SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Boris Johnson loses Parliamentary majority, faces Brexit showdown
Britain's Parliament returns from its summer recess and is facing a titanic showdown over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans to leave the European Union. Here's what we know:
● Johnson has lost his majority in Parliament, with the defection of Conservative Phillip Lee to the Liberal Democrats.
● The opposition, including members of Johnson's party, is seeking to pass legislation to delay Brexit.
● Johnson has said that if his foes succeed he will call early elections.
List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure
#54: George Canning, 119 days (1827)
#55: Boris Johnson, 40 days (Incumbent) (2019)
See also: Brexit: Tory MP defects ahead of crucial no-deal vote
How Brexit Blew Up Britain's Constitution
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:01AM (43 children)
What I still fail to understand are what the purported benefits of Brexit will be. I honestly can't see any, aside from some vague nationalistic fervour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:18AM
Sovereignty of the Royal family. The one and only real purpose of Brexit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:22AM (10 children)
The freedom for the country to decide its own path, similar to an individual emancipating himself from their parents?
It is what the British electorate has democratically decided they want.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:12AM (5 children)
Kinda like when a child "runs away from home" for half an hour or so (to the back yard, generally) because he wants ice cream instead of peas, only to discover that the back yard offers neither ice cream nor peas? Only in this case, they discover that the locks are changed and the porch light is off after the half hour?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:05AM
More like when an adult gets married, then decides to get a divorce, then realizes that their spouse walks the dog and buys the groceries. Oh no! Now we're going to have to do that all ourselves? We'll be ruined. Ruined, I tell you. Wait... she gets the dog? All good then.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:24PM (3 children)
Britain ruled the world before. Your "child" talk has no connection to reality.
If any country has shown themselves to be capable of navigating themselves on the seas of nations, it would be the UK.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:17PM
Any amounts of wishful thinking can not bring back neither the long-gone people, nor the long-gone economic situation.
(Score: 1) by Akemi Homura on Thursday September 05 2019, @01:53AM
And do you forget what has changed since Britain ruled the world? It has been nearly a century. There was no global communications infrastructure, no routine international travel in the span of hours or days, and most countries were Iron-Age or early Industrial-Age at best. Britain was also horrendously cruel to many of its colonies. Why do you wish to recreate these times of suffering and ignorance?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:45AM
I might buy that if they had something like preparation or a plan. Apparently, the current 'plan' being pushed is "no need for a plan, pack nothing, just start walking".
It's going to be hard to navigate anything when the maps, compass, and sextant have been left behind. And you better believe there will be a morale problem when the crew finds out that there are no rations and worse, no rum.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21AM (3 children)
Slight technical correction, UK electorate (NI isn't geographically part of Great Britain), but yes, and all this shite about the 'Deal' is something the politicians added after the fact, we voted on the question of leave, not leave with a deal, but leave...the politicos never wanted Brexit and thought the sheep would swallow their pro-EU propaganda and vote accordingly...but the sheep didnt vote as expected, so they've done their best to 'spanner' the process ever since.
The 'democratic will of the people' has been subverted by the 'sovereign rights of parliament'.
'We, the people' (to borrow a phrase) voted to leave, and that should have been..end of fucking story...alas, the machinations of perfidious quisling politicians...
It's a farce, mind you, there are political silver linings...showing the world the that UK parliamentary democracy is a sham, destruction of the Labour party (a lot of their voters want out of the EU, though you wouldn't think that listening to the MPs, and these voters will have taken note of their actions) destruction of the Tories (always something to be applauded on general principals), dissolution of the act of union (finally...thank fuck)
Of course, there are political downsides, the fuckwits in the Liberal party now think they're important again..and then there's Farage & co..the Little 'Engurlunders' Party..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:40PM (1 child)
Yes, and Vote Leave made all kinds of promises about how leaving wouldn't hurt trade in the slightest, how the new deal with the EU would be the easiest deal ever, how the UK would hold all the cards, etc. That's what people voted for, because that's what the leave option was presented to them as.
Now that reality has turned out to be quite different from all the lies, do you agree We The People should have a chance to say if we still think leaving is a good idea? I think so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM
They never left... reality turned out to be that voting doesn't mean shit in the UK.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:03PM
It was a non-binding resolution that most people didn't give two shits about, because it was a non-binding resolution. Then it barely squeaked over the finish line. Now you people cry "the will of the people"??
Maybe if it WAS a binding resolution AND it passed by MUCH more than just a few percent, then you can talk about the will of the people and democratic rule, etc. It was basically just a big Facebook like/dislike quiz.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by juggs on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:29AM (4 children)
Not being federated, a.k.a independence, which of course plays well to being able to keep your financial trading centre with somewhat lax oversight.
