SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union
Main Page The Lounge British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European UnionGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent  |
I officially lost the plot last night. I understand that Parliament wasn't going to let itself be shut out of the process without a fight after spending hundreds of years to gain its rights, but at this point I need a proper British constitutional scholar to explain all the arcane and largely unwritten rules in play here. | |||
|
Baroque Bloke |
British politics are complicated. “Mr Johnson is facing more massive showdowns in Parliament today as a rebel alliance tries to force through legislation that would rule out No Deal - thwarting his 'do or die' vow to take the UK out of the EU by Halloween. He has also called a vote tonight on holding a snap election so the 'people can decide' after Remainers seized control of Commons business. But the premier needs agreement from two-thirds of the House to trigger a national ballot. And despite spending years demanding an election, Mr Corbyn has insisted he will stop one happening until legislation has been passed guaranteeing that the UK cannot crash out. The decision - described as the 'mother of all U-turns' by ministers - leaves the country in limbo, with Mr Johnson now unable to control the House - but also powerless to return to the electorate…” https://mol.im/a/7426721 Serious about crackers | |||
|
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent |
Yesterday just left me horribly confused. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been asking for general elections with the promise that he would prevent a hard Brexit for some time. Currently Boris Johnson is threatening general elections if Parliament prevents him from executing a hard Brexit. Johnson needs a two-third majority in Parliament to call snap elections, but had last night's Tory rebels thrown out of the conservative caucus. Now he's down 21 votes by people who should have no interest in snap elections, since they would not be nominated by the party to run again. Now Corbyn is telling Johnson that he may have general elections only after a law preventing a hard Brexit. The Queen must give assent to any bill by Parliament before it becomes law, but is acting on the advice of the prime minister. Apparently this means, and precedent exists, that the government can throw out any bill it doesn't like at third reading. At which point you could ask why you should bother with the expense of having a parliament at all, and both a monarch and a prime minister. I wonder how confused I will be after today. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
UK Braces For Exodus Of Richest Taxpayers If Corbyn Becomes Next PM As Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces the prospect of his rule being cut short, wealthy Britons have a message for Johnson's most likely successor: A 'no deal' Brexit makes no difference to them. But if Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM, they will flee in droves, taking their money with them. Johnson faces a new battle in the Commons after his first vote as PM saw him lose to rebel Tories and opposition MPs who object to a no-deal Brexit. Rebels voted 328-301 to take control of the agenda, allowing them to bring forward a bill requesting a Brexit delay. In response, the PM has threatened to call a general election (of course, he would then need 2-3rds of lawmakers in the Commons to support an election for one to move forward), the BBC reports. The chairman of one Swiss asset manager who helps wealthy Britons shield their money in tax havens warned that if Johnson is defeated in a snap election, and Corbyn becomes the next PM, it could trigger a wave of capital outflows as the wealthy scramble to move their assets (and themselves) out of the country. "It’s clear there would be a major outflow of high net-worth individuals and families if a Corbyn government was to come to power," said Chris Kalin, group chairman of Zurich-based Henley & Partners Group. "This is the big fear, not Brexit or even a no-deal Brexit. That doesn’t make any difference to our clients." Looking back over the past few decades, tax rates for the UK's top bracket have consistently risen under Labour. https://www.zerohedge.com/news...rbyn-becomes-next-pm "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent |
Well, I'm mostly disfused this morning.
https://uk.reuters.com/article...eedName=domesticNews Word is that Johnson will now go for snap elections with the aim of rectifying his current position as the unelected leader of a minority government, then overturn the no-no-deal law with a new majority with rebel Tories wed out from the candidates. Some say that this has been his plan all along. Of course it's not yet sure that he will get the two-thirds majority for Parliament to disband itself; and Theresa May also called elections in a similar situation when she thought the momentum was favorable, but ended up losing the Tory majority in Parliament, having to enter into a coalition with the Northern Irish DUP that put its own restrictions on her. | |||
|
posting without pants |
So, I'm not an expert, or even a layman, on the subject of British law... I thought they had a vote, where the majority of the people said "get out" and they had to do so.. Apparently my view is simplistic... WHy is this taking so long. If i were a British citizen, I'd be throwing tea in the harbour and shooting at guys in red jackets at this point... (for those fools with no sense of humor this should obviously be taken as hyperbole). Strive to live your life so when you wake up in the morning and your feet hit the floor, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up." | |||
|
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent |
The referendum was technically advisory, but of course as such things go, it is politically near impossible to just ignore that kind of popular advice. The real problem I always come back to is that not only was the result real close at 52:48 for leaving. There were also wildly different ideas about Brexit and subsequent relations with the EU within the Leave camp - ranging from a hard Brexit with future trading on WTO rules alone, to an extensive mutual trade agreement, to a customs union with the EU, to remaining a member of the European Single Market like Norway and Switzerland. Nigel Farage of today's Brexit Party used to hold up Norway as an example of a non-EU Single Market member, until he apparently found out how much this model ties you to EU regulations without having the same say as a regular member. Today the camps are split about 30 percent for a hard Brexit, 30 percent soft Brexit (i. e. on an agreement with the EU) and 40 percent no Brexit. To make it more complicated, some of both the hard and soft Brexit Camp want a deal, but not the one on the table. As there has been a general election since the referendum, the current members of Parliament ran on platforms within this range and represent these more splintered camps rather than the original binary choice, with no outright majority for any single of those. And of course the MPs are beholden to the voters who elected them in their respective districts rather than the majority in the national referendum. So the deadlock in Parliament does in fact accurately represent the divisions of opinion on Brexit in the British electorate. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
From a legal standpoint, that vote was completely non-binding. Only Parliament has the authority to pull the UK out of the EU.
| |||
|
| Baroque Bloke |
Brexit isn’t dead, but it currently appears that a no-deal Brexit is. A with-deal Brexit would likely be a Brexit-in-name-only, with the UK still bound by most EU laws. Serious about crackers | |||
|
| Baroque Bloke |
Not sure what to make of this, but Boris might’ve found a way to force a new UK election (which he wants), even though parliament refuses to call one. The ploy would put him out of office though. “A defiant Boris Johnson today suggested he will not ask the EU to delay Brexit even if he is legally required to do so as opposition leaders agreed to work together to block the PM's bid to trigger an early general election. …… Yesterday Mr Johnson said he would rather be 'dead in a ditch' than delay the UK's departure from the bloc. Today he was asked if he would not seek an extension even if it is set out in law that he must and he replied: 'I will not. I don’t want a delay.' His answer is likely to be interpreted in one of two ways: He will either defy the law or resign. The former would appear almost unthinkable for a prime minister and would spark a political, legal and constitutional firestorm. If he were to resign, the Queen would ask MPs if anyone else could form a government capable of commanding a majority in the Commons and if the answer was no there would have to be an election. The law would still dictate that a Brexit delay must be sought, with a poll likely to then be held in November…” https://mol.im/a/7435807 Serious about crackers | |||
|
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent |
I'm somewhat surprised to see there is speculation whether Johnson will still be PM by Monday. Theresa May was repeatedly smacked down by Parliament and kept going. Of course upon thinking more of it, she never got herself into a position where she was left with a minority government either. Regarding the UK remaining tied to EU regulations - there's a good case to be made that this is inevitable, even wird a hard Brexit. People keep imagining the great economic power Britain was decades ago, and that it could return to that position. The problem is that this was based in large part upon the captive market of its Empire. After WW II, the US with its newly-won financial dominance as chief wartime lender to its allies was instrumental in forcing the UK to open that up to non-British (not least American) goods. Joining the then-EEC was meant to be a way out of the post-war economic downturn caused in large degree by losing that privilege. Smaller powers located next to big economic blocs with which they have most of their trade must adapt to the latter's regulation to a considerable extent. If Canada or Mexico got out of NAFTA tomorrow, they would still have to observe American legislation for goods and services traded on the regionally dominant US market. Here's a rather bleak opinion on the British situation:
https://www.politico.eu/articl...on-dominic-cummings/ | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
