SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
quietus (6328)
On the hot and humid afternoon of August 28, United Kingdom's Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, dispatched Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lord President of the Privy Council, to Balmoral Castle.
His mission: to interrupt the Queen's holiday, and request the prorogation -- that means suspension to you, Unwashed Plebs -- of Parliament.
The Queen approved, thereby avoiding a crisis in Britain's constitutional monarchy system.
Britain, you see, has no real written Constitution. Instead it has a series of political gentleman agreements and historical details. Not abiding by these will hit you with the cruel punishment of being called impolite. In extreme circumstances, the word fekking! may be added.
In short, the Queen's refusal would have led to a situation in which nobody really seemed to know what to do -- no precedence and all that, especially during Afternoon Tea.
Which is an apt description for the hot potato in British politics: Brexit.
While the PM insists that this is only to prepare an ambitious investment program, critical minds [theregister.co.uk] think otherwise: Parliament now has only three weeks left to prevent Britain leaving the EU on WTO terms only. Hard to do when legislation must pass back-and-forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Voters, as interviewed on the BBC [bbc.com], seem not to be too concerned, going as far as to claim that it is actually Parliament which is undemocratic, for trying to block the result of the 2016 referendum.
Suspending Parliament to end all those unnecessary tit-for-tat and back-and-forth discussions: maybe the nephews at the other side of the pond can learn a thing or two from the Boris?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @04:41PM
http://poisonedminds.com/d/20190830.html [poisonedminds.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:24PM (3 children)
If the queen had felt that strongly and refused, the PM could have resigned. Goto form_new_government.
The US constitution sets up the legislature and executive as fully independent organizations. The executive wholly under a president who will be there for an entire four year period, and a legislature of 435 members who will be there for an entire two year period along with 100 members who will be there for three of those. No suspension possible here unless they decide to recess. That does give the executive some additional liberties to do things that would otherwise require the consent of the legislature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:30PM (1 child)
The Monarch must be seen to be "above politics." Essentially, the King or Queen must simply apply a rubber stamp to whatever Parliament/the Government decides. In this case, the Government decided. It's a pretty broken and ineffectual system, hence the on-going fascist coup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:18PM
Yes, in any parliamentary government the head of state needs to be above politics, but one of his powers is to stop government action he feels is unconscionable.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @11:32AM
In normal circumstances, yes.
In this case though, if the Queen had done that, she would have created a dream scenario for the hard Brexiteers. A new election would almost certainly fall after Brexit date.
Boris Johnson could have gone to the voting booth with (a) hard Brexit in his pocket, (b) claiming he had fulfilled the Will of the People, and (c) done that with the implicit support of the Queen.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:34PM (36 children)
All these people [parliament.uk] have already registered their concern and they're just the ones that know what "prorogue" means.
Thousands are protesting [theguardian.com] too, including some that voted Leave but don't want a No-Deal Brexit or don't feel getting Brexit justifies undermining democracy.
Of course the Conservatives and the right wing dominated main stream media (including the BBC) hide the unconstitutional nature of this action, so some people are kept ignorant.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:47PM (1 child)
How is it unconstitutional? Parliament can meet without royal involvement (hence the ritual slamming of the door) but if the first lord of the treasury proposes to the monarch that parliament be prorogued for a while, that's coming from parliament, rather than from the crown. If the monarch decided that this were a bad idea, and told the prime minister to bugger off, that would be constitutional as well - just a bit less usual. As the journal entry pointed out, the solution there would be to form a new government (in this case probably a lib/lab minority coalition, at a guess). If the monarch were persuaded on the other hand that chaos would be reduced by telling parliament to cool their heels for a bit while the civil servants to get on with the job of brexit, it's even a rational position.
