Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan

posted by takyon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the Why-Not-Re-Referendum? dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:44PM (4 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:44PM (#787547)

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:52PM (3 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:52PM (#787556) Journal

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:04AM (#787699) Journal
      I count 10 general elections just on this chart [wikipedia.org]. Why should there be many nationwide referendums? What would be the point? Look at the mess that was created with one.

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:05AM (1 child)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:05AM (#787701) Journal

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:18AM (#787717) Journal

          Yes, but as I said, those elections are subordinated by the fucking queen.

          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.