Brexit

[DBTrek]

Maybe we need to start a betting pool - How many BREXIT votes until the "right" results are returned and Brits can finally stop voting on it.

[C-Mag]

Maybe we need to start a betting pool - How many BREXIT votes until the "right" results are returned and Brits can finally stop voting on it.

Quick, get a Forklift and bring in Al Gore, were going to recount Florida again.

[Montegriffo]

Is Theresa May going to get the axe now that she's failed so miserably?

It occurs to me that you got your second vote on BREXIT and it failed too. The BREXIT plan May put together had so many trojan horses built in that it would have effectively nullified the peoples vote on BREXIT. The English Reps voted and said, no T-May, you don't get to do that, we actually want a real BREXIT.

Are you really sure you know why May's Brexit plan was turned down?
I'll help you out a bit by explaining the nuances.
Hardcore Brexiteers such as Rees Mog, Gove and Boris rejected it for a number of reasons including wanting an extreme no-deal Brexit to avoid paying the divorce bill (Rees Mog said that out loud on James O'Brien's LBC show yesterday). Also, all three of them want to replace May as PM.
Labour MPs rejected it because they wanted to force a general election through a vote of no confidence (which they just lost a few minutes ago by 325 to 306).
Lib Dem MPs rejected it because they don't want to leave and have been openly campaigning to remain.
DUP MPs and members from all the major parties rejected it because of the backstop clause which is a total fudge that risks the 20-year-old peace process in NI.

May's deal guaranteed an end to free movement, an end to regulation from Brussels and fulfilled the requirements of leaving the EU.

No one has a plan B. Labour and Conservative ministers have repeatedly refused to say what their next move would be if the exit plan agreed between the government and the EU failed to pass.

As for May's future, to quote an overused cliche, ''she can't keep getting away with it''.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Queen should just abolish Parliament at this point.

[BjornP]

No one has been able to show that leaving the UK will be better for the economy than staying.
No one has even been able to come up with an acceptable plan of how to leave.
Many have shown that crashing out with no deal will be catastrophic.
Project fear is a conspiracy theory concocted by people with no argument.

"Better for the economy" is not always such a great argument, Monte. You mentioned in this or some other thread to StA recently you went to anti-apartheid protests when you were young. Well, if the afrikaans had stayed in power the SA could have been better, too. Those sanctions back then weren't "good for the economy", either... so... maybe realize that that particular argument has its limitations?

Sure, some people voted out purely on grounds of immigration.

Most voted because they were worried about the question of (lessening of) British sovereignty. As in they had voted out because they were worried about the direction the EU's taken since Britain joined and how it might affect future British sovereignty. But hey, it's easier to just jump straight to the clueless racists who just don't get that

I cut the rest of your post because it, again, just referenced your apparant view that it should be economic motivations that trump all other factors.

[Montegriffo]

The Queen should just abolish Parliament at this point.

She doesn't have that power constitutionally, in practice and the government just won a vote of no confidence.
The Queen only gets to dissolve the government at the request of Parliament after a general election.

Absolute monarchy was abolished by parliament after the civil war and her head would roll (figuratively speaking) if she tried.

[C-Mag]

Nuanced



Hey, if you guys are happy with May, I'm cool with it.
But if there are Freeom Fighters who want to overthrow the tyrant T-May, we'll supply them with weapons. In the US we support Regime Change. Press has given us a blank check...........that Checque to you. For Regime change. Gotta stay in Syria to Regime Change, I'm suggesting we follow the terrorists that left Syria to France, Germany and England and complete the Regime Change.

Good enough for Iraq, Libya an Syria, good enough for the Eurozone.

[Montegriffo]

"Better for the economy" is not always such a great argument, Monte. You mentioned in this or some other thread to StA recently you went to anti-apartheid protests when you were young. Well, if the afrikaans had stayed in power the SA could have been better, too. Those sanctions back then weren't "good for the economy", either... so... maybe realize that that particular argument has its limitations?

Sure, some people voted out purely on grounds of immigration.

Most voted because they were worried about the question of (lessening of) British sovereignty. As in they had voted out because they were worried about the direction the EU's taken since Britain joined and how it might affect future British sovereignty. But hey, it's easier to just jump straight to the clueless racists who just don't get that

I cut the rest of your post because it, again, just referenced your apparant view that it should be economic motivations that trump all other factors.

You have no evidence for the reasons most people voted to leave.
There were multiple reasons varying from fears over sovereignty to disaffection with Tory austerity policies. Reasons also included immigration, rules about the bendiness of bananas (although none actually exist) and lies about £350 million pounds a week to spend on the NHS.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Queen should just abolish Parliament at this point.

She doesn't have that power constitutionally, in practice and the government just won a vote of no confidence.
The Queen only gets to dissolve the government at the request of Parliament after a general election.

Absolute monarchy was abolished by parliament after the civil war and her head would roll (figuratively speaking) if she tried.

Says here:

One of the monarch's historic prerogatives was the dissolution of Parliament, which was "perhaps the most important residual prerogative exercised personally by the sovereign, and represents the greatest potential for controversy."[15] This prerogative was normally exercised at the request of Parliament and the prime minister, either at his or her discretion or following a motion of no confidence. Constitutional theorists have had differing views as to whether a unilateral dissolution of Parliament would be possible today; Sir Ivor Jennings wrote that a dissolution involves "the acquiescence of ministers", and as such the monarch could not dissolve Parliament without ministerial consent; "if ministers refuse to give such advice, she can do no more than dismiss them". A. V. Dicey, however, believed that in certain extreme circumstances the monarch could dissolve Parliament single-handedly, on the condition that "an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors... A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation."[16]

The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would inevitably lead to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1708 during the reign of Queen Anne when she withheld royal assent from the Scottish Militia Bill. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died: George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent".[17] The royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament was abrogated by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Section 6(1) of the Act however specifically states that the monarch's power to prorogue Parliament is not affected by the Act.[ambiguous]

The appointment of the prime minister is also, theoretically, governed by the royal prerogative. Technically the monarch may appoint as prime minister anyone she wants to appoint, but in practice the appointee is always the person who commands a majority in the House of Commons. Usually, this is the leader of the political party that is returned to Parliament with a majority of seats after a general election. Difficulties may result with a so-called hung parliament, in which no party commands majority support, as last occurred in 2017. In this situation, constitutional convention is that the previous incumbent has the first right to form a coalition government and seek appointment.[18] If the prime minister decides to retire in the middle of a parliamentary session, as Anthony Eden did in 1957, the monarch has no discretion. There is usually a "prime minister-in-waiting" who commands the support of the majority of the Commons; he or she will near-automatically be appointed.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_pre ... egislature

I dunno. Seems like she does. But maybe there is no saving your dumpster fire of an island at this point anyway.

[Montegriffo]

Nuanced



Hey, if you guys are happy with May, I'm cool with it.
But if there are Freeom Fighters who want to overthrow the tyrant T-May, we'll supply them with weapons. In the US we support Regime Change. Press has given us a blank check...........that Checque to you. For Regime change. Gotta stay in Syria to Regime Change, I'm suggesting we follow the terrorists that left Syria to France, Germany and England and complete the Regime Change.

Good enough for Iraq, Libya an Syria, good enough for the Eurozone.

Almost nobody is happy with May but she has now survived a vote of confidence from the Conservative 1922 backbench committee (the Tory procedural method of removing unwanted leaders) and a vote of no confidence in the Commons (the procedure for the opposition party to force a general election).
It appears that she will remain in power until the next scheduled GE in 2022 unless she chooses to step down of her own accord.

Apparently ''she can keep getting away with it''.