Brexit and Parliament and Boris Johnson: maneuverings — 13 Comments
Well at least in the UK Parliament they actually have real debates; face to face.
In what is a big joke, the US Congress, there has not been any sort of real debate in years.
All their decisions are based on back room deals out of the hearing of the public and, as we all know, TV cameras that show the speakers are prevented from showing anything other than the speaker.
This is done because almost all the time the seats in Congress are totally empty; the speaker is addressing ONLY the camera.
What a joke.
As for Brexit, note that Switzerland in not part of the EU and in some areas they have negotiated areas of “cooperation.” The Swiss regard the EU as controlled by immovable ideologues (IMHO, by Stalinists) and the Swiss would be amongst the first in line to deal with a EU-free UK.
Funny, is it not, that Germany lost WWII, but now pretty much controls the strings of the EU – and all its members.
You can take Angela Merkel out of the former DDR, but you can’t take the DDR out of Merkel.
Removing the whip from the rebels does Boris no favors. It is his right to do so. But it is farcical. They haven’t even made them go sit on the other side. What is that about? The chief whip is so powerless he can’t even force them to leave the Tory back benches?
I won’t say Boris was crucified in PMQs but it wasn’t a very good showing. Hopefully this ends soon. Only a third of the U.K. electorate says they want a general election. I don’t know what planet they’ve been living on. This parliament isn’t capable of resolving Brexit one way or another.
I think it likely the Benn bill gets bogged down in the House of Lords- it would pass given the makeup of the body, but the procedures are tedious and unless the House completely abandons its rules, getting the passed by the end of Friday and before prorogation starts looks unlikely right now.
However, there is also another problem- the PM has to be the one to recommend to the Queen to give royal assent, and I don’t think Johnson will do so. To get a recommendation for royal assent, the Remain factions will have to replace Johnson as PM. To replace Johnson requires a vote of no-confidence, a point Johnson is sure to point when the Remainers try to go to the Queen behind his back (she won’t take sides here- that is the only sure thing about this entire pecadillo). So, to get an extension, they either have to have new elections, or they have to do the VONC and try to cobble together a majority with a new prime minister. I just can’t imagine any scenario where such a new prime minister can be found that isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, and no one outside of Labour is going to support that. I think it is either new elections in October, or Brexit happens for certain on Halloween.
“Brexit happens for certain on Halloween.”
This seems like the best outcome. If Brexit doesn’t happen, then it shows what a farce the plebiscite has become. Why have referendums if they don’t actually force the government to do what the people said?
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness, it dies by simply being ignored, apparently.
What needs to happen is an election. I think the Conservatives could win it. If I had to bet, I’d say they would. I would prefer the election be before October 31st. I would prefer it that the Surrender Bill not become law. But if giving them their damn surrender bill is the only way to get an election out of them, so be it.
Either way, this circus has to end soon. The idea that giving this parliament more time to solve Brexit will actually result in anything productive is absurd.
If these childish games continue too long, what’s going to happen eventually is some gross over-simplificationicationing of the complications:
Pitchforks, Torchlight Processions (sorry Neo haha), and Lamp Posts. Especially Lamp Posts.
It’s so interesting, isn’t it, that the elites who refuse to comply with majority voted referendum, now claim “democracy” as the reason. To avoid Brexit. And to avoid new elections.
I didn’t even know about prorogation, yet have many politically active UK friends.
The Tories have a majority because they promised to implement Brexit — but they disagree on whether a bad deal is better or worse than no deal & just leaving. 3 years of failure to agree on how to leave?
Just leave already. Those against leaving, now, are those against democracy. Arrogant elites.
All too much like arrogant Trump-hating elites who still believe in the Collusion Hoax.
And Brexit, “I’ll believe it when I see it; hope for Oct 31” seems somehow similar to Indictments for Collusion Hoax. I’ll believe there’s some justice coming when I see legal indictments, for which I’ve been hoping for years, it seems. Just indict Comey & McCabe already. Oops, elites don’t want to follow THOSE rules of law.
These complications push me towards more support of the US fixed terms and local geo boundaries of each district. In both cases the permanent campaign is slightly negative, but certain elections & election timing is reassuring.
in polarized times of significant decisions that can’t really be compromised on, a
If it weren’t for the fixed term parliament act this would be a far simpler problem to solve. It is mind boggling to think there is a prime minister who has no majority, wants an election, but can’t have one. Piecemeal changes to constitutions often have drastic and unintended consequences. Aristotle talks of this in the Politics, when he discusses his theory of political decay, I think. This is a pretty good example of that, not exactly the same thing but pretty close.
The law as it stands has seriously undermined this government and will undermine all future minority governments. I think it should probably be amended so that all the government needs is a simple majority to call an election, not a super majority.
It is actually curious. In the US the executive has been becoming stronger. In the UK, parliament seems to be holding its own, maybe even weakening the executive. Will be interesting to see if the Lords can get everything through before suspension. I guess they have agreed to stop filibustering.
I don’t pretend to know whether Brexit is good for the UK or not. I have great sympathy for the idea, but that is mostly based on my mistrust of the EU.
But I have found reliably over the last fifty years that I am actually a good judge of who is fighting fair, and who is making logical rather than emotional or social arguments. I imagine many here are as well. It’s not that hard once we acknowledge the possibility of our own bad motives to make allowances for that in making judgements. All sides fight unfairly at least a bit, and all sides also resort to some emotional and social arguments. Yet there is usually a clear trend of who is trying to assure us that all the cool kids are on their side and that a “plague o’er all the earth is imminent” if we don’t do as they say. In this case the Remainers have looked worse with each passing month.
It now appears that Johnson’s plan is probably going to be to deny assent, either royal or Queen’s to the Benn bill and force Parliament to hold a no-confidence vote to stop him from doing this. This puts the opposition, who clearly don’t want to go to an election on the horns of a dilemma. If the no confidence vote succeeds, to replace Johnson either requires an election or requires the opposition to come up with a government that has majority support in Parliament- I just don’t see how you get the latter. So, it will probably be elections.
Allow me to firmly agree with “Assistant Village Idiot.”
(Hmm. Does that make me the Assistant to the Assistant Village Idiot?)
AVI says: “All sides fight unfairly at least a bit, and all sides also resort to some emotional and social arguments. Yet there is usually a clear trend….”
Yes. There certainly is.
Much like the Leftists (who are decidedly not “liberals”) who currently control…
– the Democratic Party
– the News Media
– Tenured Academia
– the Entertainment-PopCultural Complex
…and various other bits of “high ground” in our society, the Remainers likewise constantly exhibit:
(a.) unashamed moment-to-moment self-contradiction in their own words
(b.) disregard of (or inability to hear and respond to) logical argumentation in the words of others;
(c.) inability to communicate ideas without persistent appeals to base emotionalism;
(d.) activity characterized by shameless grasping at power unconstrained by any principles; and,
(e.) utterly unjustified preening and posing self-righteousness.
Even at this late date, I certainly wouldn’t want the lot of them shot. That’d be evil, and we’re better than that.
But I’m increasingly of the opinion that the whole lot of them ought to be horsewhipped. It’s about the only thing I can imagine that might possibly have a salutary impact on their character.
These complications push me towards more support of the US fixed terms and local geo boundaries of each district. In both cases the permanent campaign is slightly negative, but certain elections & election timing is reassuring.
Britain has single-member constituencies. They also make use of first-past-the-post tabulation, which can be troublesome.
Our problem include elections held too frequently, judicial decrees preventing us from developing a sensible practice manual for drawing districts which could contain the quantum of gerrymandering, campaign finance regulation functioning as an incumbent protection scheme, that nomination and designation procedures being commonly bollocks, lacking provisions in law to induce rotation-in-office (hence getting stuck with people who want to be in Congress forever and ever), direct election of Senators with those mega constituencies (which render Senators the bitc* of donors), and (of course) first-past-the-post tabulation. Add to that inane parliamentary rules, the hahazard Congressional committee architecture, and the equally haphazard assemblage of federal agencies in the executive. It’s a mess every which way you look.
Boris Johnson has just posted this video message about what’s happening. First time I’ve watched him speak at any length.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Well at least in the UK Parliament they actually have real debates; face to face.
In what is a big joke, the US Congress, there has not been any sort of real debate in years.
All their decisions are based on back room deals out of the hearing of the public and, as we all know, TV cameras that show the speakers are prevented from showing anything other than the speaker.
This is done because almost all the time the seats in Congress are totally empty; the speaker is addressing ONLY the camera.
What a joke.
As for Brexit, note that Switzerland in not part of the EU and in some areas they have negotiated areas of “cooperation.” The Swiss regard the EU as controlled by immovable ideologues (IMHO, by Stalinists) and the Swiss would be amongst the first in line to deal with a EU-free UK.
Funny, is it not, that Germany lost WWII, but now pretty much controls the strings of the EU – and all its members.
You can take Angela Merkel out of the former DDR, but you can’t take the DDR out of Merkel.
Removing the whip from the rebels does Boris no favors. It is his right to do so. But it is farcical. They haven’t even made them go sit on the other side. What is that about? The chief whip is so powerless he can’t even force them to leave the Tory back benches?
I won’t say Boris was crucified in PMQs but it wasn’t a very good showing. Hopefully this ends soon. Only a third of the U.K. electorate says they want a general election. I don’t know what planet they’ve been living on. This parliament isn’t capable of resolving Brexit one way or another.
I think it likely the Benn bill gets bogged down in the House of Lords- it would pass given the makeup of the body, but the procedures are tedious and unless the House completely abandons its rules, getting the passed by the end of Friday and before prorogation starts looks unlikely right now.
However, there is also another problem- the PM has to be the one to recommend to the Queen to give royal assent, and I don’t think Johnson will do so. To get a recommendation for royal assent, the Remain factions will have to replace Johnson as PM. To replace Johnson requires a vote of no-confidence, a point Johnson is sure to point when the Remainers try to go to the Queen behind his back (she won’t take sides here- that is the only sure thing about this entire pecadillo). So, to get an extension, they either have to have new elections, or they have to do the VONC and try to cobble together a majority with a new prime minister. I just can’t imagine any scenario where such a new prime minister can be found that isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, and no one outside of Labour is going to support that. I think it is either new elections in October, or Brexit happens for certain on Halloween.
“Brexit happens for certain on Halloween.”
This seems like the best outcome. If Brexit doesn’t happen, then it shows what a farce the plebiscite has become. Why have referendums if they don’t actually force the government to do what the people said?
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness, it dies by simply being ignored, apparently.
What needs to happen is an election. I think the Conservatives could win it. If I had to bet, I’d say they would. I would prefer the election be before October 31st. I would prefer it that the Surrender Bill not become law. But if giving them their damn surrender bill is the only way to get an election out of them, so be it.
Either way, this circus has to end soon. The idea that giving this parliament more time to solve Brexit will actually result in anything productive is absurd.
If these childish games continue too long, what’s going to happen eventually is some gross over-simplificationicationing of the complications:
Pitchforks, Torchlight Processions (sorry Neo haha), and Lamp Posts. Especially Lamp Posts.
It’s so interesting, isn’t it, that the elites who refuse to comply with majority voted referendum, now claim “democracy” as the reason. To avoid Brexit. And to avoid new elections.
Plus there’s the dissolving of Parliament “for a few days”,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom
I didn’t even know about prorogation, yet have many politically active UK friends.
The Tories have a majority because they promised to implement Brexit — but they disagree on whether a bad deal is better or worse than no deal & just leaving. 3 years of failure to agree on how to leave?
Just leave already. Those against leaving, now, are those against democracy. Arrogant elites.
All too much like arrogant Trump-hating elites who still believe in the Collusion Hoax.
And Brexit, “I’ll believe it when I see it; hope for Oct 31” seems somehow similar to Indictments for Collusion Hoax. I’ll believe there’s some justice coming when I see legal indictments, for which I’ve been hoping for years, it seems. Just indict Comey & McCabe already. Oops, elites don’t want to follow THOSE rules of law.
