Brexit and General UK politics thread

[ray245]

You don't resolve a constitutional crisis by adding an even larger constitutional crisis to the existing problem.

You don't beat fascism by constantly giving into it because standing up to it might be too controversial.

They thrive on their opponents resorting to desperate measures. Boris Johnson is gambling on winning an re-election on the basis on presenting his faction of the Tories as the party of the people against the elitist Labour and Lib Dem living in London. And he could potential win because a lot of traditional Northern Labour voters do want Brexit at all cost.

Does playing into his hands helps things at all?

The existing First-past-the-post system benefits Boris Johnson because the number of seats that might vote for him can outnumber the seats that are firmly in the remain camp. He doesn't need to win an outright majority to get re-elected. He just need to win enough constituencies from Labour in the pro-Brexit area.

[Vendetta]

Point of order: The UK is already in a constitutional crisis in the middle of Brexit, and by allowing a hostile prorogation when it is known not to be the will of the parliament queenie has allowed it to continue (partly because whatever she actually did would be a constitutional crisis anyway, but this one is still Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson*'s making).


* Who should be referred to by his full name to remind everyone what an unspeakable toff he is.

You don't resolve a constitutional crisis by adding an even larger constitutional crisis to the existing problem. What purpose does it serve? The people pushing for Brexit is already buying into the idea that the "elite politicians" at Westminster is taking power away from them. Asking a Monarch to put a stop to Brexit is most certainly not helping things at all.

I think this is the category error of thinking that they're two different constitutional crises rather than just permutations of the same one, which is whether government can ignore parliament and what legal recourses there are for stopping it from doing so.

If queenie had decided to decline prorogation the crisis would be "is this the right way to stop this improper action?", as she didn't the crisis is still "this action is improper".

[ray245]

Point of order: The UK is already in a constitutional crisis in the middle of Brexit, and by allowing a hostile prorogation when it is known not to be the will of the parliament queenie has allowed it to continue (partly because whatever she actually did would be a constitutional crisis anyway, but this one is still Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson*'s making).


* Who should be referred to by his full name to remind everyone what an unspeakable toff he is.

You don't resolve a constitutional crisis by adding an even larger constitutional crisis to the existing problem. What purpose does it serve? The people pushing for Brexit is already buying into the idea that the "elite politicians" at Westminster is taking power away from them. Asking a Monarch to put a stop to Brexit is most certainly not helping things at all.

I think this is the category error of thinking that they're two different constitutional crises rather than just permutations of the same one, which is whether government can ignore parliament and what legal recourses there are for stopping it from doing so.

If queenie had decided to decline prorogation the crisis would be "is this the right way to stop this improper action?", as she didn't the crisis is still "this action is improper".

It is different because all of a sudden the monarch is politically empowered after centuries of disempowerment.

The question of whether the queen is acting on behalf of the people or acting as an unelected monarch is going to create more chaos to the current Brexit issue. A monarch that cannot be politically neutral is not a constitutional monarch any longer.

[ray245]

I would like to point out even if the role of the head of state is elected and not hereditary, their role will still be limited to a mere ceremonial figure.

[Vendetta]

It is different because all of a sudden the monarch is politically empowered after centuries of disempowerment.

The question of whether the queen is acting on behalf of the people or acting as an unelected monarch is going to create more chaos to the current Brexit issue. A monarch that cannot be politically neutral is not a constitutional monarch any longer.

Not really. The difference is who the monarch takes advice from if the two are in conflict.

Either outcome is not "queenie is individually politically empowered", it's "does the monarch side with parliament or government if the two are in conflict", and there are valid constitutional arguments for both (parliament is sovereign, but the tradition is that the prime minister is parliament's interface with the monarch).

[ray245]

Not really. The difference is who the monarch takes advice from if the two are in conflict.