Not a consequence that one might want, but a rational position.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:55PM
Fucking hilarious is what it would be. Liz is already my favorite monarch ever for knowing how to put a set of rings in a Bedford but that would definitely clinch it for all time if she used that exact phrase.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:53PM (31 children)
The democratic vote was in 2016. How is proroguing parliament "unconstitutional"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday September 01 2019, @06:25PM (6 children)
I don't think they have a written constitution, but suspending parliament for longer than is usual to achieve something they may be opposed to could be seen as an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of parliament.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:57PM (5 children)
Right but which is more sovereign? Parliament or the person whose job description actually includes the word "sovereign"?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @07:40AM
You know how the in the US the military etc. swear an oath to uphold the constitution? In the UK they swear allegiance to the Crown. If Lizzy told the soldiers to arrest Parliament there is a good chance they would.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:30AM (3 children)
Well after Parliament chopped of the head of one sovereign and then fired his son and invited his daughter and husband to take over with an armed fleet...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 03 2019, @10:23AM (2 children)
Royalty having a bit of a perilous grasp on the throne over there isn't exactly a new thing that's started since you lot started trying on representative democracy though, so there's really not that much of a lesson in binning a pair of them, no matter how thoroughly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 03 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)
The lesson is that Parliament is Supreme, and has been since 1688, which is why it is always funny when you lot go on about George the 3rd the tyrant.
Btw, where I am, the Constitution is Supreme and getting rid of the Queen would take an amendment which takes 100% for.
Btw2, there are occasions where an executive decision is required from the Crown, here, last Provincial election, the Premier requested another election and was told politely to bugger off, the other team first gets a chance to govern, so the Premier resigned and her Majesties Loyal Opposition with the support of the Greens have been governing since.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 03 2019, @03:28PM
And yet they just got put in time out. It's an interesting system.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:39PM (12 children)
Parliament is "sovereign" in the UK. The "return" of sovereignty "from Brussels to Parliament" what what many pro-Brexit zealots were ranting and raving about in the campaign (despite sovereignty never having left the Westminster Parliament for Brussels in the first place).
Parliament consists of our democratically-elected representatives (Members of Parliament). There are the people, from multiple political parties, who we vote for at least every five years to represent us, to take decisions in our best interests.
Parliament is British sovereign democracy, The proroguing of Parliament is, by definition, shutting down that democracy, where our democratically-elected representatives are no longer able to represent us. This leaves us with (potentially) a dictatorship.
Parliament IS British democracy. By shutting it down, you destroy the very thing you purport to support and hold in such high regard above all else. We call this hypocrisy.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:02PM (4 children)
A "monarchy" I think you'll find is the correct term. Perils of keeping your royalty around I suppose.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:14PM (3 children)
It's a difficult distinction to make for the people who saw Trump, evaluated Putin, and thought to themselves, "Yeah. I'll have some of that too!" and ended up electing Boris Johnson.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 02 2019, @12:38AM (2 children)
Nope, if the buck stops with Liz, the buck stops with Liz.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday September 02 2019, @06:54AM (1 child)
It does, and this is the major flaw in the system: the Monarch must not "interfere" in politics. The last time that happened, the King lost his head and we became a republic. They say that if the Queen stepped in, it would be the end of the Monarchy.
Now complete this sentence for today's prize: The Conservative and Unionist Party is the party of the Establishment because....
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @07:08AM
....iCUP.
Also, maybe it is far past time for the real end of the monarchy. Anarchy in the U.K.!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:36PM (4 children)
The argument that Parliament remains sovereign while being a law taker from the EU relies on the presupposition that parliamentarians can and will vote to leave the EU should the electorate instruct it to do so.
No, Parliament is a house of representatives.
MPs have had three years to enact the largest democratic mandate the electorate ever gave them.
No, it leaves us with a Queens speech to start a new parliamentary session pending a general election where constituents will be booting remain MPs from office.
Three years later and people trying to undermine the result of a democratic vote cry hypocrisy? Not one political party cancelled their conferences and prorogation extends just four days longer than recess.
Where was this much vaunted "democracy" when John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty without even reading it or when Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum? Where is the democracy in the EU that would fail democratic requirements of the Copenhagen Criteria for membership with itself? And finally, what happens if the simpletons manage to pass a bill preventing "no deal" exit; the EU refuse to extend article 50 or negotiate and a new session of parliament has no choice other than vote for a Withdrawal Agreement they voted down four times? Is that "democracy" is it?
