Politics Brexit Politics

[EnI]

Rees Mogg is a conservative nutcase. He sure is intelligent but still a nutcase.

UK is doomed. The Center is gone. Labour has gone far left, while the Tories are definitely going much more right in the post-May times. Yes, such fun. Really, such fun. Not! Add that to the very much possible no-deal Brexit (with Good Friday Agreement breached and in peril), an upcoming King Charles, a possible renewed Scottish Independence movement, and you have an empire ... An empire of clusterf**k. King will be saved but the nation won't be, unfortunately.

PS: poor Theresa indeed. She was choking, was handed a P45 form (the so called "you're fired note"), and even the wall literally said to her: "F off". ROFL

 

[EnI]

Regarding referenda on independence (or leaving or joining a union): such referenda require a legal foundation, the results have to be obligatorily to the lawmakers, and most importantly: there has to be a mandatory absolute majority quorum! Only when more than a half of entire electorate body votes yes, then the result has a genuine legitimacy. Otherwise it's a joke, and an undemocratic decision. Eg. The will of only 37% of all registered voters just can't be interpreted as a majority will of a whole nation. It's just wrong. And utterly undemocratic. There has to be a mandatory absolute majority qourum when it comes to such important questions , votes and decisions.

To me Brexit referendum result (same goes to Catalan independence referendum result) is not valid enough (there was no absolute majority for brexit support) to legitimate brexit. Period. Brexit is just too important issue to be only executed based on a will of only 37% of all voters - so, a minority. Others did vote No explicitly or didn't care much or weren't to keen on Brexit to come to voting boots to vote Yes. Simple as that. 37% is not an absolute majority.

 

[EnI]

Also: I find British democracy very much questionable. The head of state is an unelected monarch , the House of Lords is an unelected house, while the House of Commons members are elected via one-round first - past - the - post system, when a minority of an electorate (less then 50% of all voters) elects an MP, and a party with less than 50% popular vote can get an absolute majority in the HoC. How's that democratic? And a party with eg 12% of popular votes gets no MPs elected at all. Democratic? I don't thinks so. The will of the voters is so skewed in Britain it makes my brain sore.

And UK is not the only country with much flawed election system(s). There are many. US being one of them. With all the voter suppression & frauds, gerrymandering, electorate votes etc.

 

[SDNR]

Also: I find British democracy very much questionable. The head of state is an unelected monarch , the House of Lords is an unelected house, while the House of Commons members are elected via one-round first - past - the - post system, when a minority of an electorate (less then 50% of all voters) elects an MP, and a party with less than 50% popular vote can get an absolute majority in the HoC. How's that democratic? And a party with eg 12% of popular votes gets no MPs elected at all. Democratic? I don't thinks so. The will of the voters is so skewed in Britain it makes my brain sore.

The Queen does not have any influence on the parliament. It is ceremonial. Good god, the Queen has watched as the British Empire crumbled, her (symbolic) sovereignty essentially handed over to Brussels when the UK joined the EU, and came damn close to watching the kingdom disintegrate (Scottish independence). Once Queen Elizabeth dies, don't be surprised to see Australia, Canada, and New Zealand choose to become Republics.

 

[Matski]

Labour certainly are making noises about calling it off. However, what does this say about British Democracy?
Should there be a second referendum do you think?

I think @EnI has covered this for me already

Democratic? I don't thinks so. The will of the voters is so skewed in Britain it makes my brain sore.

Yup... these are the facts in the constituency where I live.

 

[Matski]

The Queen does not have any influence on the parliament. It is ceremonial.

Taken from What are The Queen’s powers?

The Queen’s prerogative powers vary and fall into different categories…

POLITICAL POWERS
The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

• Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.
• Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.
• Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.
• Appoint/Remove Ministers – Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.
• Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.
• Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.
• Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

JUDICIAL POWERS
The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

• Royal Pardon – The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.

ARMED FORCES
The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

• Commander-in-Chief – The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
• Commissioning of Officers – The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions (when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).
• Disposition of the Forces – The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.

HONOURS
One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

• Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.
• Font of Honour – It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.

MISCELLANEOUS POWERS
Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

• Control of Passports – The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative – this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.
• Requisitioning of Ships – This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982.

 

[EnI]

@Rob

HRH is still on official Commander in Chief of the UK Armed Forces. Although that power, duty & privilege is not de facto excercised in day-to-day operations. But HRH is the one who eg. declares a war.

