Feel free to go read the Brexit thread. I’m not going to re-hash old arguments, but racist xenophobia only made up a fringe element of the Brexit vote. The main reasons that the Brexit vote won was that it attracted a lot of protest voters dissatisfied with the status-quo, there’s long-standing dissatisfaction with the EU in large segments of the UK, and the Brexit campaign did a better job than the Leave campaign.
If the majority of British voters are racist xenophobes, then why are the second and third most powerful people in the government non-white?
*The ‘Leave’ campaign campaigned primarily on issues relating to sovereignty and migration,[5] whereas the remain campaign focused on the economic impacts of leaving the EU. This choice of key positions is significant since Ipsos MORI survey data on which issues Britons felt to be ‘important issues facing Britain today’ shows that immediately prior to the vote, more people cited both the EU (32%) and migration (48%) as important issues than cited the economy (27%).[6]Immigration
Lord Ashcroft’s election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that ‘One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”’[7] This despite the fact that most migration to Britain was from outside the EU, and entirely under the remit and control of UK authorities.[9]
Immediately prior to the referendum, data from Ipsos-Mori showed that immigration/migration was the most cited issue when Britons were asked ‘What do you see as the most/other important issue facing Britain today?’, with 48% of respondents mentioning it when surveyed.[10]
In the decade before the Brexit referendum there was a significant increase in migration from EU countries, as outlined by the Migration Observatory: ‘Inflows of EU nationals migrating to the UK stood at 268,000 in 2014, up from 201,000 in 2013. EU inflows were mainly flat for the 1991–2003 period, averaging close to 61,000 per year.’[11]
According to The Economist, areas that saw increases of over 200% in foreign-born population between 2001 and 2014 saw a majority of voters back leave in 94% of cases*
If both Trump and Pence were to resign, or otherwise leave office, there would not be a new election but a procedure would be followed to install a new, unelected, president.
But in general, the position of the PM is closer to that opf McConnell, in that they are effectively chosen by the elected house rather than by public election. (I’m aware, of course that the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, and the President technically voted for by the electors, but the point stands).
Boris was not “effectively chosen by the elected house”; he was chosen by the rank-and-file membership of the Tory party, a party which holds less than half the seats in the elected house, and which secured much less than half the votes at the most recent election. He was appointed as Prime Minister without the elected house having any opportunity to express a view on whether he should be, and the day after his appointment the elected house went into a recess which is still continuing.
Nickname for the Conservative Party. Goes back to the 17th century when, in the absense of formally-constituted political parties, Parliament was divided into two main factions called “Tory” and “Whig”. In time the Conservative and Liberal parties evolved out of these factions.
Comes originally from an Irish word meaning a bandit, and it turns up in English first of all to refer Irish Catholics who had been dispossessed, and who had turned to banditry to survive. It then became a general term of abuse for Catholics, and in time for Protestants who were Not Protestant Enough, especially those who, in opposition to Puritans and Cromwellians, were seen as supportive of the king, and more especially those who supported the right of James, Duke of York, to succeed to the throne despite being a Catholic.
James did of course accede to the throne, as James II, but was deposed in fairly short order. This was - ahem - controversial, and “Tory” then became a label for those who doubted, or were suspected of doubting, the legitimacy or wisdom of this action, and in time to those who were generally sympathetic to conservative, legitimist principles of monarchy, even after they had made their peace with the Hanoverian monarchs.
I believe that during the revolutionary period the term had a brief currency in the American colonies, to describe a colonist who was loyal to the crown. By then, of course, it had lost all overtones of Catholicism.
The anti-immigration stances were a big, perhaps the biggest, part of the protest vote. After the 2004 EU expansion, nearly a million citizens of the new EU countries migrated to the UK after Tony Blair stated that post-expansion immigration would be in the tens of thousands. These new arrivals were great if you were a middle-class latte drinker. They weren’t so great if you were working class and living outside of London.
The next EU expansion came in 2007 with the joining of Bulgaria and Romania, although that time there were immigration restrictions. Nevertheless, there was still significant migration. Coincidentally, that was when the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis hit. So the UK had a combination of a falling economy and federal spending cuts at the same time as the working class was facing increased job competition, and frankly a lot of natives were out-competed. The coflated blaming that was going on at the time was irrational, but that’s how tabloids sell newspapers. So yes, there was, and is, long-held resentment in many areas against immigration. However, it’s not simply ignorance based dislike of people who were born in other countries.
He was technically chosen by the Queen, and effectively chosen by the House, as the only person who can command the confidence of the House.
Were the opposition less fractured and ineffectual, it’s likely that he would not have been able to command said confidence, but as it stands he has it. A working majority of one should not be enough to keep it, but I’m sure Corbyn will find a way to lose a confidence vote in the near future.
We can’t say that he has the confidence of the House. And we certainly can’t say that he was “effectively chosen” by it.
The test for appointing a PM is not that he should have the confidence of the House; it is that he should be “best placed” to obtain it. Teresa May presumably advised the Queen that Johnson was best placed, and so he has been appointed.
But can he, in fact, command the confidence of the House? He hasn’t, so far; since his appointment his government has won zero votes in the House of Commons on any subject. There have been no votes.
And there is some reason to doubt that he can. His government is openly admitting that it cannot get even uncontoversial Brexit-related legislation through the House, and therefore will refrain from introducing any.
It may yet be that Johnson never commands the confidence of the House of Commons; that, on the first occasion when he seeks it, it is refused. That would be a first for any UK Prime Minister.
The only reason there was no vote on the motion of no confidence is because Corbyn refused to back it, which technically demonstrates confidence in Johnson. Unfortunately, as Jo Swinson isn’t the official leader of the opposition, she couldn’t force a vote on her motion.
I’m sure someone will defend Corbyn here, but I struggle to see how.
Maybe I’m just too cynical, but I think he’s going to hold off until it’s too late to syop Brexit. Corbyn’s always been a Leaver, and that’s not changed.
No single party has a majority in the UK Parliament (which has 650 seats.)
It’s a bit complicated!
Boris leads the Conservative Party with 311 seats.
The Conservatives are in an uneasy alliance with a Northern Irish party (the DUP) who have 10 seats.
The Speaker (the ‘referee’ of Parliament) by tradition doesn’t vote unless there’s a tie (when he votes for the the Government.)
There are also three Deputy Speakers who don’t vote.
One party (Sinn Fein) have 7 seats but refuse to vote.
So there are effectively 650-4-7=639 voting seats. Therefore you need 320 seats for a majority.
Boris has 311 + 10 = 321 seats, so an effective majority of 1 - just enough to govern.
It amuses me to consider that were Sinn Fein to change their minds about being seated, they could simultaneously bring down the Government and undermine the DUP.
