Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Professor Moriarty

markest wrote: »

Where does the 37% figure come from?

Cameron went into government in 2015 with 36.9% of the vote.

theological

Forgive me but which parties are right wing in Ireland? I'd regard Fine Gael and Fine Gael as centrist. Hence my comment about no discernible differences. I agree that Sinn Féin are occupying the left. But for decades probably since the foundation of the state elections haven't really been fought tightly on policy grounds. In the UK this happens every election.

So no thoughts on my comments about the place of referendums or wider constitutional reform? It could be interesting to explore this.

splinter65

See Nissan are investing £400 million in their car plant in Sunderland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/nissan-presses-ahead-with-400m-qashqai-plan-for-sunderland

This must surprise some of the posters here.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

Forgive me but which parties are right wing in Ireland? I'd regard Fine Gael and Fine Gael as centrist. Hence my comment about no discernible differences. I agree that Sinn Féin are occupying the left. But for decades probably since the foundation of the state elections haven't really been fought tightly on policy grounds. In the UK this happens every election.

So no thoughts on my comments about the place of referendums or wider constitutional reform? It could be interesting to explore this.

One last comment, as left leaning parties gain traction in Ireland, there will be a natural shift from the centre to the centre right by other parties - though FG are already seen as centre right by most people. Now, your focus on Irish politics might be seen by some as whataboutery deflection so you might want to leave it there.

I think Britain needs electoral reform first and foremost. FPTP is not fit for purpose and they would have done well to look to Ireland with its referendum commission or Switzerland before blindly sprinting into a clusterfúck of a referendum won by liars.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

One last comment, as left leaning parties gain traction in Ireland, there will be a natural shift from the centre to the centre right by other parties - though FG are already seen as centre right by most people. Now, your focus on Irish politics might be seen by some as whataboutery deflection so you might want to leave it there.

I think Britain needs electoral reform first and foremost. FPTP is not fit for purpose and they would have done well to look to Ireland with its referendum commission or Switzerland before blindly sprinting into a clusterfúck of a referendum won by liars.

No, my focus on Irish politics was to point out that a PR system doesn't automatically bring about a rich political culture. I don't think PR is automatically better than FPTP. For example the American electoral system works much better than the British or the Irish systems and it doesn't have PR. Just a thoughtful allocation of chambers to bring about balanced outcomes. I think the presidential system and the division of the House of Representatives and the Senate is clever.

The American elected second chamber is superior to the Seanad (whoever thought limiting elections to university graduates was a good idea!) or the House of Lords.

I also don't buy the assumption that PR is automatically more democratic than FPTP. It is more proportional but it is simply a different way of doing democracy with pros and cons.

What could be a rich way of doing things could be to have different chambers allocated according to different methods to balance eachother out.

The method of elections is really secondary to me. The structure of the chamber's being aligned to fulfil an explicit purpose is much better. I'm not 100% sure on how the US bicamerical system evolved but it is bloody clever in terms of fulfilling a goal.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

No, my focus on Irish politics was to point out that a PR system doesn't automatically bring about a rich political culture. I don't think PR is automatically better than FPTP. For example the American electoral system works much better than the British or the Irish systems and it doesn't have PR. Just a thoughtful allocation of chambers to bring about balanced outcomes. I think the presidential system and the division of the House of Representatives and the Senate is clever.

The American elected second chamber is superior to the Seanad (whoever thought limiting elections to university graduates was a good idea!) or the House of Lords.

I also don't buy the assumption that PR is automatically more democratic than FPTP. It is more proportional but it is simply a different way of doing democracy with pros and cons.

What could be a rich way of doing things could be to have different chambers allocated according to different methods to balance eachother out.

The method of elections is really secondary to me. The structure of the chamber's being aligned to fulfil an explicit purpose is much better. I'm not 100% sure on how the US bicamerical system evolved but it is bloody clever in terms of fulfilling a goal.

Agreed. The American system for all its flaws - Trump being elected with less votes than Clinton - has much better checks and balances even if they can lead to Mexican standoffs.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

For example the American electoral system works much better than the British or the Irish systems ...

:eek:

theological wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure on how the US bicamerical system evolved but it is bloody clever in terms of fulfilling a goal.

It was developed by the British in America, who thought the British in Britain were evolving in the wrong direction (specifically a future direction, whereas the ex-pats wanted to stick with the 1700s; in fact they're still sticking with what worked in the 1700s).

