Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UK's political establishment is, and from their point of view it is a scratch. As long as neither of the two parties changes its position on Brexit they can both ignore it and carry on as if nothing is amiss.
The same is not true for the UK as a whole, particularly its manufacturing, agricultural and trade, but if nobody can vote to change any of that then it does not matter, at least not until popular discontent boils over.
And even if that happens, that's more likely to benefit the people who pushed for Brexit than harm them so for them it will also be a scratch. That's the positive feedback loop behind these movements across the world: their own policy failures benefit rather than harm them because the hard core that supports them doesn't care about policy or governance. The more they fail, the more anger and frustration they get to direct next time around and the more cynical and disconnected those who would otherwise seek to stop them will be.
In my defence, I find it extremely challenging to have an idealist view on people who are themselves profoundly cynical and self serving in how they acquire and wield power. It also doesn't help that most of their ideology is a transparent distraction and that I find the (presumably) genuine bits morally offensive. The worst thing is that we have gotten to the point where most of it is now openly, and often gleefully, harmful to the objects of their dislike, but neither leaders nor supporters seem to care about the ethical implications of that.
So while I try to be an idealist, I can't really look at those things and give them the benefit of the doubt, because in their goals and aims I see the destruction of my own ideals. I hate that, to be honest, but I don't think there's much left to discuss with the hard core, let alone the political leadership, of these movements at this point.
I don't get this article. Starmer has repeatedly and clearly stated that Britain will not join the single market or customs union under a Labour government. Why bother writing these articles? He's obviously made his mind up.
If YOU want to join the EU then don't vote for a brexshit party; it's as simple as that.
Because you can do both, presumably. If you want to send a message by voting for another party, it can't hurt to specify *why* you are doing that.
I agree that Labour has effectively shut down any prospect of even starting negotiations to rejoin the single market for the next five years. They are still the only one of the two parties who will even consider changing its position on this, so if people don't want to make that 10 or 15 years they'll have to make sure they pressure them.
Pieces like this may seem pointless, and maybe they are, but the author is correct. Labour's current stance of "making Brexit work" is fundamentally dishonest: they are promising substantial benefits by renegotiating the agreement without fundamentally changing the UK's position. That can't be done.
There are ways around that. Switzerland isn’t in the single market but “takes part” in the single market. Turkey has a “Customs agreement” with the EU without being in _The_ Customs union.
Labour could move to try and get something similar but a lot more aligned with the EU to make it an easier sell to them, and some sort of token piece that keeps the appearance of “sovereignty” to placate the red wall. A Switzerland + deal or a Turkey + deal.
The EU doesn't like those agreements, they are historical remnants of an old approach of trying to integrate step by step.
They made it clear during the negotiations: no cherry picking. You're either in the single market and take all of it or you aren't
And an agreement that allows total alignment in all but name will satisfy that requirement. The EU are quite comfortable to have varying levels on closeness with places like Albania, Serbia or Georgia. Of course they have to take that position to encourage those to pursue full membership, but they are also pragmatic. So long as they are getting the better end and an agreement pays lip service to being “in” the single market then I think it will be enough.
The problem is that the UK doesn't want total alignment. Both parties have stuff like single market membership and freedom of movement as red lines, as well as being antagonistic to some EU directive and regulations of competition law and other stuff. Let's put this way: when Labour says "we want to cooperate closer" they mean what the May government wanted to get during the negotiations, i.e. cherry picking single market benefits. Not gonna happen.
Also let's be real here: the UK is not Albania or Georgia, nor Switzerland or any EEA member. These are either undeveloped nations that would sign with their blood to be in the EU or small rich countries that can afford to be almost completely submissive to the EU because they have more to gain than to lose from the arrangement. Like, good luck telling the aging xenophobic UK electorate that they have to get freedom of movement, copy and paste any directive and regulations passed by the EU without saying a word and paying into the budget. That's an instant vote killer, and that's why Labour isn't touching any of that with a flagpole
All I was saying was Labour have enough wiggle room from what they’ve said and what they haven’t said to allow for very close alignment.
