Biden will win this, but there are sobering lessons for the opponents of national populism. Thread.
1/ National populist candidates have appeal across different countries, and ethnic groups. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going away.
2/ They appeal to their voters in a genuine way, not only because of propaganda and disinformation. Voting for these candidates meets a need, and isn’t because people have been fooled.
3/ A proportion of their supporters are what we might call anti-leftists: they find the left wing view of the world naive, preachy, smug and so on.
4/ Exhibit A is the Floridian Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans. AOC and her ilk scare them.
5/ These people need a constitutional conservative, centre-right force to vote for.
6/ A “progressive” movement (incidentally a label conservatives hate because it excludes them) can’t achieve lasting change without persuading the centre-right.
7/ But that needs them to accept the legitimacy of centre-right politics. Without it, national populists will keep winning votes, paralyse, or even destroy constitutional democracy.
ENDS.
PS: This doesn’t mean fighting the populists on their territory, or implementing their policies for them. The idea is to find different ways to relate to their voters.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Then we see that the Polish government’s anti-abortion cursade is failing - driving votes to the new Polska 2050 Party. And remember the far-right thugs outside Polish churches? They don’t need defending says the head of the Polish episcopate. Thanks @MaZaborowski
As another week of negotiations of rule of law conditionality opens, Hungary’s still applying the anti-NGO law that was struck down by @EUCourtPress — to funding from the EU’s own ErasmusPlus!
.@SuellaBraverman asserts that parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament is free to disapply treaties. This is not correct. If it were, as I explain in @ConHome today, the government would actually not have the power to make treaties. Thread.
1/ This has to do with the concept of a binding obligation, and the correlative right to enforce (or waive) that obligation.
2/ If the treaty contains a binding obligation one one party, it means the other party has the right to demand the obligation is performed, and hence the power to waive or enforce the obligation.
Before the referendum I wrote that a vote to Leave would turn Britain into Argentina, with Peronist politics, a volatile currency, leading to long term relative economic decline. 1/
It’s too early to judge the long term economic effects, but here are some straws in the wind 2/
Peronist politics: a politics where a self-dealing traditional elite uses the politics of resentment against a cultural elite to win over working class voters 2/
The governments of Poland and Hungary are deliberately misrepresenting the German Constitutional Court’s judgement on the ECB to bolster their attacks on the EU’s legal order.
Rather than repeat their propaganda, it is important to understand why it’s misleading. THREAD
1/ HU and PL are asserting that it shows that member states can individually decide the applicability of EU law on the grounds that member state constitutional law is superior to EU law (even if EU law is superior to ordinary national legislation)
2/ This is of course not what actually happens. The way the #BVerfG understands the situation rather is through the conferral of competences.
First, it removes the disguise from a disguised regime. As @DanielHegedus82 put it - Hungary is now an autocracy without Adjectives.
Second, it refutes Orbán's own legitimation narrative. His rule was supposed to depend on electoral legitimacy: this law allows him to rule indefinitely without them. 3/