You heard it here first.
The oblivious English-nationalist, Russian-abetted Brexiteers with their new charlatan Prime Minister, charging forward in a bull-in-china-shop manner, disregarding Irish peace, may yet see events proceed in a way they had not anticipated.
Here is one possible scenario.
After Boris plows through with his daft intention to exit the EU with no agreement in place, the Scots have had enough.
Over the next three years, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and perhaps Wales, have no choice but to form a confederation under democratic sovereignty to join the EU on their own. Furthermore, the EU would have a great incentive to allow each to enter as a separate sovereign.
Great job, Boris.
But seriously, this could be one of the few ways that the Northern Irish protestants can have their anxieties about joining the Republic ended: with the existence of such a democratic confederation with special entry privileges of four separate sovereigns within the EU, they would no longer have to be concerned about Irish nationalism taking its historic harsh form any time soon or for the foreseeable future.
Irish peace will thereby be deftly preserved.
As for both Scotland and Northern Ireland, they will be able to radically diminish the economic chaos about to be thrust upon them by being in involuntarily booted from the open market and open customs and border system of the EU by Brexit, which they strongly voted against. The same goes for Wales.
This is a solution to Scotland and Ireland’s dilemma that could serve all of these western European republics well.
An idea well worth considering.
We are witnessing the collapse of the United Kingdom, much as the former “Soviet Union” collapsed.
I wonder how far behind we are here. As the “red” states get more and more racist, direct more and more hostility towards civilization itself, and continue to suck more and more money from my pocket (in the form of increased taxes on the New England states and California) I become more and more receptive to “crazy” ideas like breaking up the United States.
In the run-up to the Civil War, there was legitimate concern that the region surrounding the Mississippi river, from Iowa southward to New Orleans, would break away as a separate nation. In the era before a railroad link existed between the east coast and the Mississippi, raw materials were shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans, around Florida, and up the east coast to New England. Finished goods made the same journey in reverse. This brought great prosperity to the Mississippi river region — enough to provide a temptation to secede (separately from slavery). This temptation was a major incentive for the federal sponsorship of rail links across the mountains that separate the industrial northeast from the Mississippi river region. Those rail links greatly strengthened the economic and cultural ties between the Mississippi river region and the east coast.
That same region is now the heart of Trumpist middle America. The net balance of payments into the states of that region is very strongly negative, even as Trumpists loudly proclaim their opposition to new taxes (except on others).
I wonder what the world will look like two or three decades from now. We are today witnessing the final disintegration of what was the British Empire of several centuries ago. I wonder if the “United States” will follow the “United Kingdom” into the history books within the lifetime of our children, if not ourselves.
So well put, SomervilleTom! And thank you for educating me on that economic history of the Mississippi Valley. Fascinating.
New England was also tempted to secede during the War of 1812. For a whole host of reasons (political, legal, practical, moral) I am firmly opposed to disunion. This too shall pass.
If our political parties were a couple, everyone would giving them the advice that all they do is make each other miserable and it’s time for them to break up. I’m legit curious about how many different nations we’d form.
I honestly think if we do not reform the anti-democratic nature of the Senate and Supreme Court, we might see some secession movements prop up. Breaking up California, admitting DC and PR, are all a great way to fix the Senate.
I suggested here late last year that we break up several of the bright blue states in a way similar to the contemplated CA move.
Here’s what I offered then:
I added this commentary:
This seems to be a less disruptive way of restoring Senate representation to the millions of Democrats who live in these seven states than many other ideas we’ve contemplated. It’s certainly less disruptive than out-and-out secession.
You may end up with a few more GOP Senators than you are bargaining for that way. Upstate NY and downstate IL can get pretty red, for example.
I’m ok getting 4-5 new GOP senators and 29-30 new Democrats.
I have no interest in chopping up New England into even smaller states.
Granted. But why?
No compelling need to get more and more parochial.
No compelling need indeed. After all, it’s only a few million people of color whose voices are overwhelmed by a few thousand white Montana ranchers.
My “fix democracy” checklist:
1. Abolish the Electoral College
2. Triple the number of House seats to get more representative representation
3. Split the country into 100 proportional Senate seats (roughly one per 3.2 million people), crossing state boundaries. Everybody gets to vote for one Senator.
4. Make SCOTUS appointments a one-term-only, 18-year proposition. A new justice gets appointed every odd-numbered year.
Lot of constitutional amendments required to make that happen, but so did getting women the vote and electing senators in the first place. Liberals need to recover their patriotism and believe we can repair and improve America. I like these ideas.
My responses:
1-absolutely, a no brainer
2-would make the House way too big, but I like the Wyoming Rule formula whereby the smallest state (currently WY) gets one Representative and other states get one Representative for every equivalent WY population or major fraction thereof
3-can’t be done, even by amendment, and I would strongly oppose on the merits. In a federal union states are supposed to be represented as entities along with people.
4-I favor keeping life tenure so that justices don’t have one eye on their next gig.
With you on 1 and 2.
3 I get where your coming from and worry about how far we can tinker with the Senate without jeopardizing the whole structure of government. That said, it sucks. I really don’t see how we ever get federal gun control or housing legislation without doing something to make the Senate more representative of where actual Americans live. Otherwise it’s an anachronism of the days when we had slave states and free states and states mattered a whole lot more in general .
Parties matter more than states do these days, and the present Senate configuration disproportionately benefits conservatives and hurts liberals. It benefits the rural minority and hurts the urban majority. It over represents white people and under-represents minorities. Splitting up and adding more blue states and is the constitutional way to do this without altering Article I.
Even a smaller change like DC and PR statehood should be major progressive priorities.
4. The 18 year term limit was endorsed by BMGs David and would actually create the depoliticized institution you seek. It gives every party an equal shot to nominate justices and lowers the temperature on confirmation. Qualifications will again matter more then ideology in those decisions. The character of the justice matters more to your other question, and some justices even in the current system were angling for other political and business opportunities.
The way we fix the Senate is not write it off, win elections in the supposedly red states, etc. It’s not about slave and free, but I often feel like we upset the balance with the 17th amendment. I favor PR but not DC statehood. I actually have no problem taking ideology into account when nominating and confirming justices. I just wish we’d be honest about it rather than thinking we are obligated to look for skeletons.
@but not DC statehood.
I invite you to explain why an area with about 40% more citizens than Wyoming (700,000 vs 500,000) should not be a state.
Without casting stones at anybody here at BMG, it needs to be said that a HUGE difference between Wyoming and DC is the racial makeup (less than 1% black vs greater than 40%).
As the federal capital DC belongs to all Americans and not just its residents as a semi-sovereign state. As an American I want a say through Congress how my federal capital is governed.
I do, however, have other ideas for ameliorating the representation issue. I would be open to retroceding the original Washington County to MD (basically east of the Anacostia, north of Florida Avenue, and west of Rock Creek) and retain only the original Washington City within federal jurisdiction. Whether or not the retrocession happens DC should get as many House members as it’s population would entitle it who would always be able to vote no questions asked (but not Senators as that is the privilege of the semi-sovereign states). The city would be given as much home rule as feasible including the ability to raise some of its own taxes and set its own budget, but would otherwise relate to the federal government the way most cities relate to their respective state governments.
It should be noted that admission of DC as a state would require a constitutional amendment (as did granting it presidential electors) since the Constitution explicitly grants to Congress jurisdiction over the seat of government. Some have suggested creating a state out of the aforementioned Washington County to get around this, but MD might then have standing to sue since that state ceded land for the purpose of forming a federal capital, not for creating another state.
Racial stats are completely irrelevant. I assure you I would be making the exact same argument if the WY and DC numbers were reversed.
@Racial stats are completely irrelevant:
The point, though, is that the numbers are what they are. Washington DC is yet another example of how white America exploits black Americans.
The people who live in DC are every bit as American as any of us or anybody who lives in Wyoming. They pay federal and local taxes, yet have virtually no say in what is done with those taxes even at the neighborhood level.
Well, I did offer fixes for some of that, but when you live in the capital there is and should be a somewhat different set of rules. I completely reject that non-statehood is racial exploitation since there are after all plenty of white Washingtonians as well. Honestly if I had been present for the creation of the federal district the only “residents” I would have allowed are those who need to be domiciled there due to working for the government (or living on a college campus especially if George Washington’s vision of a national university had been realized), but officially live and thus vote elsewhere.
I have a co-worker who is certain that Brexit will have the effect of accelerating the day that Ireland is reunited.
Actually, I heard it there, first, two days ago…
Nicola Sturgeon calls for new Scottish independence vote
Scotland’s first minister uses first letter to Boris Johnson to ask for alternative Brexit option
That’s a nice thought. Never gonna happen.
The sole reason Brexit has got this kerfuffle’d is Norn Irons’ Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) support for the Tories. Therefore, It is far likelier that Donald Trump dumps Melania and marries Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach of Ireland) than Northern Ireland leaves the UK — or enters into any other form of confederation — without violence.
A majority of Wales voted Leave. Welsh nationalism is a lot more cultural and linguistic than Scottish nationalism. Closer to the Québécois than the Scots or the Catalan. The former want a revived lingua franca while the latter two want a more socially democratic country and are tired of staying in an austerity based neoliberal political economy.
