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: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:43AM (5 children)
It is almost like the old Laurel and Hardy movies, where Hardy says "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into".
Only Brexit is a farce way beyond the Laurel and Hardy ones.
The original referendum was called to ensure PM David Cameron's re-election because he could not in his wildest fantasy believe that the British people would be in a mental state to self harm — only, he was wrong and had to step down not so long after. Nice shot in the kneecap.
The question in the referendum was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? 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. The referendum was really a sham since it did not give people the option of an informed choice, neither did it give people options as to the kind of break the wanted, like a no-deal break where the UK would have to trade on WTO terms or a customs union where the UK would achieve some freedom from EU rules but still have to abide by many, ... People did not know what they voted for, which now causes all sorts of trouble due to political posturing by MPs.
After she took over from David Cameron, Theresa May managed to get a deal with EU that seemed tolerable, even to me — only, she could not get it through parliament. Not because the deal was bad as such but because accepting it would stop the zealots from achieving their goals. The die-hard Brexiteers would not get a clean-break-no-Irish-border-back-stop-Brexit and the die-hard Remainers would have to accept that the UK would actually leave the EU. An impossible impasse ensued.
Then madness prevailed and Boris Johnson got elected Prime Minister. This guy has, as Foreign Secretary, managed to act like a bull in a china shop in his dealings with foreign countries, has embarrassed the country on several occasions and has even had to apologise a number of times. Furthermore, Boris Johnson's Brexit stance seems very opportunistic/populistic. Before Brexit he had prepared two articles for the Telegraph, one for Brexit and one against Brexit. He seemed to read the population right when he chose to go with the pro Brexit article, only his duplicity was revealed when the remain article found its way into The Sunday Times.
Now Boris Johnson seems hell-bent on getting a no-deal Brexit, to the extent that he, in a manoeuvre that Vladimir Putin would applause, tries to find a way to disable the parliament processes blocking a Brexit for sufficiently long to achieve his goals. If he actually manages to get the no-deal Brexit through by proroguing parliament (suspending it for a period), it looks very much like a sort of coup and should have serious consequences for him.
With people fleeing the Tories, we may still see some semblance of reason, though I am not entirely confident reason will prevail.
Disclosure: Living as an immigrant in England, I am a staunch Remainer.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:06AM
Cool story bro. We voted to leave. [spiked-online.com] The political class and media lackeys will stop blatently lying [twitter.com] or face the consequences.
(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).