Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[suboptimal]

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

Trump was elected by a popular vote minority, so I'm not so sure your assertion is even close to being accurate.

I am fairly sure our American forum members will have to say a word or two about that   , but my 2 cents are: I agree with you that it is problematic if a President can be elected with a minority of the popular vote and it would be better if the Electoral College was abolished. Still, for me that does not mean the whole political system in the US is dysfunctional.

The Electoral College has shown itself to be a very flawed but good-intentioned election mechanism. Winning an election with a minority popular vote usually makes people very disgruntled with the system, but then the next election rolls around, the winning candidate also captures a majority vote and everyone quiets back down for a few years.

Abolishing the Electoral College is a political non-starter - the Constitution amendment process is too arduous and politics too fractured to do so.  It is fixable without having to go through the constitutional amendment process, though.  The individual states just have to adopt a proportional assignment method (Maine and Nebraska already do this). However, given how the more "influential" states probably do not want to cede their perceived importance they won't change and the federal government can't make them.

The political system at the national level is in the process of breaking, imho, as the two major parties seem to have forgetten how to negotiate and prefer to adopt a "we're not them" strategy.  Indeed, negotiating is actually considered a weakness and a liability in some corners of the GOP.  State-level governments seem to be more functional despite the differences in the national parties.  At the local level many municipalities (at least in my neck of the woods) do not permit the political parties to run/sponsor candidates.

[Mardoc]

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

Trump was elected by a popular vote minority, so I'm not so sure your assertion is even close to being accurate.

Doesn't matter in the sense I meant, because trump is just one of the hurdles to lawmaking. The whole point is that no single election decides policy, inertia wins.

He can't do much of his agenda except for those pieces that also have support in the house and Senate...note how little change we have to our immigration laws and Wall. Note also that Obamacare is still mostly intact.

[Grotsnot]

The bit about the WTO rules is actually a separate discussion, and it's aimed at Ireland. the EU can do what it wants, but Varadkar and RoI get to choose what treaty they break. That's the decision, and as much as people can want to and continue to try to blame the UK, that is still Varadkars decision and no one elses.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

[Bacchus]

As for norms, from the top of my hat:

Thanks for the writeup.  The common thread is quality of some kind or another; if lower quality items or processes exist in the same zone of free trade, it's a race to the bottom where bad money drives out good.

Do Brexiters think that applies within the EU, that Britain's standards are higher than in some significant proportion of the EU?  Or that the EU is perceived to act as a gateway for trade from polities that lack those standards of oversight?  Or some of both?

The common Brexiteer thought is that EU standards have long gone out of control, and are no longer reflective of any genuine concern, e.g the infamous straight banana ruling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissi...o._2257/94

[Krill]

• - After the referendum, May did not want to be the bearer of the bad news that a hard Brexit would include substantial disadvantages for the UK
  
  
• - - May decided to cater to the Brexit wing of her own party. According to the analysis I read, EU diplomats were shocked at first when May made her position clear, because everyone expected her to promote a more moderate solution
  
  
• - - I will have to respectfully disagree with your notion that there were only 2 possible alternatives. There have been discussions about a different model, such as Norway or Switzerland in this thread. You personally might find these unacceptable, but I think these are still valid alternatives that could have been negotiated with the EU and are less harsh then the current deal.
  Then again, even after a Brexit there will be further negotiations and we will have to see what future trade relations actually look like, because it's probably neither advantageous for the EU nor the UK to keep trading according to WTO rules with tariffs.
  
  
• - - As I have written before, I find it close to disingenious by politicians to work for a hard brexit and 2 years later act suprised and complain about the temporary backstop, when it was immediately clear that the RoI-NI border would be a major issue. I can at least respect May for accepting the backstop in her deal.
  
  
• - - As I have also stated before, I still think it was a mistake not to try to form a majority across party lines and maybe also try to unite the British public more when dealing with such an important divisive issue. If I recall correctly, when May's deal failed in parliament, there were news that Brexiteers and Remainers both where celebrating, which does not seem very inspiring to me.

