UK Prime Minister Theresa May Will Resign, Pass the Brexit
Theresa May has announced that she will resign as UK's Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party:
Mrs. May announced on Friday that she would be stepping down as leader of her Conservative Party and then as Britain's prime minister, after repeatedly failing to win Parliament's approval for a deal to withdraw the country from the European Union.
A successor to Theresa May will be chosen before Parliament's summer break, the Conservative Party chairman said. She will continue as prime minister until the leadership contest is finished.
[...] Standing in front of 10 Downing Street, Mrs. May said it was in the "best interests of the country for a new prime minister" to lead Britain through the Brexit process. She announced plans to step down as the leader of the Conservative Party on June 7, with the process to replace her beginning the following week.
Previously: Theresa May: UK's Next Prime Minister?
UK PM Theresa May announces resignation amid fury over Brexit handling
foxnews.com/world/uk-pm-theresa-may-announces-resignation-amid-fury-over-brexit-handling
May spoke outside 10 Downing Street after a meeting with Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee of Conservative Party backbenchers. She said she will step down on June 7. Her resignation will trigger a party leadership contest, and whoever wins that contest will take over as prime minister.
[...] Her announcement could complicate the upcoming June 3 state visit by President Trump to London to mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day, where he will also meet with Queen Elizabeth II.
May will still be in office during that visit, meaning it will nix the chance for a new prime minister to forge ties with the American president at a time where such relations are vital. A U.S.-U.K. trade deal is a top priority for the U.K. as it looks to depart from the European Union and begin making its own trade agreements -- and Trump has said "the potential is unlimited" for such a deal.
Related Stories
from the tyrant dept.
UK Home Secretary Theresa May is favored to become the new leader of the Conservatives and the UK's next Prime Minister following a first round of voting, the elimination of Liam Fox, drop out of Stephen Crabb, and the earlier drop out of Boris Johnson:
Home Secretary Theresa May has comfortably won the first round of the contest to become the next Conservative leader and UK prime minister. Mrs May got 165 of the 329 votes cast by Tory MPs. Andrea Leadsom came second with 66 votes. Michael Gove got 48. [...] Further voting will narrow the field to two. The eventual outcome, decided by party members, is due on 9 September. Following the result, frontrunner Mrs May - who campaigned for the UK to stay in the EU - received the backing of Mr Fox, a former defence secretary and Brexit campaigner, and Mr Crabb, the work and pensions secretary, who backed Remain.
[...] Mrs May - who has said she will deliver Brexit if PM - said she was "pleased" with the result and "grateful" to colleagues for their support. She said there was a "big job" ahead to unite the party and the country following the referendum, to "negotiate the best possible deal as we leave the EU" and to "make Britain work for everyone". She added: "I am the only candidate capable of delivering these three things as prime minister, and tonight it is clear that I am also the only one capable of drawing support from the whole of the Conservative Party."
Update: The race to lead the Conservative Party and become the next Prime Minister of the UK is down to two women: Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Friday May 24 2019, @02:46PM (84 children)
She lasted a lot longer than I would have if I were in her shoes. The amount of abuse that woman has endured... and for what?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:19PM (63 children)
For being a Trojan horse for the EU?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @03:35PM (6 children)
You need to review your medication.
May did everything she could to appease the right-wing hardliners, completely marginalising the 48% in the process. It was parliament (ironically, the Brexiteers themselves) who kept frustrating her attempts to deliver Brexit. They had ample opportunity to accept her deal and they voted it down every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:06PM (3 children)
Everything she could except changing her Brexit plan at all to appease them between failures. Maybe she should try it again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @04:24PM (2 children)
Well yeah, but what could she change? The EU wasn't going to budge - and after 3 years of farcical bad-faith negotiations from the UK, why should it?
The ERG wasn't going to accept anything less than an apocalyptic crash out, but most MPs are vehemently opposed to that.
The DUP (that she was beholden to) wouldn't accept... anything at all, apparently.
She had no political capital left to negotiate with Corbyn - he has his eyes on No10 and rightfully saw her as a dead duck - and she couldn't easily open up communication with him anyway, having painted him as the Red Terror.
There was nowhere left to move. Nowhere at all. No wonder she just kept looping back to the same failed package and denying reality.
The thing is though, all of the above restrictions are ones brought about by her own behaviour. She painted herself into that corner.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @05:17PM
She did take the job knowing that everyone was going to make her life hell.
There's a reason the others ran away after the referendum, and let someone else handle the giant mess, some of them with the glee of seeing the other side lose, without regard for the Country (sounds familiar?)
She may have underestimated the determination of the EU, driven by those who understand history and geopolitics, and by the Irish.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @06:14PM
She started the entire process badly, then went from bad to worse after losing the election.
However she could have salvaged it by whipping for her deal with a referendum to accept the deal back in January. This would have forced Corbyn to show his true colours before he was confident the numbers weren't there on the tory side.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Friday May 24 2019, @05:39PM (1 child)
At least she has managed to make Nigel Farago afraid of milkshakes! [thesun.co.uk]
Relevant aristarchus submission: https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=33774 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:06AM
And I have to wonder, why the MilkShakes? Is it a gay thing? Or a British thing? Or a "Frappe" thing? What kind of name is Wayne LaPierre, anyway?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Snow on Friday May 24 2019, @03:54PM (55 children)
Perhaps I'm ill informed. I just constantly hear on the radio failed plan after failed plan. To me it seems as though she is trying to make an exit deal, but no one seems to want to agree to anything.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:04PM (39 children)
She made the same exit deal. Four times. And it gave the EU basically everything.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Friday May 24 2019, @04:24PM (14 children)
Yea, well the choice to leave the EU was a stupid one. When all you have is turds to work with, you end up with a turd sandwich.
