BoJo Boffo or Bozo?

[Kasandra]

Mainly to citizens of America's erstwhile colonial masters (but anyone else who cares to weigh in), what will happen because of Johnson's ascendancy? 

* Will the UK crash out of the EU?  If it does, will the UK prosper as BoJo predicts or flounder economically?

* Will the Pound sterling fall below 1:1 against the US dollar?

* Will Scotland or Wales secede from the Union?

* Will the Irish Republic and Northern Island reunite and secede from the Union?

* Will the NFL and MLB play more games in England because it will become cheap to visit?

What other positive or negative effects do you foresee?

[Wayward Son]

From the little I hear from this side of the pond, Johnson has unrealistic plans (hopes) for Brexit, along with a determination that he will exit the E.U. by Oct. 31, come hell or high water.  Which most likely means a hard Brexit, which will almost definitely lead to an economic recession for Britain.  I've heard estimates as high at 10 to 15 percent reduction in their economy.

This would mean a drop in the pound and probably a worldwide recession, which President Trump will blame on the Democrats.

I doubt Scotland or Wales (or Whales, as our President spells it ), will secede.  I can't see Ireland uniting.  I do see the violence in Ireland increasing because of the border being re-instated between Northern Ireland and the rest of the isle.  We all pray it won't be as bad as back before the Good Friday accord.

Johnson will doubtlessly make some trade deal with the U.S., which will most likely do very little to help either economy, although both leaders will exaggerate its effect.

You should check you last night's episode of >Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.  He goes into what a clown Johnson is, and how he will probably crash and burn.  He had a previous episode about Brexit that echos my post, too.  (I must warn you, though, he makes numerous references to a couple of rutting foxes in the episode, so caveat emptor.)

[Kasandra]

Now he may soon be gonezo if the Conservative coalition loses one more member.  UK politics are pretty opaque to us cross-ponders, but I have always assumed that Shakespearean heroes would rise to lead the empire out of every grave difficulty.  Where are they now?

[Kasandra]

Johnson is doing his best to undermine Britain's unwritten constitution and treat his opposition in Parliament is if it is a nuisance rather than a majority.  It's clear that Johnson is a bully like Trump, but unlike Trump he has no mandate or even an identified constituency.  He's trying to force his will onto people who truly are confused and his coercion isn't galvanizing people to follow his lead.  If anything, he's racking up opponents who simply don't trust anything he says.  That's another point of comparison with Trump, whose US constituency is eroding bit by bit with every dishonest, insincere, manipulative and self-aggrandizing tweet he issues.

The only reasonable expectation for the UK is that the Brexit process will continue to get worse and nobody knows how to make it get any better.  RIP as night falls on the Empire of the Sun.

[Seriati]

Mainly to citizens of America's erstwhile colonial masters (but anyone else who cares to weigh in), what will happen because of Johnson's ascendancy?

General election.

* Will the UK crash out of the EU?  If it does, will the UK prosper as BoJo predicts or flounder economically?

No.  But without the threat they'll never get a deal they can accept.  Accordingly, the result of Brexit is going to be staying in the EU in a worse position.

* Will Scotland or Wales secede from the Union?

Scotland may, doubt Wales would.

* Will the Irish Republic and Northern Island reunite and secede from the Union?

No.  I didn't realize before that the "backstop" would effectively prevent the UK from entering into trade agreements on its own, that pretty much ensures a bad result economically for the UK.  No wonder it failed.  Ireland is an Island and it should be  treated as such, with special internal rules and both the EU and the UK dealing with their own issues at the ports and airports.

Will they get there?  Not without the threat of a hard Brexit.  The EU has no incentive to negotiate in good faith when the UK is undermining itself.

What other positive or negative effects do you foresee?

If the UK successfully leaves, which I doubt will actually occur, though if a general election gives Boris a solid majority it becomes a certainty, then the EU will go one of two directions, it'll either become even more totalitarian and at a faster pace, completely overriding the national governments of all but the most powerful countries, or it'll make some structural reforms to address the legit issues that put the UK in the position its in.  I think the former is more likely.

For the UK?  The pain will be less than predicted by the experts who are trying to generate fear, and long term they'll be net positive.  Pretty much the primary reason there will be any pain is the EU choosing to inflict it to punish the UK (which says an awful lot about why they should leave).

Johnson is doing his best to undermine Britain's unwritten constitution and treat his opposition in Parliament is if it is a nuisance rather than a majority.

A majority that is doing everything it can to cancel the result of the referendum. I'm not seeing either group covering itself in real glory, but at least Johnson is moving to break the impasse.

