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

Tea Shock

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.

California has 12% of the US population.
It also has 10.25% of electoral college votes
That's not much of a leveler

In fact, it's worse than a leveler seeing as one party gets 100% of the electors from all states (abr 2) regardless of how close the result was.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

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.

That's frankly ridiculous. Which of two corporate backed-parties do you want is not a choice at all.

theological wrote: »

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.

The electoral college was built to enhance the status of slaveowning states. Hardly genius.

theological wrote: »

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).

The constitution is the heart of the system so it's a fair point.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's frankly ridiculous. Which of two corporate backed-parties do you want is not a choice at all.

The electoral college was built to enhance the status of slaveowning states. Hardly genius.

The constitution is the heart of the system so it's a fair point.

It seems like you're not really responding to what I'm saying.

The reason why I'm saying both the electoral college and the division of houses is a good thing is because it balances representation of all states with representation of population. Both Ireland and Britain could learn lessons from this.

eagle eye

davedanon wrote:

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

You seem to siggest that if a person is in favour of free speech that they're automatically anti-abortion, racist and homophobic.
I'm in favour of free speech, the reason why am is that I believe that if people can speak their minds then we can have a conversation about it and there's less chance of violence.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

At least there is an ideological left right divide in America also.

What is so appealing about a "left right divide"? Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the electorate is composed of simpletons who could not possibly be expected to have a complex opinion on anything. Well, if a political system is designed to exaggerate and exploit such a simplistic approach, then it will result in the very division and breakdown of the democratic process that we're seeing in both Britain and the US.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

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.

Ok. Most of the Brexit supporters on the thread have been from the UK originally even if living here now (or claiming to).
I disagree with you about it being unhealthy.
It certainly can be, but to restate if there's high degree of consensus across society about the usual "left-right" policy divisions, a democratic political system very accurately reflecting the peoples' views should also reflect this consensus.
I'm referring more to the political past in Ireland here, but it seems like you want to "dissolve the people and elect a new one" because they did not care about what you think is vital (left-right ideological divide).
I don't really like FF/FG much, so I am also happy to see that there is a shifting of support to other options.

theological wrote: »

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.

True, but even though the 2 main parties have been constant there has been far more turnover at the fringes (supported by odd ducks who did not like either FF/FG) than in the UK. These parties have entered coalition governments regularly with one or other of the big 2.
PR + the very local system here is very responsive.
If the 2 main parties were not providing what people wanted they'd have been gone years ago but it is only now that a large enough chunk of electorate are casting about for something else so we've seen the Greens, Labour, SF, independents etc all variously gaining share at their expense over last 3 elections.
What people who are fed up with "FF/FG" seem to want as an alternative is not really the right wing or its' ideas. I understand that is a bit disconcerting & smacks of someone somewhere somehow being disenfrachised if you support the Tory party in the UK and are a Brexiter (and are perhaps comparing the Tories to Irelands' political menu options).

theological wrote: »

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?

Agree totally. The differences between FF/FG (IMO) are very slight now and the history is almost irrelevant.

I wrote something about the "shadings" of difference that do still exist between them (and flare up every so often)...then decided why bore you again, so deleted it!
You could take most TDs and make them do a "trading places" on party alliegance and they'd still be comfortable enough I think apart from some outliers.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

It seems like you're not really responding to what I'm saying.

The reason why I'm saying both the electoral college and the division of houses is a good thing is because it balances representation of all states with representation of population. Both Ireland and Britain could learn lessons from this.

I disagree. The US began as a growing federation of autonomous states. Countries in Europe have been that way for centuries. It's not a valid comparison.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

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).

I don't understand more than the rudiments of the US system of government (culminating in the choice of President) but approaching it as a "black box" that gets tested & spits out results it is failing.
Maybe the clockwork is very balanced and clever in there but something is out of whack somewhere.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

What is so appealing about a "left right divide"? Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the electorate is composed of simpletons who could not possibly be expected to have a complex opinion on anything. Well, if a political system is designed to exaggerate and exploit such a simplistic approach, then it will result in the very division and breakdown of the democratic process that we're seeing in both Britain and the US.

Adversarial politics with a broad range of ideas often conflicting produces a political environment where broad ideas are discussed and the best often rise to the top.

Ireland's politics isn't complex. Most people in the chamber have traditionally agreed on plenty without much variance due to both main parties lacking much difference on policy.

A political system with genuine diversity of opinion is better than a political system with little. That requires a political representation with a broad sweep from left to right in the chamber.

The UK actually has this and has had it for decades despite having a first past the post electoral system. Ireland is potentially just beginning to have this after nearly 100 years of the state.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Ok. Most of the Brexit supporters on the thread have been from the UK originally even if living here now (or claiming to).
I disagree with you about it being unhealthy.
It certainly can be, but to restate if there's high degree of consensus across society about the usual "left-right" policy divisions, a democratic political system very accurately reflecting the peoples' views should also reflect this consensus.
I'm referring more to the political past in Ireland here, but it seems like you want to "dissolve the people and elect a new one" because they did not care about what you think is vital (left-right ideological divide).
I don't really like FF/FG much, so I am also happy to see that there is a shifting of support to other options.

I haven't suggested dissolving anything. I'm just saying that political choice in Ireland sucks. I don't agree that there is a lack of choice because of "consensus". There is a lack of choice because the political culture is not aligned on a left to right axis. Civil war politics does nobody in Ireland a favour. This is why Sinn Féin are on the rise. The issues that affect people's lives are not being dealt with. Largely due to a lack of ideological diversity and difference within the chamber and within the political establishment.

fly_agaric wrote: »

True, but even though the 2 main parties have been constant there has been far more turnover at the fringes (supported by odd ducks who did not like either FF/FG) than in the UK. These parties have entered coalition governments regularly with one or other of the big 2.
PR + the very local system here is very responsive.
If the 2 main parties were not providing what people wanted they'd have been gone years ago but it is only now that a large enough chunk of electorate are casting about for something else so we've seen the Greens, Labour, SF, independents etc all variously gaining share at their expense over last 3 elections.
What people who are fed up with "FF/FG" seem to want as an alternative is not really the right wing or its' ideas. I understand that is a bit disconcerting & smacks of someone somewhere somehow being disenfrachised if you support the Tory party in the UK and are a Brexiter (and are perhaps comparing the Tories to Irelands' political menu options).

The fringe are almost entirely left wing parties that make little difference. Coalitions are broadly determined by the biggest partner and the parties that go into them are usually punished by the electorate because inevitably they let their supporters down by being compromised by the main party.

As for me. I'm very thankful to be in a political system where my politics are representative. I'm a conservative and I'm economically largely in support of a free market and capitalism.

I possibly could have voted for Blair's Labour party but I couldn't vote for the current form in a billion years.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't understand more than the rudiments of the US system of government (culminating in the choice of President) but approaching it as a "black box" that gets tested & spits out results it is failing.
Maybe the clockwork is very balanced and clever in there but something is out of whack somewhere.

I suspect you and ancapailldorcha are simply criticising the system because you don't like the results of how Americans are voting.

A system like the American bicamerical system could have huge benefits for Britain. The House of Lords in that system could be more weighted to the regions outside the South East and provide a useful tension between the House of Commons based on population and stop London centric politics. Some on a more liberal spectrum may dislike that because of its results but it could give stronger voices to the North of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

I haven't suggested dissolving anything. I'm just saying that political choice in Ireland sucks. I don't agree that there is a lack of choice because of "consensus". There is a lack of choice because the political culture is not aligned on a left to right axis. Civil war politics does nobody in Ireland a favour. This is why Sinn Féin are on the rise. The issues that affect people's lives are not being dealt with. Largely due to a lack of ideological diversity and difference within the chamber and within the political establishment.

As I said, you personally have right wing beliefs and support the Tories...maybe think the GOP in the US are attractive too.
There is no popular right wing option like that here so your conclusion is that something is wrong/disenfranchisement is occurring...rather than Irish people don't want it in great enough numbers.
People who vote for SF because they have become disillusioned with FF/FG are not, IMO, at present going to turn to Irexit Freedom Party with a bigger funding budget or whatever you think it is we need to be backing in numbers to have the ideological diversity you crave.
Anyway, will stop there as I'm probably repeating myself and we don't see eye to eye.

theological wrote: »

The fringe are almost entirely left wing parties that make little difference.

Yes they are all left. As I said before, one which was in government several times in the past was right wing so it is noit impossible.
They do flavour the coalitions they are in and get some policies implemented but of course their effect is limited if their FF/FG partner has 4 - 10 times as many TDs as they do. I think people (incl. their supporters) are sometimes unfairly critical and purist afterwards about how they have handled being in coalition government with the bigger parties.

theological wrote: »

I suspect you and ancapailldorcha are simply criticising the system because you don't like the results of how Americans are voting.

Yes, I don't speak for ancapailldorcha but I was criticising it purely for the outcome it is producing.
I'm sure the mechanics that you find attractive are not the main problem. I don't know if the 2 parties ever allowed any candidate quite as unsuited as Trump get near the big job before let alone hold it!

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Adversarial politics with a broad range of ideas often conflicting produces a political environment where broad ideas are discussed and the best often rise to the top.

Nope. Adversarial politics creates an environment where anyone who doesn't think like you is an adversary, someone to be beaten. There is no room for compromise in adversarial politics, because any compromise is seen as a sign of weakness, and very often the "best" ideas are buried by the next administration - just look at the amount of time and effort Trump has spent undoing Obama era regluations.

It is just as easy to have a broad range of ideas in a political environment based on consensus, but with the huge advantage of being able to draw support for good ideas from a wider base - people with whom you might have a serious difference of opinion on some topics, but be in alignment on others.

Brexit is the perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with adversarial politics: on the one hand, you have 27 states that are used to working together (which includes episodes of heated debate) who have successfully maintained a coherent negotiating stance for four years; and on the other, your heroic bipolar statesmen - born and reared in the adversarial tradition - who can't even agree amongst themselves as to what course of action they want to take, let alone decide what's best for the country.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I suspect you and ancapailldorcha are simply criticising the system because you don't like the results of how Americans are voting.

Most Americans voted Democrat in 2016 so that just makes no sense.

Britain has a similarly unrepresentative system that delivered a result I didn't want last year but I've been consistently criticising it for years.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. Adversarial politics creates an environment where anyone who doesn't think like you is an adversary, someone to be beaten. There is no room for compromise in adversarial politics, because any compromise is seen as a sign of weakness, and very often the "best" ideas are buried by the next administration - just look at the amount of time and effort Trump has spent undoing Obama era regluations.

It is just as easy to have a broad range of ideas in a political environment based on consensus, but with the huge advantage of being able to draw support for good ideas from a wider base - people with whom you might have a serious difference of opinion on some topics, but be in alignment on others.

Brexit is the perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with adversarial politics: on the one hand, you have 27 states that are used to working together (which includes episodes of heated debate) who have successfully maintained a coherent negotiating stance for four years; and on the other, your heroic bipolar statesmen - born and reared in the adversarial tradition - who can't even agree amongst themselves as to what course of action they want to take, let alone decide what's best for the country.

Do you genuinely think there are broad ideas in Irish politics? I honestly don't. The emergence of SF might produce this but between the two (former) main parties? Little to none. To the point that people cannot explain the difference clearly and one poster said their TDs could change to the other party without much impact.

There's more ideological diversity in the House of Commons than there is in the Dáil. Largely because of politics aligned on a left right axis.

To your point on Brexit. The problem of the parliament disagreeing with the public was resolved in December's election and the UK has exited the EU. Having a strong government means that the shenanigans of the last 3 and a half years hopefully won't repeat.

I agree with some posters that the UK needs to settle the place of referenda in its constitution. Either referenda are legally binding or they aren't part of the system at all. I think direct democracy is a good thing but the system must be designed around it.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

To your point on Brexit. The problem of the parliament disagreeing with the public was resolved in December's election and the UK has exited the EU. Having a strong government means that the shenanigans of the last 3 and a half years hopefully won't repeat.

The problem, if anything, was the opposite; the House of Commons too accurately representing the division and diversity of opinions about Brexit within the UK. We saw that with the indicative votes where there was literally no model of Brexit that could command more support than opposition; nor could Remain. And all the opinion polls suggest that that was an accurate reflection of public opinion. The only people who thought that it wasn’t were those who favoured some particular model of Brexit, or who favoured Remain, who believed that there was majority public support for a course of action which, by an amazing coincidence, was the one that they themselves favoured.

But, yes, the UK doesn’t have that problem now. A majority of the public may have voted against Johnson, but he has a free hand to do what he will. He will face no signficant obstacle in the House of Commons, regardless of what he does. The question of whether the public agrees with whatever he does will not arise at all.

Which, ironically, is not an umixed blessing for him, for two reasons. First, in whatever negotiations he engages with the EU, the US or anyone else, he does not have the tactical possiblity of saying to the other side “sorry, I see why you want that but, honestly, I’d never get it approved by the Commons”. Nobody will believe him if he tries this line, which is often a very useful line for disarming an opponent and getting them to move on from a position that you find inconvenient. Secondly, anything that goes wrong with Brexit or the US trade deal or anything else will clearly be down to Johnson, since he is in complete control of the UK’s position.

theological wrote: »

I agree with some posters that the UK needs to settle the place of referenda in its constitution. Either referenda are legally binding or they aren't part of the system at all. I think direct democracy is a good thing but the system must be designed around it.

I wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility of retaining non-binding referendums. We don’t have them in Ireland but, carefully and properly used, they have been beneficial in the UK in the past. They have worked well in other Westminister-style democracies, too.

It’s hard to see how Brexit would have played out if the only option open had been a binding referendum. To hold a binding referendum Parliament would need to pass an Act to leave the EU, but with a clause to the effect that the Act would not take effect unless approved by a majority in a referendum. And I see two difficulties there.

Firstly, Parliament would not pass such an Act unless there was a majority in Parliament for leaving. Which, as we know, at the time the 2016 referendum was called, there was not. So under this system there probably would have been no referendum at all. As someone who things Brexit is a fundamentally bad idea, I'd be quite happy with that, but presumably a support of Brexit would not.

Secondly, it would require Parliament to legislate to leave the EU before they could know on what terms leaving would be effected, and what the consequences for the UK would be. And it would require the public to vote to approve or withhold approval in the same condition of ignorance. Of course, to a large extent that’s what happened anyway, but I think most people would agree that, whether or not it is a good idea, Brexit has been astonishingly badly implemented on the UK side. And a system under which that is only way in which such a project could be implemented is probably not a good one.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Do you genuinely think there are broad ideas in Irish politics? I honestly don't. The emergence of SF might produce this but between the two (former) main parties? Little to none.

Yes, I do genuinely think there are broad ideas in Irish politics - because these ideas are first and foremost held by the electorate. And that is the very reason why the country as a whole has, over many decades, consistently elected a centrist government, usually backed up by a motley collection of smaller parties and independents - the very personification of those broad ideas.

The rise of Sinn Féin in the last election would appear to be almost entirely due to the electorate's discontent in relation to housing and healthcare, two of the thorniest political potatoes in every country (see NHS/Brexit-bus, US/Medicare, etc). I happen to think that most of that arises directly from the Irish electorate's peculiar obsession with semi-D's and a persistent refusal to accept that they themselves are the main cause of both problems (stupidly engaging in house-price bidding-wars, and packing A&E with patients suffering from neither A's nor E's ... but those are two whole threads in themselves)

The real measure of good governance in Ireland is the fact that very little legislation is rolled back by the succeeding administration, unlike what we've seen in France (until now), the US and the UK.

theological wrote: »

To your point on Brexit. The problem of the parliament disagreeing with the public was resolved in December's election and the UK has exited the EU. Having a strong government means that the shenanigans of the last 3 and a half years hopefully won't repeat.

As Peregrinus says above, the previous parliament was an accurate reflection of a Kingdom at odds with itself. The Johnson-Cummings administration might now have the (not very democratic) mandate to deliver a hard and fast Brexit - although perhaps not as oven-ready as claimed - but the fundamental problem of "Brexit" remains: it's still a vague and undefined concept, not supported by half the electorate and rejected by half the constituent nations of the Kingdom.

davedanon

Meanwhile, in actual Brexit news, the UK continues to fire bullets into its own feet. Now this madness...

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1236932243161038848

"Logistics/Freight/Ports/Shipping all FURIOUS & BAFFLED after govt tells them it won’t seek waiver on EU Safety & Security Border declarations. #Brexit red tape bonanza dead ahead."

I wanted to read that article so much, I did some Googling and made a little script to get past the Telegraph's paywall. They load the entire article and then delete it so you just have to load it without any JS and replace the page. You can achieve the same result by open F12, going to options, and disabling javascript, so I don't think it's unethical. Or you can just right click the page and click View Source.

