Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
taxme

Brexit from the European Union.

Recommended Posts

Strange how they don't even know themselves in Britain if the PM has a right to ask prorogation of parliament but need court-decisions to figure it out. Perhaps something to do with the lack of a written constitution. I find such a right very strange but if he has such a right then shut up and put up.

Does the Canadian PM have such a right? I doubt it he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Strange how they don't even know themselves in Britain if the PM has a right to ask prorogation of parliament but need court-decisions to figure it out. Perhaps something to do with the lack of a written constitution. I find such a right very strange but if he has such a right then shut up and put up.

Does the Canadian PM have such a right? I doubt it he has.

There would be no court decision required, the Canadian PM can prorogue, if there is a dispute, first the Governor General will arbitrate.

If the government is want for a second opinion, they can go over the Viceregal head to the Queen, as the Harper Government was preparing to do in 2009

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most the Queen or GG can do is dissolve Parliament so an election can take place or put it on hold, as happened when Harper asked the GG to prorogue Parliament.  He was told that he could do so but would then have to table his budget, opening his government up to a non-confidence vote.   

What’s interesting about the current prorogation in Britain is that Johnson would like s non-confidence vote (now that the Conservatives are in minority), but he won’t get one, because no other party wants to be blamed for causing an election, especially if it could result in reelection of the Conservatives with a majority, leaving Johnson firmly at the helm and ensuring a Brexit, deal or no deal.  Right now Parliament has been able to require that Brexit has a deal before it can take place, except that so far no Brexit deal has been supported by Parliament, so they are in a holding pattern.  

That’s why I think Brexit will keep getting kicked down the road, at least until there’s another election and/or referendum.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fixed-term act is proving to be a mistake. After all, it was the Tories themselves who pushed it through. Without it an election would already have been called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 10:25 PM, Dougie93 said:

This was not the EU debate, this was the EEC, UKIP doesn't actually oppose the EEC, in fact the Brexit is basically a return to the EEC.

The Baroness Thatcher was a Euroskeptic, make no mistake, in fact she is the Mother of UKIP

 

That was why I put the EU in italics. Thatcher’s main point there was not about the EEC per se but the effect referendums could have on the constitutional order of Britain, a representative democracy. 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That was why I put the EU in italics. Thatcher’s main point there was not about the EEC per se but the effect referendums could have on the constitutional order of Britain, a representative democracy. 

I see.   That is true, Thatcher would never had held a referendum.  

The UK is not a republic.

Like Canada, it is actually highly unstable. 

Direct democracy will tear it apart.

Before the British took Quebec by force of arms, they took Scotland and Ireland by force of arms.

It was all the same war, against the House of Bourbon and Roman Catholic autocracy,

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t agree that Brexit would be a return to either the EEC or Thatcher’s vision for the future. The customs union was an essential EEC feature and the single market was pioneered by Thatcher herself. Brexiteers want to leave both. BTW for the eurosceptic crowd, UKIP has been eclipsed by the Brexit Party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do also find interesting is that by booting out noncompliant Conservatives, Johnson is ensuring that the Conservatives are demonstrably pro-Brexit, which means if they do have an election, the election is in some ways a referendum on Brexit.  If the electorate choose Conservatives with a majority with Johnson in charge, that’s a clear reaffirmation Brexit, and the Conservatives would have the mandate and power to hammer it through, with or without a deal.  I think Johnson is hoping to get that mandate.  He may not get it.  No matter what, a form of customs union will be in place.  That’s crucial for Britain’s long term health.  The rest is debatable and depends on what kind of Britain people want.  I would just be wary of nativists who appeal to people’s fear and paranoia.  Those are darker forces that usually narrow the vision of what a country can be.  Having said that, the pace of change in the EU has been too fast and Brussels has too much power and control.  Reform is necessary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What I do also find interesting is that by booting out noncompliant Conservatives, Johnson is ensuring that the Conservatives are demonstrably pro-Brexit, which means if they do have an election, the election is in some ways a referendum on Brexit.  If the electorate choose Conservatives with a majority with Johnson in charge, that’s a clear reaffirmation Brexit, and the Conservatives would have the mandate and power to hammer it through, with or without a deal.  I think Johnson is hoping to get that mandate.  He may not get it.  No matter what, a form of customs union will be in place.  That’s crucial for Britain’s long term health.  The rest is debatable and depends on what kind of Britain people want.  I would just be wary of nativists who appeal to people’s fear and paranoia.  Those are darker forces that usually narrow the vision of what a country can be.  Having said that, the pace of change in the EU has been too fast and Brussels has too much power and control.  Reform is necessary.  

The customs union is detrimental to Britain's long term health, it prevents them from lowering tariffs on non-EU nations to get themselves a better deal with those nations if the EU doesn't want to go along. They don't need a customs union to not tariff EU products and trade freely with them, but without it they can better trade deals for themselves without all the EU baggage holding them back.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be clear-cut economic suicide for Britain not to have a trade agreement with Europe.  

The tariffs on Britain’s goods would simply price them out of the European market.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the fixed term parliament-act is a good reform as previously the PM had an unfair advantage over being able to declare new elections by himself. 

