Boris Johnson - New British PM

 
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@RTT_Rules. There isnt a thousand ways to Brexit. As soon as Theresa May put forward conditions as regards to Northern Ireland and freedom of movement, it was always going to be May's deal or No deal or indeed forget about this lunacy and revoke article 50. Whether you like it or not it is the UK that wants to leave and they must do it in accordance wirh EU rules, end of.

No Brexit deal was ever going to be as good as the deal that the UK had in the EU.


Michael

Sponsored advertisement

  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

The NON-BINDING referendum was a question of ideology, not direction nor a solution. It was hastily put together by Cameron to try and shut some people up and move on and his bluff failed and failed far worse than he ever predicted.
RTT_Rules
There is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK, as there is the overriding doctrine that the Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound by previous decisions.

The UK does not have a constitution, only a collection of Acts of Parliament which are generally recognised (recognition only granted retrospectively) as being 'constitutional' but without having the protection from easy modification that a real constitution has.

It has been known that a sovereign legislature is a Very Bad Idea for quite a while now, which was one of the key reasons that it was decided early in the process of drafting the Constitution of Australia that it should not simply ape the UK model - the very decision that an independent Australia should even have a constitution was the first main departure from the UK model. The positive and negative aspects of the UK model were considered as part of the process, along with those of Canada, Switzerland and the USA.

If Cameron was even mildly competent enough to know that the referendum result was not a sure thing, he would have set pass/fail criteria on the referendum to ensure that further progress would only take place if there was a decisive result for Leave. There were plenty of options: requiring a majority of the electorate (not just a majority of the turnout), a supermajority of 60% or whatever, or the double majority of Australian constitutional referenda.

Even Bill Shorten would have done a better job of handling this, if his pledge from this year's election campaign of a three stage process for republicanism (an advisory plebiscite on the broad concept of moving towards a republic, construction of the model to be put to the people, a constitutional referendum on the chosen model) is anything to go by.

This is like one of those big projects in industry that was wrong to start with but they keep trying to keep it alive until it either implodes or a CEO with big balls/ovaries comes in and says STOP, push everything into the bin, assign new leadership and start again detailing the plan first.

The best thing BJ can do is call a STOP to the whole disaster, stabilise the UK economy and the GBP and establish a BREXIT committee to put together a package on how best to leave the UK that is agreed to by most and put this to a referendum for which the outcome is binding within 6mth.
RTT_Rules
I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process.

The hard part is the last one - that there is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK, so the final 'adopt this decision' referendum would still be an advisory referendum rather than a real binding constitutional referendum. It would rely on the people trusting that the politicians would implement the result of the vote, and that's a problem when politicians of all sides (in terms of both party allegiance and positions on Brexit) have performed so poorly over the last four years that nobody trusts them.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process.
justapassenger
God Save the Queen.  For such a time as this.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Well if the people can't decide (or be allowed to decide), then perhaps now is the time for the Queen to throw caution to the wind and sack the lot of them and start again?  (Yes, I know that would be utterly unconstitutional yada yada yada....., but could it be a way forward?)
"Carnot"


The Queen has no effectual powers no it won't happen. On this reading various post in FB (I have a few FB friends who are British), the number of Brit's who don't know how their own govt works is quite concerning.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@RTT_Rules. There isnt a thousand ways to Brexit. As soon as Theresa May put forward conditions as regards to Northern Ireland and freedom of movement, it was always going to be May's deal or No deal or indeed forget about this lunacy and revoke article 50. Whether you like it or not it is the UK that wants to leave and they must do it in accordance wirh EU rules, end of.

No Brexit deal was ever going to be as good as the deal that the UK had in the EU.


Michael
mejhammers1

Only 1% more wants to leave than stay, that is not an overwhelming majority to potentially %#$$% the UK and leave on any terms or no terms at all. Recent polling also indicates those who want to stay remains constant, but those who want to leave are having a rethink with a rising "I don't know".

So does the UK really want to leave or should they act on a simple open ideological based question with no detail which includes the risk of return to fighting in Nth Ireland and Scotland leaving the British Union in favor of the European Union?

The freedom of movement agreement for Nth Ireland is time limited and still doesn't address alot of other issues regarding the border.

No deal is by far not the best deal and taking a step back and having a rethink may see a better deal that doesn't involve turning the govt into a dysfunctional laughing stock, destroy the economy or take the  UK on a one way path in a direction they may not actually want to go.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Even Bill Shorten would have done a better job of handling this, if his pledge from this year's election campaign of a three stage process for republicanism (an advisory plebiscite on the broad concept of moving towards a republic, construction of the model to be put to the people, a constitutional referendum on the chosen model) is anything to go by.

