Makes sense to me

LONDON —In an unexpected televised address on Saturday, Queen Elizabeth II offered to restore British rule over the United States of America.

Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”

“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.

Aquitane next, no?

40 thoughts on “Makes sense to me”

  1. Ha ha.. Did you see someone registered the rt hon Boris something something Johnson for President? Under the party banner make America Great Britain again.

  2. Boris: more of a cad than Trump, much less of a crook than Hellary. And, conceivably, more of a natural born citizen than O.

    And much more articulate than any of them.

  3. I’ve been suggesting this for a while. More seriously, the US is the only major/successful nation with an executive president. Everywhere else has some form of parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy. It’s clearly not working out for them, so there really is a good argument that they should give up on the system they have.

  4. “Aquitaine?”

    One of England’s early colonies, which came to Henry II in 1154 (when he married Eleanor of Aquitaine) and remained an English possession until 1453.

  5. I don’t think we should get distracted with Aquitaine – that’s a different issue, being the Occupied Territories oppressed by France. We talk about that when we’re discussing the one thing the EU would be good for: abolishing France, and returning all the OTs to their rightful owners.

  6. Theo: One of England’s early colonies

    Wouldn’t you think it more an accretion of the Angevin territory, subsequently (barring some coastal bits) lost to the Capetians during the reign of King John?

  7. While rejoining the crown is preferable to getting stuck with Clump for the next four years our biggest problems stem from Congress, not the Presidency. Is the Queen sure she wants our wackos messing up Parliament even more?

  8. Congress would be improved dramatically by independent electorate boundaries instead of the gerrymandered nightmare you’ve got now. Then introduce post-term jail sentences that go up geometrically with time spent in office, topping out at summary execution at, say, the end of the tenth term. That should discourage the careerists.

  9. Err, haven’t they taken an oath to be traitors? So, we secure the love of the population by hanging them at the scene of their treason. That multi-person gallows will be working for a few days on the steps outside Congress.

  10. I’ve been suggesting this for a while. More seriously, the US is the only major/successful nation with an executive president. Everywhere else has some form of parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy.

    France? South Korea?

  11. Congress would be improved dramatically by independent electorate boundaries instead of the gerrymandered nightmare you’ve got now.

    As much as I hate the idea of having more politicians, we also need to increase the size of the House of Representatives. It’s been stuck at 435 since the census of 1910. It’s to the point where in the next census, there will probably be two states (Montana and Rhode Island) with over a million people and only one Representative.

  12. While rejoining the crown is preferable to getting stuck with Clump for the next four years our biggest problems stem from Congress, not the Presidency.

    Technically yes, but I’d argue the problem is Congress ceding its power to the executive. Look at how much law is effectively created by unelected regulators in Cabinet departments.

  13. We need to be a little careful here.

    We are certainly NOT responsible for Florida, Alabama and California, amongst many less-problematic others.

    Maybe a division into New France, New Spain and New Britain would be best, and it might provide a useful comparison of differing economic and cultural attitudes and political systems.

  14. TMB

    The Angevin empire (neologism alert!) was established by Henry II, as King of England, Count of Anjou, and Duke of Normandy. Aquitaine came with his marriage to Eleanor, and describing Aquitaine as a colony (rather than an accretion) winds the French up rather nicely! King John lost most of his possessions in France, but not all — Aquitaine being reduced to Gascony, which remained under English control.

  15. Theo – If you want to wind up the French you don’t have to go as far back as the 12th Century but I share your enthusiasm for the period.

  16. Uh, guys – ASBO’s, people being arrested for teaching a pug to salute to ‘heil hitler’, elf’n’safety, NHS, high taxes, no guns, chavs, social housing.

    I thank your queen for the kind offer, but we’re going to pass.

  17. Dave
    October 30, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    I’ve been suggesting this for a while. More seriously, the US is the only major/successful nation with an executive president. Everywhere else has some form of parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy. It’s clearly not working out for them, so there really is a good argument that they should give up on the system they have.

    I would point out that its actually working out a lot better than the vast majority of parliamentary republics or constitutional monarchies. I mean, we’re doing better than, oh, every other nation on earth.

    We could be doing *even better* if our legislative branch didn’t keep ceding (really, abdicating) lawmaking authority to the executive. And if our judiciary didn’t make deference to the executive and legislative standard policy.

  18. Liberal Yank
    October 30, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    While rejoining the crown is preferable to getting stuck with Clump for the next four years our biggest problems stem from Congress, not the Presidency. Is the Queen sure she wants our wackos messing up Parliament even more?

    Dude, seriously. Our biggest problems don’t stem from Congress – they stem from people who demand that Congress make law, any law, and that its perfectly OK when Congress doesn’t agree enough to make a law for the President to step in and make a law.

