chris_notts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:09 pm
I didn't think I was having a temper tantrum
Well, it's difficult to have a serious discussion against words like "childish", "idiotic" and "stupid", particularly when employed in such density, and without reasoning to back them up.
I'm simply someone frustrated that an already dysfunctional political situation has clearly over the last few months and years been make worse by our defective, half unwritten (or if written then as long-winded "conventions" which may or may not be binding) and repeatedly unclear processes and procedure
It's fair enough to be frustrated, but I don't see how the uncodified constitution has made things any worse. Indeed, the biggest constitutional issue has been the FTPA, which is precisely the most clearcut, 'simple' and recent part of the rules. Which is why I think making the rest of the constitution more like the FTPA doesn't seem a good idea to me. Meanwhile, the flexibility of the constitution has largely served us well in avoiding crisis.
[it's generally believed, I believe, in constitutional circles that vaguer constitutions are more robust, because there's more freedom in interpreting them to fit the circumstances. Strangely from a UK point of view (from where the US is the only other country in the world...), the US constitution is often held up as an example of this: a shockingly brief and ambiguous document. That's had its downsides, to be sure, but it's also helped the US survive as a democracy with only minimal constitutional amendment for hundreds of years, while most more 'modern', 'scientific' constitutions have led to rapid failure, in part due to their rigidity...]
, and repeatedly it seems like what should be clear rules are foggy and mired in meaningless symbolism.
Very few rules are actually 'mired in symbolism'. Stuff like black rod and the shape of the mace does not actually govern how Brexit happens. The rules that actually matter are those that evolved over rather painful trial and error over the centuries. I certainly wouldn't say that none of the should ever be amended, but I do have great reservations about the popular approach of just sweeping away all the rule - that is, all the safeguards - because they're too 'complicated' (i.e. thought-through).
But what exactly are the substantive confusions you see here? The politics is confused (i.e. what people will do), but the constitution (i.e. what they can do) has been pretty straightforward, barring the occasional never-come-up-before question or technicality.
Every single day at the moment we get a new argument on arcane procedures
It's politics. Every single day there's an argument about something.
, like which of the 20 different ways the PM is going to try to call an election. I'm pretty sure that most countries make do with exactly one main way to decide when and if an election is called.
Then you would be completely wrong!
At a quick look at the Basic Law (a 140 page book!), Germany seems to have at least four ways of calling a general election: it can be called by 1/3rd of the MPs, by the President, or by the Chancellor, or else occurs between 46 and 48 months after the last election (it doesn't seem to specify how that's decided). It can also of course be done by amending the constitution, as in the UK. Then, after the elections, the Bundestag has to start sitting within 30 days (it doesn't specify who decides that). Then the President nominates a Chancellor, who needs the votes of the majority of the Bundestag; if they don't the votes, then there's a span of up to 14 days for half the members to elect someone else; if noone is Chancellor yet, there's "a new election" (presumably within the Bundestag rather than OF it?), held "without delay" (who decides when?), and then the candidate who gets a plurality of votes for Chancellor has their name submitted to the President, but in a manner that depends on the size of their vote share - if they got a majority, the President must appoint them as Chancellor, but if they only got a submajority plurality, the President has the choice to either appoint them OR to dissolve the Bundestag within seven days, which presumably then results in more elections (but who decides when they're held? It's not specified).
The German constitution, it should be noted, is generally seen as one of the better ones. But any constitution will be underspecified and complex.