There are numerous other reasons that have been touted and that Brexit will in no way actually achieve, but the people have been sold on them none the less.
If in doubt, follow the money.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:29AM (2 children)
Do you think the EU will trust them without checks? And if checks aren't allowed, do you think they'll continue to use the London City?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:54PM (1 child)
Yes, and yes.
Because London was London way before the EU even existed, and its trading rules are actually very useful in the real world. For an analysis of how, look at the real world of international finance. In fact, many companies would probably pull similar tricks to those of US companies establishing foreign branches for the purposes of avoiding drooling, festering, mind-numblingly idiotic US tax laws.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM
London was, indeed, London before the EU existed. That was in the days of the British Empire or Commonwealth, so today is not quite the same. It was also when the fasted way to send a message was in a fast ship.
Well, things are a bit different now. *Perhaps* London will continue to be significant, but just because it was previously don't mean that it will be in the changed circumstances. Inertia might keep it that way for awhile, but if the EU doesn't trust the way London handles money, the EU money won't pass through London, because it no longer has the advantages it used to.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21PM
In this case, follow the propaganda straight to the Kremlin.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:06AM
You should try looking it up outside your favorite fake news sources?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:40AM
Regarding direct amounts the UK pays far more into the EU than they get back. So saving about nine billion pounds a year.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ [fullfact.org]
re. indirect costs/benefits, opinions differ.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:47AM (4 children)
1 - Politicians and their friends in business stand to get rich(er) by betting against the pound and selling the country to US lobbyists.
2 - Wealthy politicians, bankers, hedge fund managers etc get to avoid all those EU financial transparency laws that come in soon and would otherwise expose all their dirty money.
3 - All our bananas will be bendy again.
4 - New passports! Blue ones!
5 - Rupert Murdoch gets to stick two fingers up to the EU, who recognise him for the crooked, weasly little shit that he is.
6 - White folk get free reign to abuse, beat and brutalise muslims, immigrants, East Europeans, people who look like they might be Muslims, people wot talk funny, west europeans, people who sympathise with people who look like they might be muslims, lesbians who won't do sexy stuff on busses for the sexual gratification of passing incel dickheads, and anybody who the Sun/ Telegraph label a "Traitor/Quisling" respectively.
On a side note, why won't Rupert Murdoch just hurry up and die?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:15AM
Typical propaganda. List all the bad points and then finish with a sweetener.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM
1) Maybe. Or maybe Sterling's independence will make it a net more valuable commodity - in fact, this has been a substantial point in its favour since the Euro has had such long, extended teething pains. (And promises to have more, thanks to limited fiscal integration.)
2) Meh. The US is already bullying large parts of the rest of the world for that. Leaving the EU doesn't change that for a moment. Not that the UK was exactly the last of the great tax havens, either.
3) Right. Sure. Whatever.
4) Yes, of course, nobody really cares anyway.
5) Doesn't matter to the government, at least half of whom would cheerfully see him sodomised by the Baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.
6) Oh, right, because that's how the UK works ... oh, wait ...
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:12PM
Hang on, hang on!
Are you trying to tell me that Rupert Murdoch doesn't have my best interests at heart?
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Well, not that shocked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @10:34AM
2 - Wealthy politicians, bankers, hedge fund managers etc get to avoid all those EU financial transparency laws that come in soon and would otherwise expose all their dirty money.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49578400 [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:46AM (9 children)
During the run up to the referendum the benefits were mostly about "taking back control" of our borders, making our own trade deals, sovereignty, etc. The leave campaign also made a big deal of getting out from the EU fishing quotas and how the money currently sent to the EU would be used to fund the NHS (the infamous £350 million a week claim). The leave campaign also talked about how we would be in a much better position to make trade deals with other countries on our own and how this would benefit the economy. We were assured the EU would cave to our demands as they needed us more than we needed them so there were really no downsides to leaving.
Of course as it turns out the fishermen will be fucked if we leave with no deal, the £350 million will be more than offset by the costs of leaving, the trade deals have evaporated or are seriously unpopular (see the chlorinated chicken and selling the NHS to the US controversies), and it turns out we aren't able to keep all the benefits of EU membership with none of the costs.
So now no one talks about the benefits of leaving. The talking points have shifted away from how we're going to be better off to how it's not going to be that bad (the government have spent a lot of time assuring people that there won't be medicine shortages and while food prices may rise we won't have to bring in rationing), and that leaving is "the will of the people" and that "the referendum must be respected".
