The Politics Thread 2019

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Supranationalism is admittedly a loose and wooly expression and it's not completely supranational but I can't agree that it's an intergovernmental union, nor was it intended to be. The Council (itself somewhat problematic because parliament can't hold to account our government's actions within the Council) is somewhat intergovernmental (QMV means it isn't quite as intergovernmental as some would have you believe) and the Council has a role in setting the direction and conferring powers but the EU already has its own legal order (which has primacy over national law), something that resembles its own executive and legislative, its own judicial authority, and its own monetary authority. Its institutions act within the cumulative European interests That's a hell of a lot more than actual intergovernmental institutions like the UN, NATO, WTO, WHO OPEC etc etc. It's a uniquely powerful transnational legal regime which I think makes it far more supranational than intergovernmental. I mean technically its a 'sui generis' international organisation. 

 

That's fine if you define and judge democracy solely with respect to representativeness. But that'd be very narrow. Democratic systems have always been a trade off between accountability and representativeness, the UK's system of parliament and elections being more accountable v representative, for the EU elections (the system for EU elections is still a UK decision rather than conferred by the EU of course) is better set up for representativeness over accountability. Accountability is something the EU is relatively poor at. But there's still a lot more to democratic legitimacy than either representativeness or accountability. Tony Benn's 5 questions are a reasonable starting point but also actually you have to account for citizenship, shared experiences, aspects of culture and national constitutions when thinking about democratic legitimacy. That might get a groan and its unfair on the EU because its something that requires time (in 150 years people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid), it's important for democratic legitimacy. 

 

But yes more needs to be done at home and people should start applying principles at home across the board, ie not supporting something wholly undemocratic to deliver the outcome you want.

Sorry if you've answered this before Kopf but I am interested...where do you stand on the necessity and role of intergovernmental or even supranational organisations in the future?

[Kopfkino]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry if you've answered this before Kopf but I am interested...where do you stand on the necessity and role of intergovernmental or even supranational organisations in the future?

 

Obviously there's absolutely a necessity for some form of strong international cooperation of governments in a smaller world where problems are increasingly global in nature and cross border. No idea how to achieve it though. I guess the problem with integovernmentalism is that the international law it produces is too often impotent because intergovernmental talks often end up as a giant compromise that achieves not a lot beyond PR. There's few intergovernmental organisations, many have aspects of supranationalism, that have teeth. WTO springs to mind but even that is losing it now. It will always have a role because a)states want to try to coerce each other b)they like the PR and c)it's a fun game, but I'm not confident it will ever be as effective as we'd like/tell ourselves it is. Actually I say that, but Efta/EEA is a bit more intergovernmental, sort of sits between the two so maybe there is hope, maybe those sorts of arrangements are the future.

 

Supranationalism overcomes some of the ineffectiveness after the intitial stage of conferring powers to a higher legal order but surely involves moving people further from the seat of power, a constraint on democracy, and it becomes a bit like saltwater where the more power it gets the more it wants. It needs a specific purpose, be genuinely global and to somehow be limited to its purpose imo (I'm not sure it supranational then though). So you could set up a supranational body that's responsible for, let's say for ease, environmental preservation and it'd likely be quite effective and is probably the best route to solving such a problem. But realistically, it's just not going to happen within the imaginable future.

 

The role then for supranationalism is likely to only ever be regional and it could have some success in this way. Because what is the point of deepening the EU and ever closer union now? It's really just to create a Europe that can compete on geopolitics with the US, China, and India going forward. Basically just become a bigger nation state. And that could also potentially work for Mercosur, parts of Africa, or South East Asia.

 

That being said, just popped into my head, I've always thought trade was the best route for ensuring nations cooperate and solve the big problems. As I said, the WTO has been one of the more useful intergovernmental organisations and trade treaties usually stand up better than average for international law. The EU has become a behemoth of trade and regulation so maybe the future is regional, somewhat supranational, trade blocs binding each others hands through trade. Eventually we come to a world steel and coal community that becomes the world economic community and then the world union which creates a system of government better than democracy that still leaves people in control of their own destiny. As you can tell I've flummoxed myself and tied myself up in knots desperate to believe we can rise above playing politics all the time but also protect and strengthen democracy. Realistically, the future's just going to be more of the same really isn't it?