I think the choice is between a shitty deal, and no deal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:22PM (13 children)
Actually, the choice to join the EU was a stupid one. I have never favored the EU. I really don't like the idea of a world government, nor do I like the idea of suborning nations under a super government. The world already had three too many overly large, and two too many overly powerful nations, before the EU was born.
If China could be broken into three or more peaces, Russia into another three or more, and the US into at least two, the world would be a much better place. And, just let the EU slide into history, as a bad mistake.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:33PM
That's OK, Runaway, the EU has never favored you either, and really does not care what you think.
Again, the idea of a world government doesn't like you, either. And since you live in a state guilty of rebellion in the past, does not care about your opinion, as well.
Ah, a separate peace [wikipedia.org]? Not a bad book, but rather dated, and over-hyped when it came out. But even if there are several "peaces", they do not care about what you think.
Get back on your lawn, Runaway!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:54PM (4 children)
So have said the french [bbc.co.uk].
Pretty good reasons too [theguardian.com]
----
How about we start with letting US slide into history?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:06PM
In case you hadn't noticed, we're already sliding. The Military Industrial Complex isn't ready to recognize that fact, but the slide has started.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jimbrooking on Friday May 24 2019, @06:31PM (2 children)
The US is sliding into history all by itself as an example of a failed system of government.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 24 2019, @07:33PM
Well, it certainly isn't a very good reflection on majority rule. But one small fact does emerge from the drama, the two party system is definitely no worse than the multiparty circus we are watching.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by crafoo on Saturday May 25 2019, @11:39AM
Correct. Universal suffrage was a mistake. Glad to see people waking up to this. Mob rule, where the mob does not shoulder the consequences for their vote, is disastrous.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Friday May 24 2019, @07:30PM (6 children)
If China could be broken into three or more peaces, Russia into another three or more, and the US into at least two, the world would be a much better place.
Yeah, balkanizing always worked in the past. We need to bring it back, and make sure nobody becomes powerful enough to enforce a peaceful coexistence.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @08:33PM (2 children)
i would like it if the US fed power was greatly diminshed and the states were free to make their state laws as they see fit. people could move to states that abide by their norms instead of trying to force people to live under something nobody likes.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 24 2019, @09:15PM (1 child)
That argument has been settled. You can keep your norms, as long as they don't interfere with others'. The feds' job is to ensure that. But they should wait until they are called in.
Other than that, can you specify?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:11AM
Particular, as long as those norms don't interfere with the TLAs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:24AM (2 children)
Who will be this nobody that will power trip responsibly? Perhaps after I finish ranting on the internet, I will take on this burden and kill all the bad people in the world.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:34AM (1 child)
Who said anything about "responsibly"?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:09AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @04:28PM (23 children)
Well, that's what happens when you are a supplicant negotiating with a much larger power who holds all the cards. The EU had no reason at all to give ground, and every reason to play tough. But despite it all, they maintained a professionalism and civility that the Tories couldn't even dream of.
The idea that Britain could walk into Brussels and demand whatever it wanted, and the EU would just cave, was one of the biggest lies of the referendum. Post-imperial ego-tripping.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:31PM (22 children)
If the EU held all the cards they wouldn't be panicking over the notion of the UK exerting its self determination.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @04:52PM (21 children)
Not seeing any panicking across the channel. They aren't happy about us leaving, but they aren't panicking.
Panicking would imply that they reacted with some kind of fear-driven, irrational response. Care to tell me what that response was? Seems to me they have done everything in a very cool and deliberate manner.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:15PM (20 children)
The UK existed for hundreds of years without the EU. Do you think the EU would last a decade without the UK, its second largest economy and one of two that actually pays more than they get back?
Yeah dude, Angela Merkel isn't running around crying in the streets, but we're two years into this shitshow and nobody has just said "fine, get out then". Obviously that's because the EU "holds all the cards".
Ask Turkey how many cards the EU holds. Decades of being rejected from "Europe" has left a pretty bitter taste in their mouths, and they don't really seem that interested in being part of the west anymore. I wonder why that is.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:26PM (10 children)
Ask Turkey? Interesting idea . . . Decades of rejection? Yeah. And, a guy can't help wondering which is the cause, which the effect. Personally, I'm not one to trust the Turks. As time passes, I see less and less reason to trust Erdogan. The man has betrayed most of Ataturk's legacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:33PM (9 children)
Erdogan was a child when Turkey was being refused entry to the EU. He's the first Turkish President to recognize that he was never going to get in anyway. That isn't an endorsement, just a statement of fact.
The cause is the fact that Greece didn't want them in because of genocide in World War I. Somehow genocide didn't keep the Germans out, but whatever.
At least they got Greece, and all they contribute to the EU.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:44PM (8 children)
Uh-huh - but the part you skipped past is, Turkey is an habitual offender when it comes to genocide. Germany has only committed truly mass genocide once. If we wanted to traipse off into a shadowy world of suppositions and allegations, we might conclude that Germany got it's "final solution" from the Turks. I'm not going there, but you might think about it for a little bit. "Yes, Fuhrer, we have solved that very same problem several times. Look what we did with those nasty Armenians!"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:50PM (7 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide [wikipedia.org]
Oh hey look it turns out your whole stupid argument wasn't even factually correct.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:00PM
I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Runaway spewing bad facts? Having no clue about actual reality and only what the Talking Heads tell him to think?
