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 PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:06PM (3 children)
Another reading: Theresa May and the EU negotiated a deal that was completely unacceptable to anyone, either Remainers or Brexiteers. Boris Johnson was selected by his party to bring the country out of the current Brexit impasse by any means, and he is doing so.
> Since no one knew (actually, no knows still!) what "leaving the European Union" really meant, people could put whatever political grievance they had into voting Leave.
I think it was, and is, pretty clear what people voted for. The question is a very simple one.
(Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:13PM (2 children)
Trouble is, you don't know what 17 million leave voters really voted for any more than I do.
Maybe some of them believed what they read on the side of that bus, or that Turkey was about to join the EU and we'd all be wearing burkhas. Maybe they just voted because they hated David Cameron and George Osbourne? If not, the leave campaign certainly wasted a lot of money on paint and posters. Its not about whether 17 million people didn't know what they were voting for, its whether a tiny proportion of those were swayed by the more questionable claims being made by both sides - and also how many people didn't bother voting because (like Cameron) they assumed that 'remain' was going to win.
The problem with a referendum with a simple, straightforward question is that real life is often neither simple or straightforward, and if it isn't backed by a detailed manifesto for both options, with some accountable group attached to each option, then its no way to make an important, irreversible decision.
So, why not have another referendum now that we've had 3 years of debate and there are 3, objective options: (a) Revoke article 50, (b) accept May's deal or (c) Leave at the next deadline with no deal - mark your first and second choice, instant runoff...? It could even be made legally binding, since its totally unambiguous. Frankly, it should have been done last December, the first time that parliament rejected May's deal - if so, it would all be sorted by now and it is entirely possible that would mean "out". If we can organise a general election by Oct 15th, we could organise a referendum before the 30th.
We can possibly agree on the fact that kicking the can down the road until Jan 30th is a waste of bloody time unless something else changes to break the logjam. However, if there's a general election then its entirely possible we'll end up with enough NuTory, DUP and Brexit Party (Or Tory/Brexit joint candidates) to get brexit through - and I wouldn't trust Corbyn to stop Brexit if he got a majority (the EU is just as inimical for the Glorious Worker's Paradise as it is for Tax Haven UK). But, then, that would be our parliamentary democracy working as intended...
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:04PM (1 child)
> Trouble is, you don't know what 17 million leave voters really voted for any more than I do.
By this logic any vote to leave is invalid. It doesn't seem like a terribly strong argument.
> why not have another referendum
I agree. Actually, what should have happened after (even before) the Scottish referendum and Brexit referendum is the government should have sought advice on how to handle a "close" referendum result. If the referendum result is 60/40, well it is pretty clear that the 60 % wins. If it is 50/50 or 51/49, what then? Someone authoritative needs to decide something like "status quo wins but trigger another referendum in 5 years". Also "if there is a strong majority like 60/40, the majority wins and another referendum can't be triggered for 30 years" to avoid the losers just pursuing another and another referendum.
(Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:38PM
It's actually a pretty strong argument for not making irrevocable decisions affecting the next couple of generations based on a simple majority in a single referendum with a simplistic yes/no question. The result would probably fail any test of statistical significance and could have been swayed by something as stupid as the weather on polling day.
Its a strong argument for having something like a parliamentary democracy that can debate, amend and change its mind, with regular elections to hold them to account. Next time, maybe, at least get parliament to write the bill first, then hold the referendum, so there's a clear, detailed proposal to vote on. Oh, and don't let the current PM and Chancellor run the campaign, because everybody hates them (whoever they are).