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Monday September 02 2019, @05:36AM
That wouldn't be Brexit. Brexit option was voted for with a bare majority. I think a large part of the current problems is precisely because that mandate didn't actually exist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 02 2019, @03:10PM (2 children)
> MPs have had three years to enact the largest democratic mandate the electorate ever gave them.
Bullshit. 52% == "barely scraped through".
> Three years later and people trying to undermine the result of a democratic vote cry hypocrisy?
Why not? You lot just voted to undermine the democratic referendum that took place in 1975. Under the circumstances a new people's vote is the only democratic option.
See my replies elsethread for my opinion on Brexit "democracy".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 02 2019, @04:14PM (1 child)
Now, you're not being fair. When D's or R's win by less than a quarter of a percent, they claim to have some Mandate From Heaven, or some such shit. I don't recall hearing that nonsense when Trump won, though. Anyway, we've all heard that "mandate" crap far too often in our own elections. If the Brits had a 52% majority, they had more of a mandate than we've seen in awhile.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 02 2019, @04:32PM
Trump "won" with less votes than his opponents, so his claim to a mandate has never been better than shaky. I can't tell you about Ds and Rs and their quarter percents, but then again I don't have to.
52% vs 48% would be a legitimate mandate (if it weren't based on lies and cheating) although it could never be described as anything better than scrawny. It's also somewhat stale, being three years old and based on an absurdly vague question, and every poll suggests that a new referendum tomorrow would overturn it by a LOT more than originally passed it. But in any case there's no way it's the "largest democratic mandate ever", which is what the brexiteers are now trying to gaslight it as.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:38AM
A few years back, here in Canada, Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote the next day (it was a minority government) and a surprising number people thought that the idea of a non-confidence vote and then the other parties asking to form a coalition government was undemocratic. Lots of people really don't understand how the Westminster system works, namely we vote for MP's and they decide on who governs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @12:21PM
Listen to Vernon [unherd.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 02 2019, @11:22AM (10 children)
Are you trolling or do you genuinely need this explained to you?
Ok, here goes:
1 - In 2016, people were not voting for no deal. In fact, at that time the Leave Camp (including Boris himself) were feigning horror while explicitly saying things like "obviously there's no way we'll be leaving without a deal" and "nobody is suggesting that we leave without a deal" and "negotiating a new deal with the EU will be the easiest thing ever". There is nothing democratic about moving the goalposts. And that doesn't even touch the lies - the infamous Boris bus, the targeted cambridge analytica lies, the lies about migration and immigration and the EU and 20 years of lies in the mail and the Torygraph (primarily from Boris himself) about bendy bananas.
2 - The 2016 referendum has been found to have been won by cheating. The Leave side overspent, was convicted of it in court, having even been so far as to take measures to hide their cheating by setting up a bunch of ostensibly independent but not-actually-at-all independent campaigns. There's also the question of where Aaron Banks got his mysterious million
Roublespounds to donate to Vote Leave. For some reason, the Tory government has been reluctant to investigate this possible act of anti-democratic treason.3 - Even if we allow that the referendum was a proper display of democracy and not a farcical shitshow worthy of a third world dictatorship, then the result was marginal at best - 52% vs 48% - Democratically speaking, such a tight result really should elicit some kind of compromise position: Leave with Norway+ or something like that. But no, the 48% have been systematically ignored while the government has driven us relentlessly towards the most extreme outcome possible.
4 - Polls show that remain has consistently been more popular than leave for at least the last 2 years, by a margin that beats the feeble 4% difference of the original vote. 75% of the population are against prorogation. And yet it's the disaster-capitalist arch brexiteers who channel the "will of the people" and remainers who are "undemocratic".
