SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some of the great moments of history sneak up on businesspeople. Two years ago, Britain looked to be Europe's most economically rational country; now its companies seem to be rolling from one economic earthquake to another, with Brexit looking increasingly likely to be followed by the election of a near-Marxist prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn.
Looking back, two things stand out. First, there were some deep underlying "irrational" causes that business ignored, such as the pent-up anger against immigration and globalization. Second, there was a string of short-term political decisions that proved to be miscalculations. For decades, for example, attacking the European Union was a "free hit" for British politicians. If David Cameron had it to do over again, would he really have made the referendum on whether to stay in it a simple majority vote (or indeed called a vote at all)? Does Angela Merkel now regret giving Cameron so few concessions before the Brexit vote? Would the moderate Labour members of Parliament who helped Corbyn get on their party's leadership ballot in the name of political diversity really do that again?
Now, another rupture may be sneaking up on Europe, driven by a similar mixture of pent-up anger and short-term political maneuvering. This one is between the old West European democratic core of the EU, led by Merkel and increasingly by Emmanuel Macron, who are keen to integrate the euro zone, and the populist authoritarians of Eastern Europe, who dislike Brussels. This time the arguments are ones about political freedom and national sovereignty.
Eastern Europe's gripes are nothing a little anschluss couldn't cure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @03:46AM (16 children)
Splitting off from Spain should not mean splitting off from the EU.
If the EU is to really succeed, many of the existing parts need to split. The parts ought to be similar in size.
The USA has long had similar troubles, though without some of the extra legacy tension that the EU has. For example, California ought to be 10 states.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 06 2017, @03:55AM (15 children)
I think we'll see Puerto Rican AND D.C. statehood before we see Calexit or California split into 3-10 pieces.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @04:24AM (14 children)
DC has no business being a state. It's way too small. It's not even a true city: it's only a tiny portion of the overall metro area. DC should simply retrocede (?) back to Maryland, just like Alexandria did with Virginia years ago, if they really want proper Congressional representation so bad.
It'd be much better really for DC, northern VA, and most of central MD (including Baltimore) to unify into a single state, then let eastern shore MD join with Delaware (and also eastern shore VA) into a "Delmarva" state, and let far-western MD counties merge with West Virginia. Then we'd still have 50 states, Delaware wouldn't be so puny, the barely-populated Delmarva peninsula wouldn't be idiotically divided among 3 states, the far-west Marylanders wouldn't have to complain about Baltimore any more, the DCers wouldn't have to complain about "taxation without representation" any more, and DC-area residents wouldn't constantly be driving between 3 states (/district). And maybe the Metro would work better too; it's a disaster. Unfortunately, redrawing state borders like this seems to be politically impossible.
As for California, they should split up into two states, north and south. They're too big. We can get back to an even 50 states by breaking up Wyoming and giving the pieces to surrounding states. Or by forcing Rhode Island to merge with one of its neighbors.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 06 2017, @05:41AM (13 children)
DC doesn't have Senate seats so its absorption can't be traded for a new Democrat state like Puerto Rico.
Dissolution of California just seem impossible. A vocal minority want it, and it has a high chance of creating more Dem Senate seats. It's a non-starter.
Wyoming is Republican. If it was absorbed the Republicans would lose Senate seats.
You're right, we're stuck with the 50 we have.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @07:35AM
Take the UK as the extra 3-4, then you'll have room for more.
They already bend in whatever position the US masters ask them to anyway.
Keep Assange in check? Not a problem, we just need to waste 4-6 policemen-worth of salary for as long as needed. Spare change, sir, spare change.
More surveillance? Sure, sir, right away.
No more encryption in messaging apps? Right you are, sir, we'll make it illegal just as soon as we finish Brexiting.
BTW, sir, so that you know: we are following your approach and we're dismantling our NHS... waste of taxes they are, can't support them and the MI5 and 6 in the same time, we needed to make a choice. It's called "living within our means", of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @08:27AM (2 children)
Suppose you put California's coastal counties in one state, and then made separate states out of all the non-coastal counties. That would be a huge number of republican senators. Most of California is actually republican. The coast controls everything due to population density. The non-coast is pissed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)
So the dirt gets to vote? I thought it was people who voted.
Such nonsense! You think that largely uninhabited areas should have MORE say than the ones where the people live?
Your argument is typical Republican claptrap, a loser's argument to find some way to be in the right.
California is OVERWHELMINGLY (almost comically) Democratic, and there is no argument that can credibly say otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @05:22PM
Everybody sometimes goes to a city, but many city people never leave. City people seldom have much empathy for the non-city people.
Without "the dirt" getting a vote, power snowballs. City cost-of-living and other misery rises as the entire population crams into the cities. Cities already have network advantages that encourage growth. You end up with lots of homeless people, and lots of people with multi-hour commutes, because non-city living becomes unviable.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 06 2017, @09:06AM (7 children)
Maybe they need a compromise where each new state has to come in with another on the other side of the political divide, as in, one red and one blue. Dividing California in half would do that, with the red half balancing the blue Puerto Rico.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @01:06PM (3 children)
Sacrificing one of the largest states and probably the one with the biggest economy to allow in a tiny speck of a ruined island as a state makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 06 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)
If you let Puerto Rico get too ruined, the 3.4 million AMERICAN CITIZENS within will flood into the mainland, maybe change a couple states to Democrat. No amount of chucked paper towels can stop it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @06:55PM
Most Puerto Ricans already live in the mainland U.S.
Leaving Puerto Rico is nothing new.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Friday October 06 2017, @04:33PM
If we're granting statehood to incompetently managed, corrupt islands, Puerto Rico should be inducted with Guam as the 51st and 52nd states.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @05:38PM (2 children)
What are you talking about? North/south, there's no "red half" of California, they're both blue, with LA/SanDiego in the south and SanFran/BayArea in the north. You'd have to do some kind of east-west divide, but that would look ridiculous; the two states would be impossibly long and narrow, and the eastern side wouldn't have much population, mainly just Sacramento, and possibly Fresno depending on where the line is.
I say we break Texas in half, along with California. That should solve this problem.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 06 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
The Bay Area is the middle. The northern half would start north of there. People have proposed it as the "State of Jefferson [wikipedia.org]." Culturally, though, it would work better to separate the coast from San Diego to the Bay Area from the rest of the state. The Central Valley, north, and east of the Sierras are all quite red.
Dividing Texas doesn't make much sense, though. Once you pop Austin out of the middle you've broken the blue out from the red.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @09:25PM
The far north area I don't think has enough population to be a viable state. It's too rural. There's not even any real cities up there. If they're unhappy, what they should be lobbying for is seceding from California and joining Oregon. That's sorta what the "Jefferson" proposed state in your link does, by taking some parts of Oregon. That's not a terrible idea; the rest of OR could merge with WA.
Dividing Texas makes sense from the standpoint of making the US states more equal in population. I don't know where you'd divide it, perhaps north-south, with the Amarillo part merged with OK, and maybe splitting off the far-west part with El Paso and merging that with NM. It'd probably also make sense to break off the far-east part and merge that with LA.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @05:41PM
Break Texas in half, split up New York state, and split up Illinois and Wisconsin (merge Chicago and Milwaukee together too). Merge Rhode Island with Mass.