It's clear that Johnson is a bully like Trump, but unlike Trump he has no mandate or even an identified constituency.  He's trying to force his will onto people who truly are confused and his coercion isn't galvanizing people to follow his lead.

Johnson may be a bully, not seeing the great parallel to Trump on that point.  They're most similar in their communication style, not their acts.

The only reasonable expectation for the UK is that the Brexit process will continue to get worse and nobody knows how to make it get any better.  RIP as night falls on the Empire of the Sun.

The Brexit process isn't "getting worse."  It was never viable, Johnson's just forcing that fact into the open.

[Wayward Son]

You make it sound like a hard Brexit gives the United Kingdom some sort of leverage with the E.U.  Why would that be?

Sure, the U.K. exiting the E.U. would hurt the E.U., but it will hurt the U.K. even worse.  And the E.U. wants to make sure no other country seriously considers leaving.  So they want to make it as painful as possible to leave.  They couldn't do any better than a hard Brexit.

Even if the E.U. wanted to negotiate, there is practically no time for it anymore.  A bit less than 2 months to come up with a new deal?  Won't happen.  Too many players on the E.U. side.  It will take time for them to come to a consensus.  Certainly more than 2 months.

Johnson has given himself a deadline that practically guarantees a hard Brexit.  Which is going to create a major recession in Britain, and will almost certainly trigger a worldwide recession, too.  For all our sakes, let's hope he fails.

[Seriati]

Well, again, I think Hard Brexit consequences have been oversold.  But frankly, taking it off the table is just a guaranty there will be no movement on the EU's side.  If the current deal is "unacceptable" then a new deal has to be reached, correct?  It would be an incremental deal not a complete new deal.  Could it be done by October 31?  Maybe if it's just on the backstop.

The UK has systematically given up leverage at every turn.  Agreeing to deal with the payments before they worked on the deal?  Totally stupid, and I don't care how difficult the EU was being.  Boris walked that back, flat out said its off the table in a Hard Brexit. 

I just don't get the idea that there's anyway to get any EU movement if you make it against the law to inflict any consequence on them.

[NobleHunter]

No.  I didn't realize before that the "backstop" would effectively prevent the UK from entering into trade agreements on its own, that pretty much ensures a bad result economically for the UK.  No wonder it failed.  Ireland is an Island and it should be  treated as such, with special internal rules and both the EU and the UK dealing with their own issues at the ports and airports.

IRRC, Ireland has veto over any Brexit agreement. Not hard to see why they'd object to barriers between them and the rest of the EU. The current UK government had a majority only with N Ireland MPs who object to barriers between them and the rest of the UK. Neither side is in a position to partially expel their Irish territories.

[Kasandra]

You make it sound like a hard Brexit gives the United Kingdom some sort of leverage with the E.U.  Why would that be?

Sure, the U.K. exiting the E.U. would hurt the E.U., but it will hurt the U.K. even worse.  And the E.U. wants to make sure no other country seriously considers leaving.  So they want to make it as painful as possible to leave.  They couldn't do any better than a hard Brexit.

Even if the E.U. wanted to negotiate, there is practically no time for it anymore.  A bit less than 2 months to come up with a new deal?  Won't happen.  Too many players on the E.U. side.  It will take time for them to come to a consensus.  Certainly more than 2 months.

Johnson has given himself a deadline that practically guarantees a hard Brexit.  Which is going to create a major recession in Britain, and will almost certainly trigger a worldwide recession, too.  For all our sakes, let's hope he fails.

Unfortunately, all 27 EU nations have to agree to an extension.  So the UK's inability to come to a pragmatic position means that they will crash out.  There's some debate whether BoJo really wants the no-deal exit, which he has argued is the best outcome, or whether he honestly (yeah, right) thinks he can negotiate his way into a better deal and ram it down the people's throats.  He's very bright, but his gaslight burns brighter than his wit.

[DonaldD]

IRRC, Ireland has veto over any Brexit agreement

Not a literal veto, but maybe an effective one... the UK has treaty obligations to the Irish Republic, but also to Northern Ireland, obligations that as a result have de facto become a part of the UK constitution. Other primary issues being that the UK must support North/South cooperation and the "all-island" economy.

But the Irish Republic (IR) is simply not going to give up unfettered access to the EU, they had no say in the brexit vote, and neither the IR nor the EU have any interest in foisting the cost of brexit on the IR. Putting up barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK is also a non-starter, and nobody wants a hard border between NI and the IR.

