SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Turkey's ruling party is passing constitutional reforms to consolidate power:
Turkey's parliament approved the first seven articles in a second round of voting overnight on a constitutional bill that will extend President Tayyip Erdogan's powers, keeping the reform on course for a spring referendum.
The two largest opposition parties in parliament say the 18-article bill, which could enable Erdogan to rule until 2029, will fuel authoritarianism in the NATO member and European Union candidate country. The ruling AK Party, backed by the nationalist MHP, says it will bring the strong executive leadership needed to prevent a return to the fragile coalition governments of the past.
The seven articles approved overnight include increasing the number of MPs to 600 from 550, lowering the minimum age to be a lawmaker to 18 from 25, and holding parliamentary and presidential elections together every five years.
Also at CNN, Time, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian. You might also be interested in this take from the Daily Sabah.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:00PM
When NATO was a bulwark against the Soviet Union it was sound strategy to bring Turkey in, warts and all. But this is a perfect example for why NATO needs to be dissolved now that the reason for it to exist has not itself existed for a generation. We should do it slowly, we should allow plenty of time for adjustment to minimize the risk of accidental war, but we should be starting as soon as possible on the project.
There is no longer any reason American soldiers should be pre-committed to fight and die in any possible war that might break out in Europe.
We should maintain relationships with the countries in Europe who are culturally similar, have similar policy objectives and mutual interests. We should even launch joint military operations with them when interests align. To prepare for such events we probably should conduct joint military exercises and cross train select officers in each others military doctrines and hardware. What we should not ever do again, barring a similar unique threat like the Soviet Union, sign any long term treaties pledging unlimited aid for any possible threat.
And under the policy described above, Turkey's reversion to the Islamic mean would not be our problem. If you fail to see the benefit there that is your problem, not mine.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:31PM
Seems to me like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wouldn't be a lot easier for NATO to simply kick out Turkey? I guess you could make the argument that the other member nations aren't willing to do that, but it hasn't even been officially proposed yet. Given Turkey's new cozy relationship with Russia, I do think justification exists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:44PM
Didn't you hear? Russia will soon be our ally!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:39PM
> why NATO needs to be dissolved now that the reason for it to exist has not itself existed for a generation
NATO has long been a very useful way to set the standards for the weapons other countries will have to buy to be able to fight alongside the US.
Sure, Greek manufacturers could come up with a better bullet casing, but we need so many that we sadly have to keep the US standard to sustain production.
The US mil-industrial complex does NOT want the end of NATO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:41PM
But this is a perfect example for why NATO needs to be dissolved now that the reason for it to exist has not itself existed for a generation.
If you consider NATO as purely an anti-Soviet Union organization, then you are right.
If you consider NATO as a, "we countries are strategically aligned with each other and see more value in acting together and presenting a united front than acting as individuals," then you are not.
For that matter, even if you consider NATO merely as an anti-Russia organization, then you are not as well. And don't say there isn't justification for worry about Russia... just look at what happened in Ukraine.
Very frequently California and Texas are very opposed to each other, but neither of them (seriously, as in over 20% of the state's population) are seriously moving to leave the United States. It's much less substantial (both in terms of benefits and costs), but a similar thing is at play in NATO, in my opinion.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:55PM
You keep telling yourself that, but California is voting next year on succession from the United States. We will find out then just what the percentage is that wants to leave.
My bet is significantly above 20% and much closer across party lines. California is a pretty big economy. Assuming we clean house and kick out the parasites, we'll do just fine without the rest of the USA.
Nobody has any hope with the current administration of changing anything. Trump has already failed us all and sold out to monied interests (he was one from the start). The GOP is already laying the ground work for massive land giveaways to the rich and powerful (mirroring Abe Lincoln), while also working to privatize everything so that more profit can be extracted and less services delivered. All of which is entirely unsustainable.
California can't leave quick enough.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:32PM
Citation needed to the secession vote. This is the first I've heard of that. We'll see if it succeeds. (Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously in discussions of secession, you need to learn to use the correct word and spell it right.)
Anyway, personally I think the idea of California seceding by itself is a bad idea. It'd made more sense if they convinced some neighboring states to join in, namely Oregon and Washington for starters, but potentially including the entire western US. California may be big and all, but the PacNW also has a strong tech economy and is closely linked to it, and the other states also have a lot of economic links to it, plus they have lots of natural resources. CA would do better with more unity with its neighbors.
The way I see it, if Americans could look past the rural vs. urban divide for a second, they'll find there's another big divide, which is east vs. west. There's a huge difference between conservatives in South Carolina vs. those in Arizona, for instance.