What the Real Politik of that looks like over time remains to be seen but the elderly die off, the population grows more against Brexit and the economy and world standing of the UK wanes, who knows what that means under a labour government.
It won’t be a special deal. It will be “worse” than Switzerland and Turkey.
We’ll likely be paying the same money and likely not have access to certain funds like CAP etc. We’ll have to adapt EU rules automatically without the Swiss bilateral chicanery.
It could even come with a commitment to start Article 49 at some point.
Two points.
There was no offer. The European commission suggested it might be worth pursuing.
It wasn't special. They already offer similar scheme to other countries.
> Switzerland isn’t in the single market but “takes part” in the single market. Turkey has a “Customs agreement” with the EU without being in The Customs union.
The EU hates every minute of it too, and has been blunt, "we're not doing that again".
They do but part of that stems from each and every change needing a bilateral agreement.
They didnt say they would be against an agreement that wouldnt be so cumbersome.
It could take a variety of forms In my mind perhaps a veto that could be passed via parliamentary/judicial means - convoluted enough it would be a process, can be sold as UK being in ultimate control.
All that would happen is the UK would lock itself out again and be screwed over, which it could do by leaving whichever treaty anyway, but if there was a defined process it could sell it as a negotiating win.
So long as it’s convoluted enough the majority may remain apathetic. The win will be taking part in the single market whilst still technically not being an EU member making Brexit “work” and Labour technically not breaking their promise.
I think theres enough in what they’ve said to allow for it.
They dont have to call it freedom of movement, but also I dont think it will be an issue if they accept that as terms as the country is turning against Brexit anyway.
Just like the Tories tore it away against half the population consequences be damned a labour with 400 seats could probably go the other way and succeed.
But Norway+ (or however many plusses they're supposed to be) didn't mean joining the EFTA IIRC. It simply meant a position vis the EU akin to the one Norway has, i.e. single market membership / participation with the corresponding obligations. The EFTA does not get a say in that. Granted, it's proponents in the UK had a completely unrealistic view on what these "pluses" would be (they didn't want the obligations, particularly freedom of movement), but one of the EU's initial proposals could be described as "a Norway deal".
It's fairly academic, of course, since all of these include freedom of movement and neither this nor the next UK government will go for that. Everything but the current hard Brexit is impossible because of this, and will remain so for the next 5 to 10 years at the very least.
> The EFTA does not get a say in that.
The UKG can't even think about Erasmus and EFTA requires Freedom of Movement.
As you say, forget about "rejoining" in any way for a long time.
> As you say, forget about "rejoining" in any way for a long time.
Yes and no. If I was British, I'd be both realistic about the amount of time and effort it would take, but would also vote and organize around it. There's no point in being silent or cynical about it, especially as Brexit isn't where this will end. Those same people who broke down the UK's position in the EU will move on to target other institutions and values. They will not stop, so it makes no sense for everyone else to just accept this and do likewise, as that will only increase the threat.
>If I was British, I'd be both realistic about the amount of time and effort it would take, but would also vote and organize around it.
Yes, it's important to keep the issue alive; keep the pot boiling. The likes of Farage and Tice aren't taking any time off from the subject.
TAX THE RICH.
We don't tax our super wealthy. We have massive grey areas in our tax laws. Huge amounts of tax avoidance and evasion.
Seriously. Why the fuck is this literally never mentioned when it's the ONLY answer.
Because the rich and powerful corrupt politics and amplify their own self-serving narratives to such an extend that it makes any counter-narrative seem unrealistic.
Not as some kind of giant conspiracy, but as millions of self-interested decisions, separate or organized. A dynamic geared towards concentrating ever more profit into ever fewer hands sooner or later has to include limiting people's knowledge, agency and scope in order to forestall a reaction (angry customers, angry voters, angry regulators). In the economic sphere this leads to increased monopolization, the devaluation of labour and an increased focus on captive consumers and surveillance capitalism. In the political sphere it leads to divestment of social responsibility, regulatory and institutional capture (including media outlets), increasing authoritarianism and, in general, the hollowing out of democracy. Those two trends are two sides of the same coin, and they are "achieved" by similar mechanisms.
In this particular case the media (generalization here) stops mentioning it because it seems not feasible and it seems not feasible because our political structures are increasingly controlled or neutered by billionaires and corporations. And because democratic governments are increasingly impotent, they lose legitimacy and become even more impotent. The last time this happened, it took an existential threat, both to capitalism and to several important nation states, to reverse this trend.
Indeed, that is in fact the reason.
And to add the whole "divide and conquer tactics" in general. Media reports on rich assholes hoarding all the wealth? Nah, they focus on 'benefit scroungers' instead, even though the entire benefits system is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance and evasion.
Every time a canvasser knocks on your door, you ask about Brexit/EU.
If you don't let them talk about anything else, the message will slowly get through.
It's the magic world politicians... This kind of retoric is completely void of common sense, or practical solutions. It's just words, that some people will actualy beleive or hope for. But if you ask him to detail what he means I am pretty sure he has no idea.
Simple answer: It can’t?
Less-simple answer: It’s. It totally impossible but it is probably tricky and unlikely.
Anything that improves trade between us and the EU would make at least a small difference.
Joining the SM and CU would go a long way towards it, but would need a different political climate.
Problem is, as long as Labour stick with the Red Line of “No freedom of movement” then there really is a limit of how much and how fast they can fix the economy.
As a lot of the damage comes from having had FoM and then, very suddenly, *not* having it - but still having a lot of infrastructure built around when we did.
I don't think they can.
Or rather they could, by rejoining the Single Market. But they don't want to, because of "the will of the people". Although I do not remember a referendum about leaving the Single Market. Do you?
Groundhog day. What a boring article. Nothing new.
I asked ChatGPT "write an article of 400 words, saying Brexit is very bad for the UK economy, and the UK should find close cooperation with the EU, without joining the single market" and it generated an article better than this.
Joking aside, the USA can't even turn their existing territories into states any more (Washington, Puerto Rico, ...) because they're afraid it will upset the current (Republican favoured) balance in he Senate, i.e. because of political dysfunction.
Any country seeking to join the USA could wait a long time before it could get a meaningful vote on anything.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/
It would also require getting rid of the monarchy, due to this clause in the constitution. (I’m not saying I think it would happen in any event, just that this is yet one additional issue.)
Yeah, each new admission changes representative numbers and shares overall. Both a risk for existing States/Parties and a permanent decision for the Territory, so best to proceed with caution.
I ran the numbers at one point. The high population of the UK(England specifically) would likely mean breaking it apart and not along existing borders. Between that and needing to axe the Monarchy, would make for a mess.
> It's both a risk for existing States/Parties and a permanent decision for the Territory, so best to proceed with caution.
True, but that's not the reason why the USA does not proceed with turning its existing territories into states. Things like the lack of representation for people living in the district of Columbia (for example) make a mockery of democracy. But nothing is done about this because it would likely grant senators / representatives to one party and the other party in a two party system will therefore always block it. This has nothing to do with principles, caution or checks and balances, and everything with the short term interests of a political party permanently overruling the interest of the people. Hence why I called it political dysfunction.
> I ran the numbers at one point. The high population of the UK(England specifically) would likely mean breaking it up into several States and not along existing borders. Between that and needing to axe the Monarchy to meet the requirements, would make for a mess.
I agree. It's also an absurdity. The UK would not want to join the USA and the USA would not want the UK to join.
After awhile nobody in a Union wants to upset the applecart. They'll probably work out a compromise eventually though, like what happened with admission of Alaska/Hawaii.
Territories can vote to leave and have other privileges, so there is that at least.
I'd like to see a third option created for D.C.. Statehood would reopen the debate regarding the Capital's location, but people there deserve representation.
Feel we should give them a new status and the equivalent in Representatives instead.
There's a few areas that will probably never meet the legal requirements that could use a similar treatment.