In a UK General Election, many think Johnson would do well, but it’s not clear about the very new & popular Brexit Party which did so well in the …
EU elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom
These complications push me towards more support of the US fixed terms and local geo boundaries of each district. In both cases the permanent campaign is slightly negative, but certain elections & election timing is reassuring.
in polarized times of significant decisions that can’t really be compromised on, a
If it weren’t for the fixed term parliament act this would be a far simpler problem to solve. It is mind boggling to think there is a prime minister who has no majority, wants an election, but can’t have one. Piecemeal changes to constitutions often have drastic and unintended consequences. Aristotle talks of this in the Politics, when he discusses his theory of political decay, I think. This is a pretty good example of that, not exactly the same thing but pretty close.
The law as it stands has seriously undermined this government and will undermine all future minority governments. I think it should probably be amended so that all the government needs is a simple majority to call an election, not a super majority.
It is actually curious. In the US the executive has been becoming stronger. In the UK, parliament seems to be holding its own, maybe even weakening the executive. Will be interesting to see if the Lords can get everything through before suspension. I guess they have agreed to stop filibustering.
I don’t pretend to know whether Brexit is good for the UK or not. I have great sympathy for the idea, but that is mostly based on my mistrust of the EU.
But I have found reliably over the last fifty years that I am actually a good judge of who is fighting fair, and who is making logical rather than emotional or social arguments. I imagine many here are as well. It’s not that hard once we acknowledge the possibility of our own bad motives to make allowances for that in making judgements. All sides fight unfairly at least a bit, and all sides also resort to some emotional and social arguments. Yet there is usually a clear trend of who is trying to assure us that all the cool kids are on their side and that a “plague o’er all the earth is imminent” if we don’t do as they say. In this case the Remainers have looked worse with each passing month.
It now appears that Johnson’s plan is probably going to be to deny assent, either royal or Queen’s to the Benn bill and force Parliament to hold a no-confidence vote to stop him from doing this. This puts the opposition, who clearly don’t want to go to an election on the horns of a dilemma. If the no confidence vote succeeds, to replace Johnson either requires an election or requires the opposition to come up with a government that has majority support in Parliament- I just don’t see how you get the latter. So, it will probably be elections.
Allow me to firmly agree with “Assistant Village Idiot.”
(Hmm. Does that make me the Assistant to the Assistant Village Idiot?)
AVI says: “All sides fight unfairly at least a bit, and all sides also resort to some emotional and social arguments. Yet there is usually a clear trend….”
Yes. There certainly is.
Much like the Leftists (who are decidedly not “liberals”) who currently control…
– the Democratic Party
– the News Media
– Tenured Academia
– the Entertainment-PopCultural Complex
…and various other bits of “high ground” in our society, the Remainers likewise constantly exhibit:
(a.) unashamed moment-to-moment self-contradiction in their own words
(b.) disregard of (or inability to hear and respond to) logical argumentation in the words of others;
(c.) inability to communicate ideas without persistent appeals to base emotionalism;
(d.) activity characterized by shameless grasping at power unconstrained by any principles; and,
(e.) utterly unjustified preening and posing self-righteousness.
Even at this late date, I certainly wouldn’t want the lot of them shot. That’d be evil, and we’re better than that.
But I’m increasingly of the opinion that the whole lot of them ought to be horsewhipped. It’s about the only thing I can imagine that might possibly have a salutary impact on their character.
These complications push me towards more support of the US fixed terms and local geo boundaries of each district. In both cases the permanent campaign is slightly negative, but certain elections & election timing is reassuring.
Britain has single-member constituencies. They also make use of first-past-the-post tabulation, which can be troublesome.
Our problem include elections held too frequently, judicial decrees preventing us from developing a sensible practice manual for drawing districts which could contain the quantum of gerrymandering, campaign finance regulation functioning as an incumbent protection scheme, that nomination and designation procedures being commonly bollocks, lacking provisions in law to induce rotation-in-office (hence getting stuck with people who want to be in Congress forever and ever), direct election of Senators with those mega constituencies (which render Senators the bitc* of donors), and (of course) first-past-the-post tabulation. Add to that inane parliamentary rules, the hahazard Congressional committee architecture, and the equally haphazard assemblage of federal agencies in the executive. It’s a mess every which way you look.
Boris Johnson has just posted this video message about what’s happening. First time I’ve watched him speak at any length.