Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

If it keeps those who would basically burn it all down just to get a quick buck from getting power? Sadly yes.

The trade off is you have to hope there isn't a Charles I in power.

That is what the other branches are for.

[ray245]

That is what the other branches are for.

So democracy shouldn't matter?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

That is what the other branches are for.

So democracy shouldn't matter?

In the grand scheme of things, sadly yes know due to the human condition. Each branch has to check the other two in case of a situation like this where those in charge of a branch that would rather let the world burn so they can profit off the ashes (if a profit motive is involved) at best.

The sad truth here is that Hobbes and Locke (who has been consistently been more of a 'Hobbes lite' than a liberal in the more traditional sense) are far closer to the human condition than what others have proposed.

[madd0ct0r]

"French police have begun an operation to evacuate a gymnasium and a tent camp near the northern port of Dunkirk amid an increase in migrants trying to cross the Channel.
Some 1,000 people, many of them Iraqi Kurds, have been living on the Grande Synthe site.
The gym was made available for migrants seeking shelter by the town last year.
Now a court has ordered the gym to be closed to migrants because of local complaints.
There are fears this may all prompt a further spike in crossings to England.
At the weekend 41 people were stopped in three small boats and a kayak by UK border officials, and 86 people were intercepted a week ago by the UK's Border Force. A further 29 migrants were stopped as they headed towards the Kent coast on Monday."

And on a less dispiriting note, the days argument over BJ's premature and lengthy porogration. It looks to be an important court case once dust settles

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087

[Captain Seafort]

If it keeps those who would basically burn it all down just to get a quick buck from getting power? Sadly yes.

The trade off is you have to hope there isn't a Charles I in power.

Better a Charles I than an Oliver Cromwell.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The sad truth here is that Hobbes and Locke (who has been consistently been more of a 'Hobbes lite' than a liberal in the more traditional sense) are far closer to the human condition than what others have proposed.

You like to repeat this exact sentence, but it isn't clear to me what you even mean by this. It's not even clear to me that YOU even understand what you mean by this.

Hell, Hobbes outright rejected the idea of any "separation of power," he very explicitly believed in all powers being concentrated in the hands of the sovereign; so it seems odd that you would cite him when you are trying to make an argument in favor of the separation of power. And Locke, although believing in the notion of "separation of powers", also believed that people that didn't own property were not fit to participate in the political process and thus should not be allowed the right to vote. Which hardly seems to me to be a great example of being "far closer to the human condition than what others have proposed", though again it isn't clear what you even mean by that in the first place.

It seems like you are vaguely alluding to two famous philosophers to justify your own beliefs rather than actually making any effort to develop a critical understanding of what their beliefs were and what the implications of those beliefs are.

[Zaune]

All that being said, it's a much stronger man than I who can live through this three-year shitshow without catching themselves wondering if representative democracy is really all it's cracked up to be at least once or twice.

[Tvpnbb]

Another problem is that the House of Lords and the House of Windsor has had practicall all their power taken away for the past century and change. Quite literally. Given that the House of Commons effectively controls the bureaucracy...

... yeah.

The House of Windsor is essentially a puppet for the House of Commons because the House of Commons has all the power in Britain right now.

I could swear I remember there being a brief period where that was widely agreed to be a good thing.

It was never a good thing in the first place, because it allows for situations like this to happen. The three branches (the House of Lords, House of Commons, and House of Windsor) of British government must have a high degree of separation of powers to function, and without that, well, we're seeing what happens when you don't.

Remember, Hobbes and Locke are far closer to the true condition of man than most others in Philosophy. Ignoring it won't change much.

What? What on earth are you blabbering about? The UK Government was not designed with some sort of three-part separation of powers in mind, it came to be the way it is due to a variety of historical developments. Are you seriously suggesting that the dominance House of Commons, whose rule in the past century resulted in the establishment of the welfare state and a large, unambiguous increase in living standards across the country is somehow inherently incapable of governance? And you propose a system where 2/3 of the power is invested in unelected, unaccountable entities, would somehow govern better than them?

Right now you're really sounding like some kind of American fantasist who doesn't have a good understanding of history or politics but who has heard of the separation of powers a couple of times and knows the USA has three branches of government, and therefore thinks that the same idea can be applied to the UK government, as if the House of Lords was just their Supreme Court and the Monarch their President.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well, for a long time the House of Lords was the ultimate Court of Appeal, but we set up a Supreme Court back in (IIRC) 2005 or so.

On a lighter note, I present this snippet from BBC 2's "The Mash Report" from a segment about "The UK's Final Season": "There's a clueless government, constant disasters and a guy called Boris. It's like Chernobyl."

As hilarious as the whole segment is, I think that's being very unfair to Comrade Scherbina.

[LaCroix]

For all it's worth, the current debate in the Supreme court is very interesting (to the legalese-inclined), and might have far-reaching consequences.
Pretty much the point of it is about enforcing the prior precedent that Parliament (House of commons, in particular) is holding supreme power over the Government, and not vice-versa.
So any action by the Government to frustrate and hinder Parliament is per definition unlawful. Point in support, there was one mention of a long prior prorogation that was considered lawful, but it was pointed out that it was done to "enforce the will of Parliament", other than the current case.

Also, a covert suggestion that Parliament legislate proragation to require a parliamentary vote (Similar to the Election law change), and to proscribe the standard duration of it.

[loomer]

Yes, and? An 'effectively universal' approval rating also serves to disprove your own assertion that no one gives a shit about the queen or what she's done.

That sure looks like an assertion, thus far unsupported, that no one in Britain cares about the Queen and what she's done. As for why I'm not addressing what you're saying? That's because it isn't under contention, and is in fact evidence against your own position. Here's what's actually being argued:

I think you have misunderstood the point I was making, and I'm aware my phrasing could be a whole lot better. I am saying the anger or outrage directed at the the queen "accepting" Boris Johnson's "advice" is a non-issue in the UK. The anger and outrage is with Boris Johnson lying to the queen, and not over the queen accepting the "advice" of Boris Johnson to prorogue the government.

My point was directed at people like TRR who had harp about how the queen is bad for accepting the advice of the PM. That's the issue that no one in the UK gives a shit about.

Entirely possible, but I still disagree with your re-summation as I've been reading more than a few republican blogs that take express issue with the Queen's conduct - first in her appointment of a prime minister who manifestly couldn't command a majority of the House, second in her subsequent complicity in prorogation at the request of a prime minister who still can't command a majority of the House. Now that of course creates selection bias, but it also quite strongly contradicts any claim that no one cares. If you're happy to walk that down to 'the man on the clapham omnibus doesn't care', I can accept that and think we can come to terms. I've snipped the next few lines as the answer would otherwise be repetitive - if you'd like me to address them in particular anyway I'm happy to do so.

Certainly - and I don't say otherwise. But since she's my Queen, I'm entitled to form opinions on her conduct in any of her holdings. You will note I did not claim that the views of Australians are the same as or determinative of the views of the English - only that your implicit suggestion that only the British should have opinions on the British Monarchy is invalid for Australians as your monarchy and our monarchy are so fundamentally entwined as to be identical, vested in the same person by the same rules of succession. Our governmental bodies and national sovereignties are distinct, but our monarchies are in fact one and the same body of personages despite the different title they enjoy. Accordingly, the conduct of my monarch is a perfectly appropriate topic for me to form an opinion on, wherever it takes place, as it is still carried out by my monarch even when she acts within a different governmental structure.

Because I see a possibility in which the commonwealth countries might still keep the monarchy even if the British did abolish the monarchy. The monarchy is vested in the same person, but it is still two different monarchies. As the UK and Australia are considered two different countries, I see the monarchy of Australia as being entirely different from the monarchy of UK. Especially when Australia had a constitutional crisis because the representative of the monarchy in Australia, the governor-general of Australia in 1975 dismissed the Prime Minister from his office and gave it to the opposition.

So the representative of the monarchy in Australia have a more recent history of being directly intervening in political affairs compared to the monarchy in the UK. I think that's an important point we should bear in mind. I think it is valid for you to hold an opinion on the British monarchy, as I don't think you need to be British to have an opinion on it. But I think as outsiders ( in which I am one, even if I am living in the UK and have a right to vote as a commonwealth resident in the UK), we should not confuse our perspective with the perspective of the British. Generally speaking, I think international commentators should not have the same weight as domestic commentators regarding local affairs. We can lack some of the local context of an issue, and ended up making ineffective arguments as a result.

While I agree that on paper they are distinct entities, in practical terms they are synonymous and identical. Our monarchy is your monarchy, your monarchy is our monarchy. The same person occupies that office, and questions of her judgment and legitimacy in one title are appropriate questions for occupants of another to raise so long as that same person is also our head of state - mistakes made elsewhere might otherwise be uncritically allowed to fester until they repeat here. You're quite right to point out '75, as it forms a large part of the basis for us to pay attention to what the Queen does elsewhere, but I don't think it serves to show that we shouldn't really concern ourselves with what she does in her other holdings.

I also agree with you that we oughn't confuse our perspectives with the British, which I don't do. The views I take my lead on from the British are quite a different matter, however, as those are British writers commenting. I snip the next for the same reason as before - it'd be largely redunant.

[ray245]

Entirely possible, but I still disagree with your re-summation as I've been reading more than a few republican blogs that take express issue with the Queen's conduct - first in her appointment of a prime minister who manifestly couldn't command a majority of the House, second in her subsequent complicity in prorogation at the request of a prime minister who still can't command a majority of the House. Now that of course creates selection bias, but it also quite strongly contradicts any claim that no one cares. If you're happy to walk that down to 'the man on the clapham omnibus doesn't care', I can accept that and think we can come to terms. I've snipped the next few lines as the answer would otherwise be repetitive - if you'd like me to address them in particular anyway I'm happy to do so.

I think "the man on the clapham omnibus" or the "average reasonable person" is what I mean to begin with? When I mean nobody really cares, that was what I am referring to, and not "absolutely no one in Britain cares".

There are a few Republicans in British politics, including the current labour leader. But generally speaking, the average voter in the UK doesn't care that much about the current discussions about the monarchy. The political reach of republician causes is still a relatively niche political cause.

While I agree that on paper they are distinct entities, in practical terms they are synonymous and identical. Our monarchy is your monarchy, your monarchy is our monarchy. The same person occupies that office, and questions of her judgment and legitimacy in one title are appropriate questions for occupants of another to raise so long as that same person is also our head of state - mistakes made elsewhere might otherwise be uncritically allowed to fester until they repeat here. You're quite right to point out '75, as it forms a large part of the basis for us to pay attention to what the Queen does elsewhere, but I don't think it serves to show that we shouldn't really concern ourselves with what she does in her other holdings.

But in practical terms, the monarchy in Australia is rather distinct from the one in the UK. Because in Australia and many other commonwealth states that retains the monarchy, it is represented by governor-generals from your nations. The governor-generals still exercise a great deal of autonomy in how they chose to represent the monarchy in places like Australia and Canada. Whereas the monarchy resides in the UK, the royal family study and grew up in the UK. The monarchy in the UK does not have anyone else representing the current queen, and that's something quite different in practical terms as well.

How the monarchy is exercised in Australia is still rather different from how it is exercised in the UK.

I also agree with you that we oughn't confuse our perspectives with the British, which I don't do. The views I take my lead on from the British are quite a different matter, however, as those are British writers commenting. I snip the next for the same reason as before - it'd be largely redunant.

The point is whether the British writers can be compared to the Australian republicans in terms of political reach and influence. Politics rarely operates under the basis of logic and reasonable arguments nowadays, especially in the case of UK ( which rationality went out of the window ages ago). My point is no matter how rational or how well argued the case against the monarchy is, they don't necessarily translate into a widespread view amongst the voting public.

[madd0ct0r]

can we move on please? this is tedious and largely irrelevant.

[The Romulan Republic]

How's this for moving on?

UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Boris's proroguing of Parliament was illegal:

https://cbc.ca/news/world/u-k-supreme-c ... -1.5294965

In a major blow to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the U.K.'s highest court ruled Tuesday his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks in the crucial countdown to the country's Brexit deadline is illegal.

The unanimous Supreme Court ruling declared the order to suspend Parliament "void and of no effect."

Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said the suspension "was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

She said the court's decision means Parliament was never legally suspended and is technically still sitting.

The House of Commons must convene without delay, Speaker John Bercow said on Tuesday, welcoming the ruling.

"As the embodiment of our parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency," Bercow said in a statement released by his office.

In this nation without a written constitution, the case marked a rare confrontation between the prime minister, the courts and Parliament over their rights and responsibilities.

It revolved around whether Johnson acted lawfully when he advised the queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks during a crucial time frame before the Oct. 31 Brexit deadline when the U.K. is scheduled to leave the European Union.

The U.K.'s top court ruled unanimously that PM Boris Johnson's government had shut Parliament to squelch debate on its Brexit policy. 0:55
Johnson, who is in New York for the UN General Assembly, has refused to say whether he will resign if he is found to have broken the law or if he will seek to shut down Parliament again.

The ruling followed three days of hearings last week before a panel of 11 judges.

The court rejected the government's assertions the decision to suspend Parliament until Oct. 14 was routine and not related to Brexit. It claimed that under Britain's unwritten constitution, it is a matter for politicians, not courts, to decide.

The government's opponents argue Johnson illegally shut down Parliament just weeks before the country is due to leave the 28-nation bloc for the "improper purpose" of dodging lawmakers' scrutiny of his Brexit plans.

They also accused Johnson of misleading the Queen, whose formal approval was needed to suspend the legislature.

Johnson and Parliament have been at odds since he took power in July with the determination to take Britain out of the EU on Oct. 31 with or without a divorce deal with Europe.

Calls for Johnson's resignation
The landmark decision immediately prompted demands that Johnson quit.

British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn called on Johnson on Tuesday to consider his position and call a new election.

To huge cheers and chants of "Johnson out!" Corbyn said the prime minister should become the shortest-ever serving leader and Labour is ready to form a government.

"I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to 'consider his position,'" Corbyn told delegates at the Labour Party's annual conference in Brighton.

Scottish National Party lawmaker Joanna Cherry said Johnson should resign because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Cherry is one of the people who brought the legal case against the prime minister.

"His position is untenable and he should have the guts for once to do the decent thing and resign," she said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, transparency campaigner Gina Miller called the ruling "a win for parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and independence of our British courts."

Miller, one of the people who brought the case against the government, said Johnson advised the Queen to shut down Parliament "to silence our democratically elected MPs at one of the most critical times in our country's modern history."

Some highlights:

"The unanimous Supreme Court ruling declared the order to suspend Parliament "void and of no effect.""

"the suspension "was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

She said the court's decision means Parliament was never legally suspended and is technically still sitting."

"To huge cheers and chants of "Johnson out!" Corbyn said the prime minister should become the shortest-ever serving leader and Labour is ready to form a government."

[Ace Pace]

Now is the crises question, will Johnson actually change his behavior and if not, will parliament force the legal crises of trying to throw him out?

If that doesn't happen, then the court is (unsurprisingly) basically irrelevant.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now is the crises question, will Johnson actually change his behavior and if not, will parliament force the legal crises of trying to throw him out?

If that doesn't happen, then the court is (unsurprisingly) basically irrelevant.

Well if nothing else, Parliament can now reconvene without fear of interference from Johnson.

I really don't see how they can not have a vote of no-confidence after this, although the UK Parliament has continued to surprise me with the depths of its stupidity over the last few years.

[LaCroix]

Now is the crises question, will Johnson actually change his behavior and if not, will parliament force the legal crises of trying to throw him out?

If that doesn't happen, then the court is (unsurprisingly) basically irrelevant.

Well if nothing else, Parliament can now reconvene without fear of interference from Johnson.

I really don't see how they can not have a vote of no-confidence after this, although the UK Parliament has continued to surprise me with the depths of its stupidity over the last few years.

Because a no-confidence vote and general elections would be even worse.
The date elections are held on is decided by the PM - Johnston would love to hold elections right on Oct 31st - because Parliament would be dissolved (not just prorogued) for the three weeks ahead of the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now is the crises question, will Johnson actually change his behavior and if not, will parliament force the legal crises of trying to throw him out?

If that doesn't happen, then the court is (unsurprisingly) basically irrelevant.

Well if nothing else, Parliament can now reconvene without fear of interference from Johnson.

I really don't see how they can not have a vote of no-confidence after this, although the UK Parliament has continued to surprise me with the depths of its stupidity over the last few years.

Because a no-confidence vote and general elections would be even worse.
The date elections are held on is decided by the PM - Johnston would love to hold elections right on Oct 31st - because Parliament would be dissolved (not just prorogued) for the three weeks ahead of the election.

You know, it occurs to me that when they were creating all these laws and precedents on which to run the UK (or the US), they weren't really designing them with the possibility that the people in power at all levels would be deliberately trying to subvert them. Then again, I'm not sure how you could design a system that would be secure against that.

[LaCroix]

Well if nothing else, Parliament can now reconvene without fear of interference from Johnson.

I really don't see how they can not have a vote of no-confidence after this, although the UK Parliament has continued to surprise me with the depths of its stupidity over the last few years.

Because a no-confidence vote and general elections would be even worse.
The date elections are held on is decided by the PM - Johnston would love to hold elections right on Oct 31st - because Parliament would be dissolved (not just prorogued) for the three weeks ahead of the election.

You know, it occurs to me that when they were creating all these laws and precedents on which to run the UK (or the US), they weren't really designing them with the possibility that the people in power at all levels would be deliberately trying to subvert them. Then again, I'm not sure how you could design a system that would be secure against that.

All these systems weren't (unlike the US system) deliberately designed to gridlock and fail - the British system was designed around a Monarch being able to intervene if things get out of hand (which they occasionally did). But when they codified and regulated the Monarch's power in the recent decades, and put the right to call for the use of said powers in the hands of the PM - and not parliament, directly - they accidentally created a system where the PM of a minority government had power over the supposed sovereign ( parliament).

That wasn't a problem, so far, as the PM usually was also leading the majority. Only in the last few years, the political landscape changed, and the flaw became apparent.

Still, Parliament can legislate these powers (like the did with the voting act to prevent the PM to call elections at whim whenever the polls are in their party's favor), and given the current blatant abuse, they certainly will.

[ray245]

"To huge cheers and chants of "Johnson out!" Corbyn said the prime minister should become the shortest-ever serving leader and Labour is ready to form a government."

It's good that the court has now officially ruled Boris Johnson's move was illegal. The problem is Labour is now busy tearing itself apart with Jeremy Corbyn quite eager for Brexit to happen. He might not want a no-deal Brexit, but he seems more than happy to ensure a Brexit of some sort do occur.

I think Corbyn might not be that unhappy to see a no-deal Brexit.

[The Romulan Republic]

True, I don't trust Corbyn in this.

He's still less of a snake than Boris Johnson.

[ray245]

True, I don't trust Corbyn in this.

He's still less of a snake than Boris Johnson.

True, but I can see him secretly wanting Brexit to happen, but he is just smart enough to let Boris Johnson take the fall with no-deal Brexit. The only party that is willing to be pro-remain in England is the Lib Dems, and they are the party that bears some amount of responsibility for the current mess when they were part of the coalition government.

[madd0ct0r]

I think corbyn has played this reasonbly well so far. The core labour vote is not as split as the tories on the issue, but him taking a stance for either extreme would wreck the labour vote for years and years.
There might be frustration and voting defections to the lib dems or brexit party in the short term, but long term labour needs to be implement the progressive policies their support is based on.

[His Divine Shadow]

Corbyn believes that Brexit is not the overriding single issue thing that some people want it to be. He often talks about other societal ills than Brexit in PMQs. Like homelessness. It's entirely possible that a labour brexit deal with them in charge of policy will result in better lives for many poor people in the UK even as the GDP sinks and things get worse for the middle classes and rich, because he will increase taxation, borrowing and redistribute resources downwards. And to Corbyn that outcome would be a net positive. Many people though seem to require being staunchly pro-EU in order to qualify for good guy status.

And some people just want everyone to pretend it's the 2012 olympics forever.

[ray245]

I think corbyn has played this reasonbly well so far. The core labour vote is not as split as the tories on the issue, but him taking a stance for either extreme would wreck the labour vote for years and years.
There might be frustration and voting defections to the lib dems or brexit party in the short term, but long term labour needs to be implement the progressive policies their support is based on.

Corbyn have to be, because the majority of Labour's constituencies ( but not total amount of voters) wanted Brexit. That's the issue with the FTP system. Even if the areas that did voted for Brexit are in the minority amongst labour, because they are the areas that Labour base their traditional support from, the leadership can't be pro-remain the way the Lib-Dems are.

Corbyn believes that Brexit is not the overriding single issue thing that some people want it to be. He often talks about other societal ills than Brexit in PMQs. Like homelessness. It's entirely possible that a labour brexit deal with them in charge of policy will result in better lives for many poor people in the UK even as the GDP sinks and things get worse for the middle classes and rich, because he will increase taxation, borrowing and redistribute resources downwards. And to Corbyn that outcome would be a net positive. Many people though seem to require being staunchly pro-EU in order to qualify for good guy status.

And some people just want everyone to pretend it's the 2012 olympics forever.

And the middle-class and upper-class might view this in anger as they see the working-class as directly damaging their wealth and economic prospects for voting leave and be even more against Labour. Labour might control the seats in the North, but that alone isn't enough to command a majority. With Scotland effectively out of Labour's hands, Labour need to win some amount of support from the South. If the South are firmly Lib-dems and Tory, then Labour might not win enough seats to form a government.

Brexit is not only a economic issue, but also a matter of identity issue. There are many people, primarily amongst the younger voters that see being in the EU as a mark of cultural identity, and more strongly identify with being an European. They see voters who voted for Brexit as being people who are being primarily driven by racism and xenophobia, and I can certainly see why.