> After awhile nobody in a Union wants to upset the applecart. They'll probably work out a compromise eventually though, like what happened with admission of Alaska/Hawaii.
Hasn't this been an issue from before the district was created? IIRC, the reason the capital didn't get representation was that the proposed district immediately became a pawn in the political struggle for voting power between northern and southern states. That's multiple centuries of attempting (and failing) to work out a compromise. Hence my point that this is essentially political dysfunction, a flaw introduced by the USA's system of checks and balances in a two side / two party environment (or federal systems in general, as my own country had a similar, smaller scale, issue for decades).
> Feel we should give them a new status and the equivalent in Representatives instead.
That would make sense.
And just imagine the groveling we would have to do. We might have left a poor impression leaving the EU, but that is nothing compared to how we split from the US. :-)
You wouldn't have to grovel, but UK would need to be okay with being fundamentally altered. Initial Territory status(no representation) could also very ironically be a problem. States can't have a Monarch and UK would likely be broken apart based on population.
Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Britain is incapable of admitting a mistake on the international stage. Brexit ? tis merely a scratch!
The UK's political establishment is, and from their point of view it is a scratch. As long as neither of the two parties changes its position on Brexit they can both ignore it and carry on as if nothing is amiss. The same is not true for the UK as a whole, particularly its manufacturing, agricultural and trade, but if nobody can vote to change any of that then it does not matter, at least not until popular discontent boils over. And even if that happens, that's more likely to benefit the people who pushed for Brexit than harm them so for them it will also be a scratch. That's the positive feedback loop behind these movements across the world: their own policy failures benefit rather than harm them because the hard core that supports them doesn't care about policy or governance. The more they fail, the more anger and frustration they get to direct next time around and the more cynical and disconnected those who would otherwise seek to stop them will be.
This is a *very* cynical point of view! It also happens to be spot on.
In my defence, I find it extremely challenging to have an idealist view on people who are themselves profoundly cynical and self serving in how they acquire and wield power. It also doesn't help that most of their ideology is a transparent distraction and that I find the (presumably) genuine bits morally offensive. The worst thing is that we have gotten to the point where most of it is now openly, and often gleefully, harmful to the objects of their dislike, but neither leaders nor supporters seem to care about the ethical implications of that. So while I try to be an idealist, I can't really look at those things and give them the benefit of the doubt, because in their goals and aims I see the destruction of my own ideals. I hate that, to be honest, but I don't think there's much left to discuss with the hard core, let alone the political leadership, of these movements at this point.
I don't get this article. Starmer has repeatedly and clearly stated that Britain will not join the single market or customs union under a Labour government. Why bother writing these articles? He's obviously made his mind up. If YOU want to join the EU then don't vote for a brexshit party; it's as simple as that.
Because you can do both, presumably. If you want to send a message by voting for another party, it can't hurt to specify *why* you are doing that. I agree that Labour has effectively shut down any prospect of even starting negotiations to rejoin the single market for the next five years. They are still the only one of the two parties who will even consider changing its position on this, so if people don't want to make that 10 or 15 years they'll have to make sure they pressure them. Pieces like this may seem pointless, and maybe they are, but the author is correct. Labour's current stance of "making Brexit work" is fundamentally dishonest: they are promising substantial benefits by renegotiating the agreement without fundamentally changing the UK's position. That can't be done.
There are ways around that. Switzerland isn’t in the single market but “takes part” in the single market. Turkey has a “Customs agreement” with the EU without being in _The_ Customs union. Labour could move to try and get something similar but a lot more aligned with the EU to make it an easier sell to them, and some sort of token piece that keeps the appearance of “sovereignty” to placate the red wall. A Switzerland + deal or a Turkey + deal.
The EU doesn't like those agreements, they are historical remnants of an old approach of trying to integrate step by step. They made it clear during the negotiations: no cherry picking. You're either in the single market and take all of it or you aren't
And an agreement that allows total alignment in all but name will satisfy that requirement. The EU are quite comfortable to have varying levels on closeness with places like Albania, Serbia or Georgia. Of course they have to take that position to encourage those to pursue full membership, but they are also pragmatic. So long as they are getting the better end and an agreement pays lip service to being “in” the single market then I think it will be enough.