A duel good sir, that is the only answer to this dastardly accusation of yours.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:15PM (4 children)
Yeah, I missed one. How many did you miss? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Turkey [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:18PM (3 children)
Now add up the death counts and see who wins. I anxiously await your response.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:26PM
Do I get to pro-rate those counts, based on world population? Populations were exploding in the 1800's. Germany has the body count, hands down, but only because the Turks/Ottoman didn't have such large populations to genocide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:16AM (1 child)
Why again is that supposed to be relevant? I'll note here that unlike Germany, Turkey engages in a considerable amount of present day denial about its genocides, probably due to the involvement of the founders and early leaders of modern Turkey in those genocides.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:13AM
I prefer my genocides to be measured in "khallows". Like, the Armenian genocide was 2.4 khallows. Native American Genocide in Califorinia: 9.6 khallows. Nazi genocide, 4.1 khallows. A single khallow post on SoylentNews? .0021 khallows. Metrics, can't do science without 'em!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 24 2019, @11:32PM
Who today remembers the genocide of the Nambians?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @05:51PM (8 children)
The UK existed hundreds of years without the EU... in the world as it was up until fifty years ago. The world is different now. We have superpowers, globalisation, the internet, massive global industries and supply chains and economic systems that require unprecedented levels of cooperation and integration. To suppose we can just close our borders and reset the clock to the age of sail is fantasy. Not to mention that your hundreds of years were characterised by Britain almost constantly being at war with one or another European country. That's not something I'd care to return to.
As for The EU - Losing the UK will hurt but caving in would hurt more. They can't afford to do it. If they give way, then every right-wing populist in every EU country will feel empowered to make the same demands. The whole thing would fall apart and we'd have a continent run by a bunch of little farages with no big bad EU to blame everything on any more. I wonder who they would turn their hate to then?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
If you've looked around recently, you might have noticed that we've already passed peak globalization.
Trump and Brexit are symptoms, the cause is that the last fifty years of the neoliberal bullshit you're espousing has not benefited a large contingent of citizens. I think you're naive if you think the EU can fight against that changing tide via coercion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @02:38PM
What? Poor people today have fridges and TV's.
That's a standard of living higher than the richest Kings of old times.
Right wing gets to have it both ways.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Friday May 24 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
The UK existed hundreds of years without the EU... in the world as it was up until fifty years ago.
Yes - because we had a world monopoly on technology. Unfortunately the patents expired, or we gave them to the Americans for nothing, and then ran our economy in a way that made investment unprofitable.
Now we depend on the EU for 3/4 of our food (half in summer, all in winter). Don't expect to live on a diet of haggis and Irish potatoes either.
You might remember granny telling you not to bite the hand that feeds you. Granny remembers food rationing.
The Theresa May "deal" is about having food. The problem with her deal is it makes no provision to pay for it. We also get other things from Europe - like customers for our businesses and staff for the NHS.
The alternative of "no deal" involves no food, and for a lot of people, no work and no health care. (Unless you are Farage, Rees-Mogg, and Johnson, all of whom have houses in France, and who are fighting for a quick Brexit because they are terrified of forthcoming EU legislation that will reveal the extent of their stashes they have in tax havens). I agree that may of the Brexit voters currently have no jobs and not much food. They are fully entitled to be angry - but supporting the people who are the cause of their predicament is unlikely to make their situation better. The "European Legislation" they hate is mostly either a figment of Boris Johnson's journalism, or Tory party policy blamed on Europe because they know it is damaging.
You may be aware we had EU Elections yesterday to elect MEPs - yes we currently have some sovereignty over the EU. The alternative is none - but the ERG having even more sovereignty over you/us. Given that they think the "nasty party" is too moderate with its austerity, it is hard to see any good coming of the Brexit party. The fact that the "majority" voted to go to hell in a hand cart does not make it a sensible idea.
Europe might miss a few thousand drunken holiday makers, but its not like Brexit will affect their food or jobs much.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @02:43PM
On the plus side, housing becomes more affordable in about 5 years. For those who were smart enough to inherit their wealth, at least.
"... 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live - and they are mostly the same families who owned it in the 19th century." https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/britains-land-is-still-owned-by-an-aristocratic-elite-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-this-way-5385094.html [independent.co.uk]
Get ready to see that number increase.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Friday May 24 2019, @10:40PM (1 child)
Aren't those the problem, not the solution?
Diversity in everything except political thought and leadership; what could possibly go wrong?
Essentially the argument is we're all better off if the globalists are constantly at (cold to lukewarm) war with the people of Britain. OK, well, sounds like fun for the attackers, but whats in it for the Brits if they choose eternal servitude?
Most of the arguments for staying in the EU sound like pre-civil war American South arguments for how disruptive ending slavery would be, we gotta keep them pickin cotton for us for their own good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:54PM
Cheap Southern cotton that fed the British textile mills and their corporate profits.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 24 2019, @11:52PM
We love Nigel, don't we? People don't know this, Nigel has been part of the Europe government for 20 years now. He's known as Nigel Farage MEP. Member of Europe Parlament. Brussels is built on a swamp, it's very swampy there. And Nigel's done more than anybody to drain that swamp. He was one of the first people to say, give the Nobel Peace Prize to Donald J. Trump. One of the very first and we're hearing that one more and more. Go Nigel!!!!
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:24AM
Not at the country level. Just throw up some free trade agreements and you're golden. The endgame of the above requirement was achieved decades ago with the creation of the Eurozone and establishment of the Euro. What's been going on since is extraneous.