Ireland is a tougher nut to crack. The more radical Protestants valued apartheid over union and would have been willing to go the Ian Smith route in the 70’s. The other Ian-Paisley and his bigot offspring DUP have squeezed out the moderate UUPs who were more open to the EU. It’ll be interesting to see if the Alliance can convert its strong MEP vote into future seats in Stormont and Westminster.
I’m also befuddled that there hasn’t been another general election in either the devolved parliaments or Westminster since May’s government collapsed in all but name several months ago.
I could see an NI-Scotland confederation as an interesting way out. An economic and customs union that maintained a sizeable share of (nominal) Protestants. Most NI Protestants are descended from Presbyterian Scots rather than the Anglo-Irish who made/make up the Protestants in the South so there could be some cultural affinity.
Scotland is a lot more secular and liberal than NI on social and economic issues, and it is unclear if the Orange Order which still marches to celebrate William and the Battle of the Boyne want to join the Jacobin supporting Highlanders. Memories are too long in that part of the world.
Agree for different reasons. Yes, Scotland and Ireland have temporarily aligned goals, but neither is going to fight like the devil for independence….just to hand it over to a distant capital. Heck, given that Northern Ireland is emerging as the backwards distant relatives of the Republic, there are times I’m hesitant about uniting the island.
Given the EU’s structure, anyway, better to have a second allied vote on the Commission, in any case. Brexit has the greatest chance of radicalizing the younger generation toward a border poll, which has thus far seemed not very interested in reviving the old sectarianism.
If by ‘Ireland’ you mean, ‘The Republic of’… then nothing changes: The Republic of Ireland is already a part of the EU and they seem well adept at balancing their independence with input from Brussels. Any ‘hand[ing] over to a distant capital is done and dusted. That’s the whole and entire nature of the kerfuffle about putting a border between Ireland (Republic of) and Ireland (Northern): the EU requires it if the UK departs.
As for Scotland… a not insignificant portion of Scots already feel that a ‘distant capital’ (this one called ‘London’) already controls them. Since the results have been less than stellar, the theory is, they’ll be better off taking their chances with Brussels…
While I don’t blame you for your hesitancy, I do think you should ask yourself why both Britain and the pro-Brits in Norn Iron want to keep it so much… maybe they’re the ‘backwards’ in the ‘distant relation’ bit…
Yes, the Republic (if you prefer), has found a comfortable place within the EU. I would note, though, that the pro-EU consensus is fragile even there. The billions of dollars of grants haven’t hurt. That said, the Irish aren’t going to merge with another country, just due to linguistic similarities. That’s silly talk.
As for Northern Ireland…well, how often is a country willing to give up territory even when it makes all sorts of sense to do so?
This seems unlikely to me.
The EU would have to vote, unanimously, to admit the breakaway regions of a former member. This is not something that will happen while Spain ins a member of the EU.
The Lib Dems finally nominated a leader who is authentically progressive, anti-racist, and anti-Brexit. Three things Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson are not.
Jo Swinson might just save Britain and the EU.
If you have a case against Corbyn, you should make it directly.
I say this as someone who was initially a cautious supporter of his, but he is about as gutless and inconsistent on Brexit as Pelosi is on impeachment. He is a mirror image of May trying to appease both the remainers and leavers in his party. This has left them to fourth place in EU elections right after the Tories. He’s also been fairly inconsistent on fighting anti-semitism in his party, the real vicious kind, not just the usual lefty criticism of Israel (much of it valid IMO).
This is not true for Scotland, long recognized as a distinct, stand alone, component of the UK and only maybe true for Norn Iron… depending upon the violence that attends the… ahem… leaving of Liverpool. Re-absorption by Ireland, the Republic Of, which already has a standing relationship (called the ‘common market’) with Spain, would probably do much to ameliorate any problems… Catalans don’t want to leave Spain to merge with France…
You’re not wrong that this will increase pressure from the Basque and Catalan separatists (no reason it shouldn’t) but neither the Basque nor the Catalans have ever been recognized as an autonomous region in the same manner as Scotland and Ireland (the Republic of).
Spain is also enjoying a late economic revival (late relative to the 2008 crisis) based, first, upon tourism (import of money) and secondly, export of goods like pork and olive oil (export of goods). It wouldn’t take much, methinks, for Spain to be pressured into a yes vote to except the broadening of scope of Ireland (the Republic of) and another yes vote to accept Scotland… especially since Scotland (in particular Edinburgh) has become a financial giant (second only to London in the UK and fourth, as yet, in the entire EU.) An EU with Edinburgh, but without London, remains a power to be reckoned with. Spain will vote for that, to weaken the UK, before they vote against it…
I was surprised at the number of Spanish language Catalan separatist billboards I saw on my recent trip to Rome. Either Italy has a large Catalan ex-pat population, or this is part of an EU wide campaign.