Either outcome is not "queenie is individually politically empowered", it's "does the monarch side with parliament or government if the two are in conflict", and there are valid constitutional arguments for both (parliament is sovereign, but the tradition is that the prime minister is parliament's interface with the monarch).

That still requires an actual parliamentary majority on paper and impose certain legislation against the current government. But the parliament has as of yet convene to make any of this possible. And technically, the parliament do have the time to legislate on this, which is what Corbyn is planning to do next Tuesday.

So getting upset over the Queen formally approving of Boris Johnson's plan is not doing anything other than whining about how evil the queen is.

[Tiriol]

Not really. The difference is who the monarch takes advice from if the two are in conflict.

Either outcome is not "queenie is individually politically empowered", it's "does the monarch side with parliament or government if the two are in conflict", and there are valid constitutional arguments for both (parliament is sovereign, but the tradition is that the prime minister is parliament's interface with the monarch).

That still requires an actual parliamentary majority on paper and impose certain legislation against the current government. But the parliament has as of yet convene to make any of this possible. And technically, the parliament do have the time to legislate on this, which is what Corbyn is planning to do next Tuesday.

So getting upset over the Queen formally approving of Boris Johnson's plan is not doing anything other than whining about how evil the queen is.

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

I would like to point out even if the role of the head of state is elected and not hereditary, their role will still be limited to a mere ceremonial figure.

Are you talking about the UK in specific or as a general rule? Because a lot of head of states (Russia, France, US etc.) do have a lot more power than being mere ceremonial figures.

[Captain Seafort]

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

No. The convention, established over many centuries, is that the Monarch follows the advice of their chief minister, not Parliament as a body. In this case, for the Queen to have done anything but follow her chief minister's (entirely legal, and in any other circumstances utterly unremarkable) advice would have been to abandon her political neutrality at a time when that neutrality is more important than ever.

[Tiriol]

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

No. The convention, established over many centuries, is that the Monarch follows the advice of their chief minister, not Parliament as a body. In this case, for the Queen to have done anything but follow her chief minister's (entirely legal, and in any other circumstances utterly unremarkable) advice would have been to abandon her political neutrality at a time when that neutrality is more important than ever.

As I thought (and I think I even remarked as such a page or two back). So the Parliament's only hope is to bring down Johnson's government promptly and elect a new Prime Minister, who could advice the Queen not to do this silly thing.

It must be pretty terrible to have to follow the advice of a man who could and should be replaced with a bent spoon (and still get better advice, silence is better than idiocy) even when you yourself know that what he advices is idiotic to the extreme.

[ray245]

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

As far as I understand about UK's unwritten constitution, no. The UK constitution operates more on precedence, so anything that has not been done before is simply not done because doing so will be unconstitutional.

Are you talking about the UK in specific or as a general rule? Because a lot of head of states (Russia, France, US etc.) do have a lot more power than being mere ceremonial figures.

I'm talking about parliamentary democracy based on the UK system. Singapore's political system is largely similar to the UK's system, as it was based on it. Instead of a hereditary monarch as the head of state, our system elects a president. While the Singaporean presidency technically has more powers than the British monarch (control over the nation's reserve), ultimately they are just a figurehead and ceremonial figure.

If you want to know how chaotic things can turn out when a UK-style ceremonial head of state figure decides to directly intervene in politics, look at Australia in 1975.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Au ... nal_crisis

TRR is being pedantic about the whole issue of the queen acceding to Boris Johnson's request. The British monarch absolutely must follow established precedence because that's UK's constitution. What Boris Johnson is doing is already sparking off a constitutional crisis because he's done something that's never been done before in terms of how long he is prorouging the parliament.

The monarch refusing his request would be an even bigger constitutional crisis, and one that can easily benefit Boris Johnson. Because even if the queen refused to do so, the UK might be so embroiled in such a massive constitutional crisis that no legislative body can resolve Brexit before October 31st and the UK still tumble out with a no deal.