For who?
So what?
Unless, of course, Europe decides not to do that. The little farages aren't the only ones with agency, right?
(Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Friday May 24 2019, @05:14PM (9 children)
She (or anyone trying to negotiate a BREXIT deal) has almost no leverage in the negotiations. Meanwhile the EU has a strong incentive to make it painful for the UK to leave.
There is never going to be a good deal to leave the EU. Farage and his fellow racists know this.
They are determined to push the UK off a cliff. Why they want to do this, I don't know.
I do know that many of his supporters cannot stand the fact that many Poles have successfully built a life for themselves in the UK.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:22PM (3 children)
So basically your opposition is all evil racists who just want to destroy the world?
Keep fighting the good fight, Harry Potter.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday May 24 2019, @05:40PM (2 children)
The recurring theme of most of the Harry Potter books was that very few people believed him, until it was too late.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:46PM (1 child)
The recurring theme to the Harry Potter books was that everything can always be simplified to a narrative of good versus evil, and the antagonists never have any motives beyond opposition to all of the values that good citizens hold dear.
You live in a children's story.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:07PM
Found the Death-eater!!!!
Voldemort/Cthulu 2020!
Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @05:29PM (4 children)
> Farage and his fellow racists know this.
> They are determined to push the UK off a cliff. Why they want to do this, I don't know.
That one's easy : have a look at a history book (30s, or a lot more recent).
Right-wing extremists thrive when things are perceived to be really bad, and the common folk are looking for someone to vent their anger.
That's why Trump campaigned on America being broken and losing to the Chinese, regardless of how great the economy was doing in 2016.
Blame someone, position yourself as the only person who can fix it (see also 1933).
The shittier the UK gets after a botched Brexit, the more likely we are to see Farage and friends gain power.
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:35PM
Trump won because you live in a bubble.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday May 24 2019, @08:55PM (2 children)
This is the really weird part.. People are very good at externalising blame; it is someone else's fault they don't have a job/better life/etc
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @09:57PM
That's not weird, it's totally human, Mr NotAsCynicalAsMe.
Admitting fault is not in our nature (probably because it's usually followed by punishment, not praise).
(Score: 1) by Techlectica on Monday May 27 2019, @07:14AM
Prime example, all the fundamentalists in the US south and midwest who deny climate change and are ardent Trump supporters, but who blame gays when all the increased tornadoes, floods, and other weather disasters predicted by the climate change proponents show up on their doorsteps.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by kazzie on Friday May 24 2019, @05:34PM (4 children)
Three key points:
> Early on, the UK Supreme Court said that because triggering the leaving process (Article 50) would effectively change the laws of the UK, it had to be authorised Parliament. Parliament said yes, but insisted it had to give final approval to the settlement.
> While the UK took ages to decide what exactly their negotiating objectives were, the EU got their story straight right at the start, and were able to negociate as a cohesive block. The Conservative Party were not united (neither were the Labour opposition party), and May pursued a policy of ambiguity and kicking the can to try and keep all of her party on-board. She didn't seek any cross-party consensus until it was far too late.
> When an acceptable text was agreed with the EU negotiators, then the hurdle of getting the UK Parliament's approval came into view. She'd been going "her own way" all along, but hadn't brought everybody else along with her. So you had a mixture of MPs who objected to elements of the withdrawal agreement (NI backstop), or objected to leaving the EU at all (SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Greens), or objected for political reasons, 'cause they wanted to be in power instead (Labour leadership).
------
Even back during the referendum, there was no single cohesive vision of what leaving would look like. Electing a new leader of the Conservative isn't going to change the Parliamentary arithmetic, or create a clear vision that Parliament can agree on.
One prediction for the future: if a very exit-minded leader is selected by the Conservative party, they may decide that the draft agreement isn't worth bothering with, and decide to let the UK crash out with no deal at the end of October. We could then see a battle in Westminster, with the largely pro-remain Parliament seeking to gain control of the legislative agenda and force the Government into doing something else, such as revoking Articl 50 and cancelling the whole thing. (To date, attempts at motions of no confidence etc. have been stopped by the DUP as part of their confidence and supply agreement, even though they've been opposing Conservative policy on the Withdrawal Agreement.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @10:04PM (3 children)
I'd add two things:
1) for the last year, she's been playing chicken with Parliament. "My deal or crash", but they didn't blink. They called her bluff, but then voted down any ideas they themselves put on the table. There is no consensus on what should be done now that they backed themselves in a corner with pain in all possible directions.
2) If the EU negotiated with the US and China the way they did with the UK, finally people would stop treating their diplomacy as a joke, and they would be as influential as the biggest economy in the world should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:59PM (2 children)
Regarding your item #2:
Correction. The USA is the world's biggest economy.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @11:15PM (1 child)
This puts the US third, quoting CIA numbers :
https://www.thebalance.com/world-s-largest-economy-3306044 [thebalance.com]
This puts the US in front of the EU for only the last few years, and not in PPP terms :
https://mgmresearch.com/us-vs-eu-a-gdp-comparison/ [mgmresearch.com]
Regardless of specific numbers, the point was that, outside their former colonies, the EU is a Foreign policy dwarf compared to the other 2, when it's "as big" economically. Each country goes its own way, so the block sucks at wielding the soft power their Euros/GBP should have.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday May 25 2019, @11:38AM
About any product you buy, now or in future, is built according to EU standards. Is that not enough in terms of soft power?
Foreign policy faces the same issue as the refugee crisis: both touch upon borders, or the very essence of an independent state. The EU is not a State: it is an intergovernmental cooperation agreement, whose main concern is to avoid encroaching upon sovereignty rights of their (independent) member states.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Friday May 24 2019, @03:41PM (10 children)
List of Theresa May's greatest hits as Home Secretary (on SN) here [soylentnews.org]. Plenty more to be found on The Register and elsewhere:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/theresa_may_home_secretary_investigatory_powers_bill_snooping/ [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/08/new_government_new_security_powers/ [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/14/theresa_may_grilled_by_home_affairs_committee_on_data_retention_investigation_powers_bill/ [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/09/snoopers_charter_what_happens_now/ [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/03/home_secretary_snoopers_charter_will_save_lives/ [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/08/theresa_may_border_control_gaffe/ [theregister.co.uk]
etc.
If you're charitable, she might be completely blameless in fumbling Brexit, but that doesn't excuse her long career of promoting authoritarian laws.
It's OK to look at that woman's tearful speech and not feel any sympathy. She has earned her title of worst PM in UK history (so far).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday May 24 2019, @04:53PM (4 children)
She also cut funding for law enforcement dropping the number of police on the beat to a fraction of what they were. Many blame that reduction for the subsequent crime waves clobbering the country. However, few connect the dots and associate May's cuts with the UK's current, jaw-dropping follow-on crime waves.
Then there is the matter of what is being done to the NHS. The people behind all this Brexit mess are also aiming to finish privatizing their health service and turn to the US-style insurance model. They have started by defunding the NHS so that it struggles and then use the struggles as motivation to sell off properties and cut staffing and services. Selling off buildings means that space has to be rented, at whatever price is being asked, adding further adding to the budget shortfalls created by axing the budget in the first place.
Much of the blame can be placed on Facebook [ted.com]. Apparently use of Facebook on the 2016 Brexit vote served as a petri dish for use of Facebook against the 2016 US federal election [theguardian.com].
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)
Ooh, I can't wait for the part to where it was all Russia's fault that the majority of Britons voted for Brexit, followed by part 3, where the politicians, having seen that democracy is too precious for the people to exercise, take over for our own good.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:28PM
None of the moderations are really appropriate, so I settled on "interesting". But, yes, there always has to be a bad guy lurking in the background, doesn't there?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)
Apparently use of Facebook on the 2016 Brexit vote served as a petri dish for use of Facebook against the 2016 US federal election
Quite. Btu Brexit was won because Johnson decided his best carrer move was to back Leave rather than Remain. That was only because he had the cachet of beign a fairly decent mayor of London during the olympics, which only happened because he was a popular figure in 2008, from his appearences as the "lovable oaf" in shows like Have I got news for you. He only appeared on that show because Angus Deyton left after doing hookers and blow and they needed presenters.
Had Angus kept it in his trousers, Trump would not be president.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:37AM
I'm pretty sure he'd been appearing on HIGNFY as a panellist before Angus Deayton left as host.
-----
Having glanced at Wikipedia's list of episodes, he'd been on three times 1998 and 2001 before Deayton left. He was the fourth guest host afterward, and was then hosting roughly once a year, but no longer a panellist.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 24 2019, @05:44PM (3 children)
Theresa May is very much in the mold of conservative leaders. Bone headed, obsessed with security to the point of paranoia, stubborn, contemptuous of reason and facts and in love with their own propaganda, and in perpetual danger of collapsing from their own contradictions and lies, and that reality that they so dislike finally kicking them in the ass if they last long enough.
Another example is Dick Cheney. Read his take on the War in Iraq with a critical eye, and you will quickly see all kinds of shaky assumptions that could have been researched if only they cared to, but didn't really need to be because we already knew much of it was a load of bull. The main thing I still wonder with the Brits is why Tony Blair went along with it. Didn't he know better than to trust W.'s administration? Or was the US's reputation still dazzling enough at that time to easily overcome such doubts?
A disgraceful conclusion seems to happen more often with conservative leaders. Nixon resigned, W.'s presidency featured that war over Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't and ended with the Great Recession, and Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover presided over the Roaring 20s that featured a lot of corruption such as the Teapot Dome scandal, and ended with a terrible stock market crash and brought us the Great Depression. Reagan and Eisenhower were exceptions. Eisenhower actually worked to undermine the fringe elements of his own party, such as the infamous Joe McCarthy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:32PM (2 children)
why Tony Blair went along with it
That is fairly well known outside of the UK:
The UK economy was stuffed, and the Americans offered Blair huge defence contracts if he played along.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:39AM (1 child)
Interesting viewpoint, one that I hadn't heard before.
In which areas is this "fairly well known"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @11:10PM
OP here:
I heard it in Europe and Africa, but other parts of the globe I have not been to have probably heard the same story.
I have even heard it in dubious nightclubs in London (not that I go to such places often ;-}
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:15PM
I think you're being too harsh there for her, Takyon. Her role as a politician was to take decisions based on advice given to her -- but in reality the measures are developed by her administration, with plenty of experience in how to get their way.
We all make mistakes, and wrong calculations.
What is undeniable is that she meant it when saying that she'd considered it an honour to work for her country. The UK should be proud that they've produced a politician like that; and she should be proud that she has done her duty under the harshest of political circumstances.
I wouldn't be surprised if historians will come to the conclusion that if the UK had followed up on the deal this courageous woman has made, they'd have been far better off than with the no deal that's now coming.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday May 24 2019, @04:22PM (6 children)
From my (distant) point of view, she didn't receive nearly the amount of abuse she deserved. She may have killed her party, and has certainly heavily damaged her country. Neither those who favor BREXIT nor those who oppose it like what she has done. If there *is* a BREXIT, she's heavily damaged relationships with Britain's heaviest trading partner without a new trade agreement in place. If there's *not* a BREXIT, she's heavily damaged the trust which which the rest of the EU looks at Britain's government.
Many have called her the worst prime minister in memory, and some have called her the worst prime minister ever. Much worse than Chamberlain.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:32PM (5 children)
Maybe I'm the only person here, who remembers that the EU woo'd the UK forever, before the UK finally consented to this marriage? And, that the UK demanded, and got, prenuptual concessions, again and again. Trust? I think that a strange choice of words.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:34PM (2 children)
Maybe I'm the only person here, who remembers that the EU woo'd the UK forever, before the UK finally consented to this marriage?
Maybe that is because it is a total figment of your imagination (or perhaps the story as told by Boris Johnson in the right wing press).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @07:56PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=UK+demand+EU+concessions&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F29%2F2010&tbm= [google.com]
2005 big rebate
2007 new EU treaty
2002 Britain control over it's borders and immigration
2009 tariff quotas and ceilings
Apparently, I didn't use the best of search terms, because I've been reading about the EU accomodating the UK for decades. EU says this, UK wants that instead, and special considerations are made for the UK - it's an often repeated theme. Bedtime for me right now, if you want more citations, maybe I can be arsed to look for them in a few hours.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 24 2019, @08:26PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union [wikipedia.org]
"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 HiThere on Friday May 24 2019, @08:27PM
They *did* want the UK to be part of the EU. You're right about that. But the UK kept demanding special treatment, and these days it's not clear that they don't think it's more trouble than it was worth.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Saturday May 25 2019, @11:53AM
Bringing in the UK was seen as one of the victories for Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg cooperation) diplomacy. These smaller countries deemed it important for the stability of the EEC to convert the power axis France-Germany into a triangle including the UK. The Germans agreed to that thesis in the end, and were willing to grant the French varous concessions (power positions, CAP money and help with getting access to NATO (if I remember correctly)) in return.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 24 2019, @05:27PM
If you were wearing her shoes, I would call you in for questioning.
And besides, she chose the job. If you want authority, you should be able to put up with even more. I cry no tears for any politician.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:24PM
Power; plain and simple. She wanted to be the most powerful person in the U.K. and, if her deal worked out, Europe. What is a good bashing when you see yourself as ending up like that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Friday May 24 2019, @02:54PM (9 children)
Shouldn't have started the brexit process until their legislature figured out wtf they actually wanted to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:07PM (8 children)
How exactly?
Brexiters were braying for immediate departure from the EU.
There *is* no plan to leave the EU now even after 3 years of continuous effort.
May decided to trigger the departure clause anyway (and incidentally this was supported by huge majority in Parliament).
When we look back in 10 years, we will see clearly that the UK decided to do hari-kiri all by itself.
Scotland? Gone. Wales? Gone. Irish border? Hard. Relations with neighors? None. Trade deals? Ha ha, bottom feeder.
The reason is not yet clear.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:25PM
I love that blue style Made in England china. Hope we will see it again carefully crafted by hands of under-aged British girls, but with Chinese artifacts painted instead of American ones.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @04:35PM (5 children)
As ever, follow the money. Rhees-Mogg, Davis et al have all accepted some very generous
bribeslobbying from various unscrupulous business interests who want to:(a) scrap all the EU worker protections that prevent them wringing every last drop of blood from the workforce
(b) scrap all the EU environmental laws that prevent them from profitably shitting all over the rivers, seas and skies
(c) scrap all the EU consumer protections that prevent them from producing chlorine-washed, hormone-pumped pseudopork and labelling it as "organic chocolate".
(d) break up the NHS and sell off the bits to private insurance firms.
(e) sell off any other public assets they can get their slimy hands on.
There are also some rather dodgy looking financial leads that seem to point to the Kremlin, but nothing is proved yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday May 24 2019, @07:09PM (4 children)
Your narrative that brexit would be a gift to business interests seems to contradict the parent AC's narrative that brexit would be economic doom and gloom. Which is right? Or is it just a win for one faction and loss for another?
And how do business interests or lobbying explain the referendum result? Everybody knows that voters are noble and wise when they happen to agree with us, whereas they are just easily manipulated fools when they have a different opinion. It seems to me that the remain camp should have been able to convince voters of something if it was truly in their own interest. But maybe they were sufficiently out of touch that they didn't see the necessity. Either that, or as in US politics, since both sides had constructed their fortresses out of lies, the truth could no longer be invoked without threatening everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:30PM
Economic doom and gloom for the people put out of a job by no-deal cratering significant sections of the economy, the disabled, people reliant on the NHS (or indeed other national services) who can't afford private healthcare, doom and gloom for those lucky enough to keep in a job but finding themselves being worked to the bone with 60+ hr weeks and fuck-all time off with the "do you really want to be taking a holiday in this economic climate Simpkins" of the bosses.
A gift to business interests that have been positioning themselves to profit from this exact set of circumstances which, oddly enough, includes many of the arch-Brexiters.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:22AM
Vultures do well during a sufficiently violent disaster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:38PM (1 child)
If you'd been travelling across the UK, trying to spend euros, you'd been seriously surprised by the referendum result: 48 percent voted remain. I'd expected that number to be at most in the mid-30s.
Calling a referendum was enough to get the UK out of the EU, and all players on the EU side knew that, too.
As for business interests: this has nothing to do with a couple of hedge funds wanting to make a killing, or other conspiracy theories. This had everything to do with the UK being the first and foremost financial superpower in the world since they took that crown from the Dutch in the 1700s until they were eclipsed by the US after two world wars. London though managed to become top dog again after the New York stock exchange became increasingly regulated in the 60s and 70s, to which London (the UK) reacted with increasing deregulation.
Come 2 things: 2008 (survivable) and the EU. This last factor is the more serious threat: a currency union requires synchronization between the different economies which are part of it, which means regulation. This regulation wouldn't be so bad as long as it remained restricted to the ECB, but unfortunately the EU decides upon something called the EBA, or European Banking Authority. Long story short, the EBA assumes authority over any financial entity that wants to do business with EU customers aka the bulk of London banking.
That was a bridge too far, especially given the shift in profit towards SE Asia. Hence, the referendum.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday May 26 2019, @06:48AM
That's an interesting viewpoint, given that the main proponent of leaving the EU for the past two decades, Nigel Farage, was a London stockbroker before entering politics.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @06:09PM
Brexiters were braying for immediate departure from the EU.
No, they weren't.
Vote Leave made it quite clear
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html [voteleavetakecontrol.org]
Many on the leave side (Rees mogg, Patterson etc) argued for arranging a deal, then having a referendum on whether to accept that deal or stay in the EU.
May didn't form a concensus. She didn't even try. She jsut declared what her vision of brexit was, and that was it.
May decided to trigger the departure clause anyway (and incidentally this was supported by huge majority in Parliament).
When we look back in 10 years, we will see clearly that the UK decided to do hari-kiri all by itself.
Indeed, Corbyn and May share joint blame for this mess. They should both have resigned months ago.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @03:08PM (31 children)
Leaving the Brexit fiasco aside, she is personally responsible for immeasurable amounts of pain and suffering via Windrush, Hostile Environment, Universal Credit, Austerity and more. She was instrumental in dragging the Tory party to the far right in pursuit of Nigel Farage and pandering to the Brexiterrorists of the ERG. Her only saving grace is that she stood between us and Prime Minister BoJo, which is what we have to look forward to next. Hopefully parliament will have the nuts to call a vote of no confidence before that dishonest, unprincipled, opportunistic, incompetent clown has even opened the door to number 10, and he'll be quickly forgotten as the shortest-lived PM in history.
Theresa May will be remembered as someone who can only ever be quoted ironically. For example, during her last election campaign she repeated ad nauseum the phrase "strong and stable" and went on to preside over two years of weakness and instability. She claimed there was "no magic money tree" shortly before finding 10 Billion quid down the back of the sofa to bribe for the DUP. She promised to change the "nasty party" and battle "burning injustices" then spent 3 years belittling, attacking, impoverishing and humiliating the most vulnerable people in society. I don't think there's a single notable soundbite of hers that hasn't come back to bite her on the arse.
Her tears are not enough. Fuck Theresa May. Fuck her to hell.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @03:35PM (7 children)
Please, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:41PM (5 children)
Accurate [spiked-online.com] ... apart from wanting to fuck her.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)
Not merely fucking her, but fucking her to hell. That would be any man's most memorable ride, wouldn't it?
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday May 24 2019, @08:20PM
Is that anything like the scene in Doctor Strangelove where the guy rodeo-rides the A-bomb down to Russia?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @04:01PM (2 children)
Back again. Good link - but I clicked through to this article - https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/21/why-opinion-polls-keep-getting-it-wrong/ [spiked-online.com]
It seems to be spot-on.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Friday May 24 2019, @05:31PM (1 child)
Opinion polls are tabloid statistics, not gauge opinion, but to form it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:10PM
And Runaway is the one whose opinion is molded, in more ways than one!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @10:51PM
I'd have some sympathy for her if this entire debacle wasn't entirely of her own making. She's never displayed any understanding or empathy for anyone other than herself and she sure as fuck hasn't suddenly acquired a conscience. She's grotesquely arrogant, completely incapable of comprehending (or, worse, callously uncaring about) the effect of her actions, a master at doublethink and, in my mind at least, politically evil. On top of all this she had all the wit, charm and persuasiveness of an old condom filled with cold puke.
As it is all I see are crocodile tears at someone finally starting to coming to terms with the colossal magnitude of their own litany of failures. The political party that she loved so much, and was practically family for her, despises her. All of the hardline Breixiteers think she wasn't hardline enough, all of the sensible-centrist-lets-keep-the-lights-on-and-trade-running have been utterly alienated from the Tory party as it's taken a swerve to the right so severe that it'd give Goebbels whiplash. The Conservative Party will be lucky to survive in anything resembling its current form. She's an underachieving Mussolini with less humanity than things you'd normally see growing in petri dishes.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:44PM
Imagine - an American immigrant becoming the PM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:44PM (15 children)
Maybe they can elect Khan? He's doing great for London. You know, part and parcel?
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @03:49PM (14 children)
No
1) He's not an MP
2) He's not a tory
3) He's not a quitter (and the tories love quitters)
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday May 24 2019, @03:59PM (13 children)
> 1) He's not an MP
Last time I checked, you didn't need to be an MP to be PM. They may have changed the rules, they keep mucking with the UK constitution.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Friday May 24 2019, @05:16PM (4 children)
You don't need to be an MP to be PM, but if you are not an MP, then you need to have a seat in the House of Lords.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday May 24 2019, @05:43PM (2 children)
The last Prime Minister to sit in the lords was the Marquess of Salisbury, who left the post in 1902. The nearest we've come since then is Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who renounced his peerage when he became Prime Minister in 1963.
It's unusual for a Secretary of State to be in the Lords too, as it makes it difficult for the elected MPs to question them and hold them to account. The last example I can recall off-hand was Lord Andrew Adonis, who served as Transport Secretary circa 2009.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)
Probably the best transport sec we've had in the last 20 years
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday May 24 2019, @07:39PM
I agree wholeheartedly.
The fact that he went off on a one-week tour of the British railway network when appointed indicated that he was interested in his brief and making it work.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @05:51PM
The last PM to come from the house of lords was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, in 1902, who wasn't even referred to as prime minister.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 25 2019, @06:50AM (7 children)
You need to be a MP to run Parliament, though once PM, there's always someone in a safe seat that can be bribed to step down and allow the PM to run in the resulting bye-election. The odd time here, a PM or Premier has lost their seat while their party won the election, they always arrange a bye-election and get back in.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday May 25 2019, @08:42AM (3 children)
Not in UK. Balfour has already resigned.
In AUS YES, Howard in 2007 most recently, it that accomanpied a massive defeat for ther party so they wouldn’t be PM anyway.
Mackenzie King in Canada is the only one who comes to mind - won election but not seat.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:34PM (2 children)
The most recent I'm familiar with was Christy Clarke in the 2013 Provincial (BC) election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_British_Columbia_general_election [wikipedia.org]
As for the UK, I assume the same thing is still possible, though with some of the changes that has happened, perhaps I'm wrong
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday May 25 2019, @04:47PM (1 child)
Theoretically it's possible, but it hasn't occured for a century, leaders seats tend to be very safe.
Smaller parties can lose leaders, although even with the Lib Dem wipeout in 2015 Clegg was one of 8 LD MPs to survive (there were 50-odd before the election).
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Saturday May 25 2019, @05:32PM
Likewise, it is possible for someone to become leader of the majority party without a seat and then arrange a bye-election to get a seat.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 28 2019, @09:18AM (2 children)
No.
1. A peer can certainly run parliament. The modern era has seen this job more commonly done by MPs, but that is really a legacy of Walpole, and even since his time many many peers have been "prime minister"; Newcastle, North, Bute, and so on.
2. In principle the prime minister is a royal appointment. The queen can appoint whomever she sees fit.
They keep messing with the UK constitution so I may be a few years out of date.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 28 2019, @03:04PM (1 child)
A peer has a hard time appearing in the House of Commons for question period and such, so while theoritically they can run Parliament, in practice they need to show up in the House of Commons. Consider Alec Douglas-Home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home [wikipedia.org] who was the last peer who became PM. He renounced his peerage and won a bye-election to move to the House of Commons.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 28 2019, @04:34PM
I realise that practical issues exist. I don't believe there has been a successful Prime Minister who was not an MP since maybe Newcastle (1740s), and one might argue Pelham was really the power as he held First Lord of the Treasury.
My point is just that such a thing is legally possible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday May 24 2019, @04:02PM (4 children)
> Austerity
AKA "spending what you earn".
Corbyn Corbyn the bankers' friend,
he loves to borrow and they love to lend.
Never mind the interest rate,
the kids will pay when they run the state.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 24 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)
Nonsense. The Tories have squandered billions. Their methods are inefficient and massively expensive. Thatcher sold of the council houses and didn't replace them. Now the taxpayer pays twice as much to private landlords for shitty accommodation. Same story with privatised trains, water, power... none of these things deliver price cuts or efficiency, they just shuffle the costs elsewhere or pass them on the to the next generation, while funneling taxpayer cash to politically-connected business people. And even if, in the short term, we appear to reduce expenses, at what cost?
Police: In crisis.
Courts: In crisis.
Education: In crisis.
NHS: In crisis.
Social care: In crisis.
Benefits: In crisis.
Homelessness, crime, poverty... have you seen the UN report from earlier this week? Are you not ashamed?
And all of this will cost billions over decades to fix - far many more billions than the Tories supposedly "saved". But that's in the future, and we're only looking at this quarter's figures. And we're certainly not looking at the cost in terms of human misery because, well, that's just poor people.
But don't worry, the Tories still found the money to give tax breaks to the rich.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:04PM
There really is no point engaging the "taxes are thefts" types. They are true believers who only care about taxes up bad, taxes down good. No amount of reality will change their opinions. Every bad result from their policy choices gets projected on to their opponents.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Friday May 24 2019, @08:50PM
Sounds like the US then.
This is vulture capitalism writ large on a national scale. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2018/11/04/vulture-capitalism-in-action/ [lippittpolicyandpolitics.org]
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday May 24 2019, @06:02PM
If you decide to save money by not buying your season ticket for your train ride to work, that's a good move - you've saved money.
However when the effects of that are you lose your job, that's a bad thing. You might have less outgoings, but you've got far less incoming.
If you save money by not buying new tyres on your car, that's good - you've saved money. If you then crash your car due to a lack of grip, that's bad, you've lost money.
Cutting costs does not necessarily save money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:38PM
You forgot the cat. An innocent creature tortured and killed by her. The cat put up a real fight though.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/06/sergei-skripal-cat-guinea-pigs-die-police-sealed-house-salisbury-spy [theguardian.com]
Nash van Drake, we will remember you. I am sure your adopted feline friend who, being a real Russian agent with an unspeakable name, managed to escape May's brutality, remembers you as well. Rest in peace. We will avenge you.