Maybe Boris needs a publicity stunt to rally the British people behind a no-deal Brexit and drum up interest in the US for a great trade deal. Would it be feasible to hook up a zip wire between the UK and America?
What if he offered to sell Northern Ireland to the US?
Ooh, I love eating at Irish pubs. Come on Mr. President, bite on this offer. And while it’s not Greenland, Ireland is known for being very green so it’s close.
You know why he wanted Greenland? Sounds like money!
Earlier Great Debates thread about his time as PM: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879601
We’re still paying for the failures of neoliberal leadership from 2001 to 2008. When the “experts” failed and millions lost their jobs and savings, Joe Everyman concluded that “Them damn experts don’t know what they’re talkin’ 'bout.” The conclusion was that any jackass is better than intellectuals who don’t act in their best interests.
I remember when a lot of London almost danced in the street on his last day of being the mayor of London …
You mean - fair-minded folk expressing concern over Brexit? OMG!!! I can’t even…
Or Brits should just roll over and deal with the consequences of Brexit?
That’s the xenophobic way.
You’ve got a stand-in PM selected by 0.13% of the UK population, collapsing parliament to try to avoid any due process reining him in…and you want to lecture on the democratic way?
Let’s be honest. You’re shitting the idea of any 2nd vote on this because you know you’ll lose, so scrabbling like fuck for any method that will get any form of Brexit no matter how fucking awful…well that’s all you’ve got left, I get that. It’s odious, but it’s understandable. But for the love of fuck, please don’t try to pass off this sort of machination as the true will of the people, because that’s just fucking laughable.
The prime minister is generally the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. The job has evolved into being the head of government for the country; however, it is not exactly analogous to president in the American system.
And there is due process to “reign in” the prime minister. It’s called a vote of no confidence.
It is “the will of the people”. A majority of voters in a majority of the constituencies in the country voted for a particular party, thus giving that party a majority in the Commons.
And remember that the American system does not really have “the will of the people” as the way to select the head of state & government. The current occupant of the White House did not receive a majority.
Johnson’s Conservative Party currently holds 311 of 650 seats, or 47.8% of the seats. His party does not hold a majority. His government is barely held together by a fragile coalition. Johnson has just suspended Parliament, ensuring there will be no debate about a Brexit, and that there will not be a vote of non-confidence.
Democracy. Right.
I have precisely fuck all clue why you twice reference the US system as if it’s being discussed here? Thanks for explaining to me that the two are different, but actually I knew that, and on the grounds I’m a brit I think I’m passably familiar with how our system works.
And as to just how democratic this is, why don’t we reference Boris himself, and what he had to say when Gordon Brown was selected as the replacement to Tony Blair:
Or are you saying that Boris Johnson’s own publicly stated opinion on democratic process should not apply to him?
That would be why I said generally.
Ever heard of “example for comparison”?
{that quote snipped}
Very good quote and yes, it should apply to him. Heck, I personally think (not that it really matters since I have no vote there) y’all might want to rework your system. But, hey, it seems to have been working for a while now.
BTW, Sorry; I didn’t mean to derail the thread. I agree that Boris is abhorrent and he and the other scum “national leaders” (Duterte, Trump, Assad, and the like) should all rot and not be where they are now screwing up not only their countries, but everything and everywhere else they can.
Hijack:
The difference is that since Israel has proportional representation, there’s a clear order of precedence in each party, with the person at the top of the list being the party’s presumptive leader and the person the President will task with assembling a government if their party wins the most votes (each party can select its own leader and candidates as it sees fit; some vote, some don’t). That said, any Prime Minister must receive the support of the Knesset, which means at least 61 votes out of 120.
This is where it gets interesting: in theory the party leader isn’t necessarily its candidate for PM. There’s a good chance that in the upcoming elections neither Netanyahu nor his opponents will once more be unable to secure 61 votes; if that happens, all bets are off, and there’s been talk of the Likud deposing him and presenting a different candidate for PM. Seeing as several parties have vowed not to sit in a coalition with Bibi, but would be willing to do so with some other Likud PM, there’s a real chance we’ll be seeing this.
Well, we do keep on having elections. We don’t have one election and that’s it forever.
And a minority voted for Brexit. 17 million people voted for it. That’s not a majority of the British population or a majority of the voting population. Conservatives want union strikers to have to vote for a strike by 50% of the whole union, rather than 50% of those who voted, but they didn’t apply that to a much more significant vote.
To be fair, I don’t think there’s ever been a vote in the history of the UK (or most other democracies) to pass with an absolute majority. You’ll always have at least 30% of voters who can’t be arsed to go to the polls, no matter what. That means you’ll need 72% of the vote, at a bare minimum, and when does that ever happen?
Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are tools, but after Cameron held that referendum on Brexit I was surprised one of them didn’t become Prime Minister.
They were at the forefront of convincing people this was the best course for the country. The people voted in favor of it. They should have been expected to deliver and accept the consequences of any mistakes.
You know, like a leader.
Most of the media is claiming that the suspension of Parliament was done so that Johnson could permit a “no deal” Brexit to occur.
I actually believe that by having the Queen suspend Parliament, that Johnson will actually be able to bring a deal with the EU forward (albeit, it will be very similar to May’s exit deal with the EU), and just prior to the October 31 deadline, it will be presented to Parliament, ‘as accept this deal or allow a “no-deal” to occur’.
There will be nor further time to negotiate anything with the EU, which has all the power in the negotiations. In the interim it doesn’t permit Parliament to continue to play Monday morning quarterback on a daily basis against the PM. This is the problem that May faced.
Agreed, but it’s still not actually a majority in the way some people so stridently claim. And since, unlike general and local elections which, despite what casdave claims, we do actually rerun on a regular basis, this was a one-time vote, it should really have required 50% of eligible voters to pass, IMO. If the vote had gone the other way round, the difference is that there could be another referendum to leave in a few years’ time.
Sitnam - it was never really possible for Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister. The PM is the leader of the party with the most seats, and Farage’s party, UKIP, briefly had one seat. Nigel himself stood for election as an MP a few times and failed every time. For him to become PM he’d had have to join the Conservatives, stand as leader, get the majority of votes from Conservative party members, and become Prime Minister without ever having even been an MP. It’s well over a century since that happened and the PM in question was a member of the House of Lords, when the Lords had an awful lot more power than now (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil at the turn of the 20th century).