    If Congress is ‘gridlocked’ its a pretty good sign that your agenda (not *your* agenda specifically – a generic your) doesn’t have enough support to be ethically foisted on the rest of the country.

  19. Come to think of it, we’ve been approximately a colony of the USA for some time. Or, at least, a puppet kingdom.

  20. Tim W,

    Keep in mind that many are just puppets. You have to take out the masters or the gallows will be pointless.

    Agammamon,

    Congress writes the laws that allow the President to take action. If Congress isn’t addressing a specific problem, and the power to do something was granted under a existing law, I see no reason why the President can’t take action.

  21. There are always likely to be difficulties with a political system in which the elected representatives and their political parties have to seek some kind of accommodation with organised crime.

  22. And if our judiciary didn’t make deference to the executive and legislative standard policy.

    As an outsider, it looks the other way round.

    If NZ judges make a decision that the legislators don’t like, then we change the law. Our judges don’t get to make important decisions on policy because they get over-ridden.

    Don’t like Wade vs Roe? Then write a law that over-rides it. That’s what the rest of the world will do if judges get uppity.

    (If you can’t do that, because your legislature isn’t in enough agreement to come together on a new law, then actually the suggestion has to be that, in some sense, collectively you do like Wade vs Roe. Regardless of how much a noisy group say that you don’t).

    Similarly with gun control laws etc. You don’t like the way judges interpret the 2nd Amendment, you alter the 2nd Amendment. That you can’t do that suggests strongly that you are happy to defer to judges making your laws, because it’s easier than trying to come to some compromise.

  23. Especially given that the entire discussion about appointing Supreme Court judges makes it clear that the purpose of the court to be non partisan has failed

  24. Liberal Yank
    October 30, 2016 at 10:46 pm
    Agammamon,

    Congress writes the laws that allow the President to take action. If Congress isn’t addressing a specific problem, and the power to do something was granted under a existing law, I see no reason why the President can’t take action.

    Except a strict reading tells you straight out that Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate rule-making to the Executive.

    All those rules executive agencies make are *supposed* to be run by Congress for their approval – no matter how pro-forma that approval might end up being.

    And the President (not just the current one, going way back to at least Nixon and the War on Drugs) has been pushing at the edges of what ‘Executive Orders’ are supposed to allow him to do. You see this in the who-knows-how-many-not-actually-wars we’re involved in right now all based on a single AUMF written up post 9-11 and then tortured through two administrations to cover blowing up Libya and Syria.

  25. “Similarly with gun control laws etc. You don’t like the way judges interpret the 2nd Amendment, you alter the 2nd Amendment. That you can’t do that suggests strongly that you are happy to defer to judges making your laws”.

    Not really. They are not making laws in the way you suggest. The US judiciary is there as a check to “protect” the constitution? The numbers required (in the legislature) to change the constitution are far higher than that ordinarily required to make new laws.

  26. Chester Draws
    October 30, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    And if our judiciary didn’t make deference to the executive and legislative standard policy.

    As an outsider, it looks the other way round.

    I don’t get the idea that we can’t alter the Constitution – the very existence of the 2nd Amendment is evidence that the Constitution has been altered at least once.

    However, Congress can not *unilaterally* re-write the base of our laws – and changes to the Constitution must be approved by the States (and the people in those states).

    Any law Congress writes has to be legal according to what the constitution *permits government to do* (as it does not constrain the citizen, only lays out duties, responsibilities and privileges of our government).

    And the penultimate arbiter of what that is is the judicial branch.

  27. Ted S>

    France and S Korea do not have an executive president like the US does. They technically have some powers, too much to be considered true parliamentary republics, but far, far from the US way.

    Agamammon>

    I completely agree. The big problem in US politics at the moment is that everyone’s forgotten that the system is designed to allow people to agree to disagree. The Founding Fathers very deliberately left most things out of Federal government because they couldn’t begin to agree on them.

  28. “Don’t like Wade vs Roe? Then write a law that over-rides it.” How does that help? SCOTUS ignored constitutional law to reach the decision it did. (The existing law being that abortion was a matter for the States or the people.)

  29. LY: Congress writes the laws that allow the President to take action. If Congress isn’t addressing a specific problem, and the power to do something was granted under a existing law, I see no reason why the President can’t take action.

    I trust your equanimity will remain intact the first time President Trump promulgates an executive order with which you disagree.

  30. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Agammamon, I would say that the Bill of Rights is more of a supplementary to the Constitution rather than a set of changes. Subsequent alterations were more emendments than amendments (arguably the 21st Amendment is the only example of a strict emendment in that it directly repealed the 18th Amendment, but e.g. the 13th, 14th and 19th also functioned as corrections rather than additions).

    The bar to amending the Constitution is deliberately set very high.

  31. Please. There is a reason we celebrate the 7th of July, it is because we got rid of the stroppy wossnames. We do not want them back, especially now. Please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *