The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[notimp]

Traditionally, a monarch’s consent to a Parliamentary suspension comes at the advice of the Privy Council, or a formal body of advisers. A suspension also usually precedes the Queen’s Speech, when the queen officially opens the session of Parliament and declares the government’s coming agenda in front of the legislative body. Three Conservative members of the Privy Council met with the queen today on behalf of Johnson at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. Following Her Majesty’s approval, the Queen’s Speech will fall on October 14, after which Parliament will reconvene.

Can the queen’s agreement to the suspension be legally challenged?
The queen’s prerogative powers—which, in addition to proroguing Parliament, include appointing the prime minister and the granting of honors—cannot be legally challenged, BBC reported. Still, it’s possible to mount a legal challenge to the counsel the prime minister gives her. A judicial review of the prime minister’s advice to the queen could result in ruling whether or not the advice was lawful.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celeb...abeth-parliament-suspension-brexit-explained/

So it is separation of power.
And she is making a true political move.

But it is in line with the concepts of a "presidential democracy".

(Where in uncommon cases a president can dismiss parliament. Or in this case order them to go on break.)

 

[Xzi]

Lots of Brexit news today. First, Boris' stunt in suspending parliament cost him the majority when one of the Tory MPs defected to another party. Then he was defeated 328 to 301 in a vote by the Commons to take control of the agenda. Which means a no-deal Brexit has again become unlikely, and more delays seem inevitable.

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.

In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election. Jeremy Corbyn said the bill should be passed before an election was held.

In total, 21 Tory MPs, including a number of ex-cabinet ministers, joined opposition parties to defeat the government.

After the vote, Downing Street said those Tory MPs who rebelled would have the whip removed, effectively expelling them from the parliamentary party. No 10 had hoped the threat of expulsion - and an election - would bring would-be rebels into line.

 

[Taleweaver]

I've read that as well, but hadn't found an answer to the "what now?" scenario.

BoJo wants new elections. Kind of obvious, as it would legitimize his power (May overplayed her hand, which resulted in poor election results. Johnson doesn't HAVE a hand, but since he's interrupted he can continue to act as if he has a plan). I hadn't thought of the situation where he could somewhere change the date until after the deadline, but yeah...that would indeed be pretty likely. It would also get him lynched by bremainers, but ey...it's not like being a political criminal is punishable in any way (see also: Tony Blair).

So the bickering currently is on whether or not a bill should be implemented that prevents a no deal brexit. Johnson's position has always been that it's a bargaining chip, so he's obviously against. The rest - Corbyn on the front line - want it implemented.

That's all interesting, and all, but really: the UK needs a second referendum on the matter. It's been three bloody years since a very slight majority voted leave. Since then, most if not anything that was promised the brexiteers turned out to be a lie. And I'm sick of all politicians (yes, including Corbyn) claiming that what they're doing is in favor of 'the UK'.
So hold the fucking referendum already. If the majority of UK people still want a (no deal) brexit, then at least we know it's their choice rather than what some spin doctors claim would be their choice.

 

[KingVamp]

Lots of Brexit news today. First, Boris' stunt in suspending parliament cost him the majority when one of the Tory MPs defected to another party. Then he was defeated 328 to 301 in a vote by the Commons to take control of the agenda. Which means a no-deal Brexit has again become unlikely, and more delays seem inevitable.

Dat backfire.

Sorry, wasn't completely following and I don't quite understand, did the suspension actually happen or was it stopped before it happened?

 

[Taleweaver]

Dat backfire.

Sorry, wasn't completely following and I don't quite understand, did the suspension actually happen or was it stopped before it happened?

Neither of the two: the suspension (or 'prorogation') of the parliament is still set to happen from september 10th until october 14th.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Parliament appears to be in favor of postponing Brexit yet again. Political satire. It feels like a play or movie Kim Jong Un would produce to make fun of the West.

 

[emigre]

In the latest twist of Brexit, it looks an amendment to put Theresa May's deal back in the commons accidently passed. Like legit it happened.