So Yes TRR is willing to risk things becoming even worse just so he can beat his chest about how awesome he is that he is able to label the monarchy as being in complete cahoots with Boris Johnson. He's willing to make the monarchy more powerful just because he didn't get the political results he wished for. I think he's an extremely tribalistic idiot that will sabotage people's lives and undermine the progressive movements because he is unable to see the world does not operate in a way that a 5 year old child would want it to be.

What purpose does it serve for the UK to be in a midst of a massive constitutional crisis a month before the Brexit no-deal deadline? Does TRR even care about the political consequences of what he wants from the Queen? He said he doesn't care about the opinions of the British, so what exactly is he doing that's actually helping the people actually living here?

[Captain Seafort]

It must be pretty terrible to have to follow the advice of a man who could and should be replaced with a bent spoon (and still get better advice, silence is better than idiocy) even when you yourself know that what he advices is idiotic to the extreme.

She's had an awful lot of practice with that situation (about seven decades, give or take), and the current incumbent is probably the best option currently available.

[Tiriol]

It must be pretty terrible to have to follow the advice of a man who could and should be replaced with a bent spoon (and still get better advice, silence is better than idiocy) even when you yourself know that what he advices is idiotic to the extreme.

She's had an awful lot of practice with that situation (about seven decades, give or take), and the current incumbent is probably the best option currently available.

Best option? I doubt it. But yes, she has had a whole lot of practice.

[ray245]

It must be pretty terrible to have to follow the advice of a man who could and should be replaced with a bent spoon (and still get better advice, silence is better than idiocy) even when you yourself know that what he advices is idiotic to the extreme.

She's had an awful lot of practice with that situation (about seven decades, give or take), and the current incumbent is probably the best option currently available.

Best option? I doubt it. But yes, she has had a whole lot of practice.

What would be the best option in your mind?

[Tiriol]

She's had an awful lot of practice with that situation (about seven decades, give or take), and the current incumbent is probably the best option currently available.

Best option? I doubt it. But yes, she has had a whole lot of practice.

What would be the best option in your mind?

At this point I'd be prepared to give just about anyone else a shot at this. Even Corbyn, despite his flip-flopping attitude towards Brexit.

[LaCroix]

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

There are a couple, none very likely.

There is the possibility to vote on creating a "humble address" - parliament sendin an official message to the Queen to convey the message that the parliament is in fact opposed to the actions of the prime minister, and to please reconsider.

There is legel action possible about declaring the advice the Queen acted on "invalid", and thus make her retract the order.

They can oust Johnston, get a new prime minister, and he can revoke the prorogation.

But all of this is quite hard to do in that week and a half they have till prorogation hits.

On the other hand, they could literally sit on the Speaker to prevent him from standing after the prorogation order (that's when the session is officially ended) ... see 1629...

[Tiriol]

On the other hand, they could literally sit on the Speaker to prevent him from standing after the prorogation order (that's when the session is officially ended) ... see 1629...

This one would be morbidly hilarious. I can imagine the Speaker bellowing while a bunch of people sit on his lap to stop him from standing up. The Twitter parody account for the current Speaker would have a field day with it.

[LaCroix]

On the other hand, they could literally sit on the Speaker to prevent him from standing after the prorogation order (that's when the session is officially ended) ... see 1629...

This one would be morbidly hilarious. I can imagine the Speaker bellowing while a bunch of people sit on his lap to stop him from standing up. The Twitter parody account for the current Speaker would have a field day with it.

ORRRRRDAAAAAAAA!

Honestly, I could imagine Bercow playing along with that. He's that kind of guy who would find it hillarious.

[ray245]

At this point I'd be prepared to give just about anyone else a shot at this. Even Corbyn, despite his flip-flopping attitude towards Brexit.

So you would as the monarch make Corbyn or leaders of other parties the prime minster? Would it be worth a constitutional crisis one month before Brexit?

[Gandalf]

How can you have a constitutional crisis when there's barely a constitution?