In short the benefits were either vague or incorrect, and now it's about how the referendum must be respected regardless of cost.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:49AM (5 children)
This is hilarious because my friend was in the UK during the vote and wasnt told a single thing you just mentioned. The narrative of the fake news you listen to changed and you think other people are stupid because of that.
It was unelected bureaucrats passing down endless annoying regulations with "unintended" consequences they were too clueless to foresee. The end.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:51PM (3 children)
I couldn't really parse what you wrote, but I was in the UK at the time, too, and I saw the Brexit Bus most prominently on the television.
Also, anyone with the slightest clue about all the functions that have been centralised in the EU to achieve harmonization and cost savings, everything from flight traffic control to the Europol to medical and food safety and a hundred others, would have instantly realized quitting all those deals and building up the whole thing from scratch for yourself in the name of "sovereignity" would not in a million years save any money. The other option of leaving but still adhearing to those standards set by the EU would be the complete opposite of sovereignity. But then again, it's been clear from the very beginning that the brexiteers are not particularly bright. Too bad the Remain campaign also did the worst possible job of highlighting these facts.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:46PM (2 children)
Yes, you seem much more intelligent than the strawmen your news sources apparently made up for you. Brexit bus? No one I heard about cared about a "brexit bus". How about you exit your echo chamber and go talk to real people.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)
The name is not the thing. AFAIK it wasn't called "the BREXIT bus" until it hit court, but it was a real event, and it may an actual false claim that was known to be false at the time it was made by the people making it. (Well, as least the top levels.) The court just decided that lying to the electorate wasn't a crime.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:08PM
And no one cared about that non issue
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:16PM
Then your friend is either an idiot or wasn't paying attention.
Assuming he or she exists.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:29PM (2 children)
Not true at all. British waters become outside the zone of EU fishermen. The UK will have very rich fishing grounds under their own control again and it considerably helps British fishermen.
Partly true. The £350 million is quite a bit less (about half) but it would still be a saving for the UK. Whether that will be enough to offset the falling £ remains to be seen, but much of that is caused by business uncertainty not by one result or the other.
The UK will not be able to keep all of the benefits, but that doesn't mean they will have none. Both Germany and France actually want to have trade deals with the UK, but would prefer them to be under EU rules.
The bottom line is that the people were asked to vote, they did so, and the politicians then changed the rules of what leaving actually meant. This is a serious threat to democracy. Parliament is meant to be there to carry out the will of the country, usually by people voting for one manifesto or another. But this has shown that the politicians don't actually care what the public voted for, they all want to feather their own nests. All sides in the UK parliament are looking after their own political interests and not the interests of the people who voted - the majority of which voted leave. If people now claim that 'they didn't know what it would entail' then they should have thought about it a bit more deeply. But those remainers, who are only slightly less in number than Brexiteers, can see a path to get their own way now despite having already lost the vote. For them, it is a case of we will keep on voting until you vote for the right choice. The majority believe that they already have done so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:50PM (1 child)
> The UK will have very rich fishing grounds under their own control
LOL - if you think the nearshore and 20km-range fisheries around the UK are "very rich" you don't know shit about fish. In very rich fishing grounds, the sea is silver. That's not hyperbole, talk to a real commercial fisherman (not a river hipwader). If you've seen dive videos of schools of fish, that is rich fishing grounds. If there were schools like that within UK waters they'd very quickly be hoovered up by contemporary factory fishboats.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:26PM
Or fleets of European fishing boats who have been given the right to fish there by the EU. That is precisely what has happened. How much has the UK fishing fleet declined by since they lost the sole access to the traditional UK fishing grounds?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:00PM (5 children)
> what the purported benefits of Brexit will be.
A directly elected legislature.
The EU lower house is filled with nominated place-men and women and the elective upper house has no power. The EU president is nominated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:17PM (4 children)
What, like the one we already have in the House of Commons that the (currently unelected) PM is desperately trying to circumvent to force through the most extreme possible interpretation of an advisory referendum held by a previous government - that lost any majority it might have had for "no deal" (if not Brexit) in the 2017 election?
This is now less about Brexit and more about getting Beloved Leader Bo-Jo-Il to look up "elected legislature" in his dictionary... because if he gets his way on no deal Brexit (even if that might be for the best, long-term) then he surely isn't going to let any pesky "elected legislature" scrutinise a future trade deal with his good friend Donald (although he won't get that if he has to build a wall across Ireland - a thorny issue that the status quo solves, but a no-deal brexit turns up to 11).
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:57PM (3 children)
> like the one we already have in the House of Commons
The EU has power to overrule the House of Commons, so actually no, not like the one we already have.
(Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:11PM (2 children)
Well, first, any EU directive has to be proposed by the EU executive (on which our democratically elected government is represented) then passed by the directly-elected EU parliament (if we squander our allotted seats by electing far-right zealots who just jeer at the foreign Johnnies while being sure to claim their full expenses that's our democratic right to be stupid) then passed into law by the House of Commons who at least get the chance to debate and amend the legislation.
Meanwhile, or PM seems to think that he has the power to overrule the House of Commons - or at least use every trick in the book to avoid respecting the decision that the House made back in the spring to rule out "no deal". Do you really think he's going to open up his sweetheart deal with Trump to scrutiny by parliament if he can get away without? TTIP (you know, that US/EU trade deal that would have let US companies sue our government) will be a picnic compared to that. True - the EU executive tried to sneak that one through (executives do as executives will) but the democratic elements of the EU managed to fight it off - no thanks to our wonderful UK government which always seems to think that what is good for General Motors is good for the UK).
NB: If Boris wants to talk about losing bargaining clout (which he seems to think means 'do what I want or I'll shoot myself in the foot - then you'll be sorry!') then he should think about the wisdom of entering into negotiations with the US and others after burning his bridges with our current trading partners.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 05 2019, @08:57AM (1 child)
> proposed by the EU executive (on which our democratically elected government is represented)
But these are placemen nominated by Boris Johnson, Corbyn et al. That is simply not good enough in the modern era.
> then passed by the directly-elected EU parliament
the directly-elected parliament has the power to block legislation but not to propose legislation. This is not good enough.
> then passed into law by the House of Commons
But it is illegal for the UK legislature (commons, lords and queen) to not pass the law so this is a bit of a false argument.
My argument is that the EU has powers very much like the US federal government. The EU does not, yet, have the power to raise direct taxes; and (consequently) the EU does not maintain a standing army. But they do have the power to raise legislation and they have judicial supremacy (i.e. one can appeal a criminal case to the EU courts). In a proper democracy, there would be a directly, democratically elected government and lower house to manage these powers.
--
This sounds like a somewhat theoretical distinction, but the absence of such a body has direct consequences: no one has ever proposed a meaningful *manifesto* for how Europe should be run that folks can vote on. I voted in European elections for the last 20 years, but if I am honest I have no idea what I am voting for, because the people I am electing have no meaningful manifesto. This is because they are not in charge.
Let me give an example. Amount of money going to EU from member states was a controversial topic that came up in the Brexit referendum. If I think that too little, or too much, money is going to the EU from Britain, who should I vote for that can actually change it?
My MEP can't. My MP can't and has lots of other distractions. Who can I vote for who can make a meaningful change?
Compare that with, say, the Foreign Aid budget (about 1 % of UK GDP IIRC, and something which I note no one is complaining about). If I have a strong opinion, I can write to my MP and look at different party manifestos and vote for the party that says they will increase it or decrease it. My vote counts for something. That simply is not the case in the EU.
There is another fundamental problem with the EU, as a consequence of the lack of democracy. No one is in charge. There is no meaningful "president". Sure, someone gets nominated every year or whatever (crazy!) But there is no equivalent to POTUS, or the UK PM, who can actually make stuff happen. This, I believe, leads to an organisation that lacks goals and tends to exist for existence sake. That is okay for a trade federation, or a military alliance. But because EU has legislative primacy, it is not good enough for the EU. Someone needs to be running the show.
What has shocked me the most, and made me switch to a Brexiter (I am very pro-union, just not this union) is that the EU has totally failed to address what I regard as massive, structural flaws.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:31PM
...as are the UK cabinet ministers who are the only ones who are practically able to propose UK laws. (Private member's bills have little chance of being passed without the tacit support of the executive).
...so when the UK Parliament is able to take control of proceedings and propose and pass a bit of legislation, that's a good thing, right? To be fair, I don't recall whether you, personally, have questioned that process, but you only have to turn on the TV and listen to any Brexiteer (from the Prime Minister down) flatly refusing to accept Parliament's decision and supporting every technique short of actually winning the argument to overturn the result.
I certainly haven't heard any Brexiteers suggest anything about governmental reform after the glorious day (beyond changing the House of Lords which is a whole other argument...) - you know, like introducing proportional representation (something the EU parliament does have), requiring more "direct democracy", getting rid of unelected "special advisors", stripping the PM of prerogative powers, executive orders and other Parliament-bypassing tricks...
Sorry to disillusion you, but your MP isn't going to vote down the Budget because of a few letters. Many MPs are brilliant if you write to them regarding some personal matter that they can actually fix or a question they can actually answer, but if you send them your thoughts on Big Politics there's little they can do beyond sending a memo to the Minister which may be recorded in some dusty ledger... and if its an EU matter they can just as easily send it to the appropriate person at the EU....
...as for changing your vote, if you live in a safe seat for one of the major parties, forget it because you're effectively disenfranchised by our electoral system. You're actually more likely to get a MEP that supports your causes thanks to the PR system used in the EU elections. Consequence: we elect UKIPpers/Brexit party members who only turn up to turn their backs on 'Ode to Joy' and fiddle their expenses.
...and that problem is firmly and squarely the fault of UK politicians and press for basically treating the EU elections as an opinion poll for the next general election, so the manifestos are packed with domestic issues and attacks on the rival parties. If you stay up until 3AM watching the BBC you might - if there's a 2 minute dead spot between soundbites from the more entertaining domestic politicians and infographics of what the House of Commons would look like if the numbers were repeated at the next GE - catch a brief discussion of the various multinational party groupings in the EU parliament and which ones our MEPs would... no, hang on, we're just getting an exit poll from Little Banging-on-the-Wall which was a key marginal battle ground in the last general election!!!
Seriously, for all the decades we've been in the EU the debate has been dominated by if/when we were going to leave and fake news stories about straight bananas and kipper bans. We take the EU elections less seriously than the Eurovision Song Contest (and half the population probably thinks that's something to do with the EU despite Israel and Australia taking part...).
Then we complain that we don't know who or what we're voting for in the EU.
No, I don't particularly like the fact that the EU used "the Common Market" as a trojan horse - but on the other hand, that was decades ago without that we'd probably not have any union, and I rather like the fact we've had all those decades without any of those pesky wars with France and Germany that used to happen every few years.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:36PM (2 children)
A group of unelected unaccountable officials in Belgium no longer tells the UK how many refugees they need to absorb. What's funny is how quick the pro EU people want to fuck the UK over after they leave. Sounds like a great bunch of people. So they gave countries the option of leaving and when one exercises that option all hell breaks loose? Are they expecting the EU to blacklist the UK and stop all trade and commerce? Or is the EU so petty they would hurt themselves just to spite someone for leaving?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:12PM (1 child)
So Boris Johnson was elected as PM? Theresa May was elected as PM? Both answers are no, they were elected as MP. As they were capable of forming a democratic majority they claim the PM role.
The same is true for the EU, those that can form a democratic majority can claim the relevant roles. Is the current system good enough? hell no. But you don't have to look far in the UK to find many systems that are not elected with similar powers. Starting with the royal family and the house of lords that's already quite a lot of unelected power.
The unaccountable bit is true though, but as far as I know, that's also the case for the UK, the US and any western European government. The accountability goes as far as: maybe he won't get elected next time.
Being Belgian, I don't know anyone that wants to fuck over the UK, we're getting a bit tired of the drama over brexit, especially the UK govs drama. But the UK is our biggest trade partner so we would actually seriously prefer you remain. If you don't, trade will be a hassle for a while, till everyone understands the new process, which will be more complex and time consuming.
Also, Brussels London is like a 2 hour train ride, you'll probably take much longer to get to different parts of the UK than to get to Brussels. (as you seemed to imply that Belgium is so far away and unreachable)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:51PM
The royal family have no actual power in politics. A constitutional crisis would result if the Queen did not follow the advice of her Ministers.
The British people are also tired of the drama - this is the politicians failing to carry out their responsibility to govern following the will of the people.
Therein lies the rub. The problem is that a majority in the UK are happy to trade with Europe, exactly as it did when it was the Common Market. What many do not accept is using money from the UK to prop up Greek and Italian governments who cannot get their own finances in order. They do not like the gradual shift that has been seen to federalism over the last couple of decades. There are many benefits from being in the EU but currently many do not think that they are getting value for money. They have seen their industries decimated to please the whim of Europe.
The scare-mongering about 'life after Brexit' is just that - we all managed to live and trade together before the UK joined the EU. It can all be done again in the future. The scares about not being able to take European holidays or attending university in Europe are just not true. Spain, Greece, Italy, France will still want the UK holiday makers to spend their money in their holiday resorts, restaurants and bars (17 million people in Spain in 2017. £37.4 billion spent by Brits in Europe on holidays during the same time period). Universities will be happy to accept paying students in their places of learning.
This is not a one-way transfer of benefits that will be lost, simply something that will need reorganising to make it work. Both sides will want it and will make it happen. But the UK has to leave before anything will be done.