I've got to be honest, every time I think things couldn't get more chaotic, it does.

 

[emigre]

Boris' election for the 15th October is off. Not enough MPs voted for it.

I'm no fan of the guy but he's really proving to be pretty fucking useless.

 

[notimp]

That's all interesting, and all, but really: the UK needs a second referendum on the matter. It's been three bloody years since a very slight majority voted leave. Since then, most if not anything that was promised the brexiteers turned out to be a lie. And I'm sick of all politicians[...]

This is enough to give you three upvotes on its own. People hate politicians..

But not how this works.

The law to prohibit No deal Brexit went through the british parliament.

So now we know how everything will go from this point.

To summerise:

If you have a referendum of that magnitute, you have to honor it. Otherwise you'll have a third or more of you population talking about democracy being a scam - and being absolutely right, which is the bigger problem.

Johnson as PM served to inject a new negotiation team.

The no hard brexit law serves as a minor backstop (signaling good will) as well (dont know for whom but their own population this would be important), but first and foremost signals to the brexit hardliners, that whatever they wanted will not be honored, because 'it didn't work, and think of all the future cost for people (and more affluent political sponsors.. )".

If Johnson now stays - stuff can move forward. If not give the britsh another year, heck - why not...

In negotiations every side still will want to ef the other one over, but if you've got good negotiators - usually this ends in a compromise which both sides can live with. Also british want an outcome in the near future - because currently... they look chaotic. But thats just public perception stuff, so thats nothing that should impact negotiations too much. If they have to - they'll repeat this for another year. But they dont necessarily want to.
-

edit: So every sentiment of: We have to do something now - because look how we look!!11! In essence is false. It would be silly to accept a worse than necessary outcome just because of looks.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

-To you wish to get a divorce?
-Yes.
-Okay, then let's proceed.
-No, wait. I want to get a divorce, but I need the guarantee that I will still sleep with her regularly.
-Can't you deal with this after the divorce?
-I need that guarantee though.

 

[Taleweaver]

This is enough to give you three upvotes on its own. People hate politicians..

But not how this works.

The law to prohibit No deal Brexit went through the british parliament.

So now we know how everything will go from this point.

To summerise:

If you have a referendum of that magnitute, you have to honor it. Otherwise you'll have a third or more of you population talking about democracy being a scam - and being absolutely right, which is the bigger problem.

This is why I'm glad I'm not a politician: I don't have to be politically correct. Honestly: that part of the population needs to grab a straw and seriously suck it up. Sure, it's not fun being them, but they were fed lies after lies to make them vote "leave". If they think democracy is threatened when they are asked to vote for an actual REALISTIC choice (which would be either May's deal, no deal or no brexit at this point), then they can cry me a fucking river for all I care.

Here's an analogy:
Me: hey guys: let's all vote for me punching Rowan Atkinson in the face. I promise everyone a car who agrees with me!!!
<somewhat later>
Me: okay...the car industry doesn't want to give everyone free cars, but I still get to punch him in the face because enough people turned up to vote.

How's that for "it's not democracy if you change the outcome when all the factors that lead to that outcome change" ?

The no hard brexit law serves as a minor backstop (signaling good will) as well (dont know for whom but their own population this would be important), but first and foremost signals to the brexit hardliners, that whatever they wanted will not be honored, because 'it didn't work, and think of all the future cost for people (and more affluent political sponsors.. )".

It's a step in the direction to common sense, yes. But why take these baby steps if you can just, y'know...USE COMMON SENSE NOW!

The problem with that stupid end result is that everyone and their mum has opinions on what 52% of the UK voted three years ago while it's perfectly clear that this is the OPPOSITE of what 48% (also three years ago) wanted.

In negotiations every side still will want to ef the other one over, but if you've got good negotiators - usually this ends in a compromise which both sides can live with. Also british want an outcome in the near future - because currently... they look chaotic. But thats just public perception stuff, so thats nothing that should impact negotiations too much. If they have to - they'll repeat this for another year. But they dont necessarily want to.