There is no clear solution - the backstop was simply a way of kicking that can down the street.

[NobleHunter]

Not a literal veto, but maybe an effective one... the UK has treaty obligations to the Irish Republic, but also to Northern Ireland, obligations that as a result have de facto become a part of the UK constitution. Other primary issues being that the UK must support North/South cooperation and the "all-island" economy.

But the Irish Republic (IR) is simply not going to give up unfettered access to the EU, they had no say in the brexit vote, and neither the IR nor the EU have any interest in foisting the cost of brexit on the IR. Putting up barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK is also a non-starter, and nobody wants a hard border between NI and the IR.

There is no clear solution - the backstop was simply a way of kicking that can down the street.

I meant a veto as a member of EU. I think there needs to be consensus for any UK-EU arrangements after Brexit.

]Unfortunately, all 27 EU nations have to agree to an extension.  So the UK's inability to come to a pragmatic position means that they will crash out.  There's some debate whether BoJo really wants the no-deal exit, which he has argued is the best outcome, or whether he honestly (yeah, right) thinks he can negotiate his way into a better deal and ram it down the people's throats.  He's very bright, but his gaslight burns brighter than his wit.

If BoJo could come up with a solution to the Irish Question (which may not be the best way to phrase that), I think he could get a deal done without needing to ram anything.

[Kasandra]

If BoJo could come up with a solution to the Irish Question (which may not be the best way to phrase that), I think he could get a deal done without needing to ram anything.

I am not an expert, but I haven't heard anyone claiming to be offer one.

[TheDrake]

The UK could pay Ireland for the hundreds of new custom officials

Although in fairness, I'm not sure how different it would be. Goods to the UK would have to go through customs no matter what - at least for any deal that doesn't keep the UK in the economic position they were during the EU. So Ireland winds up getting to hire hundreds of custom officials no matter what, it seems.

Various types of legislation in the EU require all member states to agree, including tax policy and giving the UK an extension on exit time (and all other Brexit matters).

[Wayward Son]

One obvious solution would be to make Northern Ireland a de facto part of the Irish Republic, and locate the customs borders between Ireland and the rest of the U.K.  The Irish Republic and Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the E.U., and any people or products that go into England, et al, from Northern Ireland would have to be checked by customs.

I'm not quite sure how the Orange Irish would like that, though.

[DonaldD]

The cost of clearing customs is not just the salaries and infrastructure required by border agents, but the overhead required of all companies importing into the RI and exporting to the IR.

The UK would also need to compensate the RI for the lost opportunity costs...

[DonaldD]

One obvious solution would be to make Northern Ireland a de facto part of the Irish Republic, and locate the customs borders between Ireland and the rest of the U.K

This also may be problematic, as it conflicts directly with the UK commitment to the Common Travel Area, a part of the Good Friday Accord and de facto part of the Constitution of the UK.

[DJQuag]

There's a German word for taking pleasure in other's pain, and I can't remember it at the moment, but gotdamn I'm enjoying Johnson getting this thrown in his face.

[DJQuag]

Schadenfreude. That's the one.

[Kasandra]

It seems like almost everyone in the UK government has miscalculated everything since the very beginning, starting with David Cameron calling for the vote in the mistaken expectation that it would lose handily. The litany of mistakes at every step since then is too long to recite, but BoJo is the perfect incarnation and vessel representing all of them.  I have a lot of empathy for what the people over there will have to endure as a result of this ongoing fiasco. But when I think of their predicament and ours in the US watching our own government seemingly dissolve before our eyes, I worry that we are in the beginning stages of the demise of the "grand experiment" of Democracy across the world.  There's more to moan about than just these two situations, but I either should have a drink first or give up drinking.  It's hard to know which.

[Wayward Son]

If you're at all interested in the Brexit Crisis, check out Charlie Stross' blog. (Charlie is a British SF author, which gives him the home field advantage on perspective.) 

I'm especially interested* in his statement that the "referendum that was only upheld by the courts because it was non-binding (so the foreign interference and straight-up vote rigging couldn't be held a violation of election law)." They may wreck the UK economy over a non-binding referendum??   

(*Interested enough to mention it, but not to research to verify it. )

[Wayward Son]

Oh, yeah, and as a side note: John  Oliver was talking about Brexit last night, and mentioned that several MPs have quit over the issue, including a certain Jo Johnson, who happens to be Boris' brother. 

[NobleHunter]

The line I heard regarding Jo Johnson is "he's quitting to spend less time with his family."

Now it's being alleged that Boris lied to the Queen to get Parliament prorogued.

