Brexit Encore

[jeremyrh]

Can Parliament still stop Brexit?  What's the point of all this and what does it mean?

"Boris Johnson Seeks to Stifle Brexit Opposition With Surprise Parliamentary Delay"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament.html

It means that the time available for Parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit (for which there is no mandate at all) has been considerably reduced, since "leave, come what may" is the legal default to happen on Oct 31.

What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit. I don't think even Trump would manage to do this - perhaps as a result of the Constitution rather than any restraint or appreciation of democracy.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit...

As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.

P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...

[Alan Klein]

It means that the time available for Parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit (for which there is no mandate at all) has been considerably reduced, since "leave, come what may" is the legal default to happen on Oct 31.

What it means beyond that is that the PM is behaving like a dictator, preventing scrutiny of and objection to his projects by the elected representatives of the people. It means that there is a coup d'etat by a wealthy clique of Eton old boys who are using non-democratic tactics to their own benefit. I don't think even Trump would manage to do this - perhaps as a result of the Constitution rather than any restraint or appreciation of democracy.

The US Constitution set it up so that the Executive Branch of government run by the President and the Legislative Branch run by Congress, were co-equal branches.  The founders wanted divided government; a separation of powers that would weaken central government.  A weaker central government would be less likely to interfere in the people's freedoms.  Here's a good essay on divided government compared to parliamentary government where the powers are co-joined.   I'm in favor of a separate party in control of Congress and the other the executive.  Gridlock is good.  Less stupid laws get passed.  Politicians cause less trouble. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States

Getting back to Brexit, can parliament still stop it?

[Alan Klein]

As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.

P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...

Why did parliament disapprove May's Brexit agreement three times? 

[Rob C]

As long as his moves are legal, i.e., envisaged by the British system, not someone's personal ideas what democracy is, it is democratic.

P.S. Those "elected representatives of the people" could not find a way out of a paper bag in the last three years, so...

The latest head honcho was not elected by the people; he was selected as visibly most radical (and funny enough to charm the populace and bring about total withdrawal) by the inner sanctum of the Conservative Party who then had it rubber-stamped by the rest of the sheep on pain of death or, worse, expulsion from their chosen career path.

As for the move being envisaged by the British system: I doubt that winning by purposely forcing Parliament to run out of time is an accepted way of doing politics in the land formerly known as Great Britain or, if you rather, the United Kingdom.

It is, of course, a great object lesson for all the other mini-tyrants and/or dictators around the world to study, and from which to learn. Or was it the other way around?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The latest head honcho was not elected by the people...

Neither is any other previous British PM.

On a side note, is the Queen also a part of that "tyrants/dictators of the world, unite" conspiracy?

[Alan Klein]

Parliament had years to vote down Brexit.  To complain they don;t have another week or two to do it seems strangely petty.  Who are they kidding?  The Queen probably agreed with the PM to shut down Parliament because she's just as tired as everyone else about this thing and just wants to get on with it.  I think someone heard her mumbling, "Enough already.  I don't have that many more years."

[Alan Klein]

Neither is any other previous British PM.

...

You mean their system is worse than our electoral system?

[James Clark]

Maybe the people are not well informed enough to make a balanced decision about whether someone has the capabilities to do the job, and "the system" is fully aware of that problem? It could reduce the risk of a populist getting more power than is smart for a nation.

A populist getting *any* degree of power is generally bad for a nation...

[Alan Klein]

Maybe the people are not well informed enough to make a balanced decision about whether someone has the capabilities to do the job, and "the system" is fully aware of that problem? It could reduce the risk of a populist getting more power than is smart for a nation.

It didn't seem to work in Britain. 🤔

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A populist getting *any* degree of power is generally bad for a nation...

A populist is someone who does what populus (people) want. Seems like a definition of democracy to me, no?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Which part of the populus?

The majority.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It is, of course, a great object lesson for all the other mini-tyrants and/or dictators around the world to study, and from which to learn. Or was it the other way around?

Rob,

I think I found a solution for you, a defense from all those mofos:

 

[jeremyrh]

Neither is any other previous British PM.

In theory, but its very rare for a PM not to have stood for election as the leader of the party and hence the PM designate. Incidentally when a Labour PM was not elected as such Johnson went on a rant about how disgraceful it was. One rule for the plebs and another for the Estonians.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In theory, but it's very rare for a PM not to have stood for election as the leader of the party and hence the PM designate....

Correct. However, there is a long-standing procedure in place when a PM resigns, and it is not to call a general election, but to let the party decide on the replacement. Nothing new or unusual here.

[jeremyrh]

Why did parliament disapprove May's Brexit agreement three times?

A variety of reasons - for the right it was largely because the agreement kept us too close to Europe eg part of the Customs Union until such time as an arrangement in Ireland could be worked out ( the so-called backstop). For the left it was because we would be too far away from the EU with consequences for business and jobs. That is a simplification of course but the essence is there.

[jeremyrh]

Correct. However, there is a long-standing procedure in place when a PM resigns, and it is not to call a general election, but to let the party decide on the replacement. Nothing new or unusual here.

Also correct. But as I mentioned, Johnson complained very loudly about it when Labour did it. Hypocrite!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And that means for the minority, what?

The minority has to suck it up.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Hypocrite!!

Politician!

[jeremyrh]

Parliament had years to vote down Brexit.  To complain they don;t have another week or two to do it seems strangely petty.  Who are they kidding? 

You are partly correct. The reason Parliament didn't vote down Brexit, or didn't get a version of an agreement that they couid agree to, was that when the chips were down Conservative MPs voted according to Party instructions rather than according to the good of the country, so they gave May the excuse to carry N with her unworkable plan.