...but the UK does NOT have good negotiators. You can't negotiate when the goal post isn't clear. Say what you want about May, but at least she had a goal. Yes, Johnson had less time, but both he and parliament just threw away what she achieved. For opposite reasons, no less. From that, it's pretty clear to me that the brexiteers are just a divided bunch that just want to say "nay" to everything.

edit: So every sentiment of: We have to do something now - because look how we look!!11! In essence is false. It would be silly to accept a worse than necessary outcome just because of looks.

It's about two years too late to care about looks, mate. Brexiteers should have thought about that backstop before their campaign and came up with a proper solution BEFORE telling everyone that it'd be fine. They shouldn't have told lies to the public about how much the EU took, which regulations were their and which ones where their own, and I can continue on a bit on that.

I'm all for granting people with different opinions the right to disagree, but they have to be fair as well: the entire brexit process was a circus from the start. If they had their shit together, they could've convinced me that the EU was too bureaucratic, too complex, too self centered or even plain evil. Instead, they just showcased that one of the oldest democratic countries in the world (if not thé oldest) is flat out clueless.

 

[Reiten]

Wasn't Johnson one of the politicians, who could have become PM after the referendum. I recall him turning it down at that time, something about not being the right person to lead. So if not then, why now?

 

[notimp]

...but the UK does NOT have good negotiators. You can't negotiate when the goal post isn't clear. Say what you want about May, but at least she had a goal. Yes, Johnson had less time, but both he and parliament just threw away what she achieved.

Oh come on - you have diplomats and the public service branche, and a history of empire, a few centuries ago - there are bound to be some able people among the bunch that arent hardline Pro-EU folks.

Raid Oxford or Cambridge if you are short stocked..

Up until now you only were up in arms over the preliminary stuff. Basically - because there was a 'revolt' in the conservative party over goals - if that gets settled - you can move the process forward. Maybe Mays team was seen as 'too lax'. Maybe it was all about the internal power game.

During the time it took you to get no where in terms of brexit, you finished at least two other major trade deals for the times you will be separate from the EU. So stuff gets done. It just, that if you are only into public face politics, that you get the impression, that you can't do anything right. And public face politics is for the gossip section of the newspapers, and the everyman. (Real politics is often done by party strategists and diplomats.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also - and I should mention that. If you were to plan to ever reenter the EU in 20 years time - I couln't have set up Brexit more perfectly to do so myself. Three years of inaction to then end up at square one again (but with an exchanged negotiating team) - is, something (else).

 

[Taleweaver]

Lots of things happening the last couple of days. And not that much at the same time.

-Parliament voted on a law that basically prohibits the UK to leave the EU without a deal. It got passed. So the PM (Johnson) is going to have to ask for yet another extension if a deal isn't reached by then
-BoJo isn't happy with that. He'd rather die in a ditch than having to ask for another extension
-he also wanted a general election. Not too unsurprising, really: an election before the brexit it would only legitimize his power (at this point, a lot of the protests are about never having voted for Johnson to begin with).
-...unfortunately, the opposition only wants a general election AFTER asking for an extension. Politically, I can see the reason, but jezus...talk about powerplay. I'd almost feel sorry for Johnson(1).
On the other hand, the opposition has a point: Boris could indeed write out an election before the deadline...and then delay it until afterward (with parliament suspended, it's not like they can stop that). I'd say it's unlikely, but come on...it's not like he prorogues parliament for giggles.
-a bit of other news: France is really getting fed up with the prospect of yet another delay. Macron is thinking of throwing in a veto on yet another extension request.



