For not understanding why "populism" is seen as such a bad thing

[TemporaryPosition]

Is the point of democracy not to have popular support?

Yeah, I think this is true.

Which isn't to say populist approaches are never bad. They can be shallow, they can try and whip up a mob mentality.

But, for example, you see people talking about Trump, or the Tories, and say, "They are just doing x,y,z to get votes!

Um - ok It's totally appropriate for a political leader to pursue policy or issues a lot of people want.

Often the unsaid part is that they are the "wrong" people - sometimes that can be too rich, too white, but equally these days it seems to mean to working class, too white. (This is why non-white conservative voters get such nasty rhetoric, they damage the branding for the anti-populists.)

Because unfortunately the electorate as a whole do not always have sufficient knowledge of an issue to make an informed choice that will result in the best outcome for society as a whole. Interest in politics and the economy is pretty low amongst large sections of the public, so they typically don't do a 'deep dive' into an issue, but rather grasp onto an overarching concept that they believe aligns with their self interest at the time.
This makes easy prey for manipulators who know that all they need to do to win support is to convince people the ills in their life are due to this or that scapegoat, and they will rid them of the problem. They don't explain how or at what cost and many people don't ask them to, they simply believe and trust in them.
Its not difficult to be popular by telling people who don't ask many questions what they want to hear, but often the popularity is won through misrepresentation and lies.

Nobody knew what kind of Brexit they were voting for. There wasn't a manifesto setting out exactly what would happen if people voted Yes to leaving the EU.

People who voted Brexit to cut immigration were duped into thinking that leaving would stop both legal/illegal immigration from the EU and outside the EU.

Certainly, immigration from European countries has massively reduced, adversely impacting many industries that relied on cheap EU labour. Immigration from outside the EU has increased, due to many reasons, one of which is the withdrawal from agreements with our former EU partners to work together to stop illegal immigration via boats across the Channel.

I think the average Brexit voter:

• wanted overall immigration to be cut
• was open to high-quality immigration from Europe, just not automatic rights
• would support a non-EU-linked UK/France/Italy/Greece etc navy collaboration to police the Mediterranean so that no-one got anywhere near the Channel

It's not an incoherent position and the situation we got post-Brexit with an even less restrictive immigration scheme open to the whole world was not the only way it could have played out.

I think the average brexit voter is over simplistic

Many did want sovereignty - they were misled about how much lack of control we had over our laws

Many wanted to kick the establishment- felt forgotten and neglected living hard lives away from London - lack of jobs and opportunities

I think the average brexit voter is over simplistic
Many did want sovereignty

But they didn't understand what they wanted. And still don't.

The old NTNOCN around the HiFi salesman is a paradigm of this

"Do you want speakers ?"
"Yes"
"Do you want woofers and tweeters ?"
"No I don't want bloody stupid woofers and tweeters"
"You can't help it mate. They're in your speakers."

Yes I agree that they know at one level what they want - better lives generally, but they often believe things I don't when it comes to the route to that better life

I don't believe a right wing government will give people in general a better life and I am not arrogant enough to think that in a meritocracy / hard work environment that I and most people will win

It's a form of the American dream - work hard and you can be successful given the right environment and the right provides that environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive

I believe that more people benefit if you have a healthier middle class - an educated middle class ( academic and trade ) - because the you have more people with spare cash to spend so you are more likely to see money trickle down

If you have small super wealthy top - there is only so much they will actually buy - they can't fill regional theatres ( and almost any other thing you can think of ) - but a decent middle class can - and it's the middle class that is being lost over the last 20 years

Well, it is but it also isn't. Some things are just wrong. I remember in the immediate aftermath of the Leave vote, there was a very vocal poster on here who was advocating deporting all foreign nationals and seizing their houses without payment. That would be state sanctioned theft - I think we can agree this is objectively wrong, tough it would be popular with some. If the electorate voted for this en masse, ut would still be wrong.

True - but the government does. For example - Net Zero, or being part of NATO. Yes, as the government changes, these can be tweaked, but the direction remains the same unless something massive changes - for example Net Zero once the implications of climate change came clear, or NATO as we needed to be in an alliance during the Cold War. Chopping and changing these long term commitments is very expensive, so the overall direction rarely changes.

As Palmerston said back in the day - "Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow"

Very good question. One answer is that we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and elected politicians tend to be more socially liberal but economically conservative than the population as a whole. So on issues like the death penalty, or generosity of pensions, Parliament over-rules what the majority of the population thinks is right.

