Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:14 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 594
Is there any chance this message board can have a discussion of UK government such as "Boris Johnson asks the Queen to suspend Parliament" without the argument descending into a rehash of Brexit? The last nine posts were completely off topic; a few contained argumentative ideas presented as facts but without providing cites to back up their premise, and none discussed current events or UK constitutional issues.

My opinion is that there's a very interesting discussion to be had on the subject of the OP. "Is the prorogation itself "the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication"?" is a great question related to the OP. The effect of "Russian bot farms" on the 2016 referendum isn't.
  #152  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:27 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,042
I apologize and ask Mods to delete my post if it is off-topic, by Mr. Finn did pose a question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
(Why would you do something that seems guaranteed to tank the economy?)
The bulk of Brits will suffer if/when the economy falters but average Brits may have voted with poor information. The Brexit was/is sponsored by rich individuals and corporations. These rich may actually prosper under a faltering economy! They already have large dollar-based assets; can buy up English property on the cheap; while their English businesses, freed of EU regulation and competition, make increased profit.
  #153  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:52 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Getting closer. The answer given regarding what has to happen in the US. is far short of how far we have already seen we can be threatened by autocracy with less than those measures, but it does at least describe some of the detail of what at least officially would have to happen. At least in theory our existential nature as a representational democracy with balance of powers is protected from the whims of a simple majority of the voters or of representatives.

"Parliament could do that"? On a simple majority vote just Parliament voting alone could do that? Really?

I guess it shouldn't surprise when an action which is being described as "the equivalent to the US revoking the Declaration of Independence" is being possibly being done based on a narrow majority vote of a broad concept idea without any details.

I would have expected that actions which change the existential character and principles of a country would require more than a simple majority of votes of either voters of of representatives. My ignorance reduced.
You're probably right. A lot is said about the UK's unwritten constitution and how it is based on history, tradition, and precedence, rather than explicitly defined duties and limitations of government. There's an underlying belief that, even though Parliament is sovereign, Parliament will seek to do the will of the people, and Parliament is sovereign to Government. Johnson seems to be engineering a conflict of people versus Parliament, and imputing that the Government is on the people's side.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ulist-majority
That's definitely a step towards sidelining Parliament and towards a populist strongman led government. A political system that relies on established procedures, when faced with an executive determined not to follow those procedures, certainly has a problem when those procedures are unwritten.

The good news is it isn't working. Johnson's mild rebellion against the established procedures has faced widespread condemnation, rejection within his own party, and judicial, parliamentary, and party review. The only thing saving Johnson from a vote of no confidence is lack of agreement from the opposition parties on how to go forwards afterwards. The UK political system may be vulnerable to a popular strongman like Putin who's able to command his country based on strong popular backing. Is there any political system that isn't? Johnson however is not that strongman.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 09-11-2019 at 05:56 PM.
  #154  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:20 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I can concede "not a good thing" (at least for London) without conceding "seems guaranteed to tank the economy", can't I? You get that there's a big swath of middle ground between those two outcomes, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I give up. You win.
I concede no such thing.

Brexit will throw Britain into a depression. There's no way it won't. The economy is too integrated now not to contract on Leaving.

It will also hit Europe hard and indeed the world. Remember how some dubious mortgages wrecked the world economy in 2008? This is bigger.

edit to add:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Is there any chance this message board can have a discussion of UK government such as "Boris Johnson asks the Queen to suspend Parliament" without the argument descending into a rehash of Brexit? The last nine posts were completely off topic; a few contained argumentative ideas presented as facts but without providing cites to back up their premise, and none discussed current events or UK constitutional issues.

My opinion is that there's a very interesting discussion to be had on the subject of the OP. "Is the prorogation itself "the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication"?" is a great question related to the OP. The effect of "Russian bot farms" on the 2016 referendum isn't.
Sorry.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 09-11-2019 at 10:21 PM.
  #155  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:41 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,966
[Sidebar on]I haven't posted in this thread much, if at all, but I do check it regularly. This was the first post I saw on checking this evening:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Is there any chance this message board can have a discussion of UK government such as "Boris Johnson asks the Queen to suspend Parliament" without the argument descending into a rehash of Brexit? The last nine posts were completely off topic; a few contained argumentative ideas presented as facts but without providing cites to back up their premise, and none discussed current events or UK constitutional issues...
All I had to do was read this far and I already knew which poster was guaranteed to be multi-posting when I went back and looked at the posts in question. I wasn't disappointed.[/Sidebar off]
  #156  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:07 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Is there any chance this message board can have a discussion of UK government such as "Boris Johnson asks the Queen to suspend Parliament" without the argument descending into a rehash of Brexit?
I don't think it is logically or reasonably possible to leave Brexit out of such a discussion.
  #157  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:08 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I don't think it is logically or reasonably possible to leave Brexit out of such a discussion.
Indeed- since the whole controversy about the suspension is whether its timing and its length are aspect of a plan to enable Johnson to deliver Brexit with minimal parliamentary supervision or constraint. Which in turn opens up the question of why it would be needful or desirable to deliver Brexit in that way.
  #158  
Old 09-12-2019, 05:11 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is the prorogation itself "the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication"? Or are you referring to more broadly to Brexit with this phrase?
A bit late now, but I was indeed referring to the prorogation appeals.

People have a range of opinions about the merits of Brexit vs Remain, the legitimacy of the referendum, and even on the many different types of possible Brexit available once the decision to leave the EU has been taken. There are also a range of opinions available on how to even measure whether a particular option is the best for the UK or not. These are big and divisive issues in their own right.

But in pursuit of their vision of Brexit, the government have taken matters to a new level. By proroguing Parliament for five weeks, the government made a fairly transparent attempt to exempt itself from oversight. It claimed it was doing no such thing. The process they followed meant involving a supposedly non-political Head of State in a conflict between Government and Parliament. The courts of the different constituent nations of the UK have been brought in to rule on this. The Scottish court has explicitly said that as a matter of fact the government was trying to evade Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, in effect saying they have been lying to the courts, the people and the Head of State. The government has responded by suggesting, then retracting, then re-asserting in the most weaselly way imaginable* that the courts are acting out of political bias. Because the Scottish courts are in disagreement with the English courts, the Supreme Court ruling risks being interpreted as either dismissive of Scottish law or of privileging a smaller member of the Union over the largest partner, either of which will be seized on by hotheads. In any event, the Supreme Court now has to address an open question about the limits of executive power.

All of this in the context of Brexit, which by involving the representative democracy of Parliament in implementing a decision reached by the direct democracy of a referendum has already raised some emotive questions about how the country should be run, which emotion the government is not shy, and indeed is positively enthusiastic, about harnessing against anyone who stands in their way.


*A minister on national TV using the Trumpian formula of "I'm not saying this, but many people are saying that the courts are biased and politicised." Without going on to explain why those "many" people were wrong.
  #159  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:16 PM
N9IWP is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 6,342
Supreme Court: Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-polit...t-was-unlawful

Brian
  #160  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:31 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Well, it's nice to see the Scottish position supported, if I understand that correctly.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017