 

 

Edited 25 August 2019 by Kopfkino

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Obviously there's absolutely a necessity for some form of strong international cooperation of governments in a smaller world where problems are increasingly global in nature and cross border. No idea how to achieve it though. I guess the problem with integovernmentalism is that the international law it produces is too often impotent because intergovernmental talks often end up as a giant compromise that achieves not a lot beyond PR. There's few intergovernmental organisations, many have aspects of supranationalism, that have teeth. WTO springs to mind but even that is losing it now. It will always have a role because a)states want to try to coerce each other b)they like the PR and c)it's a fun game, but I'm not confident it will ever be as effective as we'd like/tell ourselves it is. Actually I say that, but Efta/EEA is a bit more intergovernmental, sort of sits between the two so maybe there is hope, maybe those sorts of arrangements are the future.

 

Supranationalism overcomes some of the ineffectiveness after the intitial stage of conferring powers to a higher legal order but surely involves moving people further from the seat of power, a constraint on democracy, and it becomes a bit like saltwater where the more power it gets the more it wants. It needs a specific purpose, be genuinely global and to somehow be limited to its purpose imo (I'm not sure it supranational then though). So you could set up a supranational body that's responsible for, let's say for ease, environmental preservation and it'd likely be quite effective and is probably the best route to solving such a problem. But realistically, it's just not going to happen within the imaginable future.

 

The role then for supranationalism is likely to only ever be regional and it could have some success in this way. Because what is the point of deepening the EU and ever closer union now? It's really just to create a Europe that can compete on geopolitics with the US, China, and India going forward. Basically just become a bigger nation state. And that could also potentially work for Mercosur, parts of Africa, or South East Asia.

 

That being said, just popped into my head, I've always thought trade was the best route for ensuring nations cooperate and solve the big problems. As I said, the WTO has been one of the more useful intergovernmental organisations and trade treaties usually stand up better than average for international law. The EU has become a behemoth of trade and regulation so maybe the future is regional, somewhat supranational, trade blocs binding each others hands through trade. Eventually we come to a world steel and coal community that becomes the world economic community and then the world union which creates a system of government better than democracy that still leaves people in control of their own destiny. As you can tell I've flummoxed myself and tied myself up in knots desperate to believe we can rise above playing politics all the time but also protect and strengthen democracy. Realistically, the future's just going to be more of the same really isn't it?

 

 

I really hope that you're wrong, because I believe the bolded part to be absolutely what is required. Of course, however, this is a most astute analysis and you are, sadly, probably right.

 

More of the same it is, with all the consequences that entails. I wish I could worry as much about the future as many folks do, viz. a lot less.

[Buce]

 

 

The EU will refuse to even discuss a trade deal if Johnson refuses to pay our debts.

 

Well, knock me down with a feather.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill

[Koke]

State of this guy man 

 

[Bryn]

Government are going to suspend our parliament to get this travesty over the line. 

[Lionator]

I'm not sure how anybody could support this. 

[Mickey O'Neil]

11 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Government are going to suspend our parliament to get this travesty over the line. 

Good. 

 

There’s been lots of unsportsmanlike behaviour from Europe and Corbyn and his cronies. The people voted. Give them what they asked for. 

[Mickey O'Neil]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I'm not sure how anybody could support this. 

👍🏼😁

 

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

Good. 

 

There’s been lots of unsportsmanlike behaviour from Europe and Corbyn and his cronies. The people voted. Give them what they asked for. 

What? Suspension of our parliamentary system? 

 

We 'take back control' from Europe only to have it taken away again by a bunch of rich disaster capitalists. 

[bovril]

Taking back control, 1640s style. 

[Mickey O'Neil]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

What? Suspension of our parliamentary system? 

 

We 'take back control' from Europe only to have it taken away again by a bunch of rich disaster capitalists. 

I guess it’s unsportsmanlike of Boris to ask this? I’d have never have thought politicians would behave this way. 