I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process.

The hard part is the last one - that there is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK, so the final 'adopt this decision' referendum would still be an advisory referendum rather than a real binding constitutional referendum. It would rely on the people trusting that the politicians would implement the result of the vote, and that's a problem when politicians of all sides (in terms of both party allegiance and positions on Brexit) have performed so poorly over the last four years that nobody trusts them.
justapassenger
Thanks and interesting history lesson there. Yes the UK has no constitution, considering some of the issues with Aust and USA, sometimes you have to wonder is this so bad.

Yes, I'm not a fan of Billy, but I do agree if had taken Leadership of the UK and not Australia (yes he didn't, but ignore than), then both countries would be better off. Note, I did support his Republican approach.

For me the UK leaving the EU issue was driven by the one PM who shouldn't have been involved just like Howard set up the Republican farce committee what ever it was called in the late 90's. It was always going to fail and the following referendum result was the outcome he wanted.

Yes, by "binding" I met trusting the MP's to follow up on the outcome. This would however need to be  by-partisan agreement in advance, unlikely as Corbyn is a %$#$% of a Labor leader.

BJ should resign and throw them to an election, in his resignation he should address the people and simply state BREXIT in its current form is not workable solution and the UK people need to accept this and article 50 or what ever its called scrapped.

Since leaving the EU still has around 50% support of the people, then recommend the new PM/govt put steps in place that could ensure a review on how to leave the EU is actually achieved including how to potentially address the reasons for leaving with the EU and prevent the UK from having to leave in the first place and then put this to the people. But also acknowledge that none of this is likely to happen between now and the following scheduled General election and the new govt get back to the  business of running the country.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
...

If Cameron was even mildly competent enough to know that the referendum result was not a sure thing, he would have set pass/fail criteria on the referendum to ensure that further progress would only take place if there was a decisive result for Leave. There were plenty of options: requiring a majority of the electorate (not just a majority of the turnout), a supermajority of 60% or whatever, or the double majority of Australian constitutional referenda.
justapassenger
So in other words they should have hobbled it in the same manner that Howard did the republican referendum; although in some ways it was never going to work anyway given a referendum in Australia has some reasonably onerous hurdles.
Even Bill Shorten would have done a better job of handling this, if his pledge from this year's election campaign of a three stage process for republicanism (an advisory plebiscite on the broad concept of moving towards a republic, construction of the model to be put to the people, a constitutional referendum on the chosen model) is anything to go by. I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process.
justapassenger
Clever, brilliant. Remind me again why he ain't PM?
I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process. The hard part is the last one - that there is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK, so the final 'adopt this decision' referendum would still be an advisory referendum rather than a real binding constitutional referendum. It would rely on the people trusting that the politicians would implement the result of the vote, and that's a problem when politicians of all sides (in terms of both party allegiance and positions on Brexit) have performed so poorly over the last four years that nobody trusts them.
justapassenger
If the UK burns through yet another leader without a result then you have to question whether parliament is capable of government any longer given its been three plus years since the actual referendum and they still can't get anything concrete done. It's already happened in the UK with some local councils contracting themselves into irrelevance (Northhamptonshire and Barnet), it's apparent that Westminster is having some kind of a tug of war with the EU that could result in its effective implosion as a relevant law-making entity... who knows.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
I would agree in principle. It needs a real leader to step in and reset the process.
God Save the Queen.  For such a time as this.
Carnot
Strange to think of QEII being dragged into a constitutional crisis in her own country this late in her reign; I wonder what she thinks of it all.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Strange to think of QEII being dragged into a constitutional crisis in her own country this late in her reign; I wonder what she thinks of it all.
don_dunstan
She can't do much about it, so she needn't worry. There are plenty around her to do the worrying. And, it's not a constitutional crisis because, as others have already written, there is no Constitution.
  ANR Deputy Commissioner

There is only one man capable of delivering Brexit to the UK, and his name is Donald J Trump.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Since leaving the EU still has around 50% support of the people, then recommend the new PM/govt put steps in place that could ensure a review on how to leave the EU is actually achieved including how to potentially address the reasons for leaving with the EU and prevent the UK from having to leave in the first place and then put this to the people. But also acknowledge that none of this is likely to happen between now and the following scheduled General election and the new govt get back to the  business of running the country.
RTT_Rules
This isn't such a bad idea, assuming it could be achievable if Boris is immediately replaced by yet another PM who is willing to go down this path.  Those who voted for Brexit in the referendum may have done so out of their concern for their future livelihoods with the increasing influx of new immigrants competing for jobs and lowering wages in the process, and who could blame them?  

