UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[GeorgiaModerate]

How close are we to a full-blown constituttional crisis?

*pictures Boris Johnson and Donald Trump setting up a competition to see who can create the greater constitutional crisis*

[Helsinkian]

#JoSwinsonIsATory trends on Twitter after Lib Dems say that they would not vote for Corbyn to become the PM of a government of national unity.

[ilikeverin]

I keep hearing rumors that BoJo will "do something" to avoid having to follow through on the bill to avoid Brexit, but I feel like I've seen little discussion of what that would actually entail. What are the theories out there about how he executes ignoring it, procedurally?

[DaWN]

#JoSwinsonIsATory trends on Twitter after Lib Dems say that they would not vote for Corbyn to become the PM of a government of national unity.

If Twitter Socialists decided anything in British politics, then Labour would have won all 650 constituencies in 2015 and 2017, and being a member of any other party would be illegal.

They don't though. Twitter trends are irrelevant.

[cp]

I keep hearing rumors that BoJo will "do something" to avoid having to follow through on the bill to avoid Brexit, but I feel like I've seen little discussion of what that would actually entail. What are the theories out there about how he executes ignoring it, procedurally?

Raph Hogarth did a twitter thread about all the theories of what that 'something' might be. In short: none of them are going to work.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

#JoSwinsonIsATory trends on Twitter after Lib Dems say that they would not vote for Corbyn to become the PM of a government of national unity.

I'm glad they're rising in the polls. It seems like "We oppose both self-inflicted economic collapse and a purge of Jewish citizens" should be a pretty popular political platform.

[Devout Centrist]

So, uh, looks like Johnson’s gonna be PM on October 31st

[brucejoel99]

#JoSwinsonIsATory trends on Twitter after Lib Dems say that they would not vote for Corbyn to become the PM of a government of national unity.

The Lib Dems won't back Corbyn, Corbyn won't back anybody not named Jeremy Corbyn, & it doesn't really matter either way because even if every single Lib Dem backed Corbyn, the Tory rebels certainly wouldn't.

[Silent Hunter]

It's a shame portal guns aren't real and we can't get a Jeremy Corbyn from an alternative timeline.

[DaWN]

It's a shame portal guns aren't real and we can't get a Jeremy Corbyn from an alternative timeline.

You're going to have to comb through a lot of alternate universes before you find a Jeremy Corbyn that isn't an incompetent, senile buffoon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

[brucejoel99]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

[brucejoel99]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

The Canada situation involved a governor general who felt bound to comply with ministerial advice that was controversial & widely regarded as improper, but it never went to court, so it was never legally ruled to have been improper. In this case, however, the Queen complied with ministerial advice that was so controversial & widely regarded as improper that it did actually go to court this time, & the judiciary ruled it as having been unlawful, so the Canadian & British prorogations aren't comparable.

Moreover, this Humble Address scenario wouldn't be unilateral intervention on the Queen's part; if 326+ MPs were to clearly & formally identify an individual (other than the incumbent PM) in whom a majority of the Commons has confidence, then why should the Queen not invite that individual to form a new government? That's just a straightforward application of constitutional convention right there.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

The Canada situation involved a governor general who felt bound to comply with ministerial advice that was controversial & widely regarded as improper, but it never went to court, so it was never legally ruled to have been improper. In this case, however, the Queen complied with ministerial advice that was so controversial & widely regarded as improper that it did actually go to court this time, & the judiciary ruled it as having been unlawful, so the Canadian & British prorogations aren't comparable.

Moreover, this Humble Address scenario wouldn't be unilateral intervention on the Queen's part; if 326+ MPs were to clearly & formally identify an individual (other than the incumbent PM) in whom a majority of the Commons has confidence, then why should the Queen not invite that individual to form a new government? That's just a straightforward application of constitutional convention right there.

That's 100% different than unilaterally asking the queen to fire a PM. If they cant form a coalition then its their problem

[brucejoel99]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

The Canada situation involved a governor general who felt bound to comply with ministerial advice that was controversial & widely regarded as improper, but it never went to court, so it was never legally ruled to have been improper. In this case, however, the Queen complied with ministerial advice that was so controversial & widely regarded as improper that it did actually go to court this time, & the judiciary ruled it as having been unlawful, so the Canadian & British prorogations aren't comparable.

Moreover, this Humble Address scenario wouldn't be unilateral intervention on the Queen's part; if 326+ MPs were to clearly & formally identify an individual (other than the incumbent PM) in whom a majority of the Commons has confidence, then why should the Queen not invite that individual to form a new government? That's just a straightforward application of constitutional convention right there.

That's 100% different than unilaterally asking the queen to fire a PM. If they cant form a coalition then its their problem

Did you even read the article that you yourself shared? Because that's literally the plan that it discusses.

[Joe Republic]

for the love of christ OSR

Please stop posting in this thread.  You’re embarrassing the rest of us Americans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It really says something about the cancerous growth of the executive power in the US, and the extent to which most Americans take it for granted, that Beep Boop simply cannot comprehend that, in a parliamentary system, government and parliament are NOT coequal branches - the former is an employee of the latter that the latter can fire at any moment. Parliamentary supremacy actually means something, and we're finally seeing that principle affirmed in Britain at least.

That being said, it is utterly pathetic that the Rebel Alliance can't just f**king agree on a temporary caretaker PM, so they can just vote a motion of no confidence and be done with BoJo. It's not rocket science. It's dumb that the LibDems have such an objection against Corbyn, but Corbyn himself should have no problem saying "OK, let's prop up some uncontroversial elder statesman like Clarke or Harman". It really doesn't matter who leads the caretaker government - such a government would only exist so that parliament can be rid of this treasonous government fully exert its supremacy until an Article 50 extension is secured.

[cp]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

The Canada situation involved a governor general who felt bound to comply with ministerial advice that was controversial & widely regarded as improper, but it never went to court, so it was never legally ruled to have been improper. In this case, however, the Queen complied with ministerial advice that was so controversial & widely regarded as improper that it did actually go to court this time, & the judiciary ruled it as having been unlawful, so the Canadian & British prorogations aren't comparable.

Moreover, this Humble Address scenario wouldn't be unilateral intervention on the Queen's part; if 326+ MPs were to clearly & formally identify an individual (other than the incumbent PM) in whom a majority of the Commons has confidence, then why should the Queen not invite that individual to form a new government? That's just a straightforward application of constitutional convention right there.

That's 100% different than unilaterally asking the queen to fire a PM. If they cant form a coalition then its their problem

Did you even read the article that you yourself shared? Because that's literally the plan that it discusses.

Also worth noting that the unilateral dismissal of a PM by the monarch('s representative) *has* happened before - Australia in 1975 - and was not only 'perfectly legal' but resulted in the dismissed PM going on to lose in a landslide.

FWIW, I wouldn't spend too much time trying to argue about the opposition's haggling over who would serve as a caretaker PM after a VONC in Johnson. For one thing, it's not a terribly likely scenario (I think Johnson will acquiesce to an extension rather than resign or break the law), and even if it was, all the talk about it now is just posturing. No one needs to commit to anything until the VONC has happened, so everyone figures they should just 'stand firm on principle' for whatever their preferred option happens to be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I so dearly wish I had that much faith in BoJo not finding a way around the Benn Act, or some other area in which to frustrate Parliament's sovereignty, but I'm starting to recognize the type of politician he is, and if I'm right, then every day that he spends on No. 10 is a day parliamentary democracy is at risk. I home I'm wrong.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's a shame portal guns aren't real and we can't get a Jeremy Corbyn from an alternative timeline.

You're going to have to comb through a lot of alternate universes before you find a Jeremy Corbyn that isn't an incompetent, senile buffoon.

Seriously, there is not the slightest evidence he is "senile".

(you didn't actually believe that basically totally made up "exclusive" in the Times, did you?)

All credible indications are that he is very much compos mentis. Now, your other descriptors are at least arguable

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-stephen-harper-endorses-boris-johnson-at-conservative-party-conference/


The best Western Leader of the past decade gives his thoughts

[brucejoel99]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-stephen-harper-endorses-boris-johnson-at-conservative-party-conference/


The best Western Leader of the past decade gives his thoughts

The guy who used a shady reason to prorogue Parliament to screw over his rivals endorses a guy who used a shady reason to prorogue Parliament to screw over his rivals.

What a shocker!

[Antonio the Sixth]

So... BoJo's new "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-A-Backstop" plan is pretty much DOA. It will be either no deal or another extension.

[brucejoel99]

So... BoJo's new "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-A-Backstop" plan is pretty much DOA. It will be either no deal or another extension.

The Tories just put up an ad for a Tory MEP internship in Brussels that starts on November 1st, so it seems like the behind-the-scenes presumption is that BoJo's gonna take the plunge &, as mandated by law, request the extension that he so desperately wants to not request.

Funnily enough, this reminds me of when the Tories were officially saying that they wouldn't hold the EU elections whilst simultaneously sending word out behind-the-scenes to their constituency associations to tell them to prepare for the EU elections.