The referendum was definitely non-binding though the Tories chose to act as if it were.

[DJQuag]

The line I heard regarding Jo Johnson is "he's quitting to spend less time with his family."

Now it's being alleged that Boris lied to the Queen to get Parliament prorogued.

The referendum was definitely non-binding though the Tories chose to act as if it were.

Of course it was.  The very idea of the referendum was insane. It'd be like the US letting people decide a really big decision for all the states based upon which idiot read the Daily Mail. Stateside propositions are bad enough, but christ. Nationwide ones? There is a very good reason that both the US and UK govern through a representative democracy and it ain't about Joe Redneck getting to vote about burkas or whatever.

[Kasandra]

It's hard to pin down what is binding in a country that has no written Constitution.  They gave themselves their word they were leaving, so honor demands they do it.  What could be more "democratic" than that?

[rightleft22]

The Battle cry "honor demands"  leading to so much pain.

“As he carried the blood-splattered body of his precious daughter, draped in bridal attire, he could feel the nagging burden of being pawned into a senseless situation. Yards behind,
another life, lay snuffed – the sole earning member of a destitute family, leaving behind an aged mother and a widowed sister to weep until their tears would run dry.” ― Rajnish Gambhir, Honour for a Ransom

[DJQuag]

To follow up. The right's gleeful proclamations about the sanctity of the Brexit vote should probably get ready to respond about how the only the reason they have a vote in the States is due to the Electoral Collage and the deliberate lies drawing up Congressional districts. I.e gerrymandering.

Please. I dare any of you R's. Try to bring an argument based on weight of numbers.

We all love represenative democracy. It's honestly the best idea we've had.  It annoys me when people slip out of that respect to complain about the will of the people.

The people get to decide their will. In the voting box. Deciding the person who is more experienced/cool/knowledgeable on the matters that care for them.

There is nowhere in our cultural history where people have respected the random guy's vote because the random guy is an idiot. And ya'll can bleat about the need for the average person to vote, and respect their opinion, but something tells e you wouldn't be on board with a law requiring anyone 18+ to vote lol.

[Seriati]

To follow up. The right's gleeful proclamations about the sanctity of the Brexit vote should probably get ready to respond about how the only the reason they have a vote in the States is due to the Electoral Collage and the deliberate lies drawing up Congressional districts. I.e gerrymandering.

It's an interesting point, not sure I agree with any of it though.  I think Brexit is a good idea, and I understand the reasons people would vote for it, but I would never support a renunciation of the right of free determination.  If they want to vote again and Remainers win, that's fine too (even if I think they'll be worse off long term).

That really has next to nothing to do with the electoral college.  The electoral college is more akin to how some people think its unfair that a big pro-Exit vote in England, override a big pro-EU vote in Scotland and Wales.  If you imagine the UK as a US equivalent then the "electoral college" may have actually prevented the Brexit vote from winning, depending on how it's actually constructed.  Which is kind of exactly it's point, to ensure that the most populous region can't use it's raw numbers to ignore the less populace, but distinct areas, and to ensure that national policy has to consider the whole nation.

Gerrymandering is not a Republican only problem.  The left is just a wicked on this front (looking at you MD, for example).  In fact, there's a huge amount of intentionally pro-Democrat manipulation that's legally required (which was a major coup), even if how it operates wasn't set up.

Please. I dare any of you R's. Try to bring an argument based on weight of numbers.

Don't think it was that hard.  The electoral college has a specific purpose that's factually a good thing for a nation.

We all love represenative democracy. It's honestly the best idea we've had.  It annoys me when people slip out of that respect to complain about the will of the people.

Not sure where you are going here, "representative democracy" and the "will of the people" can easily be at direct odds.  I think the Brexit vote was kind of an oddity (the equivalent in the US for example, would require effectively a Constitutional Amendment, 2/3's approval in each house of Congress and approval of 75% of the States, not flipping the switch on a bare majority of the country), in that it undermines the actual representative democracy in the UK, but then so did joining the EU in the first place.

So why did they offer it?  And what do you actually do if more than half of your voters wants freedom from an unelected government with overwhelming powers (England at least should have been familiar with that situation as it's played out many times among their colonies).

The people get to decide their will. In the voting box. Deciding the person who is more experienced/cool/knowledgeable on the matters that care for them.

Or in the case of CA not in the ballot box and uncontrolled through ballot harvesting that there's no way to control for reasonable protections (which in NC is what's causing a revote today, and in CA flipped 8 seats that have been Republican for a long time).

There is nowhere in our cultural history where people have respected the random guy's vote because the random guy is an idiot. And ya'll can bleat about the need for the average person to vote, and respect their opinion, but something tells e you wouldn't be on board with a law requiring anyone 18+ to vote lol.

There's actually a place where they do - polling and marketing.  Pretty much every single argument you see where someone claims they have the support of the people is made on the basis of the "random (or even not random at all)" guys vote. 

I tend not to support laws that force those who have self selected not to vote to vote.  Not sure how anyone can think an electoral process is made better by compelling participation of those who choose not to be informed.  In fact that's my biggest problem with ballot harvesting, it's "including" people who are virtually guaranteed to be casting ill informed and easily manipulated votes.

But that said, it's not the worst process possible.

[DJQuag]

So, the EU made it a point to set up a law to unravel places where money laundering/tax avoidance were a problem. And wouldn't you know it,  when that got out, and the deadline for it, there were *so many* people and media outlets crying for a Brexit option.

Real Christmas miracle.

[DJQuag]

To follow up. The right's gleeful proclamations about the sanctity of the Brexit vote should probably get ready to respond about how the only the reason they have a vote in the States is due to the Electoral Collage and the deliberate lies drawing up Congressional districts. I.e gerrymandering.

It's an interesting point, not sure I agree with any of it though.  I think Brexit is a good idea, and I understand the reasons people would vote for it, but I would never support a renunciation of the right of free determination.  If they want to vote again and Remainers win, that's fine too (even if I think they'll be worse off long term).

That really has next to nothing to do with the electoral college.  The electoral college is more akin to how some people think its unfair that a big pro-Exit vote in England, override a big pro-EU vote in Scotland and Wales.  If you imagine the UK as a US equivalent then the "electoral college" may have actually prevented the Brexit vote from winning, depending on how it's actually constructed.  Which is kind of exactly it's point, to ensure that the most populous region can't use it's raw numbers to ignore the less populace, but distinct areas, and to ensure that national policy has to consider the whole nation.

Gerrymandering is not a Republican only problem.  The left is just a wicked on this front (looking at you MD, for example).  In fact, there's a huge amount of intentionally pro-Democrat manipulation that's legally required (which was a major coup), even if how it operates wasn't set up.

Please. I dare any of you R's. Try to bring an argument based on weight of numbers.

Don't think it was that hard.  The electoral college has a specific purpose that's factually a good thing for a nation.

We all love represenative democracy. It's honestly the best idea we've had.  It annoys me when people slip out of that respect to complain about the will of the people.

Not sure where you are going here, "representative democracy" and the "will of the people" can easily be at direct odds.  I think the Brexit vote was kind of an oddity (the equivalent in the US for example, would require effectively a Constitutional Amendment, 2/3's approval in each house of Congress and approval of 75% of the States, not flipping the switch on a bare majority of the country), in that it undermines the actual representative democracy in the UK, but then so did joining the EU in the first place.

So why did they offer it?  And what do you actually do if more than half of your voters wants freedom from an unelected government with overwhelming powers (England at least should have been familiar with that situation as it's played out many times among their colonies).

The people get to decide their will. In the voting box. Deciding the person who is more experienced/cool/knowledgeable on the matters that care for them.

Or in the case of CA not in the ballot box and uncontrolled through ballot harvesting that there's no way to control for reasonable protections (which in NC is what's causing a revote today, and in CA flipped 8 seats that have been Republican for a long time).

There is nowhere in our cultural history where people have respected the random guy's vote because the random guy is an idiot. And ya'll can bleat about the need for the average person to vote, and respect their opinion, but something tells e you wouldn't be on board with a law requiring anyone 18+ to vote lol.

There's actually a place where they do - polling and marketing.  Pretty much every single argument you see where someone claims they have the support of the people is made on the basis of the "random (or even not random at all)" guys vote. 

I tend not to support laws that force those who have self selected not to vote to vote.  Not sure how anyone can think an electoral process is made better by compelling participation of those who choose not to be informed.  In fact that's my biggest problem with ballot harvesting, it's "including" people who are virtually guaranteed to be casting ill informed and easily manipulated votes.

But that said, it's not the worst process possible.

I honestly don't get it sometimes. You people are all about "Yeah man get out the vote!".

Buy you have to know the numbers are against you. Literally the only thing giving the R's in America a voice is old people and that young people don't vote.

Gotta ask. Do you think young people should vote more?

[Fenring]

Buy you have to know the numbers are against you. Literally the only thing giving the R's in America a voice is old people and that young people don't vote.