However, they may not even have considered the broader ramifications of Brexit at the time, deal or no deal, which have now come to light.  This includes issues such as the need to negotiate new multiple trade deals with the remaining EU members and other countries which won't be achieved overnight, the reinstatement of the hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, risking a return to the "troubles", or the complete break-up of the UK, with Scotland leaving and even Northern Ireland deciding by referendum that they would be better off in uniting with the Republic, in spite of past hostilities, and remaining in the EU.  In that scenario, the "United Kingdom" would become nothing more than an England and Wales rump, with diminished status.  

When they think through what they have voted for and whether in fact they will be any better off, they may have cause to change their opinion.  That's why a new referendum would be preferable, rather than an election, assuming an extension can be negotiated with the EU.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Strange to think of QEII being dragged into a constitutional crisis in her own country this late in her reign; I wonder what she thinks of it all.
She can't do much about it, so she needn't worry. There are plenty around her to do the worrying. And, it's not a constitutional crisis because, as others have already written, there is no Constitution.
Valvegear
Oh well, 'royal ascent'. New Idea might run a special late issue on "Will the Queen go full Charles the First?"
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Strange to think of QEII being dragged into a constitutional crisis in her own country this late in her reign; I wonder what she thinks of it all.
She can't do much about it, so she needn't worry. There are plenty around her to do the worrying. And, it's not a constitutional crisis because, as others have already written, there is no Constitution.
Oh well, 'royal ascent'. New Idea might run a special late issue on "Will the Queen go full Charles the First?"
don_dunstan
Or abdicate and send the hospital pass to Charles III to sort out.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Is it possible that London could have major rioting on the streets, as has been seen in HK? because there are really passionate viewpoints on either side of the debate.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

...

If Cameron was even mildly competent enough to know that the referendum result was not a sure thing, he would have set pass/fail criteria on the referendum to ensure that further progress would only take place if there was a decisive result for Leave. There were plenty of options: requiring a majority of the electorate (not just a majority of the turnout), a supermajority of 60% or whatever, or the double majority of Australian constitutional referenda.
So in other words they should have hobbled it ...
don_dunstan
Nothing to do with hobbling, it just would have been a case of treating it as a serious vote and taking the relevant steps to ensure that best practice for democratic conduct of a constitutional/constitution-like reform process would be followed.

Various jurisdictions with real referenda have different forms of supermajority rules for very clear reasons - that a constitution easily modified is not worth the paper it's written on.

Alternately, another option could have been to clearly treat it as a not-so-serious vote on establishing a commission to investigate and report on options for leaving the EU.

… hobbled it in the same manner that Howard did the republican referendum; although in some ways it was never going to work anyway given a referendum in Australia has some reasonably onerous hurdles.
don_dunstan
Howard's winning move with the 1999 republic referendum was to step back and let the elitists running the Australian Republican Movement hobble themselves. It was their job to make a compelling case for what they were pushing for, not Howard's job to do it for them.

Even Bill Shorten would have done a better job of handling this, if his pledge from this year's election campaign of a three stage process for republicanism (an advisory plebiscite on the broad concept of moving towards a republic, construction of the model to be put to the people, a constitutional referendum on the chosen model) is anything to go by.
Clever, brilliant. Remind me again why he ain't PM?
don_dunstan
I doubt it was anything to do with the republic.

The plebiscite-convention-referendum policy would probably get carried on a comfortable majority if a free vote was held on the floor of the House of Representatives with the party whips sitting out of it.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
Oh well, 'royal ascent'.
don_dunstan
I guess you mean "royal assent"!

Ascent meaning "an act of ascending; upward movement; a rising movement".
Assent meaning "to agree or concur; subscribe to".

A huge difference in meaning!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Strange to think of QEII being dragged into a constitutional crisis in her own country this late in her reign; I wonder what she thinks of it all.
She can't do much about it, so she needn't worry. There are plenty around her to do the worrying. And, it's not a constitutional crisis because, as others have already written, there is no Constitution.
Valvegear
She has bigger issues to worry about, such as Harry and Meg using a private plane.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There is only one man capable of delivering Brexit to the UK, and his name is Donald J Trump.
ANR
and he'll screw this up like everything else and realistically he'd face the same problems as BJ is, ie the MP's won't let him.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Since leaving the EU still has around 50% support of the people, then recommend the new PM/govt put steps in place that could ensure a review on how to leave the EU is actually achieved including how to potentially address the reasons for leaving with the EU and prevent the UK from having to leave in the first place and then put this to the people. But also acknowledge that none of this is likely to happen between now and the following scheduled General election and the new govt get back to the  business of running the country.
This isn't such a bad idea, assuming it could be achievable if Boris is immediately replaced by yet another PM who is willing to go down this path.  Those who voted for Brexit in the referendum may have done so out of their concern for their future livelihoods with the increasing influx of new immigrants competing for jobs and lowering wages in the process, and who could blame them?  