You can see the absolute cluster of issues when this is bypassed. Having a popular vote for Brexit, but representatives who thought it was a stupid idea, has lead to chaos (and only really resolved by two elections, and the Conservatives de-selecting most Remainer MPs)

One answer is that we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy

Which is why we should never have had the Brexit referendum.

Or indeed any referendum.

Why have a dog and then have to bark yourself ?

wherearemypastnames
I think the average brexit voter is over simplistic
Many did want sovereignty - they were misled about how much lack of control we had over our laws

I think the average remain voter (and some remain MPs/political commentators) have less knowledge. I've read dozens of posts on here claiming that we had the right of veto over every EU law or that EU citizens could be compelled to leave the country if they had not found work after 3 months - neither of which are true.

I don't recall a right to veto

I do recall that the percentage of votes that went out way was around 90%

And it would have been higher if people like farage had turned up to vote - things like fishing - his abscence make a detrimental difference to the UK

Even the US doesn't allows states a veto on changing the constitution.

And the UK (as we saw) was always free to leave the EU. US States much less so.

wisbech
the Conservatives de-selecting most Remainer MPs

They deselected a few. A quick look at Boris Johnson's December 2019 cabinet, half of them backed remain in the referendum.

Populism is fine. It's only ever a problem when lefty MNetters don't like the person involved and don't agree with their policies. If it was someone they liked then they'd be "a breath of fresh air" and thankful "that the grown ups are back in the room".

Populism is fine.

Until it isn't.

"Popular" is subjective. There is no objective measure. Even a vote is affected by the prism of the question - as Yes Minister so perfectly illustrated.

Notice how the dimension of time isn't being used here. Another way to create whatever result you want.

@wisbech your answer still puts the authority with MPs. So the electorate can vote in MPs who put forward any policy and there is no other authority to overrule that

Correct Parliament is sovereign (well, technically the King, but that hasn't been true in practice since George I who couldn't be arsed to learn English properly and preferred Hannover) - but as the electorate put in MPs with a very wide range of opinions - as we have constituencies with very different voters so while they can put forward any policy, to get it approved requires compromise - aka politics. For example the recent assisted dying bill.

Heck Sinn Fein have more MPs than Reform (7 vs 5) and they don't even recognise Parliament as legitimate... UK politics is amazingly bizarre at times

Parliament is sovereign, you say? Can you remind our last few governments of that?

I don't recall a right to veto

There is unanimous agreement required in a limited number of policy areas in the Council of the European Union which represents the member states' governments (the European Parliament represents the citizens of the EU).

EU rules currently require the unanimous agreement of member states on certain “sensitive matters”, such as common foreign and security policy, citizenship, EU membership, EU finances, and some aspects of tax policy, justice and home affairs, and social protection.

When we first joined the EU there were more policy areas that required unanimous agreement but these policy areas were reduced with each new treaty. Last year there was an attempt to end all veto rights;

https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/05/06/polish-left-calls-for-end-of-veto-rights-in-eu/

In addition there has been what is known as 'competence creep', e.g. the expansion of past agreements/legislation by the European Commission or ECJ - beyond what was originally agreed or intended.

I do recall that the percentage of votes that went our way was around 90%

That was in the Council although ministers often agreed to things they were not really happy with or agreed to something less restrictive than originally proposed by way of consensus. I think the votes in the European Parliament were nearer 70% our way (2009 - 2014).

And it would have been higher if people like farage had turned up to vote - things like fishing - his absence make a detrimental difference to the UK

Presumably that was on one of the committees rather than in the Parliament where there are over 700 MEPs. How many votes did we lose by on fishing?

Primacy of EU law (precedence, supremacy)

The principle of the primacy (also referred to as 'precedence' or 'supremacy') of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail. If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable.

The principle of the primacy of EU law has developed over time by means of the case law (jurisprudence) of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is not enshrined in the EU treaties, although there is a letter declaration annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon in regard to it...

It should be noted that the primacy of EU law only applies where Member States have ceded sovereignty to the EU – in fields such as the single market, environment etc...

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/primacy-of-eu-law-precedence-supremacy.html

Theresa May did not pluck her 'red lines' out of nowhere;

There have been reports that the House of Commons, whose MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, could vote against pulling out of the single market in the event of a Brexit. MPs could claim they were accepting voters’ wishes to withdraw from the EU while protecting them from the economic consequences of leaving the trading area.

However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

If EU law were supreme, then how come the UK left ?

(Compare and contrast with how a US state may leave the union.)

No amount of sophistry can make "the EU is supreme" square with "parliament is supreme". It's just a tool for training "AI" models.

Badly.

SerendipityJane
If EU law were supreme, then how come the UK left?

Is there an EU law that says member states cannot leave?