SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There *__is* intelligent life on Earth, but I leave for Texas on Monday.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by XivLacuna on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:18PM (18 children)
The biggest mistake was Nigel Farage's decision to not lead the Brexit plan and instead let someone who didn't want to leave the European Union do it instead. Theresa May's Brexit plans were just "Stay in the EU while giving up our say in the EU."
The United Kingdom just needs trade agreements with their neighbors for things they can't produce themselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
> Nigel Farage's decision to not lead the Brexit plan
The british system doesn't work like this. One needs to command a majority in the houses of parliament to do business, which Farage did not have (by a couple orders of magnitude).
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:58AM
To command a majority Farage would have to get elected. He tried. 7 times. He lost every time. One time he lost to a man dressed as a dolphin.
Despite what Fox News may suggest, he's a nobody electorally, however the potential threat of his party (they got 1 in 8 votes in 2015) caused both Tory and Labour to lurch to extremism
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:37PM (14 children)
The big mistake was David Cameron's decision to call for the referendum in the first place, fully confident that "No" would win resoundingly. Nigel Farage and the UKIP has never had the votes needed to lead the UK government either inside or outside of Parliament, and thus is not entitled to lead Britain in any direction at all unless they've decided to throw out that whole democracy thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:32PM (13 children)
To be fair, the "democracy" you're throwing out is one that still requires a hereditary monarch's seal of approval on all laws and has half of their electoral body be just whatever dumbasses were born into rich families.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:44PM (4 children)
In this case, the post I was responding to was suggesting that someone who has never had the support of the majority of Commons nor the majority of British voters should be in charge of Brexit. This definitely isn't a case where either the House of Lords nor Royal Assent has gotten in the way: Royal Assent hasn't been withheld by a British sovereign in centuries, and all Brexit plans have been hatched and voted down in the House of Commons.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:52PM (3 children)
Sure yeah, but "democracy" doesn't mean "one nation wide referendum every 40 years"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:04AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:05AM (1 child)
Yes, but as I said, those elections are subordinated by the fucking queen. I don't want to get into a loop of defending the idea of republicanism, pointing out that exceptions are exceptions, then having to point out I'm defending the idea of republicanism ad infinitum.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:18AM
I can't speak for the Queen's sex life, but there's not much opportunity for her to subordinate any elections since she has no effect on them. Nor the House of Lords for that matter. The only reason those institutions still exist is that they dole out status symbols and I guess there's a bunch of people accustomed to having them around.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:20PM
No. Since they reformed it some years ago, the House of Lords has only 92 of 785 peers that are hereditary, or a little under 12% of its membership. If you include the House of Commons, 6.4% of all Members of Parliament are hereditary.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "electoral body," as neither the King/Queen nor the Prime Minister (who apparently the monarch picks also) is elected.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:57PM (6 children)
The Queen is constitutionally bound to shut up and sign whatever Parliament puts before her, and the elected House of Commons can always invoke the Parliament Act to force a bill through the House of Lords (but apart from the Bertie Woosters, a lot of the Lords have a metric shitload of legal and political experience between them and are no longer concerned with shinning up the greasy pole or getting re-elected, so if they point out that there's a flaw in new legislation its usually worth the government listening).
The Royal Family may be as rich as Croesus at the taxpayer's expense, but whatever other problems you may have with them, their role in government is purely ceremonial (which is probably why the Bloody Tower is not currently full of politicians).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:10AM
So you are arguing that their role should not be purely ceremonial?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:54AM (4 children)
Actually, if a budget isn't passed and the government refused to resign, she can fire the government and force an election or invite the opposition to attempt to pass a budget. No government shutdowns due to no funding possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:46AM (3 children)
No she can't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22PM (1 child)
I speak here a bit as a monarchist (because I actually believe democracy has many failings that may be slightly alleviated by involving a hereditary peer), but it is not true that the UK queen has no power _if she is willing to use her resources_. Yes, she cannot flat-out refuse signing things, but she is far more involved in dealings of the government (they have weekly meetings for example) than "normal people" and certainly more than what some here are suggesting.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:09PM
I believe that power is called the power to advise and warn. As you say, she regularly talks to her PM and I'm sure the PM listens closely to her advice. Doesn't have to take it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:06PM
Thanks, I didn't realize the Fixed term was that fixed. Here, the Queen, or rather her representative, still has the power of dissolution and the power of refusing dissolution. Happened the last Provincial election where the Legislature voted down the Crown speech, government resigned and requested an election and instead the Lieutenant-Governor invited the opposition parties to attempt to govern. With the next bye-election, She may be called on to make a similar decision. Our fixed term election acts (4 years) are not as strict though our Constitution is clear about the maximum of 5 Parliaments or roughly 5 years.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:30PM
Who wants to trade for haggis or spotted dick? no one. That's the UK's main economic problem.