpiric label. Brits voted against Remainers (and their spokesperson Eddie Izzard) threatening to strip over 50s (or whatever) of the vote.
@@gnenian There may not be such a monolithic working class in the old industrial sense as perhaps there once was in the last century but there is clearly a class of society whose members are people in jobs which are either skilled manual or unskilled manual, to which you may in fact belong. There are, unfortunately, large swathes of this class who have not received much of what we describe as education from the State and they are often semi-literate or have poor literacy and educational standards.
Strange how you claim there is no working class but you are keen to identify "Brits" ( a term whose meaning is not very clear, at least in your mind) and "Remainers" who apparently are in thrall to a not very popular comedian (not Boris Johnson). I cannot understand how you attribute leadership of "Remainers" to him. Where you get this idea that the over 50s are to be stripped of their vote is unknowable. Perhaps you read it somewhere and decided it must be true.
The British people (those entitled to vote within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) appeared to be almost equally divided over the question of the United Kingdom leaving membership of the EU. Yet you conclude that "Brits" (whose numbers should surely include the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland) voted against "Remainers."
The question posed in the 2016 referendum was not one of asking voters to vote for or against "Remainers" but rather a question over whether to leave the European Union or not. Moreover, voting either for or against membership of the EU cannot have entitled anyone to be considered as somehow securing, or excluding them from, membership of a supposed multi-national group identity such as "Brits." It makes no more sense to claim that only "Leave" voters were "Brits" as it does to claim that only "Remain" voters are "Brits."
The people of Scotland voted in majority against leaving, as did the people of Northern Ireland. Are they not also "Brits" as you put it? Yet most of them voted "Remain." Or is it in your view that only English Leave voters can be considered "Brits."? I think you are confused, quite deeply confused.
I cannot find the word "gempiric" anywhere. Perhaps you could let me know what it is supposed to mean.
@@richardcory5024 ⁹As I said there are no 'Working Class (BURRAINNZZ or the lack of them is just an externally imposed label) and I'm not unsure of who Brits are they are the native people of the British Isles - Great Britain and Ireland I.e. the Scots.
@@gnenian In which case your claim that the "Brits" voted against "Remainers" is a fatuous comment, as I thought.
Now you are even claiming that the "Brits" are the Scots and the Scots are the native people of Great Britain and Ireland. Sorry you are just wrong there. "Scots" (Caledonians/Hibernians) migrated from Ireland before the Romans arrived and shared Scotland with the Picts (who were there already) amongst others. Fast forward to the present day: if you think the "Scots" (commonly understood as Scottish voters) voted against "Remainers" you are wrong. Again.
There are plenty of people who would dispute your unfounded claim about the "working classes." There are many who are self-proclaimed "working class" so it is silly to say it is merely an externally imposed label.
Can someone please explain to me why it seems to be impossible for the British to understand that the government of the EU is the EU Council. Not the Commission. The Commission is the civil service.
Because what you wrote is incorrect. The EU commission, the panel of 27 commissioners, is the EU's equivalent to a national government. Each commissioner is assigned one portfolio, just like there are ministers for different areas, and they carry out the day-to-day executive which is the government job. The EU commission as an institution may be compared to the civil service but the two EU commissions (panel of 27 vs institution that employs tens of thousands) must be considered separately as conflating them into one makes no sense at all.
I have yet to find a single pro-EU person who is not severely misinformed about even the most basic of things about the EU.
@@user-xv4id9xx7u Wrong. The EU Commissioners take their orders from the EU Council. Read the treaties, or just google the job description of a commissioner.
The commissioners are needed for the administrative purposes but also as spokespersons to avoid 27 versions of what was decided.
@@simoncolombo6640 On some things they do, on most they don't. The EU commission is not accountable to the council and commissioners are independent in their work.
You are confusing the role of a government (EU commission in EU terms) and a spokesperson and lying by omission. The EU commission of 27 commissioners is indeed the EU equivalent to a government and the individual commissioners are EU's equivalent to cabinet ministers. To diminish their role and claim they are mere civil service, mere admin workers or spokesperson is factually incorrect and extremely dishonest. It only confirms that I have yet to speak to a single pro-EU person who is not utterly misinformed about the EU operation.
@@user-xv4id9xx7u The EU Commission is accountable to the EU Parliament and they implement the policies decided by the EU Council. Sure, regarding the policies they have a lot of decision making power, as dictated by the treaties. Just like the civil service, because they do not decide the policies, but implement them.
If you for one minute think that sovereign countries would have given legislative or policy setting powers to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, you are out of your mind.
@@simoncolombo6640 You are again factually wrong. In the EU the EU government (aka EU commission) has far more powers than you wrongly claim it does. It controls whether and when MEPs get to vote on new proposals, it must approve and can reject any amendment that MEPs make, they run day-to-day agenda that is not covered by policy instructions made by the Council etc. Once again, comparing EU's government to mere civil service is a typical sign of EU shills who don't understand much about how the EU works and so they just repeat their half-truths (at best). The EU commission has much more autonomy and decision making power than you wrongly claim. Maybe you should read those EU treaties and educate yourself. But beware, this is typically the first step toward becoming against the EU. Every last person who understands how the EU works turned against it.
To your point: a Confederate state could not succeed from the Confederacy per their Constitution. It is rather ironic considering that one of their (fake) claims for leaving was state’s rights.
In answer to the first question. I can vote for an MP but not a judge. I can remove an MP by vote but not a judge. I'll stick with an MP thanks :)
Ironically the non-democratic elements of the state, such as the courts and the army were the guarantors of democracy in the US at a time when the democratically elected elements were not. I don't see why the same should not reassure us in the UK.
@@richardcory5024 Judicial activism in the USA is completely out-of-control, effectively making the country a Kritarchy. It’s led to crazy fights to try and appoint politically on-side judges who will interpret the constitution a certain way. They’re now simply unelected politicians, nothing more.
The army? I think we all want them to have as little to do with politics as possible. In the UK the Supreme Commander of the armed forces is the Queen (who’s above politics), not Boris Johnson, thank God. The thought of a European army with Ursula von Der Leyen as its Supreme Commander feels both funny and frightening.
@@georgesdelatour That wasn't my point you chose to answer but a different one. Never mind.
It is so ironic that the conservative power in Britain accepted the idea of a referendum dependent on a simple majority rather than some greater percentage such as they now contend shou8ld be the case for a Scottish referendum on leaving the EU. I would also note that in common law, at least in the US, that the term 'in perpetuity' is taken to mean just 99 years.
Answer: sheer laziness and ineptitude,The option was considered, but rejected. In Australia a referendum needs a two thirds majority in a majority of states.Anyone who professes to be an academic in the field of government would have been aware: it is standard in Switzerland and I believe in California to name but two jurisdictions.But then, Britain makes up its "constitution" as it goes along, so it is hardly surprising that it does the same for other aspects of what the Brits ironically term, government
The thing with referenda is, it depends when you start having them. I doubt that Edward Heath could have secured even a simple referendum majority for EEC membership in 1972. We had a vote on whether to leave in 1975, but that’s a different matter (Leaving the single currency is, for instance, a very different proposition from not joining it in the first place).
The Maastricht Treaty would also almost certainly have been rejected by voters in a referendum - which is why John Major was so determined we shouldn’t have one. In 2016, if the Remain campaign had promised automatic referenda on all future European integration, they might have won the vote. But it was a concession to Euroscepticism they just didn’t want to make.
The irony is, if the political class had allowed us to vote on Maastricht (and we’d rejected it), we’d now have an acceptable in-out middle-ground, far more attractive to them than what they’ve wound up with.
No Briton ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!
He realy belive´s what he is saying, and that is the problem with the english. They never ever understand that somebody can have a other understanding how things can be done.
Dear Prof. Vernon
Many thanks for a most interesting presentation. There was a good deal to take in, for me anyway: your explanation of how Brexit disempowers UK courts, how Brexit ‘de-codifies’ the UK constitution, how Brexit makes Westminster MPs the guardians of human rights in a way other states have moved away from. You explained these matters so fluently. I don’t think they have garnered that much attention. That the EU needs to transform itself from technocratic to properly political and representative is well put too.
On perhaps minor points that I would not have put the way you did:
23:30: - that parts of Ireland exercised “self-determination”. A statute was passed at Westminster partitioning the former Ireland; carving it up; disregarding its territorial integrity. I would not characterize that as an Irish exercise of self-determination. The former Ireland approved its joining the UK by its then parliament, albeit a rather unrepresentative and corrupt one. The later Ireland of the 1920s was given no equivalent right to opt out.
24.00 - “what is now the Irish Republic (sic)”. Ireland is the name of the state you refer to. “Irish Republic” is totally unacceptable in Ireland and quite offensive. Formal UK insistence on imposing names on Ireland ended with the Belfast Agreement. You go on to refer to the ‘Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol”. That gives a clue to the actual position.
24:10 - the “largely Protestant and Unionist majorities” you refer to did not exist in 2 of the 6 counties that were to become Northern Ireland in 1921; rather they had Catholic and nationalist majorities, albeit not overwhelming majorities.
41:30 - I’m not so sure that Sinn Fein MPs don’t take their seats because they regard themselves as part of a majority in the island of Ireland. Doesn’t it rather have to do with their object to the UK legal requirement that they must swear an oath of allegiance to the Britannic sovereign in order to take up those seats?
Thank you to the team at Yale MacMillan too. Keep up the good work. It is valuable!
"UK constitution"? There isn't one. They make it up as they go along
@@ausbrum I don’t think the learned Prof. would agree with you.
please watch this brilliant documentation about tax evasion and offshore banking @
And toff has been a professor in Oxford? Christ.
Five minutes in, and I asked the very same question.
Good lecture but the issues associated with Ireland were not clear No agreed border was ever recognised, the border was merely imposed by military might while the commission on the border did not report until 1970(?)
Thank you 🙏
This hasn't aged well.
why don't other country's do the same? can any country just do this?
The UK has a unique standing, or should I say the UK citizen has their own individual sovereignty as stated in the Magna Carta. The underhanded way the UK was scammed into the eec/eu dictatorship was always going to backfire on the traitor UK politicians and their scamming counterparts on the continent. They had 2 options, give us a vote or take the UK into the Lisbon treaty and risk each sovereign citizen suing the government for dereliction of duty. To answer your question, they can all apply to trigger article 50 but the scamming treasonous politicians dont want to leave their snout in the trough club.
bosnia and gaza situation ?
the lecturer has printed out the Internet :)
I take the point about immigration not being the political hot potato in 2021 as it was in 2016 but is this softening of attitude not perhaps attributable to the (so I read) net 1.3 million immigrants who have left these shores since 2016?
So far, since Brexit, over 5 million EU citizens have applied for permanent residence in the UK. It’s almost double the number the UK government was expecting, and equivalent to 7.5% of the total UK population.
@@georgesdelatour How disappointing for the UK government. I see it is taking steps to rough up arrivals from the EU at our borders. Perhaps that will discourage the blighters.
i dont know about u but e is no good is e what do u think ???
Bad audio 😤
I can’t breathe
His room says, my owner is lazy and proud of it.