I can't say I'm a fan of that part. Yes, I can understand Macron's frustration on the idea that yet another PM is going to come negotiate on something proclaimed non-negotiable by the EU and non-acceptable by UK's parliament (as if THAT is going to somehow make a difference ). But really: I think it's better to accept that the UK is going to be in some sort of eternal state of "not involved but still a member" concerning the EU. Because of course: the moment we (because of course all other EU members are going to follow suit) throw out the UK, then it's an all-out lose for the EU:
1) the result is an economic collapse. Then it OBVIOUSLY isn't the fault of the UK government, who just needed a few months extra on top of the full year of extension to fix everything.
2) the result is an economic boom in the UK. Then it OBVIOUSLY is thanks to the UK standing firm against the evils of those who threw them out for the very civil act of leaving the EU (but lingering in the doorway on the way out).

Yeah...no. Sorry, Emmanuel. But I disagree. Let them embarrass themselves a bit more. They'll grow tired of it eventually.



(1): except not really: if his statement that a no-deal brexit was only a one-in-a-million chance was true, then he still has 999'999 chances left to make a deal. So he shouldn't be a crybaby about it when it's been taken from him.

Wasn't Johnson one of the politicians, who could have become PM after the referendum. I recall him turning it down at that time, something about not being the right person to lead. So if not then, why now?

Sorry, but I recall things a bit different.

He was indeed in the running shortly after the referendum. But as was with his latest "election", it was all a matter of having enough support. And that's where things went wrong: at almost the latest second, Michael Gove (who was his support at that time) decided that he would no longer back Johnson and rather run for PM himself. This caused his following to split between either him and Gove, which resulted in a win for neither (quick link). It was one of the first stumbles in the brexit camp, and pretty likely the incident what caused the UK to end up with May (who was a bremainder) as prime minister.

@notimp: I...honestly have no idea if you're being ironic or not.

 

[notimp]

30% yes, mostly no.

I'm trying to bring in the pragmatic angle, because I'm bored after 3 years.. Probably.

 

[notimp]

Mitchell Ash (historian, author, professor of recent history at the university of Vienna) on the topic:

General issue. Representative vs. direct democracy. People wanted Brexit (remember you cant just repeat until your happy), peoples representatives (parliament) don't want Brexit 'at all cost'. The entire quarrel is about that difference. ('What that vote meant.')

BJs current strategy would be to fire left wing members of his own party - then provoke reelections, tailoring a narrative - where all party differences wouldnt count for much - but It would be an election campaign 'for or against' 'real brexit'.

In doing so he should be able to gain back rightwing voters, which left the conservative party in rather large numbers in recent elections - so this would be a 'reunification' attempt.

Current polls indicate that this strategy is reasonable and hard to counter for the british left - who would have to forge alliances between Labor and Libdems, and bring their voters to vote for the one of the two in relevant districts - that would be more likely to win. So dissolve party politics to counter it - basically.

According to pollsters, BJs current strategy could make sense. People on the far right would come back to the tories more likely - and this is something they very much would want to happen anyhow.

(Much of the conflict about Brexit in the past years was national politics, as in 'a quarrel within the Tories' - that had them significantly split - which historically is rather rare).

Roughly translated from german -
original src:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000108423977/brexit-chaos-oder-hinterlist

 

[Reiten]

Sorry, but I recall things a bit different.

You' re right, seems like I remembered it a bit wrongly. I mostly remember Johnson and Farage jumping ship after the referendum. After reading the news you provided, seems like Johnson was somewhat forced from the PM at that time. Well thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Taleweaver]

So...UK government really stroke a Pyrrhic victory, it seems.

Yes, parliament is suspended. But they got their important votes held and voted for. Boris Johnson straight up lost all six out of his proposals. That's...pretty tough on him, especially considering that these are ALL his proposals in parliament. That's a historical low.

Even more interesting: the Scottish court of session has ruled in favor of the opposition, who claimed that Johnson's proroguing of parliament was done under false pretenses. Or to put it more colorfully: he lied to the queen about his reasons.