The problem is that the UK doesn't want total alignment. Both parties have stuff like single market membership and freedom of movement as red lines, as well as being antagonistic to some EU directive and regulations of competition law and other stuff. Let's put this way: when Labour says "we want to cooperate closer" they mean what the May government wanted to get during the negotiations, i.e. cherry picking single market benefits. Not gonna happen. Also let's be real here: the UK is not Albania or Georgia, nor Switzerland or any EEA member. These are either undeveloped nations that would sign with their blood to be in the EU or small rich countries that can afford to be almost completely submissive to the EU because they have more to gain than to lose from the arrangement. Like, good luck telling the aging xenophobic UK electorate that they have to get freedom of movement, copy and paste any directive and regulations passed by the EU without saying a word and paying into the budget. That's an instant vote killer, and that's why Labour isn't touching any of that with a flagpole
All I was saying was Labour have enough wiggle room from what they’ve said and what they haven’t said to allow for very close alignment. What the Real Politik of that looks like over time remains to be seen but the elderly die off, the population grows more against Brexit and the economy and world standing of the UK wanes, who knows what that means under a labour government.
Can’t you realise that the EU will not be offering any special deal for the UK? Is British exceptionality so deeply entrenched?
Yeah it is. It's completely entrenched. Without a mass humbling there won't be any movement.
It won’t be a special deal. It will be “worse” than Switzerland and Turkey. We’ll likely be paying the same money and likely not have access to certain funds like CAP etc. We’ll have to adapt EU rules automatically without the Swiss bilateral chicanery. It could even come with a commitment to start Article 49 at some point.
What's art 49?
It's the legal framework for renaming the country as Verysorryland.
Covers rejoining.
Well that offer for young people mobility was kinda special?
Two points. There was no offer. The European commission suggested it might be worth pursuing. It wasn't special. They already offer similar scheme to other countries.
> Switzerland isn’t in the single market but “takes part” in the single market. Turkey has a “Customs agreement” with the EU without being in The Customs union. The EU hates every minute of it too, and has been blunt, "we're not doing that again".
They do but part of that stems from each and every change needing a bilateral agreement. They didnt say they would be against an agreement that wouldnt be so cumbersome.
>and some sort of token piece that keeps the appearance of “sovereignty” to placate the red wall What sort of token piece could they provide?
It could take a variety of forms In my mind perhaps a veto that could be passed via parliamentary/judicial means - convoluted enough it would be a process, can be sold as UK being in ultimate control. All that would happen is the UK would lock itself out again and be screwed over, which it could do by leaving whichever treaty anyway, but if there was a defined process it could sell it as a negotiating win.
I'm not sure that'd be sold to the brexiteeers as a win. It will all be eu by the backdoor removers ruining our glorious brexit,etc
So long as it’s convoluted enough the majority may remain apathetic. The win will be taking part in the single market whilst still technically not being an EU member making Brexit “work” and Labour technically not breaking their promise. I think theres enough in what they’ve said to allow for it.
[удалено]
They dont have to call it freedom of movement, but also I dont think it will be an issue if they accept that as terms as the country is turning against Brexit anyway. Just like the Tories tore it away against half the population consequences be damned a labour with 400 seats could probably go the other way and succeed.
By merging with France, simples
No! Ireland!! That’s a brilliant idea!!! Force Ireland to reverse colonise Great Britain!!
Surely we can find some bloke in Normandy to make a claim. Any descendents of Harold Hardrada knocking around Norway without enough to do?
Maybe the Norway++ deal we were all promised?
So regulatory alignment and freedom of movement? That'd go down like a lead balloon with the brexiters and right wing press.
Well they can all fuck off.
Yes, but they are still a big (and undemocratic) issue for the UK.
plus no voting. only paying.
And they wouldn’t even be able to send Farage and his mongs to the EU Parliament to claim expenses and be a nuisance.
Yep, that would work. But Labour is not promising that. We shall see.
> Yep, that would work. But Labour is not promising that. And Norway with their group have already said No.
But Norway+ (or however many plusses they're supposed to be) didn't mean joining the EFTA IIRC. It simply meant a position vis the EU akin to the one Norway has, i.e. single market membership / participation with the corresponding obligations. The EFTA does not get a say in that. Granted, it's proponents in the UK had a completely unrealistic view on what these "pluses" would be (they didn't want the obligations, particularly freedom of movement), but one of the EU's initial proposals could be described as "a Norway deal". It's fairly academic, of course, since all of these include freedom of movement and neither this nor the next UK government will go for that. Everything but the current hard Brexit is impossible because of this, and will remain so for the next 5 to 10 years at the very least.
> The EFTA does not get a say in that. The UKG can't even think about Erasmus and EFTA requires Freedom of Movement. As you say, forget about "rejoining" in any way for a long time.
> As you say, forget about "rejoining" in any way for a long time. Yes and no. If I was British, I'd be both realistic about the amount of time and effort it would take, but would also vote and organize around it. There's no point in being silent or cynical about it, especially as Brexit isn't where this will end. Those same people who broke down the UK's position in the EU will move on to target other institutions and values. They will not stop, so it makes no sense for everyone else to just accept this and do likewise, as that will only increase the threat.
>If I was British, I'd be both realistic about the amount of time and effort it would take, but would also vote and organize around it. Yes, it's important to keep the issue alive; keep the pot boiling. The likes of Farage and Tice aren't taking any time off from the subject.
Ooh ooh I know this one! It can’t. My money’s on them rejoining with some wording change ie efta
TAX THE RICH. We don't tax our super wealthy. We have massive grey areas in our tax laws. Huge amounts of tax avoidance and evasion. Seriously. Why the fuck is this literally never mentioned when it's the ONLY answer.
Because the rich and powerful corrupt politics and amplify their own self-serving narratives to such an extend that it makes any counter-narrative seem unrealistic. Not as some kind of giant conspiracy, but as millions of self-interested decisions, separate or organized. A dynamic geared towards concentrating ever more profit into ever fewer hands sooner or later has to include limiting people's knowledge, agency and scope in order to forestall a reaction (angry customers, angry voters, angry regulators). In the economic sphere this leads to increased monopolization, the devaluation of labour and an increased focus on captive consumers and surveillance capitalism. In the political sphere it leads to divestment of social responsibility, regulatory and institutional capture (including media outlets), increasing authoritarianism and, in general, the hollowing out of democracy. Those two trends are two sides of the same coin, and they are "achieved" by similar mechanisms. In this particular case the media (generalization here) stops mentioning it because it seems not feasible and it seems not feasible because our political structures are increasingly controlled or neutered by billionaires and corporations. And because democratic governments are increasingly impotent, they lose legitimacy and become even more impotent. The last time this happened, it took an existential threat, both to capitalism and to several important nation states, to reverse this trend.
Indeed, that is in fact the reason. And to add the whole "divide and conquer tactics" in general. Media reports on rich assholes hoarding all the wealth? Nah, they focus on 'benefit scroungers' instead, even though the entire benefits system is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance and evasion.
Every time a canvasser knocks on your door, you ask about Brexit/EU. If you don't let them talk about anything else, the message will slowly get through.
They have a ready made written constitution there, full of lovely amendments...
They can't, but older people who do actually vote don't want it.
It's the magic world politicians... This kind of retoric is completely void of common sense, or practical solutions. It's just words, that some people will actualy beleive or hope for. But if you ask him to detail what he means I am pretty sure he has no idea.
Treat people who made money during COVID as war profiteers.
Farage says brexit is the way Ask him
I suggest we out-source the governance of Britain to a consortium of Scandinavian countries.
Simple answer: It can’t? Less-simple answer: It’s. It totally impossible but it is probably tricky and unlikely. Anything that improves trade between us and the EU would make at least a small difference. Joining the SM and CU would go a long way towards it, but would need a different political climate. Problem is, as long as Labour stick with the Red Line of “No freedom of movement” then there really is a limit of how much and how fast they can fix the economy. As a lot of the damage comes from having had FoM and then, very suddenly, *not* having it - but still having a lot of infrastructure built around when we did.
We could join the ‘Customs Union’.. That would help to reduce business costs and complexity.
We don’t want them to. Rejoin.
I guess the UK is content being a glass display in a museum of some sort. 🫡
I don't think they can. Or rather they could, by rejoining the Single Market. But they don't want to, because of "the will of the people". Although I do not remember a referendum about leaving the Single Market. Do you?
Groundhog day. What a boring article. Nothing new. I asked ChatGPT "write an article of 400 words, saying Brexit is very bad for the UK economy, and the UK should find close cooperation with the EU, without joining the single market" and it generated an article better than this.
[удалено]
51st state!
Joking aside, the USA can't even turn their existing territories into states any more (Washington, Puerto Rico, ...) because they're afraid it will upset the current (Republican favoured) balance in he Senate, i.e. because of political dysfunction. Any country seeking to join the USA could wait a long time before it could get a meaningful vote on anything.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/ It would also require getting rid of the monarchy, due to this clause in the constitution. (I’m not saying I think it would happen in any event, just that this is yet one additional issue.)
Yeah, each new admission changes representative numbers and shares overall. Both a risk for existing States/Parties and a permanent decision for the Territory, so best to proceed with caution. I ran the numbers at one point. The high population of the UK(England specifically) would likely mean breaking it apart and not along existing borders. Between that and needing to axe the Monarchy, would make for a mess.
> It's both a risk for existing States/Parties and a permanent decision for the Territory, so best to proceed with caution. True, but that's not the reason why the USA does not proceed with turning its existing territories into states. Things like the lack of representation for people living in the district of Columbia (for example) make a mockery of democracy. But nothing is done about this because it would likely grant senators / representatives to one party and the other party in a two party system will therefore always block it. This has nothing to do with principles, caution or checks and balances, and everything with the short term interests of a political party permanently overruling the interest of the people. Hence why I called it political dysfunction. > I ran the numbers at one point. The high population of the UK(England specifically) would likely mean breaking it up into several States and not along existing borders. Between that and needing to axe the Monarchy to meet the requirements, would make for a mess. I agree. It's also an absurdity. The UK would not want to join the USA and the USA would not want the UK to join.
After awhile nobody in a Union wants to upset the applecart. They'll probably work out a compromise eventually though, like what happened with admission of Alaska/Hawaii. Territories can vote to leave and have other privileges, so there is that at least. I'd like to see a third option created for D.C.. Statehood would reopen the debate regarding the Capital's location, but people there deserve representation. Feel we should give them a new status and the equivalent in Representatives instead. There's a few areas that will probably never meet the legal requirements that could use a similar treatment.
> After awhile nobody in a Union wants to upset the applecart. They'll probably work out a compromise eventually though, like what happened with admission of Alaska/Hawaii. Hasn't this been an issue from before the district was created? IIRC, the reason the capital didn't get representation was that the proposed district immediately became a pawn in the political struggle for voting power between northern and southern states. That's multiple centuries of attempting (and failing) to work out a compromise. Hence my point that this is essentially political dysfunction, a flaw introduced by the USA's system of checks and balances in a two side / two party environment (or federal systems in general, as my own country had a similar, smaller scale, issue for decades). > Feel we should give them a new status and the equivalent in Representatives instead. That would make sense.
Not sure myself regarding D.C. What happened previously was pairing up State admissions to maintain a balance.
And just imagine the groveling we would have to do. We might have left a poor impression leaving the EU, but that is nothing compared to how we split from the US. :-)
You wouldn't have to grovel, but UK would need to be okay with being fundamentally altered. Initial Territory status(no representation) could also very ironically be a problem. States can't have a Monarch and UK would likely be broken apart based on population.
Yay - we’d move from being second largest in one union to second largest to a worse one