In fact, I frequently wonder how things in the US would be different if the South were kicked out of the union. That alone would probably alleviate many of the internal pressures we have. The South has been a drag on the US for its entire history, and really should never have been allowed back into the union as full-fledged states with full voting rights; at best, they should have been maintained as territories with appointed governorships, and treated like an occupied nation indefinitely.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:56PM
Yeah, Yeah, speech to text bit me again. Thanks for pointing that out ;P
I'm having a hard time finding a citation, but I know that it was handed to the Attorney General for CA and that at some point it received the number of signatures required. AFIAK, the next time we will be voting it will be on the ballots.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 19 2017, @10:32PM
How far can they possibly get with that? The Civil War established that states don't have the right to secede. It would be a purely symbolic effort.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday January 19 2017, @10:42PM
Depends on the number of people that vote for it. If it actually went through, then yeah legally the most likely outcome is state legislators informing us that it can't be done.
That being said, the real power is simply in that many people voted to leave. I think that would get people's attention, or at least a chance of it.
Should a majority vote for it and be denied? That's how you foment open revolution where change comes at the barrel of a gun.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @11:17PM
In order for California to secede from the Union, a whole lot of businesses would suddenly have to deal with customs from Cali to adjoining states (or elsewhere in the US.)
Just as an example, Intel has major hubs in Oregon and Arizona (latter doing chip fabrication plus R&D), while a majority of software development and early product R&D is done in california (that not done in Israel, Arizona, or Oregon, or lot of other places I probably don't know about.)
Point being, since Intel's headquarters is nominally located in California, while their corporate charter is Delaware based, there would be major issues (both security and economic) if Intel's corporate hub for the West Coast and the world were to suddenly be out of the US.
If you figure in Tesla and a lot of other companies and how all states EAST of the seaboard are pretty heavily conservative PLUS support infrastructure for the West Coast tech/manufacturing industry, you will quickly realize a Calexit would be a larger clusterfuck than a Brexit, given that the latter at least is geographically distinct enough to not have a huge amount of 'same day' product handling from out of state. California does, as evidenced by the Reno warehouse scene, used as a supply hub for products going to most of the west coast.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday January 19 2017, @11:22PM
"Assuming we clean house and kick out the parasites"
Who are the parasites? I'm curious.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Thursday January 19 2017, @11:43PM
Government rent seekers, Nestle and its billions in tax breaks, most corporate suckheads, those kind of fucking parasites.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday January 20 2017, @12:26AM
If you consider NATO as purely an anti-Soviet Union organization, then you are right.
That was the official justification. Making sure Germany stayed peaceful was probably the unstated one. Neither apply now.
If you consider NATO as a, "we countries are strategically aligned with each other and see more value in acting together and presenting a united front than acting as individuals," then you are not.
Look at a list of NATO countries. How many do you think the US should wage total war over? As for a united front, united against who? Who are we all putting a united front against?
For that matter, even if you consider NATO merely as an anti-Russia organization, then you are not as well. And don't say there isn't justification for worry about Russia... just look at what happened in Ukraine.
Russia has a smaller GDP than Germany alone, if Europe can't contain the bear, perhaps they should ask why? Could it be the unsustainable welfare state and declining birth rate?
No, NATO, the EU, TPP, the UN and other transnational efforts to bring everyone into one world government is a problem. There is simply too much diversity to have ONE set of rules, one government, etc. without a majority being unhappy. We are, as you note, hitting the exact same problem trying to have one size fits all government here in the U.S., imagine how insane it is to propose one government for Europe?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @08:39AM
Nitpick: most western european countries' population has bounced and is now closer to sustenance rate (1.5~1.6). It is not because of immigrants.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 21 2017, @06:08AM
Don't confuse him with facts. He has an axe to grind.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by r1348 on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:07PM
As an European, I'm actually wishing what you prospect will come to be.
But, are you sure you're not underestimating how much NATO is fundamental to protect American interest abroad? Aren't you also underestimating how much military spending supports your economy?
If NATO no longer existed, most of Europe wouldn't have to buy NATO-certified (and US-produced, see F35) weapons anymore.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:05PM
Yes, lets divide the world back into Axis and Allies, that didn't have any negative consequences AT ALL! I get where you're coming from, protect our own citizens and allies, but you fail as usual to see the bigger picture. The world needs to heal the divides, not create bigger ones. Your xenophobic policies would guarantee a future WW3.
It is kind of like the Freedom of Speech, you gotta protect the rights of shit talking assholes if you want to call it freedom. On the world scale its better to prevent diplomatic ties from breaking down because then the only option left is violence. I'm no fan of the current Turkish regime (I find it disturbing actually) or the religious bullshit in the middle east, but I'm also not a fan of religious culture in the US either. However, I would never advocate walling off the midwest/southern US just because I don't like the majority of their culture. We've worked out our differences for the most part and going back to 1861 would not be a productive move. Hell, southern baptists have more in common with islam than they do with atheists...
Basically you're advocating something to make your "feels" happier, it tickles me pink to see a neocon displaying the traits they like to hate on.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:41PM
Why is violence necessary? Why can't we just turn our backs on Turkey and leave them to their own devices?
When I don't like one of my neighbors, I don't get a gun and shoot at him. Instead, I just put up a fence and ignore him.