So at the very least May failed to convince parliament of her plan (so far). I do not know the current approval numbers for her EU deal with the public, it would be interesting to know if a majority of people in the UK currently support the May-EU deal.

• Whilst this is one interpretation of it, and not one I'm disagreeing with, I don't think it would have mattered, or been listened to, if she had said it. At least by the general population that had been warned a leave vote would have led to an immediate end of the world. What I think would have happened is that there would have been open warfare right away with the ERG. There was a period of a few weeks between Cameron resigning as Tory leader, and May be elected after other opportunists entered and then resigned from the race for leader. Don't forget that at this point May had a majority, but losing the ERG would have put her 30 seats under the amount necessary to pass the bill that allowed article 50 to be invoked. She had no mandate, so she probably was considering how to call a general election.
  
  
  
• That the EU diplomats were shocked shows their lack of understanding, rather than anything being "wrong".
  
  
  
• Could they be negotiated? Yes. Could they have passed parliament after the 2017 general election? No fucking chance. Regardless of what I believe, or I want, to happen from Brexit, there has never been a parliamentary majority that has been able to support these options, because of the sovereignty issue. I'm interested and horrified by the prospect of how negotiations would continue if the UK leaves with No Deal. No divorce payment, and I'm not aware of what the legal recourse is: the UK would not be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, so with that amount of money at the forefront of the arguments I'm not seeing anyone being happy.
  
  
  
• The backstop, as it currently stands, is permanent. That's the problem. If it were only temporary the withdrawal agreement would have been passed by now. The UK goes from having a legal and democratic right to leave the EU, to...not. And no say in any political discussions either. It's not disingenuous to refuse to accept that.
  
  
  
• I direct you to these posts from a week ago:
  
  

  Corbyn is screwed. He can't retreat to unilateral revoke because of the manifesto, he can't embrace no deal, he can't negotiate with the Eu to get whatever deal he wants, and he can't force an extension (whether one happens or not is irrelevant, it will not be because of him).
  
  May is kinda screwed, but if she expects to step down in the summer it doesn't matter. Even if there were an extension, Parliament can only state what it wants the government to attempt to gain, but it can't state what it will be willing to give as that is royal perogative granted to the Government, not to parliament. So even if the EU gives an extension, it doesn't change the EU position of "Fuck you, this is the deal, you accept it as is" being the core agreement. I seriously doubt the EU grants an extension.
  
  I reckon the inanely named "independent group" will propose an amendment revoking Article 50 after a failure to extend occurs, and basically says to all the MPs: "Vote with us to revoke Article 50, renounce the whip of your parties (SNP and LD will vote with them but not renounce the whip) and as we need a majority for this anyway, let's go for a coalition government until the end of this parliament so we have time to build up a network for the next GE so we aren't all out of a job at the end of this". And if the EU believes this can happen, they have no reason to extend.
  
  This isn't just May's gamble anymore. If there are too many remainers in the Tory party, they will split the group themselves, and the rump of the Tory party becomes UKIP.

  
  

  Yeah, it's a full blown constitutional crisis and I don't think the party system will be left standing. But then, there is hardly anyone on the scene who could pick up the pieces, not even some Petyr Baelish-like figure doing it all out of manipulative self-interest.
  
  Double referendum just made sense, and no-one actually forced May to keep perpetrating this idiotic 'largest democratic excercise in history' trope and keep digging herself further into a hole. I think Corbyn will come around to revoke, its not that hard for him, he can credibly say that support for leave was predicated on the Government demonstrating at least some kind of functionality in its negotiations, the commitment never was 'leave at all costs'.
  
  Also, I dont know how no-one has yet come up with the line that the referendum result was fulfillled the day Article 50 was invoked. This is done, there is nothing else to deliver on it, the popular vote did not concern what the deal should look like, what's acceptable and what's unacceptable, and how should the consequences of revocation be dealt with, should they, for whatever reason, get out of hand.