While I agree with parliament that the timing for a prorogation is all but coincidental, I think this course of reasoning is, frankly, overrated. It's not like these suspicions weren't voiced the moment the idea was brought up. I thought (and thus far, still do) that invoking the queen's opinion was a great move. And that is also because of the way this gets battled. Saying that Johnson invoked the prorogation under false premises is implying that the queen is too dumb to see right through whatever Johnson told him. The queen doesn't live under a rock, so if she agreed to it, you've got to come with some convincing evidence of lies.

And yes, I know opposition demanded all communication regarding this parliament suspension from the involved party members (including Dominic Cummings(1) ), but afaik either those aren't handed over or there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in them.


To make matters more complex...the Scottish court's ruling is apparently an important one, but it's unclear to me just HOW important. It's not the only court in the UK, but how they relate to each other is rather unclear to me. So at this point I can but gather that there is a chance that parliament will be reopened soon, depending on what the other court(s) say. But I honestly can't say anything on the chance of that happening, nor on what the repercussions would be for the government if this reasoning is accepted.

(I mean...illegally removing parliament? Sure, it's not the sort of crime you see every day, but how would you even punish a government for doing something like that?)


EDIT: forgot one part. The speaker of the house, John Bercow (aka: "OOORRRRRDAAAAAAAARRRRRR" ) has announced his retirement. Kind of a pity, as imho he is the perfect referee in this circus. On the other hand, he's been doing that job for a very long time, so I can't really blame him.



(1): who the fuck is Dominic Cummings anyway? My local newspaper brings him up as being "the guy who pulls Johnson's strings", but thus far I mostly read that as speculation from reporters.

 

[notimp]

Saying that Johnson invoked the prorogation under false premises is implying that the queen is too dumb to see right through whatever Johnson told him.

I've now heared other opinions, that the queen is simply yolo and just dont care - like she (her cabinet) would literally sign anything you give her, just to be able to - at face value - remain impartial (and have no perceived political power).

(In colorful words, but more or less.)

Why you'd have such a separation of power thingy there then strikes me as odd though.

So in effect you are probably talking about backchannels here. So when a proposal goes this route it triggers something that has a few back benchers talk to each other and... Usually (in our country) the presidential office, has much more of a facilitating and public affairs kind of role. So they make sure, that different branches talk to each other f.e., or fastlane certain issues.

Regardless, in this case its mostly fluff, because parliament could counter it, so there were legal (creative) ways to do so, it just raised pressure. So for the overall notion/issue at hand its not that important.


The new puzzler now maybe is, why BJ is firing his own party members, to now have less of a chance of getting what he wants - one possible explaination is, pandering to the far right on produced elections ('look, I didnt compromise'), the other explaination would be - he is dumb and thinks its necessary symbol politics to be able to remain 'strong'.

What the. Shambles.

I'd rather watch fawlty towers. Ping me if something of importance happens.

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay...it's getting to the point where I just want cameras in those negotiation chambers, because it's just getting silly.
...more so than usual. Not quite "Donald Trump" silly, but it's heading there.

BJ was in Luxemburg yesterday. They had a scheduled press meeting outside. This was public, so some were present to boo Johnson for his parcours (or for brexit in general). So BJ doesn't want to get out there. I can understand that, and IMHO it's not in our EU favor that the Luxemburg prime minister doesn't want to hold one indoors, but rather goes out by himself with an empty seat next to him (gotta give brexiteers points for this: that sort of humiliation isn't helping anyone).
The interesting part is that he says that BJ is just running out the clock. That he has nothing new to say, doesn't put anything on paper, and that the best their team is doing is just making sure that communication lines are open (which at least they have the decency to admit that this ought to be common sense).

...but meanwhile, BJ holds an interview with sky news in which he claims that there is actual progress being made.

So...WTF is this? What's the point of negotiations if both sides come out with completely different visions of what's going on in there?
This is the point where the media gotta draw the line. Tie UK and EU negotiators literally together if they have to. But this sort of stupidity has to stop. I'd say "NOW!!!", but it should never have started to begin with.