Federal United Kingdom thoughts?

[Monster Hunter]

Yeah well this is precisely the reason the EU is a good idea - it hasn't been that long since the Balkans were bathing in blood. Now, the countries are all willing to give up their feuds in favour of joining the EU - and at that point, those feuds quickly start disappearing, as the young generation already identifies with the idea of the Schengen area and suddenly the borderside minorities cease to be an issue, because you have a higher unit you can identify with that just your nation.

I think the NI was in a similar situation for a long time, and the feud may revive itself following Brexit.

that's one of my big fears.

[Antiganon]

Isn't the bold bit the point though, that its so damn hard to change no one bothers trying and thus what's in it becomes basically a permanent state of things?

but my issue with that is if you do something silly like add in the right to bare arms during a time of swords and muskets and that becomes and excuse to own more private modern munitions than some nations army's, now that's the obvious case, but there all sorts of stuff you could add into a constitution that given a few hundred years as people change, knowledge changes and things advance end up doing far more harm to a nation and society than good.

So don't include the right to bear arms, obviously. The rights specifically listed should be so widely agreed upon that there is zero conceivable reason for them to change in the future. The right to free speech or the right to vote for example, the right not to be discriminated against due to immutable characteristics you have no control over, the right to practice religion freely (which does not include proselyting, nor does it include breaking laws that have nothing to do with religion), etc.

I know US vs Europe "free speech" is a bit different, but the text could be something like "Parliament shall make no law abridging the free exercise of peaceable speech", then leave "peaceable speech" to be defined by simple legislation that can be much more easily changed.

That does leave a loophole where Parliament could decree that speech critical of Parliament is "non-peaceable" or other similar abuses of power, which isn't great, but the alternative is being unable to define and punish hate speech, and IIRC the UK and Europe at large would rather have speech somewhat restricted in favor of having means to punish and ostracize hate groups rather than being forced to tolerate their rhetoric in the public square because they haven't technically broken any laws.

[Monster Hunter]

So don't include the right to bear arms, obviously. The rights specifically listed should be so widely agreed upon that there is zero conceivable reason for them to change in the future. The right to free speech or the right to vote for example, the right not to be discriminated against due to immutable characteristics you have no control over, the right to practice religion freely (which does not include proselyting, nor does it include breaking laws that have nothing to do with religion), etc.

I know US vs Europe "free speech" is a bit different, but the text could be something like "Parliament shall make no law abridging the free exercise of peaceable speech", then leave "peaceable speech" to be defined by simple legislation that can be much more easily changed.

That does leave a loophole where Parliament could decree that speech critical of Parliament is "non-peaceable" or other similar abuses of power, which isn't great, but the alternative is being unable to define and punish hate speech, and IIRC the UK and Europe at large would rather have speech somewhat restricted in favor of having means to punish and ostracize hate groups rather than being forced to tolerate their rhetoric in the public square because they haven't technically broken any laws.

that's kind of my point, free speech is contentious issue in the USA so its not something widely agreed on, we don't have free speech we have a right to expression which is different but then there's a long list of caveats and amendments we mostly agree on, but we may not for ever always agree on them, I mean look at hoe much has changed in America since it wrote is constitution, 300 years is a hell of a long time, things change, views change sometimes on ways and in things we don't expect, I'm sure your founding fathers never imagined the rise of atheism, they talked a big game about freedom of religion and secularism, but then they littered god all over early America and now you guys have an issue with religion in politics.

and this is the thing, a constitution isn't the only way to make something like a right hard to remove, the Uk currently has no constitution and yet has rights and wrote many of the rights the EU and UN use today, so why hamstring your self in progress by making something that some of you're citizens might come to one day blindly follow with such fanaticism that it creates internal friction just on its own, that the blind following its self makes it a debate if there is even allowed to be a debate about such things.

i mean you guys have a right in there, that was first envisioned to prevent foreign imperial nations having power over your people that is now used to prevent America accepting the basic UN human rights in legislation, which then makes you look like mooks on the world stage when you go to talk about other nations records on rights (that and the whole Guantanamo bay thing).

but that's my argument, constitution's make nations too inflexible to an ever changing world and cause issues with stagnation at some point possibly centuries later when the world the constitution was written in is vastly different from the reality of the world at that time.

[Antiganon]

that's kind of my point, free speech is contentious issue in the USA so its not something widely agreed on, we don't have free speech we have a right to expression which is different but then there's a long list of caveats and amendments we mostly agree on, but we may not for ever always agree on them, I mean look at hoe much has changed in America since it wrote is constitution, 300 years is a hell of a long time, things change, views change sometimes on ways and in things we don't expect, I'm sure your founding fathers never imagined the rise of atheism, they talked a big game about freedom of religion and secularism, but then they littered god all over early America and now you guys have an issue with religion in politics.

and this is the thing, a constitution isn't the only way to make something like a right hard to remove, the Uk currently has no constitution and yet has rights and wrote many of the rights the EU and UN use today, so why hamstring your self in progress by making something that some of you're citizens might come to one day blindly follow with such fanaticism that it creates internal friction just on its own, that the blind following its self makes it a debate if there is even allowed to be a debate about such things.

i mean you guys have a right in there, that was first envisioned to prevent foreign imperial nations having power over your people that is now used to prevent America accepting the basic UN human rights in legislation, which then makes you look like mooks on the world stage when you go to talk about other nations records on rights (that and the whole Guantanamo bay thing).

but that's my argument, constitution's make nations too inflexible to an ever changing world and cause issues with stagnation at some point possibly centuries later when the world the constitution was written in is vastly different from the reality of the world at that time.

My point is that they don't have to.

The US constitution is difficult to change because it requires 3/4 of both houses of Congress, 3/4 of state legislatures, or a referendum in 3/4 of states. If the threshold was lowered to like 60% there would be a lot more we could get done at the state or grassroots level regardless of Washington gridlock.

The other thing is that you could exclude the inalienable rights entirely if you do choose. The bigger portion is setting up the means by which government functions and codifying the means by which government is elected, so you don't have power mad asshats trying to change the rules to keep themselves in power after their supporters have become a minority of the general population.

Imagine if the US constitution specified that congressional districts shall be drawn by a nonpartisan committee appointed by the governor of each State, and those districts shall be approved by the Supreme Court of each State. Gerrymandering would cease to exist entirely. Or if the US specified that electoral votes from each state shall be apportioned with two going to the overall popular vote winner, with remaining votes distributed proportionally among all candidates receiving at least one Electoral vote's worth of popular support. Third parties could make a serious run and have a reasonable chance of winning the presidency.

[Monster Hunter]

i think my over all feeling on labours proposal is, its a good start but i think it lack imagination, i think there trying to copy America too much which as we have seen over the last few years is not a good example of a working democracy and society.

i think they key to this is coming up with something new, bold and imaginative, this is a big chance at the end of the day to reshape the nation and to much of labours proposal doesn't feel fully thought through, like why a senate, what would the purpose of said senate really be, things like that.

- - - Updated - - -

My point is that they don't have to.

The US constitution is difficult to change because it requires 3/4 of both houses of Congress, 3/4 of state legislatures, or a referendum in 3/4 of states. If the threshold was lowered to like 60% there would be a lot more we could get done at the state or grassroots level regardless of Washington gridlock.

The other thing is that you could exclude the inalienable rights entirely if you do choose. The bigger portion is setting up the means by which government functions and codifying the means by which government is elected, so you don't have power mad asshats trying to change the rules to keep themselves in power after their supporters have become a minority of the general population.

Imagine if the US constitution specified that congressional districts shall be drawn by a nonpartisan committee appointed by the governor of each State, and those districts shall be approved by the Supreme Court of each State. Gerrymandering would cease to exist entirely. Or if the US specified that electoral votes from each state shall be apportioned with two going to the overall popular vote winner, with remaining votes distributed proportionally among all candidates receiving at least one Electoral vote's worth of popular support. Third parties could make a serious run and have a reasonable chance of winning the presidency.

proportional representation will probly be my #1 requirement of any restructure, which ever party's purposal includes removing FPTP most likely wins my vote i think, unless they have some huge things in there I'm totally against.

[cubby]

hmmm, seems the ship has sailed..... NI and Scotland will leave and merry old England can do what it wants.

I really hope they do vote to leave and join the EU - fucking Brexit.

[Monster Hunter]

No there's no real problem that can't be resolved by FPTP but can be resolved by PR. Both have the means of implementing arbitrarily any policy as long as you have good arguments that can convince other people. Constantly rearranging democracy/governance is just about power dynamics as opposed to getting to the bottom of a real world issue.

i disagree, its about representation, representation of political opinion in the halls of power, which to me is the fundamental corner stone of democracy the FPTP actively works against, FPTP naturally favors large parties, which means parties end up being broad churches, and then internal politics within said parties dictates what problems and solutions that party goes to the people with, the rest are left on the shelf till a leadership change usually, that means within said party ideas and belief's not "of the whip" have no voice in government, further more as the FPTP system favors big parties who have power centralised via jerrymandering they often end up with disproportionate power, take the cons, they have only 1% more votes than they got during the collation government days, and yet they now have a historic majority in parliament, that's disproportionate representation meaning problems people have that other parties highlight are also disproportionately minimised.

and that's the big issue FPTP means that your government does not accurately represent the opinion's and views of your people, and arguments cannot be won unless you have a platform to present them and in government that's having representatives in parliament.

this is the last election results under both systems compared.

party FPTP PR change
conservative Party 363 288 -75
Labour Party 203 213 +10
Scottish National Party 48 26 -22
Liberal Democrats 11 76 +65
Democratic Unionist Party 8 5 -3
Sinn Féin 7 4 -3
Plaid Cymru 4 3 -1
Green Party 1 18 +17
Alliance Party 1 3 +2
Brexit Party 0 13 +13
Social Democratic and Labour Party 2 2 0

as you can see, there are parties and thus issues they stand on that are massively over represented and party's and there issues they stand on massively under represented, and thus people get angry because things arnt resolved with the importance that there actual popularity dictates.

FPTP also heavily encourages tribal voting as another issue, which is really just being a total dick and any one who votes for a party like that is a nob because that's not what democracy is supposed to be about.

[Dhrizzle]

Well I think -something- should be done with NI, but not sure what. The complicity of the situation is self-evident from all the violence that has been going on there only recently.

The main problem is that the current status quo is literally the result of an occupation and before something is done to change that symbolically at the least, the issue will remain an issue IMHO. Same for Scotland, although there the history runs even deeper ofc.

Scotland was never actually occupied, there's grumbling about the way the Scottish lords were manipulated into accepting the Union but they never had the army march in and lay claim to the place.

- - - Updated - - -

Scotland history is completly different, England and Scotland had many wars but Scotland was never conqured and occupied for any great length of time, Scotland joined the UK due to Darion affair as a big debt write off in the 1700s, our monarchy were joined befor that when the English line died out with Elizabeth the first and king james of Scotland became king of both.

The English line hasn't been a thing since 1066, it's all Normans and French after that until we get to the Tudors (5 monarchs over 3 generations) who were Welsh. The Scots line didn't last long either, we got the Dutch to replace them (fun fact: the Netherlands actually invaded Britain to put William and Mary on the throne in a mostly bloodless affair. This William, Prince of Orange, was very popular among the Protestants which is why a large faction of NI Unionists are the Orangemen with strong ties to Scotland.)

- - - Updated - - -

proportional representation will probly be my #1 requirement of any restructure, which ever party's purposal includes removing FPTP most likely wins my vote i think, unless they have some huge things in there I'm totally against.

Proportional representation for the Commons, constituency elections for whatever the Lords becomes with AV so you can vote for your unpopular favourite and the person you like who might win.

[Monster Hunter]

Scotland was never actually occupied, there's grumbling about the way the Scottish lords were manipulated into accepting the Union but they never had the army march in and lay claim to the place.

- - - Updated - - -



The English line hasn't been a thing since 1066, it's all Normans and French after that until we get to the Tudors (5 monarchs over 3 generations) who were Welsh. The Scots line didn't last long either, we got the Dutch to replace them (fun fact: the Netherlands actually invaded Britain to put William and Mary on the throne in a mostly bloodless affair. This William, Prince of Orange, was very popular among the Protestants which is why a large faction of NI Unionists are the Orangemen with strong ties to Scotland.)

- - - Updated - - -



Proportional representation for the Commons, constituency elections for whatever the Lords becomes with AV so you can vote for your unpopular favourite and the person you like who might win.

aye that's true about the English throne, i mean if were being technical England has more claim to being conquered than Scotland does, considering there monarchy inherited it till they died out and then the Dutch literally invaded (by invitation) to but William of orange on the throne.

as for the Scottish lords being manipulated yea its true but, they forget England has that same complaint, when the king first asked the English parliament about the union they laughed and said no, only after enough palms were greased on both sides did it happen, but ultimately it really was just as one big Scottish debt write off after they blew all there money on that failed panama colony

the union of England and Scotland is a union no one wanted, especial my ancestors on the Scottish side of the family as they made a living as reavers.

[Dhrizzle]

aye that's true about the English throne, i mean if were being technical England has more claim to being conquered than Scotland does, considering there monarchy inherited it till they died out and then the Dutch literally invaded (by invitation) to but William of orange on the throne.

as for the Scottish lords being manipulated yea its true but, they forget England has that same complaint, when the king first asked the English parliament about the union they laughed and said no, only after enough palms were greased on both sides did it happen, but ultimately it really was just as one big Scottish debt write off after they blew all there money on that failed panama colony

the union of England and Scotland is a union no one wanted, especial my ancestors on the Scottish side of the family as they made a living as reavers.

These guys -

At the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547, an observer (William Patten) noticed Scottish and English borderers chatting with each other, then putting on a spirited show of combat once they knew they had been spotted.

Absolute heroes every one of them.

[Slant]

I've spent a lot of time in the area, I can understand the language, and I disagree with you. Yes, there is still issues of course but basically all the countries except for Serbia have silently agreed to be friends for the sake of joining the EU.

They have always agreed to get along except for Serbia... lol. And what you said is the problem, them agreeing to do something just to join the EU. That is not good enough. That is not how this works. And the EU should wait 10-20 more years to let everyone settle down and be really sure that this is legit. We've rushed too much in the past and we're paying for it still.

[Monster Hunter]

Alright, my history konwledge sure got blurry, thanks for the correction.

In any case I also used wrong words, I was trying to make a different point - Scotland has for a long time been an independent entity, different from England. You will never take that away from their minds however hard you try. I think it makes no sense for Scotland to still be a part of the UK in the 21st century. Just like Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire / Soviet Union fell apart, just like the colonies became independent in various points of history, it is finally time for the UK and Spain to split into its constituent and independent nations.

Depends really, scotish independance is a nice idea but true independance without financial dependance on a group like the UK or EU is impossible for Scotland to achieve currently without MASSIVE cuts to there social welfare, living standards and spending.

Scotland only has 5 million people, to put it bluntly, Yorkshire the English Northern county has roughly the same population. Scotlands gdp on its own is rank 57 that puts at about Bangladesh/Iraq level economicaly, and that presents major issues on the path to independance, few Scots that have grown accustomed to things like the nhs lrobly won't be willing to stay in basicly kne of the poorest nations in Europe, in 2016 the I dependance bid was heavily reliant on its share of North Sea oil which as we know has completely bottomed out part due to coivd ofc but part do to oil not being sustainable, this is further complicated by England refusing to allow Scotland to keep using the pound Post independance (which i can't blame them, why would you allow a currency union that could create huge instability) and the EU out right refusing to take on another Greece like country thats financially dependant on Germany and France.

At this time, Scottish independance would be an extreamly stupid move, as I said yorkshire has a higher gdp, similar population and more stable sources of income, an overall more viable region to make an independance bid and no one considers giving up the welfare we enjoy just to have the white rose fly at the UN on its own.

But ultimatly its up to Scotland, like with brexit and trump a democracy is free to shoot its self if its majority so wishes, I just wouldn't go promoting the idea with good conscience, as much as having to listen to the snp bitch on and on wasting every ones time in Parliament I don't want to see Scotland in complete poverty.

That said if independance won a referendum then they have the right to blow there own foot off and I won't stand in there way, like with brexit id only sit there saying its a mistake.

[Crispin]

Unless you get rid of FPTP, tinkering around with the structure of the United Kingdom is pointless. Get proportional representation, move away from confrontational politics and move towards co-operative politics. Give people the chance to vote for a wide variety of parties, knowing that their votes would actually result in representation. Once you've done that, you can start to sort out the archaic power structures we have.

Oh, and teach politics in schools, so that people grow up with some kind of idea about political ideologies. It's horrifying how little people know about something that has such a profound impact on their lives.

You do not teach politics in school? That's quite surprising, well I guess recent events shows it's not. In Denmark schools have play elections, debates for different parties, education in regards to the EU etc.

[Ihavewaffles]

Scottland last ind vote was close, and now with the opposition to that, that are pro eu, well independence from uk is their only possible way back, it seems impossible scotland won't leave uk, I doubt anyone would bet money against that happening.

It would take a miracle for uk not to break off..

[Slant]

Well I think once the change happens and goes on, the animosity disappears thanks to the new generations. If you grow up going on vacation to the neighbouring country, do a high-school exchange in another one, then your neighbour finds a wife in another, then you do an Erasmus exchange in Germany where you meet friends from all the countries your parents seemed to hate and suddenly the borders blur. Do this for long enough, and the integrated people become the majority.

Also, this doesn't even only apply to the young ones, many old people are active and want to see and experience the world. Also, many of them have friends in other countries from happier times, and they are willing to revive them when the situation allows for it.

You'd think this... and then you remember that Yugoslavia did exactly that, broke apart and the Balkans went up in flames immediately after. Cultural rifts don't get fixed just with good intentions and a few generations removed. Your best example might be France and Germany, burying a millenial old inheritance grudge, but both countries actively worked hard for that. And still work on it every single year with not just a few exchange programs, but every school and every class going through it at least once. There is not a single student in any French class who doesn't get to participate in that program.

[DingDongKing]

In favour of a reform. The term lengths in the House of Commons needs to change. Allowing one party to enjoy a majority for 5 years is madness.

[Monster Hunter]

You'd think this... and then you remember that Yugoslavia did exactly that, broke apart and the Balkans went up in flames immediately after. Cultural rifts don't get fixed just with good intentions and a few generations removed. Your best example might be France and Germany, burying a millenial old inheritance grudge, but both countries actively worked hard for that. And still work on it every single year with not just a few exchange programs, but every school and every class going through it at least once. There is not a single student in any French class who doesn't get to participate in that program.

I mean it was just in the news today that customs officials dealing with goods moving from mainland UK into Northern Ireland, something that had to be in place to keep no boarder in ireland for the GF agreement, have started coming under increasing threats of violence by unionist groups.

The troubles arnt fully over, yea its no where near as bad as it was but bombings still happen, innocents still get shot, many living in unionist and republican bastions live still under the threat of being knee caped or beaten if there not loyal to the causes.

The UK understands this, the republicans of Ireland understand it, tbh my big fear is the wider EU and the world doesn't understand the explosive keg that is Northern Ireland, I see so many come swanning into threads on the topic saying "Ireland should be whole" pro ira and all that, but I don't think they really understand the utter bloodshed that would occure if that happend, or if the EU go the other way and push the republic and UK to have a hard boarder.

I wish people would look more into it, think more about it befor pontificating, its easy to sit half a world away and see a situation as black and white but reality isnt that clean cut.

- - - Updated - - -

You answered yourself. Yugoslavia broke apart. Why? Because it was founded on a power balance that was unfair, especially towards Serbia as a country and Bosnians as a nation. If the countries join the EU and stay for long enough, the animosity will be gone in time. The situation is different than Yugoslavia, because that country was a bundle of historical problems. When the countries join the EU individually, it's a completely different story.

To apply this back to the topic at hand - this is IMO precisely the problem of Scotland and NI as well - the power balance is inherently unfair, no matter how you look at it. The UK is infact England & co. If the country was strictly federalised, it could help a lot. AND having the UK in the EU on top of that would be perfect. Sadly that is no longer an option, at least not for decades.

Id argue the UK is infact London & co.

There are areas and regions of England that are just as ignored, most notably the North for centuries, yea the north lost its independance in 1066 with the loss at stamford Bridge, but its never really been unified, englands always been a country of two halves, part of the sudden shift in tone of the major parties to reform has been driven by a slow growing push for devolution by the North of england and current political tension by the North, a position that Andy burnham has suddenly found him self as the banner man for people to rally behind.

I think it shocked whitehall alot when burnham told them to fuck off and got overwhelming support from the people in the North of both political wings when he did it.

[Dhrizzle]

I think it shocked whitehall alot when burnham told them to fuck off and got overwhelming support from the people in the North of both political wings when he did it.

Possibly but the argument was kept going because it dominated the headlines and allowed the government to sneakily u-turn on NHS workers' pay-rises.

[Slant]

The UK understands this, the republicans of Ireland understand it, tbh my big fear is the wider EU and the world doesn't understand the explosive keg that is Northern Ireland, I see so many come swanning into threads on the topic saying "Ireland should be whole" pro ira and all that, but I don't think they really understand the utter bloodshed that would occure if that happend, or if the EU go the other way and push the republic and UK to have a hard boarder.

The world understands this. The EU and the US specifically seem to understand the problem better than the UK, specifically England/London. That's why we've advised against this for such a long time. We have warned exactly against this. I have pointed the Troubles out as a potential spectre to resurface very early in the Brexit thread. It is a well known problem.

[Monster Hunter]

The world understands this. The EU and the US specifically seem to understand the problem better than the UK, specifically England/London. That's why we've advised against this for such a long time. We have warned exactly against this. I have pointed the Troubles out as a potential spectre to resurface very early in this thread. It is a well known problem.

aye but it from my perspective seems like it was a major concern when it fit a political position but now its actually a problem, its one that people seem to forget in the heat of trying to fight other political battles, we saw this week how the EU-UK vaccine spat very nearly over ran on the good Friday agreement and rose tensions in NI until a quick U-turn got it under control, seems like the troubles is something every one remembers when it suits them but when it comes to blocking vaccine exports its conveniently forgotten.