Hacker News Reader

Comment by balabaster | Hacker News Reader

That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.

View on HN

10-4. Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Presumably, the same gov't that put forth this vote? At least some significant margin of politicians must have wanted this vote knowing that 'yes' is on the table. Where are they?

Because she promised a submarine made of cheese, and delivered a submarine made of cheese, and the people who demanded a submarine made of cheese are mad that it doesn't taste good enough or dive deep enough.

There is no such thing as a favorable brexit deal. Britain is already in the most favorable position possible with regards to EU relations: they have all of the benefits of EU membership, but with a special deal that means they're exempted from some of the membership dues, and they can have their own immigration policy and their own money. Britain has a more beneficial position in the EU than any other country in the world, in or out.

There is absolutely no way that the EU is going to let them leave and keep most of the benefits of membership. The hardliners want to get everything and give nothing, and surprise surprise, the EU wasn't going to let them have everything in exchange for nothing, so the hardliners hate it, and everybody else hates it because it was a stupid idea in the first place.

The problem is that the politics are not partisan and instead divide the main parties.

It would be similar to half the republicans and half the democrats agreeing on a key policy & fundamentally disagreeing with the other half of their respective parties.

(it's actually even worse than that because there are at least 3 main positions [hard exit, soft exit, no exit] which divide the two main parties, meaning nothing really has a clear majority).

The way the UK government works is: from the majority party a government of ministers is formed from their group of MPs. By convention individual MPs in this government (called front-benchers) have a cohesive support for the overall government policy (if they disagree with the policy or vote against it then by convention they have to resign). Anyone from the ruling party NOT on the front-bench can (and often will) vote against the government.

Brexit has been insanely divisive. Internally, the ruling Convservative party have at least 4 different positions, including the official government one. Many front-benchers have resigned.

Fundamentally the problem is this; people voted for Brexit. But only just. So really nearly half the population doesn't want it. It was simple to answer a simple yes/no question. But exiting is a hugely complex question whereby it is nearly impossible to negotiate a compromise that works for everyone.

Also a rather large portion of the population didn't take the vote seriously. When it came out that it was a complete clusterfuck, those voters who either voted just to stick it to the man or didn't bother to vote are now rightly panicking that this train wreck that we can't look away from is like the asteroid that hit the Yucatan peninsula and killed off the dinosaurs and there's fuck all we can do about it.

Oh well, you live and learn.

> Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't?

Because "Prime Minister" is not the head of state, so there's little respect for the position. Her position is equivalent to Speaker of The House in the US, only in a system where The House is also the Executive.

"she is the most important person in the United Kingdom."

I believe members of the UK armed forces would probably dispute that.

Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.

Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

Interesting.

Dan Carlin has a series on his podcast discussing the background of the war in Asia in 1937-1945 (https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...). One of his major points about the Japanese government at the time was that the military held allegiance to the emperor, who couldn't or didn't actually do anything, rather than the civilian government. As a result, the military could do essentially anything it wanted.

That didn't end well.

The wikipedia article [1] suggests that this is formal only and that the army is under the control of the parliament, which was also my understanding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

Lets just say that it's a formality that I hope never gets put to the test :-|

My local MP was kind enough to organise a visit of parliament. He mentioned an amusing annecdote. The tradition still is that when the Queen visits parliament, a senior MP is held hostage in Buckingham. He was chosen on one occurence and was waiting in a drawing room of the palace, in the company of a General. To make the conversation, he asked the general "what if something were to happen to her Majesty?". The general smiled and replied "don't worry, it will be very quick".

This might require further explanation for those not familiar with dry British humour ;)

The Queen has immense theoretical powers, but it would trigger a major constitutional crisis if she were to exercise any of them without being asked by the PM.

She is allowed to veto proposed legislation, and potentially actually exerts some influence thereby - exactly how much remains a secret https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

At this point I'm not sure if UK can do much to avoid a major constitutional crisis one way or another. The deal would be seen as betrayal of Brexit by most its supporters, and remaining even more so. Hard exit would make a mess in Northern Ireland, for starters, and then you have Scotland, and not to forget that Remainers actually make the majority of the population in UK as a whole at this point.

Historically, things haven’t ended well for monarchs who tried to act independently of parliament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

The fun one is the right to shut down the entire house of commons, including the prime minister. That leaves her running the whole show pretty much, though oddly without the right to raise funds via taxes.

Was this legislation to avoid situations like the tyrannical Prince John of Robin Hood fame who just taxed and taxed to line his own pockets?

I'm not sure, but I think it had to do with paying for fighting the French.

This is easily the most interesting conversation that's spawned out of this whole Brexit Clusterfuck. Thank you!

"A Man Called Intrepid" points out that this was a big deal in World War II. If England had fallen to the Nazis, the loyalty would have remained with the king, not with whatever puppet the Nazis had put in place.

Surely with "the crown" and not with the King?

Interesting, thanks

The OP is referring to the queen, whom all millitary members actually report to.

Are you saying there is currently a coup going on, and the armed forces are taking over the government?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com