Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 29 2016, @01:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-surrendering-to-corporations-for-now dept.

Common Dreams reports

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said [August 25] that the U.S. Senate will not vote on the 12-nation, corporate-friendly Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) this year, buoying progressive hopes that the trade deal will never come to fruition.

[...] McConnell told a Kentucky State Farm Bureau breakfast in Louisville that the agreement, "which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year".

Common Dreams also reports

Germany's Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister said that the controversial Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has "de facto failed", admitting that negotiations between the U.S. and E.U. have completely stalled.

"Negotiations with the U.S. have de facto failed because, of course, as Europeans, we couldn't allow ourselves to submit to American demands", Sigmar Gabriel told the German news station ZDF [1][2] in an interview that will air at 7pm German time [August 28], according to Der Spiegel. [1]

"Everything has stalled", Gabriel said.

[1] In German [2] Content behind scripts

Reported by BBC, in English.

In 14 rounds of talks, the two sides had not agreed on a single common chapter out of 27 being discussed, Mr Gabriel said. "In my opinion the negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it," said Mr Gabriel.

He suggested Washington was angry about a deal the EU struck with Canada, because it contained elements the US does not want to see in the TTIP.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday August 29 2016, @05:23PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday August 29 2016, @05:23PM (#394825)

    (or better yet, scrap the Constitution and make a new one which implements a Parliamentary system like every other advanced western nation).

    You read SN and can say this with a straight face?! I can only imagine how much authoritarian shit would inevitably find its way into the new version.

    If politicians wrote the Constitution today, it would be a far different document.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 29 2016, @06:30PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 29 2016, @06:30PM (#394862)

    Are you arguing that parliamentary systems are bad, or that our current politicians would make the worst possible one? If the latter, you have a valid point. Maybe we should outsource the writing of our Constitution to another country, like Norway or Finland. They don't seem to have all the corruption problems we do.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 29 2016, @06:42PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday August 29 2016, @06:42PM (#394867)

      Yeah, the latter. The upside of parliamentary systems is they usually have more than 2 major parties, yes? I'd be game to try that out.

      Not sure how germane it is, but the seventeenth amendment [wikipedia.org]

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 29 2016, @10:24PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 29 2016, @10:24PM (#394958)

        Having more than 2 major parties is a big plus. That isn't the only upside of parliamentary systems: the executive is not chosen by the people, but rather by Parliament. This prevents long government shutdowns like we've had in the US where two major branches (exec and legislative) are at odds. Also, it forces people to do a better job choosing their legislators, instead of only focusing on one person (the President), since the people only get to vote for their representatives.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:33AM

          by dry (223) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:33AM (#395149) Journal

          At least here in Canada and I believe in many other Parliamentary systems, most people vote who they want to be Prime Minister, or in other words, by party. Most Canadians probably don't even know who their MP is. At the extreme, a few years back when the opposition parties got together and decided to overthrow the government (they outnumbered the ruling party), many (especially the government) called it undemocratic even though it is the way our system works, whichever group can get the votes together in Parliament to pass a budget, forms the government, with the most populous party given first try and if none can pass a budget, well there's another election. The people don't like too many elections and usually punish the party who won't compromise though the last government was very good at laying the blame on others.
          We've also had a series of PMs, especially the last, who pictured themselves as more of a US President type rather then a Parliamentary leader and much power has concentrated into the PM Office with Parliament acting too often as a rubber stamp. Party discipline is very strong.
          There are other advantages too our system, elections traditionally last 6 weeks rather then years like down there, though once again our previous government tried to change that with political attack ads happening all the time and the longest election in over a hundred years. It was an interesting election though as all 3 parties were in the lead at various times and it actually came down to strategic voting as the vast majority of Canadians wanted the previous government gone and were well aware that a fragmented vote could see them continue to remake Canada in their image. 33%+33%+34% party votes can see the 34% party being dictator for the next 4-5 years.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:51AM (#395526)

            Hardly, the 66% can just call a no confidence vote (or local equivalent) and it's back to the polls for another try.

            If the %34 were really as bad as dictators and not doing what the people wanted they would easily lose.

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:25AM

              by dry (223) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:25AM (#395556) Journal

              You're assuming that the 34%/66% is in seats, it can just as easy be in votes, with one party getting 34% of the vote and the other 66% of votes split between the other parties.
              And a no-confidence vote doesn't always mean another election as sometimes the opposition gets a chance to form government, which was the plan the other year, except the PM prorogued Parliament before the vote.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:29AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:29AM (#395620)

                Yes, but if those 34% cant get at least some of the 66% to agree with their legislation, none of it will get anywhere.

                Yes the 66% get a chance to form a government, thats the point. If they can agree on a platform that their voters will support good. If not voters still get to try again, but this time less people will vote for the uncompromising waste of time 34%.
                You do realise that the 34% don't just get to 'form a government' because they got the biggest number, they still have to get a majority of the parliament to agree to let them for the government in the first place. They have to have confidence to lose in the first place, but once they step out of line it's game over for them. You can't get a 34% dictatorship, unless another 16% also want it and then it's not a dictatorship anymore but a democracy.

                • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:15AM

                  by dry (223) on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:15AM (#395948) Journal

                  Yes, if a party has less then 50+% of seats, they have to work with at least one other party to pass legislation and there is usually trade offs and things are good unless the party is very good at bullshitting the public so the public blames the other parties for calling a non-confidence vote.
                  There is still the problem where the party gets 51% of seats with 34% or less of the the votes.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:41AM

    by dry (223) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:41AM (#395151) Journal

    The Constitution was pretty well hated when it was first passed, being full of compromises and was expected to be replaced within a couple of decades. Unluckily the government, with the support of the people, just ignored the parts they didn't like rather then fixing it.
    I'd imagine an attempted rewrite would have the same problems with a deadlock between the various factions.