Zompist Bboard Again

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:46 pm You will, no doubt, be all astounded to hear: the government has not fallen.

As expected, Theresa May has survived the parliamentary VONC. The House has full confidence in her to, as the DUP said, 'continue delivering Brexit'.

Unfortunately, the House continues to refuse to accept the Brexit she wants to deliver or the means she proposes for delivering it. The government continues to be unable to deliver meaningful legislation on anything, and Parliament refuses to allow the government to dissolve.

The PM is now talking to other leaders - a climbdown from this morning's position where she would only talk to backbenchers from other parties, not leaders. But leaders are not refusing to talk to her: Corbyn says he won't talk to her unless she stops "blackmailing" the country with the threat of No Deal. May, for her part, has promised to talk widely and consider all options that are the same as the option she's already decided on, and the EU seem to be backing her this-way-or-no-way approach. So... nothing happens until No Deal, then?

Honestly felt Liz Saville Roberts came out of this looking best ("I'll tell Theresa May to her face no deal is not an option"), and I'm slightly alarmed I'm thinking that of Plaid.

Well, not quite nothing. Today did also see discussion of a 'key' proposed bit of legislation regulating the height of front door letterboxes, which under proposed new rules would have to stand between 70cm and 170cm from the ground. This, it's argued, will substantially reduce inefficiencies in the postal service resulting from cumulative back strain from excessive bending. The proposal has been rescheduled for further debate at a later date, but it's thought unlikely to actually pass the House.

Is it? It's something most political activists I know have joked about as something that could unite all of us across parties since at least 2015, because it is so frustrating when you're out leafleting or canvassing.

Found on Twitter:

Recap: there’s no parliamentary majority for Theresa May’s deal, there’s no parliamentary majority for no deal, there’s no parliamentary majority for no Brexit, there’s no parliamentary majority for another referendum, and there’s no parliamentary majority for another government.

And ultimately there being no parliamentary majority for something other than no deal isn't particularly different to having one for no deal.

I've heard some arguments that, since devolution took place under the aegis of the EU, with the assumption that EU treaties would restrain Westminster, the only way to keep the UK together post-Brexit would be a written constitution, i.e. a federal charter that guarantees certain rights to the devolved parliaments. What are people's thoughts on this? We've all heard that Brexit is the first paragraph of the Scotish declaration of independence, but could a written constitution really save the UK as a single entity?

No, and I can't imagine that happening. The last thing any government needs right now is to leap into the swamp of major constitutional reform. If anything, I think the current crisis makes a flexible constitution more appealing, rather than less.


It should also be pointed out that the UK does have a (largely) written constitution, formed of all the laws, some of which specifically deal with constitutional principles, augmented by constitutional conventions described by generally recognised guides. What it doesn't have is a codified constitution - one single document that sets out the constitution all in one place. And, of course, the American system of judicial supremacy.

So any futue concession to the Scottish would simply be an additional document, on top of all the existing ones. And it could in turn be reversed the day after if Parliament chose.

The only way to make a permanent, US-style constitution would be to create a constitutional court, and that would be hugely controversial, as it's essentially an abandonment of the principle of democracy. In the UK, the people can always overrules the judges, and the very suggestion that judges might interfere in politics at all is met with popular fury (c.f. Brexit).

That's so intriguingly inverted from the American system, where it's not only accepted but expected that judges will intervene in politics, and the Supreme Court is viewed as the ultimate way for common citizens to overrule the legislative and executive branches.

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:12 pm the Supreme Court is viewed as the ultimate way for common citizens to overrule the legislative and executive branches

What?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pmThe only way to make a permanent, US-style constitution would be to create a constitutional court, and that would be hugely controversial, as it's essentially an abandonment of the principle of democracy. In the UK, the people can always overrules the judges, and the very suggestion that judges might interfere in politics at all is met with popular fury (c.f. Brexit).

Well, the people can overrule the judges in a US-style system, but the usual means of doing so is by Constitutional amendment and not usually by ordinary legislation. This actually has happened quite a bit, such as the 26th Amendment overriding Oregon v. Mitchell; Proposition 17 in California overriding the decision in People v. Anderson; and most notoriously (probably) Proposition 8 in California (which was overturned on Federal grounds; Proposition 8 overturned the State Supreme Court ruling).

In the UK, there is a convention (i.e. a constitutional requirement) that significant alterations to the constitutional structure must be endorsed by referendums, either in the whole country or in the affected area (eg the referendums on Scottish devolution and independence). Hence, there was a referendum to join the EC*, and a referendum to change the voting system (that failed). Brexit will be a slight anomaly, in that the Brexit deal will apparently be created by Parliament, not a referendum; Brexiteers claim that the referendum to leave the EU automatically gives them constitutional authority to do anything they want so long as it includes leaving the EU.


*actually, there wasn't. Instead, there was a referendum two years later on whether to immediately leave again. But to some extent, this is an exception that proves the rule: the fact that, having entered the EC unilaterally, Parliament was forced to put its decision for ratification by the public in a referendum probably indicates they should have held a referendum in the first place.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:11 pm In the UK, there is a convention (i.e. a constitutional requirement) that significant alterations to the constitutional structure must be endorsed by referendums, ...

No there isn't. They're a device for when the normal system of parliamentary elections won't work. The membership referendums were intended to prevent splits in the Labour party (EEC - sort of worked) or Conservative party (EU - may yet fail).

To the first sentence: yes, there is. To the second and third sentences: I'm not sure what the relevence is.

[the constitutional role of referendums was theorised as far back as Dicey. In modern times, it's clearly implicit in the Acts regarding devolution and irish reunification. That this is so was confirmed to parliamentary committees by government ministers and by constitutional theorists, including Bogdanor (see the parliamentary report of 2011). It's obvious ambiguous what falls within this area, and it can probably be said that the reform of the Lords perhaps theoretically required a referendum (although this may perhaps be excused on the ground of the evident popularity of the idea - perhaps the public will was evident without overt consultation), but the principle appears to have become fairly uncontroversial.]

Serious question: Earlier today, I saw someone on Twitter claiming that the Northern Ireland Secretary supposedly announced that she had just discovered that Unionists don't vote Sinn Féin. Was that person being snarky, or is it actually true? I find it hard to imagine even a member of Theresa May's cabinet being that dense.

That happened weeks ago, that's old news.

Frislander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 am That happened weeks ago, that's old news.

Oh wow. Thank you for the information. Although, to be honest, I don't really like the idea of something as obviously disqualifying as that ever becoming "old news".

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:31 pm

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:12 pm the Supreme Court is viewed as the ultimate way for common citizens to overrule the legislative and executive branches

What?

US federal courts (with the highest being the Supreme Court) can overturn laws and executive orders on basis of them not being constitutional/violating federal statutes. Trump's travel ban is a good, recent example--the original ban had a bunch of lawsuits brought against it that resulted in a stay of enforcement of the order, forcing the Trump administration to rewrite the ban twice (and parts of it got struck down anyway, although I think the latest version is mostly in effect). Realistically, for citizens who didn't like the travel ban, the courts were the only option to get rid of it. (I mean, what else are you going to do, wait for the next elections??)

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:17 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:31 pm

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:12 pm the Supreme Court is viewed as the ultimate way for common citizens to overrule the legislative and executive branches

What?

US federal courts (with the highest being the Supreme Court) can overturn laws and executive orders on basis of them not being constitutional/violating federal statutes. Trump's travel ban is a good, recent example--the original ban had a bunch of lawsuits brought against it that resulted in a stay of enforcement of the order, forcing the Trump administration to rewrite the ban twice (and parts of it got struck down anyway, although I think the latest version is mostly in effect). Realistically, for citizens who didn't like the travel ban, the courts were the only option to get rid of it. (I mean, what else are you going to do, wait for the next elections??)

Keep in mind that Nort is a hard right Trump supporter who loves the Muslim ban, so from his perspective, the courts aren't the last defenders of civil liberties, but a perfidious way for his opponents to keep his side from getting their way. But this is getting way of topic for this thread.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:20 am

Frislander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 am That happened weeks ago, that's old news.

Oh wow. Thank you for the information. Although, to be honest, I don't really like the idea of something as obviously disqualifying as that ever becoming "old news".

I don't think there's anything disqualifying there. All she actually said was: "I freely admit that when I started this job, I didn’t understand some of the deep-seated and deep-rooted issues that there are in Northern Ireland. I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa."

All this demonstrates is that she is colossally stupid, uninterested and unaware of politics to a level that would astonish a well-informed rhesus monkey, and entirely ignorant of her supposed area of responsibility. But, to be fair to her, if these things were considered disqualificatory in British politics, we'd have to dispose of four-fifths of parliament.

Pertinent: the cover of the current Private Eye.

How much blame for the current constitutional crisis can be ultimately put on the FPTP voting system? I'd say quite a bit; in a coalition the government would have fallen quite some time ago.

I'll have to remember the phrase "well-informed rhesus monkey" for future re-use.

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:42 pm Pertinent: the cover of the current Private Eye.

How much blame for the current constitutional crisis can be ultimately put on the FPTP voting system? I'd say quite a bit; in a coalition the government would have fallen quite some time ago.

According to Tusk, coalition was Cameron's cunning plan to avoid delivering on the referendum.

We always get told "at least FPTP produces strong government!". The problem is:

(a) it seems like maybe that's not true anymore, or in general in times of upheaval when you most want effective government
(b) it might be sometimes strong, but it's still government by biggest minority (typically about 40%), inflicted on the majority, with dubious legitimacy
(c) if the current pack of politicians is anything to go by, the last thing you want is them being able to change things in a hurry with minimal resistance

Maybe one silver lining from the current meltdown is it will make it clear how completely broken our system is and lead to some kind of reform.