In France the President can call an election - but only after 'consulting' the PM and the presidents of both houses, which iirc was a matter of some debate early on - and only if there hasn't been a dissolution in the last 12 months. Or, the Prime Minister can declare their programme or a statement of such to be a vote of confidence. Or, there can be a vote of NO confidence, which requires the signatures of 10% of MPs, except that no member may sign more than three such resolutions in one ordinary session, nor more than one such resolution in an extraordinary session, and then the VONC requires an absolute majority. Or, the PM can designate a bill as a vote of confidence, but only if it's a finance bill, OR for up to one other bill in each session, and in that case the bill can only be stopped if a VONC is offered within 24 hours. In which case the government offers its resignation to the president and the president if necessary dissolves parliament and there are elections between 20 and 40 days later, except that parliament cannot be dissolved if the president is already exercising their emergency powers. OR, of course, the constitution can be amended - this can be done either by a bill being submitted for a referendum OR by a government bill being submitted to Parliament WHEN it is "convened in congress" (in which case the bureau of the congress is to be that of the assembly) in which case it needs three fifths of the votes actually cast by the congress. And so on.
The issues we're talking about might seem complicated - but if we were talking about brain surgery, that would sound complicated too. These things are complicated for a reason!
--------------------
In the case of the UK, calling an early election under the current law is simple. There are two ways specified in the FTPA and a third implied:
- the PM can suggest an election, and 2/3rds of MPs can agree; OR
- a majority of MPs can say they no longer have confidence in the PM, and then refuse to name anyone else to replace him.
- the PM can unilaterally resign without a VONC, in which case, again, if parliament can't agree on a successor there is an election.
An early election date is, as in most countries set by the PM by default.
Alternatively, the constitution can be changed - that is, a new law can be passed to supercede the old ones, either by repealing the FTPA, or by permanently amending it, or by simply adding a one-off exception to it. This obviously costs more political capital, but only requires a majority. The downside is that because it's a law, rather than an executive action*, the PM cannot control its contents, only suggest them. Therefore, if this route were chosen, Parliament could set any date it wanted, which might not be a date the PM wants.
That's really not all that complicated!
And having multiple ways to do something is a feature, not a bug. The intention isn't to break the system, but to keep it viable, so the constitution attempts to account for the various scenarios that could arise, so that no scenario puts us into a dead end. The FTPA removed the right of the PM to unilaterally call elections, to prevent opportunistic snap elections, but in exchange it attempted to account for the scenarios in which an early election might actually be needed, and it came up with two: the PM no longer has the confidence of the house (or has already resigned); or the PM does have the confidence of the house but for some reason everyone agrees that an election would be a good idea.
Fair enough, but what it failed to foresee is the situation where the PM doesn't have the confidence of the house, but nobody is willing to say so!
[I think it's a pretty flawed law, as I've made clear, but complexity isn't its flaw]
The fact that it's also possible to change that law is just because our system prioritises democracy - it doesn't let a government pass a law that a future governmen can't amend. This can be a weakness, because it gives the government more power, but also a strength, because it makes it harder for any one government to fuck everything up for everyone from there on out.
----------------------------------
the objectionable thing about Trump is not that he's trying to simplify processes to improve decision making, but that he's an authoritarian who's trying to remove obstacles to himself ruling by arbitrary decree
"simplifying processes to improve decision making"
and
"removing obstacles to [the government] ruling by decree"
...
...are synonyms. They're just what we call the same thing when (in the first case) our party does it and when (in the second) the other party does is. Simplifying a process is removing an obstacle, and removing an obstacle is simplifying a process. And people want to rule by decree BECAUSE they think their decision making is better; and conversely, when people say 'improved decision making', they mean decisions that they agree with. Trump absolutely wants to simplify processes to improve decision making! [he wants the process to be: "I make the best decision in the world (everyone says I make the best decisions) and then that's the law"]
I did explicitly say that rules should be there to support good decision making
But if you make it easier for people to impose good decisions, you make it easier for the same people to impose bad decisions.
As for electronic voting: this is already in use in a number of legislatures, including the Scottish and European Parliaments I believe, and they seem to function perfectly well. If you don't trust fairly simple, isolated computer networking solutions, then really you can't trust anything in the 21st century.
I'm not suggesting electronic voting will bring about armageddon. But it's a clearly inferior system to what we have already, so there's no reason to adopt it.