Create a bookmark, add the code below as the link, and when you're on the Telegraph, click it and the article will appear. It will break most site functionality so it's just for reading. I've tested this for at least three minutes so I'm 100% sure it's perfect.

javascript:var getHTML%3Dfunction(b%2Cc)%7Bif(window.XMLHttpRequest)%7Bvar a%3Dnew XMLHttpRequest%3Ba.onload%3Dfunction()%7Bc%26%26"function"%3D%3D%3Dtypeof c%26%26c(this.responseXML)%7D%3Ba.open("GET"%2Cb)%3Ba.responseType%3D"document"%3Ba.send()%7D%7D%3BgetHTML(window.location%2Cfunction(b)%7Bdocument.documentElement.innerHTML%3Db.documentElement.innerHTML%7D)%3Bvoid+0

If you're worried about random code, here is the original code and a website you can use to make the bookmark.
https://www.yourjs.com/bookmarklet/

var getHTML = function ( url, callback ) {
	if ( !window.XMLHttpRequest ) return;
	var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
	xhr.onload = function() {
		if ( callback && typeof( callback ) === 'function' ) {
			callback( this.responseXML );
		}
	}
	xhr.open( 'GET', url );
	xhr.responseType = 'document';
	xhr.send();
};
getHTML(window.location, function (response) {
	document.documentElement.innerHTML = response.documentElement.innerHTML;
});

As for whatever the heck the UK are doing, it's bonkers to me.



Edit: It works for the New York Times as well.

I miss the banter, crypto and kid. Regale us with Johnson's latest exploits.

davedanon

Deleted User wrote: »

I miss the banter, crypto and kid. Regale us with Johnson's latest exploits.

Yes, they are incessantly and infuriatingly wrong about ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

But marvellous entertainment. What keeps me coming back here.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I miss the banter, crypto and kid. Regale us with Johnson's latest exploits.

Banter? It was all just about how great Brexit is, how weak the EU is and desperately refusing to address the inherent contradiction of how buccaneering global Britain can be bullied by so weak an organisation.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Banter? It was all just about how great Brexit is, how weak the EU is and desperately refusing to address the inherent contradiction of how buccaneering global Britain can be bullied by so weak an organisation.

Exactly.. It's amazing. We should mod crypto for the craic so he can't get banned.

davedanon

"The EU folding like a cheap tent"

wonderful stuff.

davedanon

And not strictly Brexit related, but apparently the UK's coronavirus policy is being directed by Dominic Cummings, who's read a book or two about behavioural economics. Hence Boris' "maybe the best thing is just to....take it on the chin" nonsense.

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1237282270685380613?s=20


"The UK government—Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson—claim they are following the science. But that is not true. The evidence is clear. We need urgent implementation of social distancing and closure policies. The government is playing roulette with the public. This is a major error"

OTOH, it might make the difference between Leeds getting promoted or not.

theological

The government have done a pretty good job with the coronavirus from my standpoint. Many businesses are already implementing work from home policies so that a lot of people are no longer commuting into cities unnecessarily. It is about using the right measures at the right time. There's no point causing unfounded panic about this. The Chief Medical Officer is in agreement with the government's strategy so far.

The chancellor's steps in the budget are also moves in the right direction.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

The government have done a pretty good job with the coronavirus from my standpoint. Many businesses are already implementing work from home policies so that a lot of people are no longer commuting into cities unnecessarily. It is about using the right measures at the right time. There's no point causing unfounded panic about this. The Chief Medical Officer is in agreement with the government's strategy so far.

Who here is causing panic?

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who here is causing panic?

The policies in a lot of other countries are. It is important not to pull the gun too soon on extreme measures. I think the government have been doing a good job at listening to the medical authorities to determine what is appropriate.

The previous poster criticised this approach.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

The policies in a lot of other countries are. It is important not to pull the gun too soon on extreme measures. I think the government have been doing a good job at listening to the medical authorities to determine what is appropriate.

The previous poster criticised this approach.

Did you miss my post where I quoted The Lancet saying that govt. policy was being dictated by an unelected ideologue with no medical expertise, and that this wasn't a good thing?

davedanon

theological wrote: »

The policies in a lot of other countries are.

Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

theological

davedanon wrote: »

Did you miss my post where I quoted The Lancet saying that govt. policy was being dictated by an unelected ideologue with no medical expertise, and that this wasn't a good thing?

I saw it, but it is disinformation to say the Government aren't working with medical professionals. The Chief Medical Officer and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer have actually advised against drastic action at this stage.

davedanon wrote: »

Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

For example banning everyone from travelling to particular countries is extreme. Forcibly closing businesses and schools might also be extreme at this stage.

What is essential is that the government follows medical advice which it is doing.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

The policies in a lot of other countries are. It is important not to pull the gun too soon on extreme measures. I think the government have been doing a good job at listening to the medical authorities to determine what is appropriate.

The previous poster criticised this approach.

Oddly enough, I'm inclined to agree. Everything seems to be running as smoothly though there's a rumor at work that we're getting shut down for a while next week.