5 - Our UNELECTED Prime Minister who is now trying to shut down debate and dissent by closing the doors to parliament got to his current position by less than strictly-democratic means. There were some rather dodgy numbers on the second or third round of party leadership voting that suggests he used some of his MP followers to vote for his favoured opponent, thereby eliminating Gove. Then there's this: https://www.ft.com/content/2d3efa68-ac5e-11e8-89a1-e5de165fa619 [ft.com] - Comrade Banks stuffing the Tory party with hardline brexiteers a year ago in order to ensure selection of a fellow Brexiterrorist in the event of a leadership contest. It's almost like the whole fucking takeover was planned from the start.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @12:39PM (7 children)
No? [bbc.co.uk] How do you propose to negotiate a deal without leverage? Do you seriously believe the EU can afford for Germany [theguardian.com] to lose a major export market?
And who could forget this guy? [theguardian.com] Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and comrade Corbynov never opposed the EU. Eurasia has always been at war with Pacifica. Brexit is a right wing plot. [morningstaronline.co.uk]
Miss me with the political theater and remainstream media bullshit. Reap what you sow. [eureferendum.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 02 2019, @02:15PM (4 children)
> How do you propose to negotiate a deal without leverage? Do you seriously believe the EU can afford for Germany [theguardian.com] to lose a major export market?
Well, firstly, you are operating here on the assumption that the current government actually wants a deal. They don't. They want no-deal. As Jacob Ree-Mogg's father once said, "the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets". Chaos can be very profitable if you are properly positioned beforehand, and utterly ruthless. If you think the Tories are negotiating in good faith then you really haven't been paying attention.
And if you want to talk about lack of leverage, let's talk about Theresa May tying her own legs together with mutually incompatible "Red Lines" in a vain attempt to placate the ERG. Let's talk about the government triggering article 50 before even deciding on a negotiating position with it's own parliament? Hell, before even finding agreement within it's own party?
Anyway, let's indulge your fantasy and suppose that Boris does actually give a shit. Let's suppose that he really is genuinely interested in getting us a deal, and somehow he comes up with some new version of the WA that solves all the intractable problems of May's polished turd and that he can somehow sell it at home. He presents it to Brussels and now "Germany" must make the choice you outlined above. For them it's effectively a choice between losing a major export market (a scenario the EU has been preparing for for the last 3 years) and seeing the entire EU fracture and crumble because by giving in to a bunch of hard-right ideologues they encourage and enable disruptive dickheads of a similar vein all across the continent. They might as well just abolish the whole European parliament and declare Vladimir Putin "Supreme Emporer-President of all Europe and Russia for Life". I have no doubt they will choose to lose the UK rather than lose the continent. The French certainly will.
As a bonus, they will no longer have to be described as "soviet prison guards" and "Nazis" by British so-called gentlemen, no longer have to put up with any of the constant bullshit spouting from Downing Street, no longer have to look at Nigel Farage's slug face. Hell, in their shoes, I'd be tempted just for that last one.
As for your other line... so what? So some people on the left have problems with the EU. Big whoop. Dissent is allowed. A desire to reform and/or leave the EU is fine, as long as it is backed up by facts, rational argument and a sensible, workable alternative to the status quo.
It's the people using lies, FUD, racial/xenophobic hatemongering and undemocratic dirty tricks to blindly push a wrecking ball agenda that I object to. And it just so happens that those people seem to exist exclusively on the hard right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @06:02PM (2 children)
And you under the assumption that they did not.
The concept of a left and right divide over Brexit is media nonsense. Sky's Ed Conway sums it up [twitter.com]
An older article [sky.com] by the same author lays the problem bare. Post war "neoliberal" policies were a result of failing up and debt-laden social market economies crashed within a decade of the 1999 left-wing anti-globalization protests. So much for avoiding the problems of the 1930s. I recall Caroline Lucas saying "There is an alternative to globalisation, it's called localism" yet she now calls Brexit "a right wing plot". This does make sense if you understand Lucas was paying lip-service to localism while plotting international socialism. [greenparty.org.uk]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 02 2019, @09:26PM (1 child)
Right wing plot is exactly correct. The plan is quite simple. Once all those pesky EU rules and courts and things are out of the way, a bunch of overpriveleged Ayn Rand-worshipping pricks in the pockets of (primarily US) lobbyists will:
- Scrap all environmental protections that they can. Expect limitless fracking and pollution, and rollbacks on clean energy.