[Tiriol]

At this point I'd be prepared to give just about anyone else a shot at this. Even Corbyn, despite his flip-flopping attitude towards Brexit.

So you would as the monarch make Corbyn or leaders of other parties the prime minster? Would it be worth a constitutional crisis one month before Brexit?

Easy enough: all the Parliament has to do is to show that a majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. It would de facto mean that the current Prime Minister no longer enjoys the support of the Parliament (which might actually, at this point, be true).

I don't think that's going to happen, though. The UK is going to crash and burn.

[ray245]

How can you have a constitutional crisis when there's barely a constitution?

UK does not have a written constitution. Instead it relies very very heavily on established precedence on how things ought to go. For a monarch to be political neutral would be a radical change that provokes extreme uncertainty over the role of a constitutional monarch.

Again, if you want a picture of how messy things can get, look at what happened when the Australian governor-general dismissed the existing Prime Minister. Something on par with that level of chaos will further limit the window for stopping no-deal Brexit.

Easy enough: all the Parliament has to do is to show that a majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. It would de facto mean that the current Prime Minister no longer enjoys the support of the Parliament (which might actually, at this point, be true).

I don't think that's going to happen, though. The UK is going to crash and burn.

That STILL requires the parliament to show that the majority of MPs support Corbyn or other PM hopeful. The problem is those opposed to no-deal Brexit is still extremely, extremely divided over the prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister. So even if the Queen really do want to take the Prime Minister position away from Boris Johnson, it still requires the MPs busy fighting with each other to actually come to an agreement.

The queen cannot do anything if those oppose to Brexit cannot come to an agreement with each other. Jo Swinson had been extremely extremely unwilling to throw her support behind Corbyn, and that also applies to a number of Tory party rebels.

The idea that the Queen can do anything to stop no-deal Brexit is idealistic daydreams. The days of monarch with actual powers is over and they are now just a person rubber-stamping everything that comes their way and is not allowed to reject anything that comes their way. The existing monarchy might project an image of having power, but aside from their wealth and doing some hand-waving to the public, they have no actual power to speak of. People outside of the UK really should understand all that power is really just a mere facade.


The monarch is also explicitly prohibited from expressing any view that might deem to be too political.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.

As far as I understand about UK's unwritten constitution, no. The UK constitution operates more on precedence, so anything that has not been done before is simply not done because doing so will be unconstitutional.

Are you talking about the UK in specific or as a general rule? Because a lot of head of states (Russia, France, US etc.) do have a lot more power than being mere ceremonial figures.

I'm talking about parliamentary democracy based on the UK system. Singapore's political system is largely similar to the UK's system, as it was based on it. Instead of a hereditary monarch as the head of state, our system elects a president. While the Singaporean presidency technically has more powers than the British monarch (control over the nation's reserve), ultimately they are just a figurehead and ceremonial figure.

If you want to know how chaotic things can turn out when a UK-style ceremonial head of state figure decides to directly intervene in politics, look at Australia in 1975.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Au ... nal_crisis

TRR is being pedantic about the whole issue of the queen acceding to Boris Johnson's request. The British monarch absolutely must follow established precedence because that's UK's constitution. What Boris Johnson is doing is already sparking off a constitutional crisis because he's done something that's never been done before in terms of how long he is prorouging the parliament.

The monarch refusing his request would be an even bigger constitutional crisis, and one that can easily benefit Boris Johnson. Because even if the queen refused to do so, the UK might be so embroiled in such a massive constitutional crisis that no legislative body can resolve Brexit before October 31st and the UK still tumble out with a no deal.

So Yes TRR is willing to risk things becoming even worse just so he can beat his chest about how awesome he is that he is able to label the monarchy as being in complete cahoots with Boris Johnson. He's willing to make the monarchy more powerful just because he didn't get the political results he wished for. I think he's an extremely tribalistic idiot that will sabotage people's lives and undermine the progressive movements because he is unable to see the world does not operate in a way that a 5 year old child would want it to be.

What purpose does it serve for the UK to be in a midst of a massive constitutional crisis a month before the Brexit no-deal deadline? Does TRR even care about the political consequences of what he wants from the Queen? He said he doesn't care about the opinions of the British, so what exactly is he doing that's actually helping the people actually living here?

Alright, listen up you little donkey-fucker:

I answered your points. I explained my motivations. You, however, continue to post lengthy posts that basically consist of taking pot-shots at me, assigning me motives so you can smear my character and ad hominem me, and then having the gall to accuse me of grand standing to make myself look good. This isn't about "how awesome I am"- I'm some random asshole on the internet, just like you, and if I was looking for adulation, I certainly wouldn't be posting my political views on a board where I am routinely abused for doing.

I should have thought my motives were quite clear: I'm anti-fascist, and I'm sick of seeing people roll over and give the fascists what they want to "avoid a crisis" when the crisis is already fucking here. The next time you assign motivations to me or put words in my mouth, I will report your ass for lying.

Now fuck off, you self-righteous little shit.

I know you're probably trying to bait me, but fuck it. The only person grandstanding to try to make themselves look better here is you, because "Calling out that nasty TRR" is an easy way to score brownie points with certain people on this board. You're just a bully going after an unpopular target who drew attention to himself, because that's what bullies do.

[ray245]

Sod off. You are willing to make the lives of people here worse just for the sake of feeling good about anti-facists. You know I'm a big target for the far-right in the UK as a migrant of non-white ethnic background?

If what you're doing is actively making things more difficult for me, I have every right to be pissed off at you being a self-righteous asshole.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. The convention, established over many centuries, is that the Monarch follows the advice of their chief minister, not Parliament as a body. In this case, for the Queen to have done anything but follow her chief minister's (entirely legal, and in any other circumstances utterly unremarkable) advice would have been to abandon her political neutrality at a time when that neutrality is more important than ever.

Out of curiosity, is there any hypothetical situation you could imagine where you think it would be appropriate for the monarch to abandon their neutrality? That is, what sort of crisis could occur that would make the leverage of the monarch's extreme cultural (if not overt political) influence a good idea?

I know you're probably trying to bait me, but fuck it. The only person grandstanding to try to make themselves look better here is you, because "Calling out that nasty TRR" is an easy way to score brownie points with certain people on this board. You're just a bully going after an unpopular target who drew attention to himself, because that's what bullies do.

Dude, both he and several other posters have raised very clear and cogent arguments explaining why they disagree with you. You haven't addressed any of them, all you have done is shriek about how everybody is being mean to you. Hell, nobody is even expecting you to agree with those arguments, just to at least acknowledge them and why people might feel differently than you. This persecution complex of yours is getting really out of hand. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are intentionally trying to fuck with you to entertain some cabal of rabid anti-TRR board members.

[Captain Seafort]

Out of curiosity, is there any hypothetical situation you could imagine where you think it would be appropriate for the monarch to abandon their neutrality? That is, what sort of crisis could occur that would make the leverage of the monarch's extreme cultural (if not overt political) influence a good idea?

The only situation where I can envision the monarch getting directly involved would be if the PM goes nuts and decides they want to nuke someone because they got out on the wrong side of bed that morning. In which case I believe the procedure is the PM orders the Chief of Defence Staff to launch the strike, the CDS decides the PM's gone nuts, tells the monarch, and requests confirmation of the order. In that scenario, since the monarch is in the chain of command and the PM isn't, the monarch can tell the CDS to hold fire and arrest the now ex-PM (for their own safety if nothing else). The next most senior member of the government (Deputy PM, 1st Secretary of State, or whoever the civil service/governing party chair advises) gets a summons to the Palace, has their sanity checked, is told to form a government, and normal politics resumes.