https://theconservativetreehou...-cutter/#more-170253 The Gordian Knot of Brexit is based on a Parliamentary ruling class within the U.K. government who will not accept Great Britain leaving the European Union. The elitist Members of Parliament (MP) have passed a law requiring Prime Minister Boris Johnson to forever stay in the EU until an agreement for terms of exit are reached. However, the EU doesn’t want the U.K. to exit; so the consequence of the MP law is to ‘remain’ in the EU forever. This elitist scheme has created the knot; and the majority of the British people -those who voted to ‘leave’- are insufferably bound within it. In one approach to cutting the knot Prime Minister Boris Johnson has requested a national vote for government leadership on October 15th. With a scheduled round of talks with the EU set for October 17th, a Boris Johnson election victory would create the needed momentum toward a hard-brexit (no deal) on October 31st. Britain would, finally, be free. However, the MP ruling class, those who say they know better than the people they are supposed to serve, know such a popular vote would upend their schemes – and likely lead to many of their alliance being removed from office. So the elites will not support a national election that would lead to their own defeat. [More knot building]. A second knot-cutting tactic implied by the Prime Minister, is to ignore the insufferable law –recently passed and pending signature– and proceed toward a ‘no-deal’ Brexit on October 31st. This approach could lead to the British Parliament being forced to vote against the Prime Minister (no confidence); and would set up a replacement election, which Boris Johnson wants anyway. Actually, no-one is quite sure what will happen on this second knot-cutting avenue… no map available. Many Americans are watching the part where we see just how ideologically corrupt politicians are within British government; and how much they have lied and conned the British people. | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
update to above post https://www.breitbart.com/euro...s-foreign-secretary/ Dominic Raab has said that Boris Johnson is “sticking to his guns” on his Brexit plans, saying that despite the efforts of Jeremy Corbyn’s “surrender bill” to stop no deal Brexit, the UK will leave the EU on October 31st “come what may”. The Remainer-dominated House of Commons voted to back a bill that would stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal and force the government to seek another extension of Article 50, delaying Brexit Day for another three months to January 31st, 2020. The bill then passed through the House of Lords on Friday and is set to receive Royal Assent on Monday, becoming law. Mr Johnson said in response that he “will not” ask the EU for another delay, leading to claims by legal experts that if the prime minister ‘breaks the law’, he could be jailed. Two days after the prime minister made the remarks, Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State Dominic Raab told Sophy Ridge on Sky News on Sunday that “the prime minister is sticking to his guns” and that even though “we’re going to keep going on with the negotiations” with the EU to remove the controversial Irish backstop from the withdrawal treaty, “we must leave come what may” on Halloween. When pressed by Ridge whether Mr Johnson would ‘break the law’ and continue to pursue a no deal Brexit, Mr Raab said his government “will adhere to the law” but suggested that the government could work around Corbyn’s “surrender bill”, saying they will “test to the limit what it does, actually, lawfully, require”. He added: “That legislation is lousy. It envisaged multiple delays and effectively forces us to accept conditions from the EU however vindictive, punitive, or harsh they may be.” When pressed on whether Mr Johnson will ignore the bill, the foreign secretary said: “He’s been very clear about it this week [that he will not extend Article 50].” A source speaking to the Sunday Times said that the prime minister is preparing for a show-down in the Supreme Court, saying “If there isn’t a deal by the 18th we will sabotage the extension,” while another source said the prime minister’s inner team is preparing to “take a chainsaw to anything” that threatens fulfilling the will of the people. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
Sounds like many of our own Republicans. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| SIGforum's Berlin Correspondent |
More arcane rules. I didn't even know there was such a thing as impeachment in the UK, and apparently neither did most Brits. Parliamentary systems do of course generally use votes of no confidence to get rid of unwanted governments.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-49628435 I've tried to look deeper into the relation between how parliamentary constituencies voted in the Brexit referendum and what stance their subsequently elected MPs have taken on the issue, but the problem seems to be that outside Northern Ireland, the counties charged with implementing the referendum didn't generally break down results to the constituencies they encompass. Per one source I found, it's likely that there were leave majorities in 410 out of 650 constituencies. Of course what we can't know is how hard individual voters imagined Brexit to be, which gets us back to the problem of the splintered post-referendum Brexit camp. 2016 referendum results by county:  Likely distribution of leave and remain constituencies between parties in the 2017 general election:  Older piece on the different "tribes" among Conservatives in Parliament:
https://ig.ft.com/brexit-tory-tribes/ Broader look at all parties from the same time:
https://www.theguardian.com/po...s-eu-withdrawal-bill | |||
|
| Member |
Careful casting aspersions on Republicans. Now we know where your loyalties lie. It is very safe to assume all politicians, Dem and Republican, consistently lie and invoke half truths, not to aid their constituents. But, to help themselves and only themselves. Andrew Duty is the sublimest word in the English Language - Gen Robert E Lee. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
Boris went to see the Queen this weekend.... It’s Up to the Queen to Resolve Brexit The question of a snap election is hers to decide. by F.H. Buckley In spite of the confusion over Brexit, there’s an easy solution, and one that is contemplated by the British constitution. You’ll never guess what that is. First off, what’s the status of the Brexit referendum of three years back? It mattered, because it expressed what voters wanted over a specific issue, even if the vote was only 52 to 48 percent. But constitutionally, a referendum is a nullity in a parliamentary democracy. Britain is a democracy, but it’s a democracy in which the people’s wishes are reflected — indeed filtered — by their representatives in Parliament. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the government leader in the House of Commons, told the House that Parliament derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people, as expressed in the referendum. That’s silly, and as a constitutional scholar he knows better. In the British constitution, sovereignty vests in the Queen-in-Parliament, that is, on legislation adopted by the House of Commons and the House of Lords to which the Queen assents. In reality it all comes down to what a majority in the House of Commons decides, since the House of Lords has lost the power to reject bills and since the monarch last used her veto power in 1711. It would therefore be perfectly constitutional for the government to pass an anti-Brexit bill that entirely rejects the 2016 referendum. If you want some authority for that, turn to Edmund Burke’s 1774 speech to the Electors of Bristol. I know what you want, said Burke, but I’m afraid I disagree with you. You want free trade, I don’t, and you can’t dictate to me. When you elect an MP, he’s not the member of Bristol, he’s the member of Parliament and bound to vote what he thinks in the country’s best interests, even if that doesn’t happen to be what you think. Then there’s the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, passed to limit the ability of a prime minister to call a snap election. It’s what’s creating the mess today. The Act provides that general elections are to be held after a regular five-year period unless there is a vote of non-confidence or a two-thirds supermajority agrees to an earlier election. Boris Johnson last week tried and failed to get that two-thirds vote. Does that mean that Parliament is going to be hobbled and unable to get anything done for the next few years? The answer is no, even if the opposition Labour Party continues to deny Johnson an election. First, the 2011 Parliament that passed the Fixed-Term act can’t bind a subsequent Parliament, so the current Tory government could simply amend the statute. It’s the second possibility that’s more interesting. What if Johnson went to the Queen and asked for an election? It looks as if the 2011 Act has rendered Parliament impotent, and that’s never supposed to happen. That Boris Johnson became Prime Minister without winning an election would ordinarily have been sufficient reason to call a snap election. But the mess in Parliament now is something that possibly only the Queen can solve. And she knows it. In a 1964 speech she defended the inherent authority of the Crown under the British constitution, as the ultimate guarantor of parliamentary democracy: “The role of a constitutional monarch is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to ensure the legality of its methods, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will. In accomplishing this task it protects the people against disorder.” Disorder pretty much describes where things are now in Britain. And in those circumstances, the Crown is the backstop that’s meant to keep things working. That might not seem democratic to some, but then by agreeing to a snap election she’d be guaranteeing the execution of the popular will, just as she promised. https://spectator.org/its-up-t...n-to-resolve-brexit/ "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
Well, she might turn out to be of some use in this world after all. | |||
|
| Baroque Bloke |
Some good news for Brexit: “Boris Johnson received a major boost over his highly controversial decision to shut down Parliament ahead of Brexit today as senior judges said it could not be legally challenged. After the Prime Minister's divisive move to prorogue the Commons for five weeks, sparking Remainer uproar, was deemed illegal by judges in Scotland, the High Court in London revealed that it viewed the situation completely differently. In giving their reasons for throwing out a case brought by Remainer businesswoman Gina Miller, justices in London said the decision which closed down parliament on Monday was 'purely political' and therefore 'not a matter for the courts'. The ruling will calm Brexiteer nerves ahead of a dramatic legal showdown at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, where the UK's highest legal authority will have to decide which judicial decision is the right one…” https://mol.im/a/7453313 Serious about crackers | |||
|
| half-genius, half-wit |
Mrs tac and I both have the same idea as you do. We are simple souls, us, and to us, the vote to go is the vote to go and the remit to do it. The late Mr Churchill told folks like it was - 'I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, toil and tears, but we WILL win through to the other side - let's do it'. Nowadays, politicians are afraid to speak the truth and tell people that it's going to hurt, maybe quite a lot, to do what the majority decided that was the best for the UK. I'm lucky - I have two other countries I could, if I really wanted to, call home if it gets REALLY bad here, but I made my bed many years ago, and I'm going to stay the last mile. One thing sticks out like a dayglo orange sore thumb, there is not a single politician who can now be trusted with anything. Boris Johnson should remember what happened to the last person who 'shut down' parliament. It all ended as badly as could be on a lonely scaffold in front of Westminster Hall, on a cold day in 1649. It might not get THAT far, but there are some pretty dire things, politically, that can happen to a politician who gets too big for his britches. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union
Main Page The Lounge British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union© SIGforum 2024