Posted on 03/21/2005 9:36:00 AM PST by quidnunc
London – As Republicans in the United States decide whether to do away with filibusters by changing Senate rules — the so-called nuclear option — they would do well to cast their eyes at their Conservative cousins across the Atlantic. Britain's backbench members of Parliament, whom I led as head of the Conservative Party from 2001 to 2003, are virtually powerless before a determined government majority. Indeed, if it were not for the House of Lords, the second and appointed chamber, which has retained limited powers of delay, British government would be an elected dictatorship.
How did this come to pass? In 1887 a group of Irish Nationalist and Liberal members of Parliament brought the House of Commons to a standstill. Outraged by the Irish Crimes Bill, which imposed draconian sanctions on campaigners for Irish home rule, the rebel M.P.'s filibustered discussion for more than a month, forcing numerous all-night sittings and making government business impossible. But they failed to stop the bill, and in the process they stretched parliamentary procedures beyond the breaking point. The Conservative government then in power accused the Irish M.P.'s of unreasonable obstructionism and, by a substantial majority, it introduced the modern parliamentary "guillotine," which allows government ministers to set a cutoff for parliamentary debates.
The guillotine was sold to Parliament as an exceptional device to counter exceptional behavior by minorities. Today, however, British governments use guillotining and similar powers to curtail debate as a matter of course. The guillotine no longer applies merely to unreasonable behavior but is used routinely to gag parliamentarians.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This guy is a former Tory leader but after reading the article it's obvious that he doesn't have any understanding grasp of what's being proposed by the GOP, much less having any useful advice to offer.
Yet he presumes to to meddle in our internal politics which have no bearing on our relations with the UK.
SOME of this article does have a point. But I fail to see how this really relates to the US proposal
The writer doesn't understand what is being proposed.
He thinks the GOP wants to eliminate filibusters totally, not just for presidential nominations.
He probably got that impression from the Brit media, and didn't bother to investigate further before popping off.
Your right The writer doesn't grasp that these judges already had majority approval and the Dems want the standard held to more than a majority.
"British government would be an elected dictatorship" - unless you have some limits on majority power that are enforced (as out Bill of Rights is "supposed" to be) then you do indeed have a dictatorship - tyranny of the majority. Without a written constitution (as in the case of Britain) this can happen easily. Even with a written constitution with limits to government power, you can still have what we in the US have now - tyranny of the minority - as our courts fail to recognize the plain words of our written constitution. Another reason why our 2nd Amendment is important - to provide a means of changing a rogue government. I believe in the latin aphorism - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" - Who watches the watchmen?
Cedes the arguement right there.
He's attempting to influence American public opinion against the GOP's limiting filibusters in court nominations.
What's more he's doing it in a thouroughly dishonsest manner because what he's talking about does not bear on the GOP's proposal.
It's meddling, and scoundrelly meddling to boot.
Here is what this guy is missing. The second the Dems get back into power, they would do away with ALL fillibusters in a freaking milli-second, REGARDLESS of what the Republicans do.
"He's attempting to influence American public opinion against the GOP's limiting filibusters in court nominations."
While it seems clear that the NYT would never have run his column if it supported the rules change, the Law of Unintended Consequences needs to be remembered. Many posters don't mention this, or decry it as unrelated, but it may be that in a future democrat government, the precedent of this rules change will be used to ram through something much more onerous.
As far as a foreign citizen/subject (I am ASSUMING he isn't a dual citizen) commenting on our internal politics, what do you suggest? Ban ALL foreigners from having columns published in american newspapers dealing with internal politics?
"He probably got that impression from the Brit media, and didn't bother to investigate further before popping off."
Coming from quidnunc, that's priceless.
I was under the impression that this was not a change to the rules per se, but rather a return to the rules as they were intended (no supermajority for confirmation, etc). Am I wrong?
Smith isn't just a Britishg citizen, he's a member of Parliament, and I believe it is highly improper for a foreign elected official to be attempting to directly influence American public opinion order to shape Americ an politics in this manner.
Either the way you look at it, it's none of his business or any business of any foreigner as to the internal politics of this country.imho. Are you speaking as an American citizen or a Panamanian citizen?
"Are you speaking as an American citizen or a Panamanian citizen?"
This is too funny, while I obviously live in panama (part of the time, maybe you can ask free republic to do split flags for muitiple residences if you need to know more), does my nationality impact my ability to post on this thread? I admit some bemusement at your comments, particularly given that you bothered to pull my profile and subsequently questioned my nationality, you might have read through some comments and figured it out quickly. Where have I ever implied that I am a dual national???
As far as the right of non-citizens to comment on a given country's internal politics, if you are speaking as an american citizen (if that is the criterion for commenting, though I never heard of it before), you might review the history of the US government and US government officials of commenting on the internal politics of other countries. It is a fact of life and of realpolitik, and unlike many of the third world countries the US has nudged one way or another, overtly or otherwise, the comments of this brit in a liberal paper of the most powerful country in the world aren't going to mean anything in the end.
I think if you have an issue, it SHOULD be with the NYT more than anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.