At least in theory, it’d be possible for May to resign and the Conservatives to continue in government. This raises the spectre of a) an unhelpful interregnum while the successor is chose and b) that successor being chosen by the members of the Tory party - a group who are not, let us say, entirely representative of the nation when it comes to their views on Brexit. They are vastly more likely than the UK population to want No Deal, and will be in a position to select a PM who would try to make that happen, leading to more ineffectual fighting with Parliament at best, or No Deal at worst.
Would a general election be better? You still have the problem of time being wasted, and no guarantee of getting a Parliament that had a majority in favour of any of the options available (especially as Brexit now cuts across party lines). And you still have the question of who’s leading the Tory party during or after. Worst case scenario, you’d have 4 weeks of election to return a minority Tory government who promptly seek out a new leader.
The idea of a second referendum is getting more traction - but can it get enough, fast enough, to actually happen? In any case, referendums are anti-democratic so we shouldn’t do them. On the other hand, if elected MPs and government are going to fail to make a decision, who will?
Ditto. 2016 was a stunningly awful year and I’m not talking about the numerous celebrity deaths. I reached the end of that year with a bitter taste in my mouth, the distinct feeling of seeing of the sun slowly setting on a civilization I loved.
As for your second point, it increasingly seems to me that being polite and reasonable just doesn’t get you anywhere. Be a bully, ignore facts and you get to the top. Now, this goes far beyond the scope of this particular issue, so it’s best reserved for another debate.
We can be thankful if we reflect on how our grand-grand-grandparents must have felt a century ago.
I think this is the sort of thing which Plato and some aristocrats warn against democracy, it can become mob-like. How we got to that point is quite relevant to Brexit but far broader. I’ll probably start a thread asking if there is any general theory of why the world’s gone crazy.
Sounds like it ought to be, doesn’t it? But the effect of referendums in a system not built for them (like the UK) is to harm democracy*. I don’t want to start a hijack so I’ll just link to a postI made on this idea some time back.
*As evidence, I gesture helplessly towards… everything
The fact that referendums take away decisions from/lets off the hook democratically elected representatives is rather obvious. No functioning democracy is a direct democracy. But some people think for “important decisions” we should go with the direct democracy of a referendum, despite everyone realizing that is bad for every other decision.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Europe was the bad actor here. The various parties of the U.K. are to blame. What staggered me was that if just a few people had said, “You know what? You want to burn, so burn!”, then 65 million in the U.K., would be thrown into chaos starting tomorrow night.
Is Europe just hoping Britain pretends the referendum to leave never happened? The Tories can’t deliver a plan that makes even their strongest supporters happy, but while they look foolish for not following through with the exit, perhaps just ignoring it is their best political option.
It’s not ignorable, sadly. There are still various deadlines embedded in agreements that will need finessing at the very least.
Having said that, today the UK Civil Service was instructed by the Cabinet Office to stand down preparations for a no-deal exit:
Perhaps that is just to send the seconded staff back to their normal jobs and lives for a while, but as an indication of current thinking it’s perhaps telling.
There’s another issue that seems to have gained prominence today. It’s no surprise, but given all the other stuff going on it’s perhaps understandable that it’s not been a primary focus. The current session of Parliament is about to end - it was extended from the usual one year to two because the government figured it didn’t need the legislative hassle half way through the Brexit process.
What that means is that government is going to have to come up with a Queen’s Speech in the next couple of months ie a new legislative agenda. The thing is that the debate on the Queen’s Speech leads to what is a vote of confidence in the government. That might be interesting this year…
I’m hoping it will end up like the reform of the House of Lords. Officially a core part of every parties manifesto, but too complicated to reach an agreement on. So they do nothing.
The danger as I see it came to me when I heard Nigel Dodds say something in the House yesterday.
On the prospect of extending the present session for a further year he is absolutely opposed. Which I guess means a new Queen’s Speech is needed by the summer.
And if the Queen’s Speech includes the Withdrawal Agreement with the backstop, the DUP will vote against the Government on the Address to the Throne.
So…May has to get something resolved before then, or she’s going down anyway.
Europe in general is hoping that the mess can be sorted enough to avoid at least some of the most painful points, such as expats/immigrants finding themselves undocumented because they didn’t realize they now needed to do a bunch of new paperwork or because said paperwork isn’t defined; a hard border in Eire; companies being unsure whether they need to change every standing contract involving the UK and a EU country, etc.
Spain in particular has a lot of people hoping that the punchback to Catexit* and the close view of Brexit will have marked a swing back of that Catalan pendulum which seems to go back and forth between “working away” and “wanting to break away” to a calm period.
One direct and immediate consequence of the announcement of the 1-O referendum was that a lot of people who had spent the previous decades fuming silently suddenly said “I’m sick of this shit and by the way I’m a Spaniard”. Independentists who thought they were in the majority because their voice had been the only one heard for a long time suddenly realized theirs was neither the only voice, nor the majority. Oops. The trial is being… interesting.
I think a thread on why the world’s gone crazy would be very interesting. I’m in agreement that it seems like people around the world did go crazy in 2016, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why.
Several posts I’ve read here on this board and the news in general seem to take it as a given that the Tories would win a general election. Have I read something into your post that isn’t there, or do most people familiar with British politics take it as a given that the Tories would win a general election should one be held?
The short answer is that the Tories would probably get a plurality because Corbyn is so unpopular, but whether they would be able to form a government is another matter.
Notwithstanding what Steophan says, polls conducted in April have mostly given Labour an edge over the Tories, but not a vote-share which would necessarily deliver a majority. And a lot can change in the course of the election campaign itself, as May discovered to her chagrin in 2017. My observation, FWIW, is that people who express confidence that either Labour or the Tories would win an election held now tend to be people who either are partisan supporters of the party they predict will win, or have a rooted dislike of the other party.
?