Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

I think the point on China seeing everything through the lens of its confrontation with the US is more widely relevant for the rest of Europe because, bluntly, I don't think they view Europe as an independent actor (especially watching Ukraine) so their goal is simply to peel them off from the US as much as possible.

It is so weird. They were our favored trading nation for years, so much of their economic growth was due to our investment and support. Yet now they (and maybe us as well) seem determined that we both go down in some bizarre suicide pact just because...for no reason at all...when all of our national interests dictate collaboration.

This is why ultimately the liberal model of international relations breaks down, nobody seems to act rationally in accordance with their interests. We tried really hard to tie Chinese interests to our own and even now it is absolutely true that Chinese success is good for us and vice versa...and yet...

[Sheilbh]

It is so weird. They were our favored trading nation for years, so much of their economic growth was due to our investment and support. Yet now they (and maybe us as well) seem determined that we both go down in some bizarre suicide pact just because...for no reason at all...when all of our national interests dictate collaboration.

This is why ultimately the liberal model of international relations breaks down, nobody seems to act rationally in accordance with their interests. We tried really hard to tie Chinese interests to our own and even now it is absolutely true that Chinese success is good for us and vice versa...and yet...

There are reasons. On the bluntest level is the US willing to share global leadership and have China as an equally powerful decision maker? That's what it's economic importance would suggest but I don't think the US would tolerate that or that Europe would welcome it either.

So much of the current US position on China is around making sure that China does not become the technological leader in the future tech that is key to the next century's economic development: computing power, green technology (maybe AI). And that, instead, as in the 20th century the US has technological dominance.

I think those are sensible policies and goals for the US and absolutely in their national interest and the national interest of other partners in the current system. But while I'm broadly behind that approach, I fully understand why, from a Chinese perspective, they're intolerable. I'm not sure national interests dictate collaboration or that the failure is a collapse of rationalism. Being rational doesn't only lead to one outcome.

I think the mistake was the assumption that what is good for a liberal market is necessarily good for liberal societies.

[Josquius]

It is so weird. They were our favored trading nation for years, so much of their economic growth was due to our investment and support. Yet now they (and maybe us as well) seem determined that we both go down in some bizarre suicide pact just because...for no reason at all...when all of our national interests dictate collaboration.

This is why ultimately the liberal model of international relations breaks down, nobody seems to act rationally in accordance with their interests. We tried really hard to tie Chinese interests to our own and even now it is absolutely true that Chinese success is good for us and vice versa...and yet...

There are reasons. On the bluntest level is the US willing to share global leadership and have China as an equally powerful decision maker? That's what it's economic importance would suggest but I don't think the US would tolerate that or that Europe would welcome it either.

So much of the current US position on China is around making sure that China does not become the technological leader in the future tech that is key to the next century's economic development: computing power, green technology (maybe AI). And that, instead, as in the 20th century the US has technological dominance.

I think those are sensible policies and goals for the US and absolutely in their national interest and the national interest of other partners in the current system. But while I'm broadly behind that approach, I fully understand why, from a Chinese perspective, they're intolerable. I'm not sure national interests dictate collaboration or that the failure is a collapse of rationalism. Being rational doesn't only lead to one outcome.

I think the mistake was the assumption that what is good for a liberal market is necessarily good for liberal societies.

A lot of chicken and egg in that though.
China being cut off from cutting edge technology et al is precisely because they've shown they've no interest in cooperation, human rights, etc. 

[mongers]

Obviously republicanism is correct intellectually etc. But it will never succeed in Britain unti there are new republicans, less devoted to channelling our slightly joyless, Puritan, Protestant strand of republicanism:


Imagine trying to win over public opinion and complaining about the impact on GDP of extra bank holidays

Why not have 28 or 30 a month, that way we'd still have 70 % of the GDP. 

[Tamas]

OH NO: a small London street where you can get cheap Indian food is under threat by HS2: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/15/london-drummond-street-euston-little-india-south-asian-restaurants

Once you read the article though, you realise this mortal danger manifests itself as temporary barriers on the street (due to construction work) making it more difficult to enter it.

Fucking nymbis

[Syt]

[Gups]

OH NO: a small London street where you can get cheap Indian food is under threat by HS2: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/15/london-drummond-street-euston-little-india-south-asian-restaurants

Once you read the article though, you realise this mortal danger manifests itself as temporary barriers on the street (due to construction work) making it more difficult to enter it.

Fucking nymbis

You say temporary but the construction has been going on for six years now.

Work has now been suspended at Euston and the  completion date has been pushed  back from 2026 to 2041-2043. The hoardings will, I think, remain in place throughout.

So these business owners will have lost footfall for at least 30 years. They have no basis on which to claim compensation.

In hindsight the nimbys were correct. The timetable for construction was hopelessly optimistic. The costs overrun  is astonishing and there's a reasonable likelihood that the station will never be completed. The most disastrous part of a calamitous project.

[crazy canuck]

It is so weird. They were our favored trading nation for years, so much of their economic growth was due to our investment and support. Yet now they (and maybe us as well) seem determined that we both go down in some bizarre suicide pact just because...for no reason at all...when all of our national interests dictate collaboration.

This is why ultimately the liberal model of international relations breaks down, nobody seems to act rationally in accordance with their interests. We tried really hard to tie Chinese interests to our own and even now it is absolutely true that Chinese success is good for us and vice versa...and yet...

There are reasons. On the bluntest level is the US willing to share global leadership and have China as an equally powerful decision maker? That's what it's economic importance would suggest but I don't think the US would tolerate that or that Europe would welcome it either.

So much of the current US position on China is around making sure that China does not become the technological leader in the future tech that is key to the next century's economic development: computing power, green technology (maybe AI). And that, instead, as in the 20th century the US has technological dominance.

I think those are sensible policies and goals for the US and absolutely in their national interest and the national interest of other partners in the current system. But while I'm broadly behind that approach, I fully understand why, from a Chinese perspective, they're intolerable. I'm not sure national interests dictate collaboration or that the failure is a collapse of rationalism. Being rational doesn't only lead to one outcome.

I think the mistake was the assumption that what is good for a liberal market is necessarily good for liberal societies.

I think a broader perspective is required. The reasons for dealing with China differently now go beyond mere national interest of individual nations.

The reason for opening up trade to China was the thought that if it was involved in a global liberal democratic trade at work, it would become more liberal democratic. Very much the same mistake we made in Russia.

Course we now know for certain that capitalism and the liberal trade policies that have been associated with capitalism over the last 30 years do not lead necessarily to a Liberal Democratic society.

If anything, what we have witnessed over the last 30 years is a weakening of liberal democratic norms in nations that were once hallmarks of what such a society looks like.

So, in answer to Valmy, there were very good reasons not to have open trade with China. It is not as simplistic as you stated in your post.

[Sheilbh]

I don't disagree with any of that. I just think it's a mistake to say China or the US are acting against their interests. I think they both are acting in-line with their interests and for broadly understabndable reasons.

I think there was definitely an arrogance from the US about the triumph of liberal democracy and, from Europe, I think more of a wilful blindness/naivety about it. In a really broad sense it feels like the West just lost any understanding of power: the US forgot there were limits to it; Europe forgot it existed. I think it was a view that would have been utterly alien to an earlier generation of politicans.

I also think we weakened our own hand on liberal democracy because for the last 30 years there has been a very clear emphasis on (some of) the liberal bit and norms, at the expense of the democracy. We hollowed out the content of democracy.

Separately interesting that after not being allowed to run as Labour candidate the North East Metro Mayor anounced he would run as an independent if he could raise £25,000 by the end of August. He has raised £30,000 in the first two hours so is standing:

Mayor Jamie Driscoll
@MayorJD
I've decided to resign from @UKLabour and serve as an Independent Mayor.

People are tired of being controlled by Westminster and Party HQs. They want someone to stand up for them. Let the people decide. £25k by end of Aug & I'll stand as North East Mayor👉https://gofund.me/98547c6b
The only 'whip' should be the people. The North East needs an experienced, independent voice. Even if you don't live here, this affects you. Our politics is a mess. Millions feel no one speaks for them. Politicians should answer to you, not to party bosses in London HQs.
Since my barring by @UKLabour, I've received overwhelming support. The cry for me to run as an independent has come from business leaders, community workers, trade unionists and politicians cross party. People have stopped me in the street asking me to run!

But I won't have big party machinery behind me, or a national press office. I'll need £150k to run a full campaign. If I can raise £25k by the end of August, I'll run. The decision is yours. There's more info here 👇
This is not a time for faint hearts. It's a time for bravery. If you back me, I'll run. If I run, we can win. #ShyBairnsGetNowt.

If you want to find out more about me and my vision for the future, you can find out more on my website

Of all the incredible levels of control freakery from Starmer's team this is the one that provoked most bafflement - including from other parties - and anger within Labour, so not really a surprise. I wouldn't be surprised if he won (especially as the Tories have changed mayoral elections from instant run-offs to FPTP).