- Scrap all consumer protections: That gadget you bought broke down 2 weeks after you bought it? Sorry mate, buyer beware. That weedkiller is giving you cancer? Tough shit. That bar of "organic fairtrade chocolate" is actually a slab of hydrogenated corn syrup flavoured with genetically engineered carob? Oh dear, what a shame. British farmers now have to directly compete with massive US factory farms that produce cheap, shitty, hormone-pumped, chlorine washed meat? Suck it up.
- Scrap all worker protections. Paid leave? Sick leave? Maternity leave? Unfair dismissal? Sexual harrassment? Fuck off, get back to work.
- Smash up the NHS and sell the bits to the American "health insurance" companies just waiting in the wings.
- Scrap GDPR and any similar data protection laws
- Allow companies to sue the UK government for any legislation that impinges on their profits
- Allow Rupert Murdoch to lie and manipulate with even less consequence than he has right now (BTW did you know SKY is effectively a Murdoch outlet? I don't give your "Ed Conway" much credence)
Basically, they want to turn us into the 51st failed state of America, except (if they can get away with it) with even less rights and protections than real americans.
If that's not a right-wing agenda, then I don't know what is.
If there exist equivalent "Marxist plots" then to be honest, I don't give a shit. Those aren't being enacted. This one is. BTW am I supposed to be shocked and appalled by the term "international socialism"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @12:12PM
Are the items in your list before or after we have our heads chopped off? [youtube.com]
And what of the leftwaffe marching on parliament under the flag of a foreign power blathering about a "coup" (#StopTheCoupe / #StopTheCoop) and "saving democracy"? After years of calling for an election every other day, that motion is expected to be tabled by Boris Johnson this afternoon while Kommissar Korbynov is expected to "save democracy" by instructing Labour MPs to vote against.
I linked the paper to show that structural problems are well understood by all. What sane person could be more or less appalled by international socialism than national socialism?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday September 02 2019, @07:04PM
This is a really good summary.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @04:44PM (1 child)
If he really wants to negotiate, or just is serious about a deal ... wouldn't it be helpful if he'd talked with the EU; maybe even presented something, you know, a proposal?
As the situation stands, he hasn't had the time, apparently, to even make a phone call to Barnier nor any of the (28; take your pick -- is Luxembourg non-threatening enough?) EU governments. He did have the time, though, to threaten not to allow his ministers to go to EU meetings.
Maybe this is a very subtle, very advanced, negotiating tactic which I'm too dumb to understand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:53AM
Dominic Cummings has called the negotiations a "sham" which I take to mean that good faith was lacking. Something [brexitcentral.com] is expected to be tabled at the Oct 17th council meeting. The seeming insanity [eureferendum.com] is because the strategy is to run down the clock to break procedural games and pressuring the EU into those "secret dark meetings" that Junker was so fond of.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:41AM
Also, if the vote had been the opposite, the leavers would be demanding another referendum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @07:27PM
1: Irrelevant. People were voting for in or out in general, not with specific terms attached - which makes sense, before a deal could be negotiated (or refused) no terms could be promised. Article 50 doesn't offer conditional terms on the part of the country leaving - just a decision with negotiations to follow.
2: If you think that money won that referendum, I'd like to interest you in what your money could do with this bridge I have for sale. The referendum was lost on the basis that the Remain team couldn't offer a coherent message, and hardly seemed to want to have the argument at all. As crazy as the Leave team looked, they were still more coherent.
3: If that were the case, then the referendum should have offered Norway+ as an option. It didn't. We've had endless fights about what should have been on the ballot for the referendum, and none of them would have satisfied everybody. All we know of the referendum was a simple, binary result: better out than in.
4: And yet somehow parliament can't actually unify on anything because it's not a direct democracy, but a constituent assembly. If only the UK were a direct democracy, then we'd have the results demanded by direct democracy, but it isn't so we don't. While you're wishing, could you wish for a nice big barrel of fun? We'd all love one. Thanks.
5: Oh no! No the UNELECTED! NOooooo! ... wait, when was a prime minister elected? That's not how the UK works. Every PM is only elected by their constituency and then selected by the knife fighting in the party. You're shocked - SHOCKED by the development that Boris is a competent knife fighter? I ... don't know what to tell you. Maybe you'd prefer Corbyn? He prefers his teeth, to judge by the last round of Labour leadership fights.
You've made it crystal bloody clear that your problem is with the way the UK government is structured, end to end. I can only propose that you march with your sandwich board demanding direct democracy. I'm sure everybody will respect that. Especially Europe.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @05:01PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:46AM
James the II and VII was the last one who tried it. They let him sneak out of the country.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 02 2019, @02:58AM (11 children)
a democratic vote in the UK decided that the Brits don't like hanging with the continentals. So, a divorce is going to happen. One of the parties of the divorce has dithered and procrastinated for years now, instead of claiming property from the divorce. Soon, the judge is going to rule, and it's pretty much too damned late to make any claims on future business relationships, property settlements, etc. The chief of this parliament says that nothing can be accomplished in the next couple weeks, because whatever. But parliament insists that it can dither and procrastinate more efficiently if parliament is kept in session.
The only real question left to be decided is, who keeps the damned cat? I say we just let the cat run feral, and take care of itself.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @03:38AM (8 children)
The referendum was non binding, only consultive. Legal consultation a bit after the vote, by Leave and Remain proponents at the same time, made it clear and the final decision goes with Parliament.
So Parliament could, after the small difference (51.89 vs 48.11%), the lies about what it would mean (all the negotiations have been after the vote, so the question could mean anything, but they bear's fur was sold that day, it seems, and over two years they decided price and if it was panda, stuffed, brown...) and the issues that it will cause (high probability of Scotland getting out of UK, IRA getting seriously active and N Ireland going out too or back into Troubles), just ignore it and decide that the best deal is what they have: they keep their currency (they will lose it if they try to get back into EU after they get out), they can vote in and steer Brussels (they will have nothing of that if they get out, soft or hard Brexit, they will become like Norway or Brasil) with the bonus of getting the support of millions when making deals with other countries (now USA is getting ready to force a "good" deal, and I bet China will make them pay all the offenses since XIX century, and Russia will have a laugh about spy games), they can travel to and make business with other 27 with minor fuss and keep business deals that have been going for decades, they don't need to repatriate thousands (there must be over 500K just in the Mediterranean EU countries, and with hard Brexit they become total foreigns) and see how EU people leave (they love to get nurses and doctors from EU, and cheap plumbers too).
But it seems not even Liz has a pair. No idea if she had in the past, but not now for sure.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @04:09AM (4 children)
Mnnnyeeeeessss. That's what referendum means. Of course parliament can do what it jolly well pleases; it generally has. Latterly parliament has been unable to decide much of anything, and been completely shambolic in its attempts to steer developments in any direction. The tories were more or less left in charge despite their utmost efforts to convince everybody of their utter fecklessness (Corbyn and his pet nutters must bear much responsibility for this) and they decided, not unreasonably, that the voice of the people should have some say in the outcome. Thus, invoking the article and getting out.
Now, parliament could decide, in principle, to Remain. Assuming that they could collaborate on anything at all - but let's accept for the sake of argument that they could, for all the very best of reasons up to and including free ice cream all round.
But the queen controls none of that. She can't even tell parliament to sit down and have tea. Instead, what really happened? Boris decided, for reasons that seemed good to him, that parliament needed to put up or shut up, and that the whole business would be more orderly with less squeaking from the peanut gallery at the eleventh hour. Honestly, I can't really blame him for that. So he decided to suggest to her that perhaps parliament could stand a couple of extra days off. From what I understand, less than a week.
This is his idea, not hers.
And even if she refused, would parliament suddenly turn on its collective heel and tell Europe to cancel the surgery, we're all best friends now? Most unlikely - even assuming the eurocrats would be agreeable, which is also improbable, to say the least.