However, the new law is now hampering solution. If there was no such a law new elections would have been called and the Tories remoaner-MPs would be deselected from becoming even candidates. 

The Brexit-party doesn't trust Johnson. They want what they call a clean break Brexit. They fear that Johnson in order to deliver Brexit by Oct 31st may rehash Theresa May's shitty deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I’m not sure there are enough radical Brexiters willing to risk Brexit without a deal to make it happen.  The risks are real.  This faction is banking on Europe having no choice but to broker a deal to protect Ireland.  Instead Europe may say, fuck it, let Northern Ireland sort out whether it wants to stay in Europe by leaving Britain.  Same goes for Scotland.  Those possibilities would make a huge mess that would be mostly Britain’s problem.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I can’t agree that Brexit would be a return to either the EEC or Thatcher’s vision for the future. The customs union was an essential EEC feature and the single market was pioneered by Thatcher herself. Brexiteers want to leave both. BTW for the eurosceptic crowd, UKIP has been eclipsed by the Brexit Party. 

Thatcher would not have held a referendum, but once one was held and the vote was for Brexit, the Baroness Thatcher would have rallied around Britain against the EU.

Britannia First.  If you don't agree with that, then you don't know Margaret Hilda Thatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bravado sounds impressive, but the impact of leaving the EU depends entirely on the terms of separation, which is why this Brexit cause can’t advance.  So far the Brits can’t accept the terms of separation, so there is no Brexit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the debt-crisis destroyed the political framework in Greece the same is happening in Britain because of Brexit. This has been fun to watch. Some sort of a political realignment is taking place and the old two-party division is breaking down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

The bravado sounds impressive, but the impact of leaving the EU depends entirely on the terms of separation, which is why this Brexit cause can’t advance.  So far the Brits can’t accept the terms of separation, so there is no Brexit.  

Boris Johnson is quite clearly the Thatcherite; It's going to happen, it's just a question of how bad the Europeans will screw you, hard Brexit is the quickest and most painless way out.

Thatcher was a populist nationalist in the end, what's done is done; the Lady is not for turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Brexit vote was 52-48, that’s a vote for Brexit but not a no-deal Brexit. The vast majority of that Remain vote would want at most a soft Brexit and presumably some of Leave too, putting soft Brexit easily over the 50 mark. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW in the HoC there are votes of no confidence rather than non-confidence votes.

Our prorogation crisis with Harper showed yet again why the GG should be an elected position rather than being effectively chosen by the PM.  

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

BTW in the HoC there are votes of no confidence rather than non-confidence votes.

Our prorogation crisis with Harper showed yet again why the GG should be an elected position rather than being effectively chosen by the PM.  

They are appointed by the Queen. Canada is not a republic.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

BTW in the HoC there are votes of no confidence rather than non-confidence votes.

Our prorogation crisis with Harper showed yet again why the GG should be an elected position rather than being effectively chosen by the PM.  

I believe that's the reason for the Australian republican movement. They don't want the GG being forever the creature of the PM. If Australia cut the monarchical ties with the British crown, and started electing its own president, for once, they'd have a head of state free from the tyranny of the head of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They are appointed by the Queen. Canada is not a republic.

In practice, constitutional monarchies function very much as parliamentary republics, the major difference being an unelected head of state. The GG is not really appointed by the Queen. She does what she is told. The GG is appointed by the PM, somebody he or she may have to oppose. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. An election for the GG could be held, the result of which could inform the PM and his minions on whom to ‘advise’ the Queen to appoint.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They are appointed by the Queen. Canada is not a republic.

In practice, constitutional monarchies function very much as parliamentary republics, the major difference being an unelected head of state. The GG is not really appointed by the Queen. She does what she is told. The GG is appointed by the PM, somebody he or she may have to oppose. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. An election for the GG could be held, the result of which could inform the PM and his minions on whom to ‘advise’ the Queen to appoint.  

Boris promised Angela he’d have a written proposal to the EU within a month. That month is almost up and the EU sources claim they have received nothing in writing yet. If you don’t like the backstop, at least come up with a detailed alternative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They are appointed by the Queen. Canada is not a republic.

The Queen would not recommend the GG.  That’s the PM’s role.  The Queen signs the appointment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I believe that's the reason for the Australian republican movement. They don't want the GG being forever the creature of the PM. If Australia cut the monarchical ties with the British crown, and started electing its own president, for once, they'd have a head of state free from the tyranny of the head of government.

But the PM is elected.  The GG is mostly the ceremonial face of the PM, with cultural/historical links to the monarch for gravitas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In practice, constitutional monarchies function very much as parliamentary republics, the major difference being an unelected head of state. The GG is not really appointed by the Queen. She does what she is told. The GG is appointed by the PM, somebody he or she may have to oppose. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. An election for the GG could be held, the result of which could inform the PM and his minions on whom to ‘advise’ the Queen to appoint.  

Just because the PM advises the Queen, and the Queen usually listens, does not mean that power should be taken away from the Queen to appoint the GG. An election is not proper advise, that's a popularity contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...