[Josquius]

Its worrying considering the Tories fucking with local electoral systems to make them less democratic too. I believe this will be straight FPTP?
The woman who got the nomination instead, out of a field of 2, is a thoroughly uninspiring careerist.

I really can't see Driscoll winning. I worry however he will leech off enough of the Labour vote to hand victory to a Tory- especially if they can convince the fascist candidate to bow out.

[crazy canuck]

I don't disagree with any of that. I just think it's a mistake to say China or the US are acting against their interests. I think they both are acting in-line with their interests and for broadly understabndable reasons.

I think there was definitely an arrogance from the US about the triumph of liberal democracy and, from Europe, I think more of a wilful blindness/naivety about it. In a really broad sense it feels like the West just lost any understanding of power: the US forgot there were limits to it; Europe forgot it existed. I think it was a view that would have been utterly alien to an earlier generation of politicans.

I also think we weakened our own hand on liberal democracy because for the last 30 years there has been a very clear emphasis on (some of) the liberal bit and norms, at the expense of the democracy. We hollowed out the content of democracy.

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but take issue with the third.

I think, and I am not alone in this, that we have weakened the liberal norms of liberal democracy over the last 30 years.  There are varying reasons for why this occurred.  I think the most compelling is that we simply took them for granted and did not emphasize educating our population about them.  They were viewed as naturally occurring rather than things that require constant work.

I also think that the democracy part of liberal democracy has been used as an excuse by the political elites far too often.  Brexit is a perfect example of this.  But I don't think either of us want to re-argue that issue  Decisions made simply because the majority of the population supports it are historically often wrong.  That is why it is important to have liberal institutions in place.

We see that just recently one of our posters spoke with some derision about how in the anglosphere protection of everyone's rights can lead to the destruction of society.  Quebec is a good case study for how a majority group can, with the best of intentions (in this case the protection of a cultural identity), can enact troubling laws which please the majority and have significant negative impacts on the minority. 

[Sheilbh]

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but take issue with the third.

I think, and I am not alone in this, that we have weakened the liberal norms of liberal democracy over the last 30 years.  There are varying reasons for why this occurred.  I think the most compelling is that we simply took them for granted and did not emphasize educating our population about them.  They were viewed as naturally occurring rather than things that require constant work.

I also think that the democracy part of liberal democracy has been used as an excuse by the political elites far too often.  Brexit is a perfect example of this.  But I don't think either of us want to re-argue that issue  Decisions made simply because the majority of the population supports it are historically often wrong.  That is why it is important to have liberal institutions in place.

We see that just recently one of our posters spoke with some derision about how in the anglosphere protection of everyone's rights can lead to the destruction of society.  Quebec is a good case study for how a majority group can, with the best of intentions (in this case the protection of a cultural identity), can enact troubling laws which please the majority and have significant negative impacts on the minority. 

I disagree on this that we just took them for granted I think across the West but particularly in Europe there has been an emptying of democratic politics. I would put the cause the other way round. That doesn't mean democracies or democratic decisions will always be right - it's just an important principle that they are allowed to be wrong. I think institutions that correct that tendency tend to do more damage than good in the long-run (think of all the various "guardians of the constitution" models you see around the world). In general I think democratic politics more often than not makes the right choice (of the options presented). But my basic view as ever is that all the stuff people on here dislike: populism, anti-politics, "post-truth" etc are, in my view, symptoms and not causes of our problems. I'm not sure the people who got us into this mess are the ones who really have any idea how to fix it, which is why I struggle with, say, the Rest is Politics I should add - I don't really think any of this applies to the US.

Within the context of the Eurozone there are very strict rules on debt and spending that need the Commission to waive them or you risk ending up with the Troika. More generally within the EU swathes of regulation and policy areas like trade, or a lot of digital regulation are broadly European competences largely managed by the Commission. At a national level I think there's been a general growth in constitutional/legal routes which are (by nature) non-democratic and unrepresentative but that constrain democratic politics, as well as policy discretion by the administrative state. At the same time I think this has been accompanied by a discourse of disempowerment. It is commonplace that we are (were?) in an age of hyper-globalisation and big tech, that challenges and threats and risks are global and cannot be managed by states (democratic or otherwise) and instead we must rely on technocratic, non-representative bodies - that's where effective decisions can be made. Anything else is just pissing in the wind. I think it's very difficult to say voting is a civic duty, people have a responsibility to engage and liberal democracy is really important while also saying the scope of acceptable decisions, the ability of elections to influence them and the effectiveness of states is declining.

Relatedly I think - again this is more Europe than the US (but may apply to Canada) - we had party democracies for most of the post-war era with mass membership of millions of people. They were, to nick Peter Mair's phrase, a "zone of engagement" between citizens and their governors. Those mass parties were unapologetically partisan and sectarian - there was normally a party for labour/workers and a party for the middle class/capital plus others. No-one expected the left to govern in a way that pleased the right or vice versa.

Mass party participation has declined, as have those parties and as has the sense that parties are there to advance the interests of their constituency. What has replaced that mass party politics with its sectarian interests has been the rise of a political class that is trying to speak/be "for everyone" - whether through Berlusconi's personalism, Blair's goal to lead "the political wing of the British people" or Macron's "neither left nor right". The core constituency of this type of politics is not millions of members in a mass party but the media and a focus group. In my view, not unrelatedly, after roughly 45 years of pretty stable voter turnout across Europe, it has been falling pretty consistently across Europe for the last 30 years. I've mentioned before that in Europe there is record voter volatility and I think in part we need maybe a little more polarisation - a little more sense of x party operating for y constituency.

Italy is the extreme, or maybe just the earliest, example of all of these tendencies. There you have an elite that is committed to European fiscal and economic policy and doing what is necessary to stay within that, who talk about NATO and the EU openly as "external constraints" against the potential irresponsibiliity of Italian democratic politics. At the same time with tangentopoli and collapse of the first republic, basically all of the traditional mass parties collapse.

What follows was Berlusconi - a businessman and media mogul who pitches himself initially as a guy who could fix Italy with his practical business nous and because he wasn't bothered so much about left or right (Berlusconi's old political associates were on the centre-left - he was associated more with Craxi and the PS not the Christian Democrats). Though he really didn't like the communists. Instead of some partisan slogan or ideological offering, his party was named after a football chant for the national team. And, crucially, Berlusconi doesn't challenge or doubt the politics of the external constraint. So for much of his time in office Italy's economic and fiscal policies are basically set purely to meet European requirements - and would not differ whether it was him or Prodi.

If there are whole swathes of policy that are basically off-limits for democratic politics, and there's no mass parties - who else would win but the more chameleon and fun media performer. Not unrelatedly if there is a narrow window on economic policy in which left and right have to live or they move out of the "mainstream" - then what is left? I'd suggest it's culture wars and social issues because they're free.

I don't think we can re-create the post-war model. I think the economic and social conditions that created mass party politics are gone (particularly big centralised industrial workforces). And it is also true that those mass parties often failed at representing women or minorities and also were not immune from corruption (again, see tangentopoli). But I don't know what comes next - I wonder if it is something that looks more like direct democracy or some attempts at an online party, which is something Macron gestured at in the early days of his movement and was the idea of M5S. That would be my guess is that it is something more personality based, online, frothy and temporary. On this, I wonder if Eastern Europe which never had that history of mass party democracy and became democratic as it started dying is the model - as generally a lot of that seems to describe their parties.

Similarly I don't necessarily think this means those supra-national bodies are bad or need got rid of - but I think they are getting to the point of needing their own democratic politics/democratisation. I think there's signs of a politicisation of the EU which is a really good sign. It will be decried as a worrying sign by many as EU laws go from getting approved 500-100 in the European Parliament to being actually contested between the right and left (as we've recently seen over the regulation on natural habitats), but I think that is actually a really positive sign of an emerging democratic politics in EU institutions. Democratic politics doesn't work without polarisation and parties presenting alternative platforms, at least if voters are anything more than one of many stakeholders to be managed.

Or it may mean a return to more national politics and a weakening of those domestic post-democratic instutions and the international liberal ones.

We'll muddle through to something that probably combines both - or, maybe, we continue to blame the democratic bit of liberal democracy and build more and more restrictions on what is within the acceptable scope of politics/what areas of policy can democratic politics impact. Which, I think, would not be a good direction. I always think of this in the way people use "political" as a perjorative - including within politics In a democracy, it's the best we've got.

[crazy canuck]

I think there are two concepts here - one is the liberal democratic constraints on the will of the majority and your statement that " it's just an important principle that they [majority democratic decisions] are allowed to be wrong".  That is not at all an important principle within Liberal Democracy and I would argue runs entirely contrary to the concept.

The reason first had the Rule of Law and judicial oversight of governmental decision making, and then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which created constitutional rights of judicial oversight, is to curb the effects of decisions of the political class.

But I don't think you necessarily disagree, or were contemplating that.  Your point seems to be different second point in that you are concerned about politics and politicians simply delegating away the discussion over what public policies should be pursued.  If that is your point, I agree with it.   

But decisions made by legislatures should never be final - that is a different kind of government than Liberal Democracy.

[Sheilbh]

I think there are two concepts here - one is the liberal democratic constraints on the will of the majority and your statement that " it's just an important principle that they [majority democratic decisions] are allowed to be wrong".  That is not at all an important principle within Liberal Democracy and I would argue runs entirely contrary to the concept.

But what you're describing is a test not a right - I don't understand how that can sit within a liberal democracy.

The reason first had the Rule of Law and judicial oversight of governmental decision making, and then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which created constitutional rights of judicial oversight, is to curb the effects of decisions of the political class.

But I don't think you necessarily disagree, or were contemplating that.  Your point seems to be different second point in that you are concerned about politics and politicians simply delegating away the discussion over what public policies should be pursued.  If that is your point, I agree with it. 

I think there's two points - one is that these are linked. That the way we delegate responsibility is by constitutionalising them, or in Europe, Europeanising them. Again I know Europe better. European law is supreme over all domestic law, including domestic constitutional law (to an extent - the German constitutional court politely rejects this theory and the CJEU politely avoids provoking them). This is not in any of the treaties it's been established by the CJEU, I think persuasively, as necessary in order to give effect to the treaties. So to Europeanise an issue is to remove it from domestic politics unless you advocate for rupture with the EU in some form or other. It doesn't mean the politics of that issue has gone it just means it's in a less political and democratic place - this is why I think as the EU is expanding its competencies (especially now it's starting to issue debt to spend money) it is reaching the outer limits of what's justifiable on the current model. I think it needs at some point soon to re-open the treaties and expand the democratic decision making (hoping the politics will follow) of the Parliament v the other institutions. Similarly you see screaming headlines in the Guardian on the Tories demolishing the rule of law and I read the article and I just struggle to see, say, a quango established by Gordon Brown in 2008 (taking on powers previously performed by a minister) as the sine qua non of a free society.

The other point is that I think (possibly because of US' cultural dominance) we are mistaking constitutionalising for politics. So in Ireland they constitutionally enshrined children's rights trough the 31st amendment in 2012 (Eoin Daly has written about this). At exactly the same time (and in the decade since) there has been a huge spike in child homelessness and poverty through the effects of the crash and austerity. I think there's a contradiction crystallised there (which you see through the last 30 years) of a liberal/progressive politics through formal cosntitutional rituals like referendums and court decisions, but not changing or altering the material conditions or spending or priorities of the state.

I think there's been a style of politics that has a rather grand belief in the transformation wrought by constitutional amendments and court cases - which often are the one type of legislative act that can never give effect to the change they promise. I think it is attractive to academics and lawyers and professionals who can maybe get a little bit too invested in it because it privileges them and the power of the legislative text (solemn declaration, treaty, communique, form of words) at the expense of the grubby democratic politics required to enact change.

My point (separate from the party point) is that these trends drain away the potency of democratic politics - which increases voter apathy, indifference and faith in it as a mechanism for delivering change. The scope of change that is subject to their votes is shrinking and within that you often have movements that perform law as politics. I think that is first of part of the context for the "adults in the room" who created the conditions we're in now (from Iraq and Afghanistan, the crash, depending on Russia for gas and China for growth, or not responding to Putin's first invasion) - but also created the reaction against it. Again I only really mean Europe with this I think the dynamics are different in the US. I don't think the problem of voters was that they weren't good students of the virtues of our system, it's that they've become increasingly less relevant to it and are often just one of many stakeholders.

But decisions made by legislatures should never be final - that is a different kind of government than Liberal Democracy.

Exactly - that's why I'm more inclined to a political than a legal constitution. I don't think any legislator ever should be in a position of such extreme confidence, or distrust in its people/future, as to try and bind them forever. It always needs to be open to democratic change.

[crazy canuck]

I agree with much of what you are saying.  But all of that is true without making the claim that it is an important principle of Liberal Democracy that political decision makers be allowed to be wrong.

Where you and I agree is that decision should be made by politicians and all too often they delegate away (or abdicate) that decision making authority.  Where you and I disagree is that once a decision is made, you seem to be suggesting that the only body that can then intervene is subsequently elected politicians.  That is certainly a tenant of Parliament Supremacy.  But it is inconsistent with having strong Liberal Democratic institutions, like the courts, playing an important part in reviewing public decisions. 

What you seem to be arguing is essentially Parliamentary Supremacy, where only future Parliamentarians can change things and there is no Rule of Law which constrains those political decisions. 

It has some attraction, unless you live through things like the long reign of Duplessis in Quebec or the rule the GOP in the US.  Then one gives more serious thought to the importance of liberal democratic institutions which place restrictions on the raw power of the political class.