To have an unelected supreme commander of the armed forces is utterly scary. And all the (unelected) monarchs around the world have such a power. That doesn't really fit into modern democratic systems.

 

[SDNR]

@Rob

HRH is still on official Commander in Chief of the UK Armed Forces. Although that power, duty & privilege is not de facto excercised in day-to-day operations. But HRH is the one who eg. declares a war.

To have an unelected supreme commander of the armed forces is utterly scary. And all the (unelected) monarchs around the world have such a power. That doesn't really fit into modern democratic systems.

Would the UK be better off if Theresa May was a President?
Britain is not run like it's the 18th century. Besides, the monarchy as an institution is part of the British identity.
As Dame Barbara Cartland once said about the monarchy, without it Britain would become "a rather boring little island with a flag."

 

[EnI]

If the Monarchy and all the pomp & circumstance that go along are the pinnacle of British & UK's identity, then help them Whoever. It's almost a caricature of once mighty Empire.

I always cringe when I hear an oxymoron like "modern Britain". Really? It's sounds as modern as my granny's panties, lol.

 

[SDNR]

If the Monarchy and all the pomp & circumstances that go along are the pinnacle of British & UK's identity, then help them Whoever.

Well I think they (the Brits) have got quite a lot going for them really

However, I'm not sure the British people really want King Charles and Queen Camilla.

I have to say though, Prince William, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry are great ambassadors for Britain. It is hard not to like them.

And if Harry marries Meghan Markle the American Women's magazines will go into overdrive!

 

[Matski]

If the Monarchy and all the pomp & circumstance that go along are the pinnacle of British & UK's identity, then help them Whoever. It's almost a caricature of one mighty Empire.

Just joking

The Queen and the Monarchy pale into insignificance next to the crap-fest that is our government... I don't think many people can have a legitimate direct grievance with the Queen that they wouldn't also end up having if all her powers were given to the PM.

 

[SDNR]

Just joking

The Queen and the Monarchy pale into insignificance next to the crap-fest that is our government... I don't think many people can have a legitimate direct grievance with the Queen that they wouldn't also end up having if all her powers were given to the PM.

She looks so displeased a lot of the time (RBF). She's had an interesting life though.
She wasn't born to be Queen, it's funny how fate can change a person's destiny.

 

[chonkoa]

@Rob

HRH is still on official Commander in Chief of the UK Armed Forces. Although that power, duty & privilege is not de facto excercised in day-to-day operations. But HRH is the one who eg. declares a war.

To have an unelected supreme commander of the armed forces is utterly scary. And all the (unelected) monarchs around the world have such a power. That doesn't really fit into modern democratic systems.

History helps in understanding what we have now, where we have come from and how far we have come.
On the same trajectory, we might as well start pointing out the flaws of the modern nation states, economy, currencies etc.

 

[klier]

If the Monarchy and all the pomp & circumstance that go along are the pinnacle of British & UK's identity, then help them Whoever. It's almost a caricature of once mighty Empire.

I always cringe when I hear an oxymoron like "modern Britain". Really? It's sounds as modern as my granny's panties, lol.

U.K has never been a bigger mess than it is today. May is an utter walking disaster, Brexit is a complete, total and utter failure, and then we have 200% idiots like Boris in the same government he wants to overthrow .....

Simply put, they are damn lucky over there. Lucky they are on an island that can't sink. Because it would have.

 

[Matski]

U.K has never been a bigger mess than it is today. May is an utter walking disaster, Brexit is a complete, total and utter failure, and then we have 200% idiots like Boris in the same government he wants to overthrow .....

Simply put, they are damn lucky over there. Lucky they are on an island that can't sink. Because it would have.

The way Brexit is being handled is a f*** up. The referendum should only have ever been to gauge public opinion, and Cameron should have stated from the start that the outcome would not be binding, instead, he promised to go with the will of the people - a people who are ill-informed and reactionary. This would have at least given the government time to consider things, organise, and plan appropriately, before then deciding to leave, if indeed that's what they wanted to do.

Democratic systems need to wake up and realise Social Media has upset the traditional public mindset, and the public really can't be trusted to make the correct decision on things they basically don't understand.

 

[WBarnes]

U.K has never been a bigger mess than it is today.

I don't know, 1066 was pretty bad.

The planning for Brexit was terrible. They should have laid out a plan for no deal from day 1, with comprehensive tariff and non-tariff barrier policies.

That said, Brexit is a problem caused by national leaders not addressing European policy intentions during national elections. Then you have stuff like the Lisbon Treaty. It's just the rejected EU Constitution re-written as a series of treaty amendments and put through behind closed doors without referendum. EU policy was hidden from national electorates until it was too late to stop it or change it (easily). With more public participation along the way, the EU would never have got to a point where people wanted to leave.

For this reason, Tony Blair is more responsible for Brexit then Nigel Farage could ever be. He largely conspired to hide changes in the EU from the British people and brought in a series of changes that would never go down well.

The bigger mistake was joining in the first place. In 1973 they gave up trading ties with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, causing a recession in several of them and resigned themselves to mediocrity as a spare wheel in the EU.

 

[WBarnes]

Democratic systems need to wake up and realise Social Media has upset the traditional public mindset, and the public really can't be trusted to make the correct decision on things they basically don't understand.

Woah, steady there. You're one step away from suggesting a dictatorship. I mean, if people are that dumb, why let them vote at all?

 

[Matski]

Woah, steady there. You're one step away from suggesting a dictatorship. I mean, if people are that dumb, why let them vote at all?

I am suggesting that radical change need to take place. Whilst I don't think the people should be subject to a dictatorship, I do think that the freedom of the media (inc. social media - a uniquely 21st century weapon aimed at a 13th century political system), should be restricted or have far more severe degrees of accountability. We can aim to make the people 'smarter' when it comes to politics and government using positive steps such as education regarding our system of government in schools - alongside equally crucial things like teaching kids critical thinking and how to spot biases... but the lies and manipulation that exist in all channels of information between the government and the people need to be eradicated or the people don't have chance.

I read you response to Klier regarding Blair etc. and I'll admit to not being as familiar with those events as you are, however... I would wager the significant majority of leave voters did not want us out of Europe for those reasons... they wanted us out for reasons far more personally emotive, and they formed these emotive links to the leave stance based on biased misinformation and propaganda from all sides. As a remain voter, I have to acknowledge that the same is probably true in this camp. Democracy is a war of information that is getting out of hand.

I've actually now stopped caring about Brexit, it's already taken a significant toll on personal life, my financial situation, and the state of the business I run, so whatever comes next will just be more of the same for me.... however, the whole shambles has highlighted how inept our government is and how poor our system of democracy is... it is not fit for purpose. Take out the faces and the party names, this isn't me ranting about May or Corbyn or being Lib Dem (not that I am) or anything like that, but the system that allows itself to become this messed up is fundamentally flawed and honestly I'm now distrustful of anyone with a political agenda that isn't wholesale change across the board, and in that I would have to consider the state of our own union also.

 

[WBarnes]

I am suggesting that radical change need to take place. Whilst I don't think the people should be subject to a dictatorship, I do think that the freedom of the media (inc. social media - a uniquely 21st century weapon aimed at a 13th century political system), should be restricted or have far more severe degrees of accountability. We can aim to make t...

Well a lot of the emotive reasons came from the shambles created by things like the Lisbon Treaty and EU expansion(s). And whilst there's a sort of formula for % GDP contributed, the formula that determines the net contribution to the EU seems very ad hoc. It has the UK, with a near identical GDP and population as France paying the 2nd most on net, whilst only having the 3rd most seats in EU parliament and being the 5th largest exporter in the EU. Yet we are told the rebate is some kind of massively favourable thing.

 

[klier]

I don't know, 1066 was pretty bad.

The planning for Brexit was terrible. They should have laid out a plan for no deal from day 1, with comprehensive tariff and non-tariff barrier policies.

That said, Brexit is a problem caused by national leaders not addressing European policy intentions during national elections. Then you have stuff like the Lisb...

Disagree wih most of it. But what stood out is your suggestion to better to be with Australia, New Zealand and Canada instead of the EU, which is about a bazillion times more important than those specs you mentioned (no disrespect).

Also, people don't want to leave the UK. It's a vocal minority who does, plus all the ignorant bastards who have no clue about real life matters because they have too little brain mass and voted for the sake of protest (protest because their real day to day lives are getting f#cked too by the same politicians).

Idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. Mixing idiots with the poison that is social media and fake news, and you have a disaster like Brexit. And for that we can blame the politicians: Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson, Farage. ALL of them. They all failed miserably. Boris should bu put in jail, Farage in a madhouse, May discommunicated on some remote island, etc.