[bovril]

13 minutes ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

Good. 

 

There’s been lots of unsportsmanlike behaviour from Europe and Corbyn and his cronies. The people voted. Give them what they asked for. 

It's not really about giving people what they asked for. It's about game theory with the EU and persuading pensioners not to vote for Farage. 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

I guess it’s unsportsmanlike of Boris to ask this? I’d have never have thought politicians would behave this way. 

 

Unsportsmanlike?

 

It's a suspension of democracy, which you're fine with this time because it's giving you what you want, but what when it doesn't?

[Kopfkino]

Tbf a Queen's speech is long overdue. 

[thebartonfox]

I know it’s the norm for the Queen to not get involved in political situations, but I assume in theory she could in a case like this. What do people who understand this better than I do think are the chances of her stepping in and refusing?

[WigstonWanderer]

53 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Government are going to suspend our parliament to get this travesty over the line. 

All in the cause of democracy  

 

This will change parliamentary democracy for the foreseeable future.

Edited 28 August 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Unsportsmanlike?

 

It's a suspension of democracy, which you're fine with this time because it's giving you what you want, but what when it doesn't?

 

Precisely.

 

A couple of questions to any No Deal Brexiteer inclined to support the suspension of democracy to achieve that purpose.....

 

- Would you also support it if the govt suspended democracy so as to extend the Brexit deadline while avoiding parliamentary debate and scrutiny?

 

- Would you also support it if a Corbyn Govt suspended democracy so as to nationalise numerous companies without compensation, while avoiding parliamentary debate and scrutiny?

 

2016: "Let's take back control from the undemocratic EU and give it to our sovereign, democratic British parliament"

2019: "Let's close down our sovereign, democratic British parliament so as to force through an extremist policy that the Govt thinks our democratic parliament might reject"

[Mickey O'Neil]

I’m on to a hiding-to-nothing here. I’m clearly in the minority on here which I’m fine with. 

 

I voted out. Europe have been arses about it.

 

A lot of MP’s from all parties have been arses about it. Stalling and going against the majority vote. 

 

I’ll just retire from this argument now and wait and see what happens. 

[Innovindil]

Don't agree with this at all. I believe in brexit, always have, but there's no way it works like this. It's sticking 2 middle fingers up to every remainder instead of trying to bridge the gap. 

 

We've already got the usual softies calling for violence. Don't see how going this route will help. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

I’ll just retire from this argument now and wait and see what happens. 

Potential title for future David Cameron biography? 

[lgfualol]

This government are going to massively fvck over everyone. Nobody voted for a no deal, all the leave voters fell for the lies. Anyone that supports this is an ostrich. Nobody will benefit bar the elite. 

[Countryfox]

19 minutes ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

I’m on to a hiding-to-nothing here. I’m clearly in the minority on here which I’m fine with. 

 

I voted out. Europe have been arses about it.

 

A lot of MP’s from all parties have been arses about it. Stalling and going against the majority vote. 

 

I’ll just retire from this argument now and wait and see what happens. 

 

 I can understand where you are coming from ...   it's not really about Deal or No Deal but by having it as an option greatly strengthens our bargaining position ..  and I think that has already started to show.    Without it as an option we will be absolutely shafted.   Of course having a proper deal in place will be far far better for all concerned.

 

(I bowed out ages ago ..  ).

[I am Rod Hull]

21 minutes ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

I’m on to a hiding-to-nothing here. I’m clearly in the minority on here which I’m fine with. 

 

I voted out. Europe have been arses about it.

 

A lot of MP’s from all parties have been arses about it. Stalling and going against the majority vote. 

 

I’ll just retire from this argument now and wait and see what happens. 

 

I`m with ya fella . I`m loving the melt down of some people on here, it`s hilarious 

 

 

 

 

[Wortho]

4 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

 

I`m with ya fella . I`m loving the melt down of some people on here, it`s hilarious 

 

 

 

 

I quite agree it's great seeing all anti-democrats going apoplectic. Corbyn, Sturgeon, Swinson and Grieve are ones who are trying to prevent democracy. Great fun.