Brexit effects and boring punditry

‘Boring punditry’ as Rob Salmond posts his Four cents on Brexit, Fonterra, and New Zealand at Public Address:

There also may, or may not, also be political lessons to be learned from Brexit.

For example, some in New Zealand think the no confidence motion in UK Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn shows how out of touch [the Labour caucus OR Jeremy Corbyn] is with the real needs of [UK Labour AND/OR the UK public].

They believe this regrettable trait is shared by New Zealand Labour’s [MPs OR activists], and that the relevant New Zealand folk should follow Corbyn’s lead by [standing tough OR sodding off] in advance of the next election.

Without passing overall judgement on either argument, I think it is far too early to come to these kinds of conclusions.

That’s partly because it’s a bit tough to see all the ins and outs of supporting cast in the Brexit campaign from here, and partly because the situation facing UK parties in this historically unusual circumstance isn’t directly analogous to the comparatively run-of-the-mill politics going on here. Yes, that’s boring punditry, but sometimes boring is the right thing to do.

I don’t think this is boring punditry. It’s refreshing to see a sane and realistic political voice on Brexit effects.

I agree that it’s (probably) far too early to jump to conclusions about what Brexit means for new Zealand politics.

Our political and social situation is much different to the UK.

We have fairly open borders with Australia, but that probably benefits New Zealanders more than anything.

This is a lot different to open borders between 28 widely diverse countries of over 500 million people.

While there are some similarities between Labour leaders Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Little – they were both chosen by new party vote systems as leaders despite meagre support from within their caucuses – Corbyn’s elevation was a shock and has always looked shaky, while there is no likely challenge to Little before the next election.

And New Zealand is not facing a major change in international relationships and an unexpected and imminent election.

Salmond’s calm and patient approach is sound.

Leave a comment

22 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  28th June 2016

    To be honest I can’t see that Brexit will have a huge impact on NZ politics.

    In terms of political discourse, having seen the NZ referendums, and this one, I have been amazed at the political naivety and ignorance in the so-called educated classes in the UK. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding exactly what a referendum is, and what the outcomes should be. Examples are:

    1. Many (including so-called knowledgeable political journalists) seem to think it is a General Election where policy promises are made, and those campaigning will be running the exit and should be held accountable for every little thing they said. One such case is, when illustrating the point about the money paid to the EU (which was over stated by Leave), the Leave campaign said that it was money that could be paid to the NHS, of course now they are saying it wouldn’t definitely be paid to the NHS as it would be up to the Government how to spend it – so they are being accused of breaking promises and lying.

    On point one, another example is that many during the referendum stated if you voted leave you were voting for Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson to be running the country, first up Farage isn’t even an MP, and Boris remains an MP, not the PM (at least not yet). They seemed to think that people were voting for them, not for leaving or remaining in the EU.

    2. Many seem to think that they are now no longer in the EU (admittedly this appears to be voters from both sides), despite the fact that it still needs to be passed by Parliament, and there is a 2 year process to leave. These idiots seem to not understand that the referendum is just an indication of the peoples will, telling the Government what they wish the Government to do, not a case of it happening immediately.

    Now, I don’t altogether blame the people in this case, referendum’s are very rare in the UK, and as such it is not something that they do understand, there is a lack of information out there on the process of the referendum, or if there is anything it has been drowned in the din of the outrageous claims from both sides. The real losers as a result of this are the people not having a good understanding of the process they were taking part in.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  28th June 2016

      The chattering classes lost the vote so they are making up for it by increased volume of outraged squawking. The greatest risk to the UK is that both major political parties are split down the middle over the issue and are fighting each other instead of uniting to create the most from the opportunity – to the extent of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

      While it doesn’t matter too much that Labour is disintegrating it will be a serious problem if the Conservatives can’t unite behind a focused, constructive government and leadership.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  28th June 2016

        I’m vacillating over the ticks. It’s an up for now Alan.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  28th June 2016

        are you a member of the ‘chattering class’ Al?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  28th June 2016

          I could be, Blazer, but I try to avoid denigrating public personalities and giving vent to outrage and intolerance.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  28th June 2016

            FGS AL…Mclachlans book about NZ’ers .’the Passionless People’ has been consigned to history.All of us on blog sites,venting,opining,ranting,are the chattering class,.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  28th June 2016

              Oi ! I resemble that ! 😡

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th June 2016

              Very well said, Blazer, but I think a pretty classy chattering class.

  2. David

     /  28th June 2016

    Corbyn as more popular with his caucus than Little was and Corbyn has won and retained his seat for decades without mentioning that thousands of his supporters are marching in the streets and his union backers will support him again.
    Corbyn,s mistake was he is and always has been a Brexiter and it was pretty obvious.

    Reply
    • David

       /  28th June 2016

      “Corbyn as more popular with his caucus than Little was”

      I doubt that very much.

      “thousands of his supporters are marching in the streets and his union backers will support him again.”

      Thousands of supports does not win a general election.

      “Corbyn,s mistake was he is and always has been a Brexiter and it was pretty obvious.”

      Corbyn’s only USP, other than being the honorable member for the 1970’s, was that he was true to his ideology. At his first big challenge he threw that out and it stuck out like a sore thumb.

      Reply
  3. Iceberg

     /  28th June 2016

    It’s bizarre how the left here have held Corbyn and Saunders up as the saviours of the socialist dream. Two disaffected old white guys. Both a great big fail.

    Reply
  4. The underlying issue is common law vs civil law. England is the home of the common law, but Scotland adopted more civil law than England did. Europe is the home of the civil law. Hence Scotland was more pro-remain and England was more pro-exit.

    NZ as a country is common law, but the Crown installed a civil law government, so here the problem cannot be resolved by conventional politics.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  28th June 2016

      How can it be resolved? o_O

      Are you able to explain the mechanism or means by which it would be resolved?

      Reply
      • It can be resolved by ending the civil system. For New Zealand this means becoming a sovereign nation in the original sense of the word, since common law government is dependant upon sovereignty.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  28th June 2016

          Sounds interesting. What specific steps need to be taken to achieve this?

          Reply
          • The people of New Zealand (or their political representatives) must acquire the qualities of sovereignty. These qualities are described as wisdom, goodness, and power. Wisdom in the common law tradition is described as fear of deity (the common law is inherently theistic). This doesn’t involve endorsement of any particular religion, since the common law looks to reason rather than to belief in its description of ethics in society. The specifics of the acquisition of sovereignty depend on the individual, but IMO they begin with knowledge of the underlying principles of English common law.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  28th June 2016

              How does it work if the belief in the deity and /or the fear of it is for different reasons and results in behaviours that are harmful to other groups and contravene the principles of English common law?

            • It’s a question of religion, to resolve it through reason requires application of theology. Typically religious beliefs can be classified by how believers self-identify, eg Anglican, Rabbinist, Sunni, Hindu, etc. If you compare the doctrines of the belief system against the religious context of the common law it’s reasonably easy to spot beliefs that are going to be problematic.

              The religious context of the common law is the ten commandments and some of the commandments relating to the administration of justice within Hebrew society, along with Christian ethics similar to the Golden Rule.

              The obvious problem is Christianity, since NZ’s head of state is the “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England, and Rome is the original source of the civil law (the doctrines of the CoE are much the same as those of the Roman Catholic Church). This problem was quite apparent after the referendum with some of the English clergy spitting the dummy over the result.

            • Gezza

               /  28th June 2016

              So what do we do when we have communities whose beliefs or practices or customs are based on different laws and understanding of different theologies, or who no have no theology because the deity others believe in seems very unlikely to exist, and whose customs or laws they wish to follow are different?

              Must they all conform to English common law, and who enforces it?

          • Gezza

             /  28th June 2016

            I see. Thanks for that.

            Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s