Let's assume the worst; the UK leaves, Scotland then leaves the UK, possibly taking Northern Ireland along (thereby keeping both northern island tips in the EU), leaving a rump of Wales, England and various islands as a UK that now trades and negotiates independently. Would they immediately start a door-to-door search for foreigners? Again, vastly improbable; there's little to gain and much to lose by such behaviour. They'd probably add more paperwork to various processes and keep muddling through. The UK's status would fade ... but wait a moment, it's been faded for more than 50 years, since the wholesale dismantlement of the empire was pretty much settled.
At worst, it would be a continuation of a long, slow, self-inflicted slump only partially relieved by the Thatcher years and the economic dynamism that her government promoted. Without her the UK would probably have ended up looking a lot more like Spain; limping along, perennially broke (I'm old enough to remember Miserable Britain). I don't even particularly like her, or her idiotic poll tax, but I can read a graph as well as any.
All the internationalists and euroboosters should just find their best way out, and go do other things in other places, and let the Little Englanders do their thing in peace. It's not as if it's even prime territory for much of anything besides sheep farming, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @10:09PM (3 children)
EU has said multiple times that UK can stop the process any time. In part because it will also hit EU. No "assuming", it was legally checked, probably as a way to let UK escape the mess they created. They are so open now than in recent weeks some politicians openly said British negotiators started two years ago without any kind of plan. Also called them some derogatory names for the behaviour over those two years.
It's clear that a bluff has gone too far... but it could keep on going even if it means the destruction of UK, riots or go figure what in this clown world. Because some British politicians have more pride than sense. Fuck the future, fuck everything, and get credit for finally putting the tombstone of the Empire. So weird they asked for help with captured tankers in the Gulf... to the EU (one last helping hand? are your gov fucking dumb?). USA is eager for some necrophilia, and China for some pissing over graves.
BTW, referendums can be binding, it depends on the country laws. In UK it seems the Parliament would had to explicitly say the people decide, but so far always have gone with consultive, ie they keep the last word for themselves. From Brexit learnings, it could be implicitly binding if done when there is no Parliament, as then sovereignty goes back to people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @09:26PM (2 children)
The EU would say that, wouldn't they?
First, if the UK decides to Remain(tm), that's a huge loss of face for the UK, and a huge boost for the EU. Whether or not it's accepted, it makes the EU look great for membership - plus adding credibility.
Second, if the UK decides to Remain(tm), then it's a big boost to all the countries that export to the UK from within the EU - which is many of them, notably Germany. Guess what? Eurocrats wouldn't mind that.
Third, even if the UK decides that they totally would like to Remain(tm), there's no guarantee that the EU mightn't decide to leave them out in the cold, or add lots of poison-pill conditions such as ditching the pound, tighter integration in fiscal and regulatory terms and so on.
Fourth, what are really the odds of this happening? What are the stone cold odds of a parliamentary gang getting together and soberly saying: "We're voting as a bloc to Remain(tm)." Very near nil. Especially not since it'd bring down the UK government, and it would require many tory votes to do this. So it's a safe bluff for the EU. They can say whatever, and talk a big game about the impossible. It costs them nothing to look as magnanimous as possible.
The real story is that EU membership, for all its vaunted advantages, is burdensome, in particular to countries that tend to vary a lot from the EU in the ways that they like to do things. The Leave vote was, and is, to some extent a reflection of that. The EU doesn't want to admit that - so the whole thing is a black eye for them.
They're making the rhetorical best of an actual bad job. Can't blame them for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:21AM (1 child)
Maybe there will be poison pills... but the ones you list are not possible if UK remains. Plain and simple because all the things they have now will stay with remain. That is how it works, because that is the fucking special deal they got ages ago. It was signed in such way that the Pound stays forever (Denmark got similar thing for their Krone). That is why UK people had to vote for EU parliament months ago, they are effectively EU until they are not.
OTOH, if they leave and try to get back, then yes, they will probably be forced to abandon the Pound and the rest of sweet things they got, which is what makes leave really silly (lose the current deal or became independent while waiting to get trampled by someone mighty).
BTW, one Torie left and joined the Liberals, which means BoJo lost the working majority. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49570682 [bbc.com] Also "The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK's exit date." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49573555 [bbc.com] There are 21 Tories in the 328... well ex-Tories now because PM removed their whip (aah... fetishism...). So BoJo threatens with elections.
A Scotish judge has to make a decission about suspension too (Friday 6th).
We will see. But please learn something about the special conditions UK has as member of EU. Also your obsession with UK sliding into crap points to masochism, or dad's minion in a protester's picture: dad with text "Daddy's proud" and BoJo as baby (hint: only one weird blonde hairdo in picture).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM
You're only right about the UK remaining if everybody pretends the last few years didn't happen and Article 50 is just a light switch to turn off again.
There's no reason to believe that, and there's quite a bit of reason to believe the opposite.
The UK's special deal has been a thorn in the side of eurocrats since before it was signed and they've been salivating over ways to carve it up like a saudi journalist.
Result: the special deal is Sacrificial Victim Number One if the UK decides to remain.
"Oh, you decided you'd like to stop the process, eh? Well me old mucker, that's no problem at all. 'Ere, just let's tear up this nasty old bit of toilet paper, and we'll let bygones be bygones, eh? What, you didn't like that? All right, s'pose you didn't want to stay after all. Another round, landlord - but not for UK. He's just leaving."
The fact is that the EU can play as rough as it likes, and is under no obligation whatsoever to be nice about it. The article was invoked, the train was set rolling, and even for them to agree to a suspension would require another unanimous move on the part of the other members - several of whom are showing a definite interest in sticking it to the UK. Tearing up that special deal would make them laugh like a flock of ibis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @11:27AM (2 children)
Not once the government promoted it to a legal contract. [samizdata.net]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday September 02 2019, @07:01PM
The government did not. It printed some words in a campaign leaflet. That is not a legal contract. Otherwise they'd be sued every time they failed to implement a manifesto pledge etc.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday September 02 2019, @07:38PM
There's no contract without a consideration [wikipedia.org]. In other words, bare promises are not worth the paper they are printed on.
And, as it happens, the Government can't decide. The Government can lay a Bill before Parliament, and if both houses of Parliament vote for the Bill, the Bill can be forwarded to the Monarch to receive Royal Assent. Parliament is sovereign - the Government may or may not control a majority of MPs and make it very likely that the Parliamentary vote is positive, but the key point is that it is Parliament's decision, not the Government's. This is why the current Prime Minister has a problem - he isn't sure of commanding a majority of MPs (or, indeed, peers) to vote for his Government's policies. If he were sure, we would not have all the argy-bargy going on now.
There are some details here: the Government, in general (but not absolutely always), controls which Bills get put before Parliament, and the Upper House can only delay Bills, not prevent their passage altogether, and it is extremely unlikely that the Monarch will refuse to assent to a Bill passed by Parliament (although it is as least theoretically possible). The MPs, too, are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates, which means they are perfectly entitled to vote in whatever way they believe to be best for their constituents - they are not (absolutely) constrained to vote only in the way their party wishes, or indeed in any way consistent with their election manifesto. In essence, the thinking is that an MP is elected by the constituency to look after the best interests of their constituents, and it is up to the voters to choose wisely. Of course, if the MP votes against their party's interests, it is pretty likely they will not be selected to be that party's representative for that constituency in the next election that takes place there, but the MPs do have at least theoretical freedom of action.
My own view is that the UK should have had another referendum, with the status quo being 'Remain', and the option to leave being the one negotiated by Theresa May, and that option to require a super-majority to be enacted. At the time of the 2016 referendum, no-one knew what 'Leave' would look like, and I think it is reasonable for people to be able to look at what 'Leave' actually entailed, rather than a set of vague promises. Supporters of 'Leave' have a different view, and their actions since the 2016 referendum have not warmed me to their cause.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 02 2019, @10:16AM (1 child)
Cat hater.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 02 2019, @10:36AM
No, no! I love cat! If only there were a Chinese restaurant closer to home. :^(
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @11:44PM
To a leftist its only democracy if it supports the desire of the left and anything else is tyranny, whereas when its bad for the right we just call it bullshit and move on rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.