UK Government to Ask Queen to Suspend Parliament
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The dual narrative of politics continues, and both sides of the equation literally experience a different universe it would seem.
I personally disagree entirely. I just am amazed that a fragmented simultaneously different truth can exist so openly with people believing the side they agree with.
Of course I see the risk to UK democracy and the strategic (and in my view dangerously manipulative) use of the system and of course with the timing it seems impossible to argue seriously that it's just to set out a programme of gov, but that is the line Johnson is selling.
So I downvoted because I can't make heads or tails of your words.
Some people who see his viewpoint are happy to overlook the timing and don't necessarily see it as undemocratic.
There is another element. Direct democracy believers feel that parliament is trying to crush democracy (by potentially overturning a referendum result).
Representative democracy believers cannot accept that their representatives would be denied the ability to represent their constituents at such a critical time of major constitutional change.
So the dual narrative was a reference to how some people see this step as delivering the power and will of the people.
Others see it as a dangerous subversion of democracy.
Happy to clarify more if I'm being unclear but you can read the comment section on the BBC article and you'll see incredibly polar comments. The dual narrative is precisely that. People read the same article, see the same speech and have a completely different understanding of it.
Perhaps that's unremarkable to you, but in the UK it's been profound and profoundly different from the mainstream politics I've seen my entire life.
[Edit - clarification of crush democracy]
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
There are always one or two pro-Brexit people in threads like this who get defensive at the sight of any opposition to their way of reasoning about this.
It wasn't an endorsement, and I'm happy to discuss the issues in detail. I've been doing it since I lost the vote...
Yes, for now it is just temporary. In 49, Caesar also started with a temporary dictatorship: 11 days. Then in 48 one year. Then in 47 10 years. Then in 44 for life. then he was killed but the Roman republic and its sort of democracy died with him.
Johnson is blocking elected members of parliament from asserting their influence on the most important decisions since WWII.
The mother of all parliaments...
The lack of a written constitution has allowed certain things like the UK equivalent of the 5th Amendment (invoking the right of silence when questioned in a criminal proceeding does not invoke an appearance of guilt that can be told to the jury) disappear under Tony Blair.
The important thing about a constitution is that it is well-designed, not that it is written down.
On the other hand... This is a complete disaster. If parliament can't function, what hope does the rest of the country have? I think the exchange rate is the best metric on how well Brexit is going. The sad irony is that Brexit was meant to give the UK sovereignty (rule Britania and all that...), but crashing the economy has made everything cheaper for foreign investors. The UK is no longer united metaphorically and literally.
Brexit has been a death march from the get-go.
The problem is these are not normal times, and the Parliamentary majority is trying to regain control of the legislative timetable but without bringing down the government.
Johnson PM is apparently going to tell HM the Queen that she must give up the ages old constitutional arrangement of ceding power to parliament and instead she must cede power to him.
That's treason both against democracy and against the crown, as I see it.
So, will she intervene and hand the power promised to parliament (to prevent civil war and the downfall of the monarchy) over to Johnson such that he is no longer Her Majesty's Prime Minister but instead becomes the UK's de facto dictator; claiming the power of sovereignty for himself. Or, will she maintain the status quo established when Cromwell became, ahem, disestablished, and refuse to remove the sovereignty of parliament (and so, ironically, maintain her own sovereignty) ...
But they were already due a recess between 13th September and 8th October for their yearly jolly at the seaside[1].
Having just returned from their summer recess between 20th July and 5th September.
Proroguing parliament ends the parliamentary session. Any work in progress, debates on bills and what not are cancelled as void. A new session of parliament starts from day one on everything, with a Queen's speech, State Opening and what not. That's why toward the end of the parliamentary year there is often a rush to get matters concluded and bills enacted before prorogation. Coming back early is much more difficult.
This move effectively turns the whole parliament into a one issue organisation and disables debate.
Makes perfect sense? /s
Good heavens.
AIUI since Cromwell's reign ended the monarchy have agreed to give _parliament_ sovereignty.
If the monarch does not intervene, then parliament can stop Johnson from becoming de facto dictator.
If the monarch ends the established constitution, steps in and uses her executive power to order prorogation of parliament, then Johnson can have his way.
The Tories appear to have got in early, and lied, pretending that Johnson PM's right is to take away parliamentary sovereignty whilst the opposite is the case.
Victoria was the last monarch to actually do something unilateral with the sovereign powers, at some point in the late 1800's. She appointed Gladstone's successor without consulting Gladstone. IIRC that was only because Gladstone hadn't bothered with a successor as he was supposed to and it had dragged on for ages. Charles II, the restored monarch, dissolved parliament in the hopes of a better one a time or three. He had ongoing issues with parliament, almost all over the question of Catholic succession.
Lizzie probably has good grounds to intervene given how crassly and illegally Johnson appears to be acting, yet the tabloid outrage if she did could easily cost her the throne. It's a very long time since I read much on the UK constitution, so I couldn't guess what devils are hiding in the details.
The queen may in fact have to be the grownup in the room to get the UK out of this in some fashion. Parliament (and May, and Johnson) don't seem to be able to do it.
There's no evidence of that, and statistically it's almost impossible (the conservative party, when they win, tends to get elected on 30% of the public's vote or less)
This older NY Times story talks about her unionist view, the controversy in The Sun’s claim that she is pro-Brexit, and surprisingly also the prorogue: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizab...
She will do what the government advises. She's got burnt once before picking sides, I doubt she'll make that mistake again.
Not that the whole Brexit thing was ever very rational (in the homus economicus sense) but this is sliding into a farce and tragedy all in one.
If I were an optimist, I'd say that this is posturing to force the EU's hand but I suspect that unless a face saving measure is found, this is it.
Erm, no. 51% of 72% voted to leave. The rest either voted remain or didn't vote. Most of those who voted to leave almost certainly didn't vote for no deal.
So stop spreading this empty "just get on with it" rhetoric. It's infuriating.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I can't personally have imagined this taking place a decade ago. I think it's interesting for that reason. Certainly politics in the UK and beyond feel starkly different nowadays.
Now we get to watch the same story get repeatedly resubmitted (bbc.com, guardian.co.uk, times.co.uk etc), commented-on and upvoted ... then flagged off by the minority. But hey, at least we get to see the latest DerpCorp S-1 filing!
The US congress seems to leave budgets much later (or perhaps, ends up taking longer over them because of the brinksmanship), and uses continuing resolutions to extend the deadline. As i understand it, the US fiscal year starts on the 1st of October; congress didn't pass a budget for 2018/9 until the 15th of February 2019, so the funding from 2017/8 was extended by a couple of continuing resolutions (one in September 2018, extending it to the 7th of December, and one in early December 2018, extending it to the 21st of December), still leaving a shutdown before a budget was finally passed.
Before the passage of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2011, and the general fading of constitutional certainty which has occurred in the last several years, the UK mechanism for maintaining funding was that if the government failed to get a budget through parliament, they would resign and dissolve parliament. There would then be an election, and the new government and new parliament would have a fresh shot at getting a budget through. Now, though, the FTPA does not allow a government to unilaterally dissolve parliament, many people think a government would not have to resign after failing to pass a budget, and elections often don't produce a majority anyway!
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...
I mean Trump, Brexit, Putin, Erdoğan, The guy in Brazil, in Hungary - all seem to act like a part of a bigger organization.
I don’t really believe that there’s a grand conspiracy but I am fascinated how unrelated organizations act in resonance.
It’s not even limited to big politics, suddenly right wing bigotry is sexy. “Lone wolfs” attack women, minorities or pretty much any outliers, movements emerge as ways to combat vegans, girls that don’t behave in the desired ways etc.
Putin and Erdoğan are different beasts, they have been around for much longer. They are just good at consolidating their power.
I don't know much about the Hungarian situation.
Besides its ties with Trump, Russia has also been financing extreme right parties in Europe (and probably elsewhere), and pushing divisive propaganda through its press divisions (RT, ...).