  
  

  The first person that argues that the referendum result was fulfilled by simply invoking Article 50 will get crucified by anyone who voted Leave and doesn't care or understand about the consequences. Which is, unfortunately, pretty much everyone in a deprived area of the UK that voted leave. I think the only person that could argue that would be a remainer Tory, who was always a remainer and not some numpty like May or Boris, that leaves to join the new party. And they'd have to have an awesomely smug antipathy towards the general population if the believed they could do that and still get elected again.
  
  Maybe Ken Clarke could make that argument, and he wouldn't give a fuck about the consequences. Actually, he'd be a decent choice for leader in those circumstances, because no way can anyone believe he has any motive except to keep the UK upright after a unilateral revokation and then he'd step down at the next GE anyway given his age and previous experiences, so he wouldn't have to worry about how he came across.

  
  tl;dr: both sides put party before country, but given both sides (Leave v Remain, not Labour v Tory) need a simple majority in the HoC, the Tories and May had a way to build that consensus without reaching across party lines. That's what is possibly leading to a break down in party politics and might still lead to a unilateral revocation of Article 50.
  
  And right now, asMay has a deal, and people know what they are voting for, she is reaching across party lines to get the votes she needs. It would have been impossible to do that 2 years ago when no one knew what would happen through the negotiation[i]. And she [i]did reach across party lines to the weirdos in the DUP to build a functioning government.

[Krill]

The bit about the WTO rules is actually a separate discussion, and it's aimed at Ireland. the EU can do what it wants, but Varadkar and RoI get to choose what treaty they break. That's the decision, and as much as people can want to and continue to try to blame the UK, that is still Varadkars decision and no one elses.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

*Solo/Varadkar shoots at the UK

The UK is exercising its right until an international treaty to leave the EU. It can keep the open border with Ireland. It's not altering any deals, it's following what they allow.

It's Ireland that might break the treaty first.

[Krill]

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

Trump was elected by a popular vote minority, so I'm not so sure your assertion is even close to being accurate.

Doesn't matter in the sense I meant, because trump is just one of the hurdles to lawmaking.  The whole point is that no single election decides policy, inertia wins.

He can't do much of his agenda except for those pieces that also have support in the house and Senate...note how little change we have to our immigration laws and Wall.  Note also that Obamacare is still mostly intact.

And a Republican held Senate refused to confirm any democratic nominations for supreme court?

Look, I'm not trying to appear a dick, but it's not like the US has a particularly well functioning government. But when was the last time any of us saw a government that was functional?

[AdrienIer]

And a Republican held Senate refused to confirm any democratic nominations for supreme court?

Refused to hold a hearing rather.

But when was the last time any of us saw a government that was functional?

Depends on what you call functional. The french system for example is mostly working as intended but that doesn't mean it's working well. The German system seems to be holding on, but barely (the perpetual coalition is annoying). On the whole we have very clearly seen the disadvantages of the political system we each live in, and of the various other political systems in western democracies. We all have good reason to resent the political landscape of our country, but there is little debate about what a Good system would be.

[Grotsnot]

The bit about the WTO rules is actually a separate discussion, and it's aimed at Ireland. the EU can do what it wants, but Varadkar and RoI get to choose what treaty they break. That's the decision, and as much as people can want to and continue to try to blame the UK, that is still Varadkars decision and no one elses.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

*Solo/Varadkar shoots at the UK

The UK is exercising its right until an international treaty to leave the EU. It can keep the open border with Ireland. It's not altering any deals, it's following what they allow.

It's Ireland that might break the treaty first.

I was implying Landeo Varadakalrissian: being put in the situation of having to either betray their friends or be destroyed (obvious exaggeration is obvious, it's called a metaphor), due entirely to the whims of an outside force.

Though I suppose when the strong do what they will, it's really the weak's fault. If they didn't want to do what they must, they should have upped their Settler game.

[ipecac]

See the Brexit negotiations as a game of chicken, a strategic game, and all this loud kerfluffle about the Irish border just is a strategic blunder. No one in the EU cares if bombings start, so making so much noise about it is like taping to yourself a 'kick me right here where it'll be painful' sign. Why highlight so publicly a weakness in your negotiating position?