If one believes that a tribal, bi-polar, left-right political system is an appropriate style of government for countries or unions that encompass a huge range of opinions, then yes, the British or American "winner-takes-all" systems are fit for purpose. Personally, I prefer Continental multiculturalism and the PR elections that ensure we get a wide range of nuanced politics.

davedanon

Those American check and balances are sure working out great over the last 3 years.

kalych

American system worked while both party local branches exerted a sufficient amount of independence from the cetralised party apparatus. This meant that the Senate was an effective counter-balance to the power of the president and had bi-partizan initiatives.

Now that the Republican party officials including the senators are terrified of saying a thing wrong about the dear leader their system of checks and balances comes under a great deal of pressure.

That's not to say that any system is perfect. I see issues in American politics as more of a symptom of a division in their society than any system design flaw.

Similarly in Britain and Ireland - it's the division that's testing the systems, not any inherent undemocratic nature of their election systems.

davedanon

FPTP is manifestly unfair, and maintains the two party system, alienating large swathes of the voters whose opinion counts for naught. It goes against the grain of modern European politics, so obviously it's there to stay forever, along with blue passports (made in Croatia)

Professor Moriarty

davedanon wrote: »

Those American check and balances are sure working out great over the last 3 years.

They can do, depending on who is elected to where. A relevant example is that Trump wanted to slash funding for the CDC every year since he was elected but Congress blocked him.

Professor Moriarty

splinter65 wrote: »

See Nissan are investing £400 million in their car plant in Sunderland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/nissan-presses-ahead-with-400m-qashqai-plan-for-sunderland

This must surprise some of the posters here.

It's good news to a degree. However:

Nissan's European chairman Gianluca de Ficchy has repeatedly warned that the company's entire European business could be at risk if the UK and the EU don't do a deal that safeguards frictionless, tariff-free trade across the channel. He repeated the point just last week.

And:

So has the company been crying wolf? Are Mr de Ficchy's public statements just empty threats?

Company insiders insist that's not the case. There's a difference, they say, between current investments that have already been in the pipeline for years and the long-term strategy for the business.

And just because its immediate future seems secure, there's no guarantee the plant will be awarded more business when its current contracts, including the new Qashqai, come to an end.

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

FPTP is manifestly unfair, and maintains the two party system, alienating large swathes of the voters whose opinion counts for naught. It goes against the grain of modern European politics, so obviously it's there to stay forever, along with blue passports (made in Croatia)

And PRSTV is a very good way of electing a committee, which spend the entire term debating rather than doing.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

Forgive me but which parties are right wing in Ireland? I'd regard Fine Gael and Fine Gael as centrist. Hence my comment about no discernible differences. I agree that Sinn Féin are occupying the left. But for decades probably since the foundation of the state elections haven't really been fought tightly on policy grounds. In the UK this happens every election.

In "Irish" terms I think FF/FG would be centre right. FF in particular I think have moved rightward from where they used to be.
I might be telling you things you know, but there was the Progressive Democrats as a more "proper" right wing party as you'd see it from the UK. Still not as right as you'd probably like.
It was there as an option, it got some support for a while and was a coalition partner in governments but it was never very popular. It sort of faded away and kind of people who would have joined it have melted into the right ends of FF/FG (or might be independents).

This society is not as divided as the UK IMO. I think there are more divisions in it than there used to be - hence changes we are really beginning to see in our election results. The politics has been more "bland" as a result. The PR system effectively ensured that because it is intensely local and the candidates cannot survive at all if they don't reflect very well the beliefs and ideas (i.e. ideology) of those who vote for them.
If people across the society generally agree about these "big" ideas and policies then...you get same-iness. So what you see (or used to see) was effect of a consensus rather than lack of choice.

Forgive me but as a foreign observer looking occasionally at UK politics at national level I have struggled to see the high minded policy debates in action. It has often been "feelings"or "leader" driven chases after shifts in whim of floating voters who dgaf about politics really. Same as alot of politics in all democracies I imagine, same here.
The party with the media big guns, money and clever campaigning behind it seems to win. Used to be Blair's New Labour, now the Tories.

I admit that with Brexit (and maybe the shift leftwards from Labour) there has been some real fire and anger in the debate & now deep ideological differences + massive importance riding on the small % difference results in polls. Am unsure if it is a healthy sign (as you might see it) or something like the angry buzz you get out of a motor before it tears itself apart. I hope it spins down for a while now!

edit: didn't really consider the old independence/civil war/national question divsions between the 2 big parties (as opposed to more usual political left-right divisions we think of nowadays) so above is incomplete/superficial.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

No, my focus on Irish politics was to point out that a PR system doesn't automatically bring about a rich political culture. I don't think PR is automatically better than FPTP. For example the American electoral system works much better than the British or the Irish systems and it doesn't have PR. Just a thoughtful allocation of chambers to bring about balanced outcomes. I think the presidential system and the division of the House of Representatives and the Senate is clever.

The American elected second chamber is superior to the Seanad (whoever thought limiting elections to university graduates was a good idea!) or the House of Lords.

I also don't buy the assumption that PR is automatically more democratic than FPTP. It is more proportional but it is simply a different way of doing democracy with pros and cons.

What could be a rich way of doing things could be to have different chambers allocated according to different methods to balance eachother out.

The method of elections is really secondary to me. The structure of the chamber's being aligned to fulfil an explicit purpose is much better. I'm not 100% sure on how the US bicamerical system evolved but it is bloody clever in terms of fulfilling a goal.

The American electoral system is a pitiful joke and a mockery of democracy. You have a system where all but two parties are unviable and now we see socialists and neoliberals in the same party on the American left while social conservatives, warmongers and globalist libertarians occupy the same monolith on the right. Then you have the highest court in the land blatantly being abused for political purposes.

The system came into being as a result of the founding fathers' resentment at having their expansionist tendencies curtailed at the insistence of the English King and Parliament so the system was designed to prevent one man from accruing too much power. This is its one functioning aspect as we've seen it effectively ground the ambitions of the human tumour currently occupying the presidency.

My hackles always get raised when I see people praising this system as if decisive government is coterminous with good government. The constitution seems to offer average Americans a few solid protections regarding free speech but it's an antiquated relic no longer fit for purpose. I'll take the British constitution any day of the week. For example, it enabled Roy Jenkins to legalise abortion in the UK in the 1960's while in the US, the right still try to frustrate women's rights and the Irish only lifted the ban on abortion in 2018.

John Adams wrote:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Spanish Eyes

The Electoral College seems to negate the National Vote.

Explain that to me please.

ancapailldorcha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The Electoral College seems to negate the National Vote.

Explain that to me please.

The three fifiths compromise gave slave owning states seats for three of every five slaves while denying the slaves a vote. It was a way of increasing political capital while denying rights to non-whites.

Spanish Eyes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The three fifiths compromise gave slave owning states seats for three of every five slaves while denying the slaves a vote. It was a way of increasing political capital while denying rights to non-whites.

Thanks. But have no idea what you are saying here regarding the Electoral College.

What is the point of a popular vote, if the Electoral College makes the decision at the end of the day.

ancapailldorcha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks. But have no idea what you are saying here regarding the Electoral College.

What is the point of a popular vote, if the Electoral College makes the decision at the end of the day.

Well, the electoral college is supposed to act as a sort of leveller. California alone has a population of nearly 40 million. This gives it an electorate the equivalent of over 20 smaller states. Without a correctional mechanism, it would wield outsized influence. The US is more of a federation than a republic.

The three fifths compromise was a way to increase the size of smaller, slave owning states while preventing slaves from voting.

Spanish Eyes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, the electoral college is supposed to act as a sort of leveller. California alone has a population of nearly 40 million. This gives it an electorate the equivalent of over 20 smaller states. Without a correctional mechanism, it would wield outsized influence. The US is more of a federation than a republic.

The three fifths compromise was a way to increase the size of smaller, slave owning states while preventing slaves from voting.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Sadly I am none the wiser. I doubt I am alone in that.

Federalism in US is not real is it?

ancapailldorcha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Sadly I am none the wiser. I doubt I am alone in that.

Federalism in US is not real is it?

Each state is semi-autonomous. They have their own governments, courts, etc. It resembles the EU more than a country to be honest.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Each state is semi-autonomous. They have their own governments, courts, etc. It resembles the EU more than a country to be honest.

I wouldn't agree with this assessment. The US is a federal republic in the same way that Germany is. Germany also has state parliaments. I would still say that Germany is a country in the same way that America is.

The EU doesn't claim to be a country. Nor does its parliament have the same sorts of powers that America's has. Being able to introduce legislation is a key difference.

The EU doesn't have a shared national identity or primary language or culture in the same way that America has.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The American electoral system is a pitiful joke and a mockery of democracy. You have a system where all but two parties are unviable and now we see socialists and neoliberals in the same party on the American left while social conservatives, warmongers and globalist libertarians occupy the same monolith on the right. Then you have the highest court in the land blatantly being abused for political purposes.

I'm referring to the electoral system and the structure of the houses on a federal level. I'm not referring to the political parties and actors that participate in it. The structure of American democracy in the balance of the two houses between population and representing the states is much superior to Irish or British systems.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The system came into being as a result of the founding fathers' resentment at having their expansionist tendencies curtailed at the insistence of the English King and Parliament so the system was designed to prevent one man from accruing too much power. This is its one functioning aspect as we've seen it effectively ground the ambitions of the human tumour currently occupying the presidency.

I'm not 100% sure on the history of how the system evolved but if it is the output of the founding fathers then they were geniuses.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My hackles always get raised when I see people praising this system as if decisive government is coterminous with good government. The constitution seems to offer average Americans a few solid protections regarding free speech but it's an antiquated relic no longer fit for purpose. I'll take the British constitution any day of the week. For example, it enabled Roy Jenkins to legalise abortion in the UK in the 1960's while in the US, the right still try to frustrate women's rights and the Irish only lifted the ban on abortion in 2018.

The American constitution is also superior to the Irish one in protecting freedoms. You claim that protecting free speech is antiquated but it couldn't be any more relevant in a world where people are stifling speech more and more. The spirit of the Enlightenment is being eroded in Europe for example in the name of nebulous hate speech laws.

I disagree with you on abortion in that I don't consider it a right and that's all I'll say lest it spiral into a new thread.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The EU doesn't have a shared national identity or primary language or culture in the same way that America has.

This was one of crypto's arguments in an earlier thread, and is utterly ridiculous. The EU (through its constituent nations) has more than 2000 years of shared identity and culture, and anyone who's set foot outside plastic America would know that the concept of a "shared national identity or primary language or culture" is a myth peddled by the European colonial ruling class.

This "single country" definition of America is Europe, and ignores all the influence, diversity and problems created there by our ancestors. Just look at the current presidential line-up: three old white men, one Irish-French Catholic, one Scots-German Presbyterian, one Polish-Russian Jew.

But what were they up to last week? Desperately chasing the African slave vote in the south east, and the Spanish-speakers in the south-west. How can you claim that America has a single language or culture when there are whole sections of just about every major city where the people have yellow skin, slitty eyes and use a pictogram alphabet?

As ancapailldorcha has outlined above, the current US electoral process was set up at the founding of the Union by a bunch of rich white English businessmen to make sure that they held onto power for as long as possible, rigging the system to make sure that it represented their interests (as defined by their estates) before the immigrants started getting notions.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

The EU doesn't have a shared national identity or primary language or culture in the same way that America has.

I never said that it did.

theological wrote: »

I'm referring to the electoral system and the structure of the houses on a federal level. I'm not referring to the political parties and actors that participate in it. The structure of American democracy in the balance of the two houses between population and representing the states is much superior to Irish or British systems.

The structure of the system created those parties so therefore it isn't.

theological wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure on the history of how the system evolved but if it is the output of the founding fathers then they were geniuses.

They weren't. They were slaveholders who didn't want to continue answering to the British crown.

theological wrote: »

The American constitution is also superior to the Irish one in protecting freedoms. You claim that protecting free speech is antiquated but it couldn't be any more relevant in a world where people are stifling speech more and more. The spirit of the Enlightenment is being eroded in Europe for example in the name of nebulous hate speech laws.

I disagree with you on abortion in that I don't consider it a right and that's all I'll say lest it spiral into a new thread.

It's a little early on a Sunday to be making up things that I did not actually say, no?

davedanon

Ah, the old 'hate speech laws are stifling free speech' nonsense.


And thankfully, men like you lost the argument over abortion.


And it won't 'spiral into a new thread', don't worry. You lost that argument.

eagle eye

davedanon wrote:

Ah, the old 'hate speech laws are stifling free speech' nonsense.

davedanon wrote:

And thankfully, men like you lost the argument over abortion.

These have nothing to do with each other.

davedanon

eagle eye wrote: »

These have nothing to do with each other.

Wow, nothing gets past you, does it? No they are not, apart from being indicative of a certain mindset, perhaps.

But as I never said they were 'anything to do with each other', apart from both being in the same poster's post, the point is moot.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The structure of the system created those parties so therefore it isn't.

At least there is an ideological left right divide in America also. This is superior to the Fine Gael / Fianna Fáil no discernible difference scenario.

It's what I like about the British system also. The parties have a discernible ideological platform.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They weren't. They were slaveholders who didn't want to continue answering to the British crown.

In a nuanced discussion one can still praise the electoral system of the US and still criticise the slave trade. They aren't mutually exclusive.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a little early on a Sunday to be making up things that I did not actually say, no?

If I misquoted you it was unintentional. Feel free to flesh out your position a bit more. I'd lean towards agreeing with you on the 2nd amendment but the American constitution and declaration of independence are excellent documents which are superior to any I've seen in Europe. The Enlightenment still has a tangible influence in it when its influence is being eroded in Europe.

fly_agaric wrote: »

In "Irish" terms I think FF/FG would be centre right. FF in particular I think have moved rightward from where they used to be.
I might be telling you things you know, but there was the Progressive Democrats as a more "proper" right wing party as you'd see it from the UK. Still not as right as you'd probably like.
It was there as an option, it got some support for a while and was a coalition partner in governments but it was never very popular. It sort of faded away and kind of people who would have joined it have melted into the right ends of FF/FG (or might be independents).

I'm Irish and I'm familiar with the Irish political system thanks. I still think the political system isn't based on ideological lines. The Sinn Féin effect will hopefully sort this out.

A system without a genuine left right divide is not a healthy one in my view.

fly_agaric wrote: »

This society is not as divided as the UK IMO. I think there are more divisions in it than there used to be - hence changes we are really beginning to see in our election results. The politics has been more "bland" as a result. The PR system effectively ensured that because it is intensely local and the candidates cannot survive at all if they don't reflect very well the beliefs and ideas (i.e. ideology) of those who vote for them.
If people across the society generally agree about these "big" ideas and policies then...you get same-iness. So what you see (or used to see) was effect of a consensus rather than lack of choice.

I disagree. People can only vote according to the options they have before them. There is a lack of choice in Irish politics.

I agree that society is less divided but this doesn't justify a lack of choice.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I admit that with Brexit (and maybe the shift leftwards from Labour) there has been some real fire and anger in the debate & now deep ideological differences + massive importance riding on the small % difference results in polls. Am unsure if it is a healthy sign (as you might see it) or something like the angry buzz you get out of a motor before it tears itself apart. I hope it spins down for a while now!

The engagement in politics in Britain in the lead up to the 2016 referendum and afterwards is a healthy development. I hope it continues as people take ownership of what to do next.

fly_agaric wrote: »

edit: didn't really consider the old independence/civil war/national question divsions between the 2 big parties (as opposed to more usual political left-right divisions we think of nowadays) so above is incomplete/superficial.

The civil war is outdated as a basis for politics in Ireland. It has nothing to offer to the real questions facing real people. I suspect this is what is causing the SF support.

I can't think of any genuine ideological differences between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil other than this. Maybe you can help me out?

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

At least there is an ideological left right divide in America also. This is superior to the Fine Gael / Fianna Fáil no discernible difference scenario.

FG/FF are not the only parties in Ireland. The Irish people have a much wider choice than do the Americans. Perhaps not moreso than the British who can vote Green, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Brexit party.

theological wrote: »

It's what I like about the British system also. The parties have a discernible ideological platform.

The British system is better than the American one IMO though I think it should be more proportional.

theological wrote: »

In a nuanced discussion one can still praise the electoral system of the US and still criticise the slave trade. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I never said they were. I do find it odd that a document that you describe as created by "geniuses" didn't abolish it though.

theological wrote: »

If I misquoted you it was unintentional. Feel free to flesh out your position a bit more. I'd lean towards agreeing with you on the 2nd amendment but the American constitution and declaration of independence are excellent documents which are superior to any I've seen in Europe. The Enlightenment still has a tangible influence in it when its influence is being eroded in Europe.

The US system has resulted in the agglomeration of power to two heavily corrupt and elitist parties. I see no genuine choice here. Do you think Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should be in the same party?

The constitution of the US was certainly exceptional for the times in which it was created but I believe that it needs serious reform. I'm not sure about the second but it seems to offer the average US citizen very little real protection beyond the first amendment. The US incarcerates more of its population than any other developed nation, frivolous lawsuits abound and medical bills are the primary source of bankruptcies. I see nothing to admire about the US system in the present day given that most countries have institutions to keep government in check.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FG/FF are not the only parties in Ireland. The Irish people have a much wider choice than do the Americans. Perhaps not moreso than the British who can vote Green, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Brexit party.

The number of parties doesn't seem to bring genuine ideological diversity to Irish politics. As I said already there is no genuine left right divide which is helpful for adversarial politics. Without being too tongue in cheek I could genuinely say there's more ideological diversity in the American system than the Irish one.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The British system is better than the American one IMO though I think it should be more proportional.

In terms of the political actors yes. In terms of the electoral system the American one is superior. The division and the structure of the House of Representatives and the Senate for dealing with representing the regions vs representing the population is truly genius as is the the electoral college for presidential elections.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The US system has resulted in the agglomeration of power to two heavily corrupt and elitist parties. I see no genuine choice here. Do you think Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should be in the same party?

You're mixing up the distinction between the electoral system (which is genius) and the political actors that work in it (perhaps not as genius).