Gotta ask. Do you think young people should vote more?

I'd like to issue a small correction to this: the only thing giving the establishment a voice is older people, and that young people are repeatedly told their voices don't matter in every way that counts. They are told that progressive candidates 'don't have a chance' and not to waste their vote on them, which is another way of saying 'don't vote'.

[DJQuag]

To follow up. The right's gleeful proclamations about the sanctity of the Brexit vote should probably get ready to respond about how the only the reason they have a vote in the States is due to the Electoral Collage and the deliberate lies drawing up Congressional districts. I.e gerrymandering.

It's an interesting point, not sure I agree with any of it though.  I think Brexit is a good idea, and I understand the reasons people would vote for it, but I would never support a renunciation of the right of free determination.  If they want to vote again and Remainers win, that's fine too (even if I think they'll be worse off long term).

That really has next to nothing to do with the electoral college.  The electoral college is more akin to how some people think its unfair that a big pro-Exit vote in England, override a big pro-EU vote in Scotland and Wales.  If you imagine the UK as a US equivalent then the "electoral college" may have actually prevented the Brexit vote from winning, depending on how it's actually constructed.  Which is kind of exactly it's point, to ensure that the most populous region can't use it's raw numbers to ignore the less populace, but distinct areas, and to ensure that national policy has to consider the whole nation.

Gerrymandering is not a Republican only problem.  The left is just a wicked on this front (looking at you MD, for example).  In fact, there's a huge amount of intentionally pro-Democrat manipulation that's legally required (which was a major coup), even if how it operates wasn't set up.

Please. I dare any of you R's. Try to bring an argument based on weight of numbers.

Don't think it was that hard.  The electoral college has a specific purpose that's factually a good thing for a nation.

We all love represenative democracy. It's honestly the best idea we've had.  It annoys me when people slip out of that respect to complain about the will of the people.

Not sure where you are going here, "representative democracy" and the "will of the people" can easily be at direct odds.  I think the Brexit vote was kind of an oddity (the equivalent in the US for example, would require effectively a Constitutional Amendment, 2/3's approval in each house of Congress and approval of 75% of the States, not flipping the switch on a bare majority of the country), in that it undermines the actual representative democracy in the UK, but then so did joining the EU in the first place.

So why did they offer it?  And what do you actually do if more than half of your voters wants freedom from an unelected government with overwhelming powers (England at least should have been familiar with that situation as it's played out many times among their colonies).

The people get to decide their will. In the voting box. Deciding the person who is more experienced/cool/knowledgeable on the matters that care for them.

Or in the case of CA not in the ballot box and uncontrolled through ballot harvesting that there's no way to control for reasonable protections (which in NC is what's causing a revote today, and in CA flipped 8 seats that have been Republican for a long time).

There is nowhere in our cultural history where people have respected the random guy's vote because the random guy is an idiot. And ya'll can bleat about the need for the average person to vote, and respect their opinion, but something tells e you wouldn't be on board with a law requiring anyone 18+ to vote lol.

There's actually a place where they do - polling and marketing.  Pretty much every single argument you see where someone claims they have the support of the people is made on the basis of the "random (or even not random at all)" guys vote. 

I tend not to support laws that force those who have self selected not to vote to vote.  Not sure how anyone can think an electoral process is made better by compelling participation of those who choose not to be informed.  In fact that's my biggest problem with ballot harvesting, it's "including" people who are virtually guaranteed to be casting ill informed and easily manipulated votes.

But that said, it's not the worst process possible.

We have a Representative democracy for a reason
 You don't like what they're doing, choose someone else.

Otherwise you're asking two wolves and a sheep what's for dinner.

You don't believe the opinion of the guy down the street can decide what's best. Neither do I. We voted in people who do their best. Why should be thrown that system aside to suck on the people reading the Mail?.

[DJQuag]

Buy you have to know the numbers are against you. Literally the only thing giving the R's in America a voice is old people and that young people don't vote.

Gotta ask. Do you think young people should vote more?

I'd like to issue a small correction to this: the only thing giving the establishment a voice is older people, and that young people are repeatedly told their voices don't matter in every way that counts. They are told that progressive candidates 'don't have a chance' and not to waste their vote on them, which is another way of saying 'don't vote'.

In some ways you're right, in some ways you're wrong. It really is a chicken and egg problem.

It's not fair that older people have  greater hold on the media.

The way the media treats the young is atrocious. They should probably figure that out.

[Seriati]

I honestly don't get it sometimes. You people are all about "Yeah man get out the vote!".

Buy you have to know the numbers are against you. Literally the only thing giving the R's in America a voice is old people and that young people don't vote.

Gotta ask. Do you think young people should vote more?

More a Democratic campaign than a Republican one, but yes I do want people to vote more.  I want them to vote more because they care enough to vote and because they got informed.

It's funny, cause you're right, older people (who've gotten experience) are the ones that keep voting Republican, that care about their rights and their taxes (since they have incomes).

From my point of view, the only reason the Democrats have an advantage with the young is that it's been expressly their policy to control the education (or rather miseducation) of the young.  I mean the left controls education (overwhelmingly), the media (overwhelmingly) and even entertainment (overwhelmingly), which means people who've not been exposed to life are their primary voters. 

Why do we still even have Republican voters against that backdrop?  Oh yeah, cause reality starts getting in the way almost immediately.  When they get paid and start seeing their taxes, when they have kids and start caring about their safety and education, when they want to buy a house and start dealing with that mess and manipulation, when they want to found a business and spend massive amounts on compliance.  Sure they don't always examine why the government is in their way so much, but when they do that's where Republicans get their new voters.

[Fenring]

Why do we still even have Republican voters against that backdrop?  Oh yeah, cause reality starts getting in the way almost immediately.  When they get paid and start seeing their taxes, when they have kids and start caring about their safety and education, when they want to buy a house and start dealing with that mess and manipulation, when they want to found a business and spend massive amounts on compliance.  Sure they don't always examine why the government is in their way so much, but when they do that's where Republicans get their new voters.

But on the same token, the same processes that may cause people to be more right-leaning are also going to make them more afraid to lose what they have, even when change is needed. So these forces of stability are a boon and a danger at once; helping them protect what they have, but also gripping on to it for dear life even when safety is to be found in mobility.

[Kasandra]

Things are starting to come clear.  Johnson has lost every vote in Parliament, has lost his majority so he can't pass any new laws, has been found to have lied to the queen and illegally prorogued Parliament, has been declared to be an ineffectual Prime Minister by the EU leadership, refuses to step down from his position, won't put forward any formal plan to avoid a No-Deal Brexit, and would rather "die in a ditch" than ask for an extension from the EU to come up with a plan.  Has anyone else noticed that he and Donald Trump are never photographed standing next to each other?  Isn't it obvious why?

[TheDrake]

It's funny, cause you're right, older people (who've gotten experience) are the ones that keep voting Republican, that care about their rights and their taxes (since they have incomes).

More likely because they are senile. Breakdown

[Seriati]

I didn't read the High Court opinion, but it sounds like they went with substance over formalism, which I generally think is a good thing.  Dirty procedural tricks have become an American way of life, but they are not generally good things.

Kasandra, you have a good point (not about Trump/Johnson) but about Boris having no majority for his government.  Almost seems like there should be a general election, don't you think?  But no, procedural tricks are going to win the day there too, because the coalition doesn't trust the populace to not give Boris his majority.

[Kasandra]

I didn't read the High Court opinion, but it sounds like they went with substance over formalism, which I generally think is a good thing.  Dirty procedural tricks have become an American way of life, but they are not generally good things.

Kasandra, you have a good point (not about Trump/Johnson) but about Boris having no majority for his government.  Almost seems like there should be a general election, don't you think?  But no, procedural tricks are going to win the day there too, because the coalition doesn't trust the populace to not give Boris his majority.

A general election is process, not substance.  That won't fix anything, since the electorate has become about as divided and irreconcilable over there as ours is here.  I think it's time for the queen to step in and take charge.  She's got 70 years of experience as a monarch and Boris has only 2 months as a dictator.  FWIW, I'm only being half-facetious, but you'll have to figure out which half that is.

[Kasandra]

[Seriati:] "The electoral college has a specific purpose that's factually a good thing for a nation."

It may have been back at the dawn, but only because the Founders had a profound and somewhat well-placed mistrust of citizen electors, even though people are just as dumb, misinformed and easily conned today as back then.  At that time Senators were also appointed by the state governments for the same reason.  The only reason to keep the electoral college these days is to provide a small bias in favor of small states like Wyoming and Montana who get an electoral bump from their two Senators.  IMO, we should keep the electoral college system, but change it so that electoral votes are awarded proportionally to the popular vote in the state (rounded to nearest integers).  It's a whole 'nother discussion how to implement it, but it's pretty easy to understand.  We should wait to have that discussion until we've moved the vote for President to a Ranked Choice Vote (RCV) system, which is a necessary and long overdue step.

[NobleHunter]

I didn't read the High Court opinion, but it sounds like they went with substance over formalism, which I generally think is a good thing.  Dirty procedural tricks have become an American way of life, but they are not generally good things.

Kasandra, you have a good point (not about Trump/Johnson) but about Boris having no majority for his government.  Almost seems like there should be a general election, don't you think?  But no, procedural tricks are going to win the day there too, because the coalition doesn't trust the populace to not give Boris his majority.

I find it mind boggling that there been an election or at least have the Queen ask someone else to form a government. But apparently Westminister is set up so the PM can both have and not have the confidence of Parliament at the same time. Well, have the confidence of parliament enough to be Prime Minister but not enough to actually do anything.

[D.W.]

In all politics I think the base line is a large block of people content with doing nothing.    You gotta keep on your toes when everyone wants to do "something".

[Kasandra]

Donald Tusk to BoJo:

“What’s at stake is not winning some stupid blame game. At stake is the future of Europe and the UK as well as the security and interests of our people. You don’t want a deal, you don’t want an extension, you don’t want to revoke. Quo vadis?.”

It gets harder every day to believe that both Donald Trump and BoJo are leading two of the world's premiere democracies at the very same moment in time.  It's as if the two are engaged in a race to the bottom to see who can reduce world order to rubble first.  The only way Trump can outdo BoJo's latest would be to, say, on a whim tell Turkey to go ahead and invade Syria to wipe out the Kurdish Peshmerga and release the ISIS soldiers from the camps where they are being held.  That'll never happen.  No one would believe he would be that stupid.

[D.W.]

I'm sure he's got that covered.  Any day now he'll tweet that the kurds should just execute all their prisoners before they abandon the sites.   

[Kasandra]

BoJo has reached a broken deal with the EU on the terms for managing the Irish problem (an upgrade from the Irish Troubles).  It should be up to the people who voted for and against Brexit 3 years ago to decide if this resembles the outcome they thought they were voting on.  There are protesters on the streets in London today who voted for Brexit and are outraged that the information they were given that informed their vote was often wrong and sometimes critically corrupt, and this result is nothing like what they thought they were hoping to achieve.

[NobleHunter]

And another failed vote for Johnson. I don't think he's gotten anything passed Parliament. How on earth is he still Prime Minister?

[DJQuag]

And another failed vote for Johnson. I don't think he's gotten anything passed Parliament. How on earth is he still Prime Minister?

Fair play to him, he got 1 put of his first 9 votes passed.

This is the equivalent of the House being the end all of government and the first nine votes Pelosi gets she only wins one despite there being enough people in to vote her leader.

What a circus.

[DJQuag]

Spoiler alert - the Tories tried to make Theresa May their scapegoat for the Brexit fallout, she didn't last long enough, so they've shifted that honour to Johnson.

Ya'll complain the media sets Trump up to fail in the States, but BJ's own party used his own ego and power hungryness to set him up. His own party.

[Kasandra]

Spoiler alert - the Tories tried to make Theresa May their scapegoat for the Brexit fallout, she didn't last long enough, so they've shifted that honour to Johnson.

Ya'll complain the media sets Trump up to fail in the States, but BJ's own party used his own ego and power hungryness to set him up. His own party.

Proving we still have things to learn from our English fathers .

[Kasandra]

And another failed vote for Johnson. I don't think he's gotten anything passed Parliament. How on earth is he still Prime Minister?

Fair play to him, he got 1 put of his first 9 votes passed.

Not to nitpick, but:
"Boris Johnson is a prime minister without a mandate. He has never faced an election and has lost every vote he has put to the House of Commons. Yet time and again he has proved his willingness to ride roughshod over parliament in order to get his way."

If that's not Trumpian, I don't know what is.  FWIW, until I saw a picture of the two of them side by side at the UN, I wasn't completely convinced..........

[Seriati]

The way I read this is still the same.  A majority of Parliament wants to ignore the Brexit.  There's no way to complete a deal against the backdrop.  Hence the need for an election, either give the Brexiteers the mandate to finish, or make it clear they will never have the mandate.

I'm still a bit stunned that Boris managed to actually get the EU to make concessions towards a reasonable deal by the deadlines imposed.  Notwithstanding, Kasandra's complaints it's a big improvement over the prior arrangement and seems to have been a good compromise that covered everyone's sacred cows.  At this point, the best thing for the UK would be for the EU to reject the extension.  That would leave them with very specific options and force them to make a choice.