However, I would never advocate walling off the midwest/southern US just because I don't like the majority of their culture
Why not? By keeping them as part of your country, you give them voting rights, and you give them the power to make decisions affecting your life, using their dumb religious ideals. It's better to make them separate and let them govern themselves, and restrict your own governance to people who are more agreeable to you and represent your own culture better. November's election should have been proof of why the liberal idea of "let's all hold hands and unify into one big government and let these backwards people vote in our elections" doesn't work; when you bring backwards, conservative idiots into your electorate, you're going to get a more backwards, conservative government. There seems to be an assumption among liberals that everyone is eventually going to "see the light" and turn more liberal, but it doesn't work that way. We're now probably going to see RvW get overturned, and many places in the world are getting more conservative, not less (see the middle east, Russia, etc.).
We've worked out our differences for the most part and going back to 1861 would not be a productive move.
What do you think is going to happen with Trump? Wake up: the midwest/southern US just took over your country.
Hell, southern baptists have more in common with islam than they do with atheists...
Yes, which is why they should be separated into their own country where they can't affect us. I'll happily take immigrants who renounce that religion and lifestyle though.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 19 2017, @10:09PM
I would like to agree with what you say, this election has left a lot of anger and created a lot of division. However I still hold to the idea that creating divisions is a bad idea. The problem with banishing countries/states is that you set up future conflict. Cultures will diverge further and soon turns into an us vs. them problem. "The evil morally corrupt West is holding us down, we must fight back!" That sort of thing.
As for the US, Trump won not because the midwest/south has taken over but because US politics has finally been exposed for the corrupt crony system it is. We shall see how much damage really gets done, but I will opt to keep our country together because it takes diversity to make us strong. While I do disagree with a lot of things conservatives stand for, there are also a lot of things that liberals stand for which I disagree with. As time marches on our society evolves, and the trend is toward a more secular and liberal viewpoint. Two steps forward one step back, this election cycle is a backwards step to hopefully let the conservatives catch up... maybe we'll get a stronger Roe v. Wade after a failed attempt to get rid of it.
TL:DR Ignoring your problems is not a solid solution...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 19 2017, @10:16PM
As an addition, unless Trump and the Republicans go full dictator mode the way Turkey has, then if anything this last election cycle will wake up a LOT of people to the importance of elections. Expect grassroots campaigns to dramatically increase, and bullshit like the DNC pulled on Sanders to be swiftly brought to light. We need reform, badly, and we all know Trump isn't gonna do it.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 19 2017, @10:29PM
However I still hold to the idea that creating divisions is a bad idea.
Why? We already have separate nations. There's a division between the US and Canada. Are you proposing that the US and the Canada merge into a single nation? What about the US and Mexico? The US and Canada, in particular, seem to have no trouble coexisting without needing to unify into a single nation, and there's no sign that the US and Mexico are going to have a shooting war anytime soon. (There's some bad politics going on right now, but there's no signs that anyone wants to invade the other and try to steal land or resources.)
As for the US, Trump won not because the midwest/south has taken over but because US politics has finally been exposed for the corrupt crony system it is.
True, but I contend that's a necessary byproduct of having a nation where there's too much diversity and division between incompatible cultures (namely the mostly-Christian conservatives and everyone else). The nations which enjoy the lowest corruption rate worldwide are invariably nations which are smaller and are not diverse at all. When you're not fighting with your neighbors about whether some moral issue or whatever should be legal or not, it's a lot easier to pay attention to your elected leaders and make sure they're doing what they're supposed to. Over here, we just get distracted about whether gay people should get married, whether abortions should be legal (it's not a settle question, it's been a fight for more than my whole life and it isn't stopping), whether the government should endorse Christianity, etc.
but I will opt to keep our country together because it takes diversity to make us strong.
In an economic sense, sure. The same was true for the Roman Empire. Things didn't turn out well for them. Right now, the nations with the lowest corruption and highest standards of living are not very diverse: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Switzerland. (Yes, that last one has 4 official languages, but is there really that much difference between a German-speaking Swiss and a French-speaking one? Plus, their nation is organized into cantons with far more regional autonomy than we have, plus they have a lot more direct democracy, plus they're a very small country.)
As time marches on our society evolves, and the trend is toward a more secular and liberal viewpoint.
That's not what I'm seeing: there's more and more religion in Europe (thanks to the Islamic immigrants), there's more conservatism in the middle east (see ISIS), there's more religion and less secularism in Turkey (Erdogan is an Islamist), there's more religion in Russia (the Russian Orthodox church is very powerful, unlike 30 years ago), Afghanistan used to be a place where women went to school and enjoyed a lot of secularism 50+ years ago, and even here in the US megachurches are more popular and powerful than ever.
TL:DR Ignoring your problems is not a solid solution...
They're not "my" problems if I can divorce myself from the people with those problems. If I have a wife who's causing me a lot of problems, I can either try to convince/brainwash her to fix those problems (good luck), or I can get a divorce and live happily apart from her. Which one is easier and more sensible? The latter of course. Leave the dumb religious nuts to their own devices, in their own countries. I don't know about you, but I want to live my life in peace, not fighting with people to convince them that they're wrong. I can't do that when they're on top of me, and voting for laws to oppress me.