However, they may not even have considered the broader ramifications of Brexit at the time, deal or no deal, which have now come to light.  This includes issues such as the need to negotiate new multiple trade deals with the remaining EU members and other countries which won't be achieved overnight, the reinstatement of the hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, risking a return to the "troubles", or the complete break-up of the UK, with Scotland leaving and even Northern Ireland deciding by referendum that they would be better off in uniting with the Republic, in spite of past hostilities, and remaining in the EU.  In that scenario, the "United Kingdom" would become nothing more than an England and Wales rump, with diminished status.  

When they think through what they have voted for and whether in fact they will be any better off, they may have cause to change their opinion.  That's why a new referendum would be preferable, rather than an election, assuming an extension can be negotiated with the EU.
Transtopic
Yep,

The UK political system is certainly more complicated the more you dig into it and we wonder why BREXIT has been a failure.

I doubt Nth Ireland would break away, but Scotland is a real risk.

I'll say it here now for the record. Should the UK actually BREXIT, Scotland will follow with a referendum to leave the UK.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Yep,

The UK political system is certainly more complicated the more you dig into it and we wonder why BREXIT has been a failure.

I doubt Nth Ireland would break away, but Scotland is a real risk.

I'll say it here now for the record. Should the UK actually BREXIT, Scotland will follow with a referendum to leave the UK.
RTT_Rules
If Scotland leaves the UK, Northern Ireland will be isolated from the rest of the UK (no longer just a 30nm ferry ride across to Cairnryan) and the likelihood of the situation being reassessed will increase.

Northern Ireland has always had closer ties to Scotland than England. If it were not for The Troubles and the lack of mature leadership in London, the pragmatic move would be for Northern Ireland to have a vote on joining Scotland during the transition period between the Scottish vote and independence.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Yep,

The UK political system is certainly more complicated the more you dig into it and we wonder why BREXIT has been a failure.

I doubt Nth Ireland would break away, but Scotland is a real risk.

I'll say it here now for the record. Should the UK actually BREXIT, Scotland will follow with a referendum to leave the UK.
If Scotland leaves the UK, Northern Ireland will be isolated from the rest of the UK (no longer just a 30nm ferry ride across to Cairnryan) and the likelihood of the situation being reassessed will increase.

Northern Ireland has always had closer ties to Scotland than England. If it were not for The Troubles and the lack of mature leadership in London, the pragmatic move would be for Northern Ireland to have a vote on joining Scotland during the transition period between the Scottish vote and independence.
justapassenger
I think both Dublin and Belfast would be reluctant to do this.

So what do the Brits want?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Yep,

The UK political system is certainly more complicated the more you dig into it and we wonder why BREXIT has been a failure.

I doubt Nth Ireland would break away, but Scotland is a real risk.

I'll say it here now for the record. Should the UK actually BREXIT, Scotland will follow with a referendum to leave the UK.
If Scotland leaves the UK, Northern Ireland will be isolated from the rest of the UK (no longer just a 30nm ferry ride across to Cairnryan) and the likelihood of the situation being reassessed will increase.

Northern Ireland has always had closer ties to Scotland than England. If it were not for The Troubles and the lack of mature leadership in London, the pragmatic move would be for Northern Ireland to have a vote on joining Scotland during the transition period between the Scottish vote and independence.
I think both Dublin and Belfast would be reluctant to do this.

So what do the Brits want?
Carnot
The protestants in Nth Ireland will never agree to a merger with Ireland. Maybe another 50-100 years when religion's impact is a fraction of what it is today....

The support for No Brexit is sustaining
The support for Brexit is waning to "Don't know"

I'm sure there is strong support for just get it over and done with so we can move forward, what ever the direction/agreement.

However you can be sure that if Boris has failed at Brexit then the Brexit concept is a failure as there is simply not enough support to allow it to fly with too many people only agreeing to Brexit on their terms because at 52% there is no room to compromise.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Oh well, 'royal ascent'.
I guess you mean "royal assent"!

Ascent meaning "an act of ascending; upward movement; a rising movement".
Assent meaning "to agree or concur; subscribe to".

A huge difference in meaning!
Graham4405
Damn you, English language...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Oh well, 'royal ascent'.
I guess you mean "royal assent"!

Ascent meaning "an act of ascending; upward movement; a rising movement".
Assent meaning "to agree or concur; subscribe to".

A huge difference in meaning!
Damn you, English language...
don_dunstan
You mean damn you auto spell check! Smile

Or was it my accent confused ascent to make an assent.

thanks for highlighting

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: