THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT DESCRIBED. . .

[Phil Perry]

[ATTACH]50280._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[facthunter]

 Actually, after what's been happening there for the last few years, what ELSE would you expect?  Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

what I would hope that the UK citizens would expect is some common sense in the parliament.

 

They refused to go along with Theresa May and the deal she worked out with the EU. They allowed a referendum that was binding, no matter what the result and now they will not be happy until it is overturned.

 

It appears that all the negotiating is supposed to be done by the PM and then Parliament can say no. That cannot work as and is obvious from what is happening.

 

The only solution is for Trump to resign as President of the USA and become dictator of Britain.

 

 

[facthunter]

The Parliament is the voice of the People. To deliberately close it down to render it ineffective at it's prime task is as close to treason as one can imagine. . Boris  has lost the confidence of the Parliament, as was somewhat predictable. Cambridge Analytica was involved with all this Brexit Business., from the beginning. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Well, the US could always offer to buy the UK.  There'd be a certain symmetry in that. (Oh sh*t, I hope Trump doesn't read this site!)

 

For all the "this is the will of the people" BS (no, it's not the will of "the people", it was the vote of 37.4% of the people on a particularly ill-thought out referendum question) - I think the parliament needs to face the fact that it's going to need to have a second referendum.

 

I know all the right-wingers are going to jump down my throat about this, maybe compare it to the same-sex marriage question here and ask what us progressives would have done if the government didn't accept that.  The fact is that the cases are entirely different.  SSM is a very simple and clear-cut issue, there was high levels of community support for the change before the postal vote, it didn't affect any other country or very many existing laws.  The consequences and implications of it were fairly easy for the average punter to understand, and the result was clear - 61.6% "yes" / 38.4% "no" with voter turnout of 79.5%.

 

Compare that with Brexit.  It affects the whole EU, there are thousands of laws which need to be changed or re-written, border issues within Ireland that were never considered or advertised before the referendum, plus all the other implications such as Chunnel delays, effects on imports, new trade agreements, companies leaving London, etc etc.  Politicians and experts can't even understand all the implications of the decision now, 3 years down the track, let alone the average punter at the time of the vote.  And the result was far closer - 51.9% "leave" / 48.1% "remain" with voter turnout of 72.2%.

 

I will make a prediction (always risky, look at the US) that come October 31 there will be no hard exit, an early general election will be called and the issue will remain mired in political infighting within both parties.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I blame the government that took Blighty into the EC in the first place. They should have known that their country would be overrun by waves of immigrants from across the continent and that Brussels would eventually be dictating the number of meatie bites in your dog food.

 

Why in blazes didn't they do as the Swiss and Scandinavians did: pick and choose how much they'd integrate into Europe.

 

 

[old man emu]

If the voter turn-out was only 37.4%, and I won't argue the exact figure, then those who did not vote abandoned their democratic right. They have no base to argue the result. Of those who did vote, then all of them can claim that they did their duty. As believers in the voice of the people, then all who voted must accept the result. If the vote had gone the way of the Remainers, would they be calling for another referendum?

 

 

[willedoo]

Well, the US could always offer to buy the UK.  There'd be a certain symmetry in that. (Oh sh*t, I hope Trump doesn't read this site!)

 

For all the "this is the will of the people" BS (no, it's not the will of "the people", it was the vote of 37.4% of the people on a particularly ill-thought out referendum question) - I think the parliament needs to face the fact that it's going to need to have a second referendum.

 

I know all the right-wingers are going to jump down my throat about this, maybe compare it to the same-sex marriage question here and ask what us progressives would have done if the government didn't accept that.  The fact is that the cases are entirely different.  SSM is a very simple and clear-cut issue, there was high levels of community support for the change before the postal vote, it didn't affect any other country or very many existing laws.  The consequences and implications of it were fairly easy for the average punter to understand, and the result was clear - 61.6% "yes" / 38.4% "no" with voter turnout of 79.5%.

 

Compare that with Brexit.  It affects the whole EU, there are thousands of laws which need to be changed or re-written, border issues within Ireland that were never considered or advertised before the referendum, plus all the other implications such as Chunnel delays, effects on imports, new trade agreements, companies leaving London, etc etc.  Politicians and experts can't even understand all the implications of the decision now, 3 years down the track, let alone the average punter at the time of the vote.  And the result was far closer - 51.9% "leave" / 48.1% "remain" with voter turnout of 72.2%.

 

I will make a prediction (always risky, look at the US) that come October 31 there will be no hard exit, an early general election will be called and the issue will remain mired in political infighting within both parties.

 

Marty, I'm mathematically confused (averaged 20% for maths at school). If the result was 51.9% leave / 48% remain with a turnout of 72.2%, what does the 37.4% refer to? Does that mean 72.2% of eligible voters equals 37.4% of the total population.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty, I'm mathematically confused (averaged 20% for maths at school). If the result was 51.9% leave / 48% remain with a turnout of 72.2%, what does the 37.4% refer to? Does that mean 72.2% of eligible voters equals 37.4% of the total population.

 

People eligible to vote:  46,501,241

 

People who voted "leave":  17,410,742

 

So of the people who were eligible to vote, 37.4% of them voted "leave".  (By the same token, and to be fair, 34.7% of them voted "remain").

 

Which leaves 27.9% of those who COULD have voted who didn't, obviously many who at the time were beastly careless or complacent that it couldn't happen.  I'd be very interested to see the result if they ran the question again now.

 

 

[willedoo]

Thanks Marty, I see what you mean now. It's a bit like if we had first past the post here instead of preferential voting. The winners could be over the line on a very small % of total vote, especially if there were lots of candidates.

 

 

[Yenn]

If parliament and the leader of Labour want to stop a no deal Brexit, that must mean that they want a deal. Theresa May negotiated a deal with the EU, but parliament refused to approve it. End of Theresa May, who didn't want a Brexit anyway, but the EU now has the upper hand. If they don't negotiate a new deal with the PM or Parliament or whoever, then there will be no Brexit. Isn't that what the EU wants. Whoever is the PM he is going to have to negotiate with the EU. The EU know that so they are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"If the vote had gone the way of the Remainers, would they be calling for another referendum?"

 

Just the same as the Republic debate, If we become a Republic can we still have that same Vote to withdraw, 

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

In the first world war, there were numerous referendums on conscription because the "no" answers were not what the government of the day wanted to hear.  So they called another referendum... If they had got a "yes " vote, there would only ever have been one.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Marty_d, I norally agree with much of what you say... And while you are mathematically correct in that 37.2% of the eligible electorate voted to leave, only 34.1% voted to stay.. Puts it into perspective. There will no doubt be a small % (maybe even basis points) of people who couldn't make it for whatever reason - ill, no method of transport, climbing Kilamanjaro (sp?), maybe even perished on the day due to the stress. But as I have said before... people in this country know the electoral rules and they can decide whether or not to participate. Either the 37.8% who didn't turn out were a) so apathetic one can't count them anyway - so the 52/48 stands; or b) were smart enough to know that should Brexit win, it would all go pear shaped and they needn't bother anyway. I fear the former. And while people say we should have 2/3 majority for these things, the law is the law.. and... well.. that is the way it is... everyone knows it.. Also, regardless, even on fundamental issues, surely having the majority of people's voices dismissed does seem a little odd... Although I take the point, if afterwards, Britain decided they wanted to rejoin, they would probably have to bend over red rover to do it. Also, voter turnout was the highest for quite some time I am led to believe. By how much I am not sure.. Regardless, on that basis it is the most legitimately represented proportion.. Representing it as 37.2% is mathematically correct, but disingenous at best. And I can guarnatee, I am no right-winger.. but I am a legal positivist accept the democratic decisions (except if the outcome would be repugnant to civility - hey - if a country wants to vote itself to oblivion - so be it - though I never believed it would be that bad and an article in the Financial Times yesterday was quoting Mark Carney, governor of the BoE as saying their doomsday forecasts of a no deal Brexit were over-egged somewhat).

 

With respect to Chunnel delays - they are already there.. They check passports already - and guess what - they have them in Aus, too.. automatic passport readers. Oh, no doubt, the EU will be belligerent at first, as they had articulated in their aviation policy - all EASA licences held by pilots certified by British AMEs were immediately not going to be recognised, and G Reg planes, despite complying more fully than any other EU nation to Part M (and now Part M Lite), were suddenly going to be not recognised at all.  Contrast that with the CAA approach which was to grant somethng like a 2 year period of recognition of non UK domiciled EASA licenced pilots the same privileges they have now (i.e. to fly G registered aircraft). I would expect the delays into the Chunnel to be on the way into Europe.. for a bit.. until Mr Frenchman has had enough and bitterly complains to his MP... who then stages a boycott of the French Parliament dining room's Fois Gras.. Sacre Bleu... The Port of Calais has already stated that there will be no delays in a No Deal Brexit - not the press, not BoJo, etc.. But the guy who runs it said it... So commerce will flow freely (if more expensively).. People will still flow freely. Although, If I were a betting man, any Eastern European passported person will have to have a visa.

 

On the other issues - Yes  - there will be some companies that move either some or all of their operations to Europe. I work in Investment Banking (unf not as an Investment Banker); and part of my job is working with the Brexit teams. The masses of job moves to Europe promised by the remain campaign - minimal - maybe 5 - 10K.. I can tell you, there are three European banks with the Investment Banking operations headquartered in London. And they have no plans to repatriate it. ESMA (the European Securities & Markets Authority) has mandated larger investment banks have to have more than a skeleton staff in Europe - so some operational staff were moved.. but by and large, they have recruited locally.. 

 

There have been some companies that have moved lock, stock and barrel to Europe, but even Vauxhall, owned by Renault, have said they will close plants that become unprofitable - but there is no sign of moving. The issues at the moment stem from a protracted dilly-dallying aka uncertaintly rather than Brexit itself.  As for people being fed lies and not told of the problems - well, in Aussie parlance, that is a furphy, too.. These are the things Remainers have claimed.. I have posted here before how a) how can a campaign group and not a political party running for pwoer make any promises; b) BoJO said they "could" put £360m into the NHS and, yes, a deal with the EU would be easy (well, it would, if parliament let the negotiators get on with it, rather than insist it was to be dragged out in public - as an analogy - the TTTP was being negotiated with the US was kept so secret, that discussion papers weren't allowed to be taken out of the negotiation rooms.. how can anyone have a reasonable negotiation strategy when they have to make everythign public?...

 

As for the backstop.. A pollie here read out aloud the section of the Good Friday agreement that pertains to the Irish Border.. and it only talks to prohibiting the military from guarding the border or enforcing border controls - it does not say there has to be free movement between the border. The very people who are proposing that this would be a resurgence of violence as the Good Friday agreement is based on free movement are actually stoking the violence should there be no resolution but to put in immgration officers.. Fair Dinkum you couldn't make it up.

 

Pollies don't understand what will happen as their heads are so tunnel visioned on what they think intuitively.. As I have asked on many occasions - how much more will that packet of Dutch Bacon cost me (truth be told, I only buy it in Holland.. there's an old saying that a country only exports its crap ).. And for how long? And does the UK even have to slap on tarrifs, as the WTO has some grace period when coing out of a trade agreement - apparently. It has alread been reported that the claims about cancer drugs not coming over in time are grossly exaggerated and a senior Airbus exec claimed that if there is no deal, Airbus wings made in the UK would suddenly no longer be compliant when outside the EU. It took a day for the pressure to mount to the point where Airbus had to retract that one.. So, if we are talking lies, it happens on both sides. BTW as I work a long way out of London and Bristol is not too far away from where I live I have been looking for work there.. I have noticed Airbus job vacancies have been increasing - could be because people are movingback to Europe or it could be because they don't intend to close the factories down - or both!

 

I do agree with your prediction re not coming out on the 31st. People forget, we had the European elections only a couple of months ago which handed the Brexit Party a clear majority in the UK (although I can't agree with them turning their backs on whatever the national anthem of the EU is). I think, despite the horror week for BoJo, if he was to go to the polls and say, "Rabbit Rabbit, I am going to take Britain out of the EU if you elect me.. and I can tell you, the bubonic plague will return and decimate you all as a result".. he will take a landslide - except for Scotland - who Ironcially cite the exact same arguments for leaving the Union as Brexiteers do for leaving the EU.. yet they want to stay in the EU.. WOrk that one out.

 

(p.s. Philosophically, despite what I wrote, I am a supporter of remaining with Europe. However, a recently elected Memeber of the European Parliament (MEP) wrote after his first day in the job that it is paralysed in bureuacracy and he was disappointed with the whole institution. .and they support it here.

 

 

[Methusala]

If the voter turn-out was only 37.4%, and I won't argue the exact figure, then those who did not vote abandoned their democratic right. They have no base to argue the result. Of those who did vote, then all of them can claim that they did their duty. As believers in the voice of the people, then all who voted must accept the result. If the vote had gone the way of the Remainers, would they be calling for another referendum?

 

G'day OME, the flaw in your otherwise excellent argument is, that for a democracy to work, it requires a fully informed bloc of voters. The Brexit thing was a carefully manipulated scam, coming from Textor Crosby, designed to wedge the opposition and give the Conservatives another term. Another term was looking exceedingly unlikely before this. Textor Crosby are well known here for assisting Howard/Costello to remain in office when their policies were generally on the nose.

 

 

[facthunter]

Cambridge Analitica were very much in it also. Cameron never believed it would get a yes vote either so perhaps HE was not in on it. Too many hidden agenda's. To my way of thinking if a "No deal" exit was a known likelihood,common sense would have ruled that out as a possibility  Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

 OME, the flaw in your otherwise excellent argument is, that for a democracy to work, it requires a fully informed bloc of voters. 

 

Well, that's never going to happen, is it? 

 

It looks like this Crosby Textor Group has had more influence on the Australian public than Morris and Johnston (Mojo). "How do you feel"? They 'ought to be congratulated'!

 

 

[Marty_d]

@Marty_d, I norally agree with much of what you say... And while you are mathematically correct in that 37.2% of the eligible electorate voted to leave, only 34.1% voted to stay.. Puts it into perspective. There will no doubt be a small % (maybe even basis points) of people who couldn't make it for whatever reason - ill, no method of transport, climbing Kilamanjaro (sp?), maybe even perished on the day due to the stress. But as I have said before... people in this country know the electoral rules and they can decide whether or not to participate. Either the 37.8% who didn't turn out were a) so apathetic one can't count them anyway - so the 52/48 stands; or b) were smart enough to know that should Brexit win, it would all go pear shaped and they needn't bother anyway. I fear the former. And while people say we should have 2/3 majority for these things, the law is the law.. and... well.. that is the way it is... everyone knows it.. Also, regardless, even on fundamental issues, surely having the majority of people's voices dismissed does seem a little odd... Although I take the point, if afterwards, Britain decided they wanted to rejoin, they would probably have to bend over red rover to do it. Also, voter turnout was the highest for quite some time I am led to believe. By how much I am not sure.. Regardless, on that basis it is the most legitimately represented proportion.. Representing it as 37.2% is mathematically correct, but disingenous at best. And I can guarnatee, I am no right-winger.. but I am a legal positivist accept the democratic decisions (except if the outcome would be repugnant to civility - hey - if a country wants to vote itself to oblivion - so be it - though I never believed it would be that bad and an article in the Financial Times yesterday was quoting Mark Carney, governor of the BoE as saying their doomsday forecasts of a no deal Brexit were over-egged somewhat).

 

With respect to Chunnel delays - they are already there.. They check passports already - and guess what - they have them in Aus, too.. automatic passport readers. Oh, no doubt, the EU will be belligerent at first, as they had articulated in their aviation policy - all EASA licences held by pilots certified by British AMEs were immediately not going to be recognised, and G Reg planes, despite complying more fully than any other EU nation to Part M (and now Part M Lite), were suddenly going to be not recognised at all.  Contrast that with the CAA approach which was to grant somethng like a 2 year period of recognition of non UK domiciled EASA licenced pilots the same privileges they have now (i.e. to fly G registered aircraft). I would expect the delays into the Chunnel to be on the way into Europe.. for a bit.. until Mr Frenchman has had enough and bitterly complains to his MP... who then stages a boycott of the French Parliament dining room's Fois Gras.. Sacre Bleu... The Port of Calais has already stated that there will be no delays in a No Deal Brexit - not the press, not BoJo, etc.. But the guy who runs it said it... So commerce will flow freely (if more expensively).. People will still flow freely. Although, If I were a betting man, any Eastern European passported person will have to have a visa.

 

On the other issues - Yes  - there will be some companies that move either some or all of their operations to Europe. I work in Investment Banking (unf not as an Investment Banker); and part of my job is working with the Brexit teams. The masses of job moves to Europe promised by the remain campaign - minimal - maybe 5 - 10K.. I can tell you, there are three European banks with the Investment Banking operations headquartered in London. And they have no plans to repatriate it. ESMA (the European Securities & Markets Authority) has mandated larger investment banks have to have more than a skeleton staff in Europe - so some operational staff were moved.. but by and large, they have recruited locally.. 

 

There have been some companies that have moved lock, stock and barrel to Europe, but even Vauxhall, owned by Renault, have said they will close plants that become unprofitable - but there is no sign of moving. The issues at the moment stem from a protracted dilly-dallying aka uncertaintly rather than Brexit itself.  As for people being fed lies and not told of the problems - well, in Aussie parlance, that is a furphy, too.. These are the things Remainers have claimed.. I have posted here before how a) how can a campaign group and not a political party running for pwoer make any promises; b) BoJO said they "could" put £360m into the NHS and, yes, a deal with the EU would be easy (well, it would, if parliament let the negotiators get on with it, rather than insist it was to be dragged out in public - as an analogy - the TTTP was being negotiated with the US was kept so secret, that discussion papers weren't allowed to be taken out of the negotiation rooms.. how can anyone have a reasonable negotiation strategy when they have to make everythign public?...

 

As for the backstop.. A pollie here read out aloud the section of the Good Friday agreement that pertains to the Irish Border.. and it only talks to prohibiting the military from guarding the border or enforcing border controls - it does not say there has to be free movement between the border. The very people who are proposing that this would be a resurgence of violence as the Good Friday agreement is based on free movement are actually stoking the violence should there be no resolution but to put in immgration officers.. Fair Dinkum you couldn't make it up.

 

Pollies don't understand what will happen as their heads are so tunnel visioned on what they think intuitively.. As I have asked on many occasions - how much more will that packet of Dutch Bacon cost me (truth be told, I only buy it in Holland.. there's an old saying that a country only exports its crap ).. And for how long? And does the UK even have to slap on tarrifs, as the WTO has some grace period when coing out of a trade agreement - apparently. It has alread been reported that the claims about cancer drugs not coming over in time are grossly exaggerated and a senior Airbus exec claimed that if there is no deal, Airbus wings made in the UK would suddenly no longer be compliant when outside the EU. It took a day for the pressure to mount to the point where Airbus had to retract that one.. So, if we are talking lies, it happens on both sides. BTW as I work a long way out of London and Bristol is not too far away from where I live I have been looking for work there.. I have noticed Airbus job vacancies have been increasing - could be because people are movingback to Europe or it could be because they don't intend to close the factories down - or both!

 

I do agree with your prediction re not coming out on the 31st. People forget, we had the European elections only a couple of months ago which handed the Brexit Party a clear majority in the UK (although I can't agree with them turning their backs on whatever the national anthem of the EU is). I think, despite the horror week for BoJo, if he was to go to the polls and say, "Rabbit Rabbit, I am going to take Britain out of the EU if you elect me.. and I can tell you, the bubonic plague will return and decimate you all as a result".. he will take a landslide - except for Scotland - who Ironcially cite the exact same arguments for leaving the Union as Brexiteers do for leaving the EU.. yet they want to stay in the EU.. WOrk that one out.

 

(p.s. Philosophically, despite what I wrote, I am a supporter of remaining with Europe. However, a recently elected Memeber of the European Parliament (MEP) wrote after his first day in the job that it is paralysed in bureuacracy and he was disappointed with the whole institution. .and they support it here.

 

Hi Jerry,

 

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said 

 

People eligible to vote:  46,501,241

 

People who voted "leave":  17,410,742

 

So of the people who were eligible to vote, 37.4% of them voted "leave".  (By the same token, and to be fair, 34.7% of them voted "remain").

 

Which leaves 27.9% of those who COULD have voted who didn't, obviously many who at the time were beastly careless or complacent that it couldn't happen.  I'd be very interested to see the result if they ran the question again now.

 

 

 

There's a hundred ways you can argue this and yes, one of them is that the majority has spoken, or at least a slight majority of those who could be bothered to get off their ar*se and do so.

 

Whether or not this majority had enough information, were voting what they truly thought was the right path for the UK and not just some anti-"elites" / anti-immigration / p*ssed-off with their lot protest vote, is something only in the minds of those people.

 

Another way to look at this is that in a parliamentary democracy the members are elected to represent their electorates.  If a large majority of parliamentarians were "remainers" (which they were), and they supposedly represent the best interests of their electorates, then you could argue that this matter should never have gone to a referendum in the first place.

 

As Nev said, Cameron never expected a "leave" vote.  He did this as a very poorly thought out political stunt and it backfired spectacularly.

 

Again this reflects the SSM matter here.  It should never have needed a postal survey.  If the political parties had allowed a full and free conscience vote on the matter it would have reached the same result without it.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Er... I may have read more into the statement than you were making, given the context of the rest of your post - one of the problems with text only communiction! Apoligies for that!

 

Although, based on the commentary and political wrangling here, I have a slight problem with this statement (which, I admit, has its merits):

 

" If a large majority of parliamentarians were "remainers" (which they were), and they supposedly represent the best interests of their electorates, then you could argue that this matter should never have gone to a referendum in the first place. "

 

Yes.. But.. Listening to a remainer MP senior the the Labour (still with a "u" here) party, she was saying on the one hand, BJ (I prefer that to BoJo for some reason), has no mandate because he wasn't elected by the people (aka a general election). This would imply, and I think pragmatically, that when a country goes to a general election (or a by-election), it really isn't voting for the local MP - it is voting for the party or the leader of the aprty who controls the manifesto. In fact, if there were a general election tomorrow, except for the c. 1/3 of Brexit supporting MPs, if you were a Brexit supporter, who would you vote for?

 

But in the same breath, she said, if you voted for your local MP, andthe local MP supported Remain, then you were voting to remain based on your local MP. I guess, in BJ's seat, maybe, but she was playing arbitrage.. For all other issues and to affirm the PM, you vote for the party/leader; but for Brexit, you really vote for your local MP...  You can't 'ave it both ways, luv.

 

This is the problem I have.. Yes, Brexiteers made assertions (not promises) that were stretching rational thinking; but since the loss of the referendum, remainers have forever been doing the same. As I said in another (forums.flyer.co.uk) form, where the Neverendum thread was finally donked by the magazine editor, show me predictions on analysis, not intuition. Also, the Brexit campaign has been investigated for exceeding electoral spending laws.. however, this was a government paid brocher that I understand was distributed to every household at a cost of £9.3m - I wonder if that, combined with the Remainer cost of campaign also tipped the the total Remain budget over the electoral laws.. The leader of the Governement (Daqvid Cameron) and the leader of the Remain Campaign (David Cameron) commissioned costs for both and the leaflet distributed did not exactly present the agruments of Brexiteers and address them.. "

 

I have been critical of Brexiteers in the past... I am equally critical of the cunning plans of Remainers, who, are just as deceptive.. Even the FT has said the cliff edge isn't going to be as abd as portrayed (interesting word - not predicted)..

 

The people were recently asked what they think. The European Parliamentaary elections were run recently and the newly formed Brexit party won around 65% of the vote and the vast majority of the seats.. Admittedly, turnout was low, so there's not too much that can be read into it. However, polling here shows a slight increase in Brexit support... Corbyn has been asking for an election to be called for months.. BJ called his bluff.. Guess what.. Corbyn is using the MP distaste of no deal to block the call of an election (needs something like 65% for vote in the commons to obtain an early election). I think it speaks volumes.

 

I go back to Mr Perry's meme.. it is what parliament here has become...

 

I also think Cameron's parliamentary pension should be pulled. He was not only incompetent or negligent.. he was reckless in not properly taking the refendum to the people and having the planning to back up the leave vote... We seem to have forgot his hand in all this debacle.

 

Re SSM.. Maybe they would have reached the same verditct, but on social conscience issues, why not ask the people.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I couldn't correct my typos in the time allowed...

 

Got to lean to type quicker..

 

 

[old man emu]

"she was saying on the one hand, BJ (I prefer that to BoJo for some reason), has no mandate because he wasn't elected by the people (aka a general election). "

 

This is the disease that has crept into the Westminster System here and in Britain. The Media has transposed the US concept of the Presidential election, being based on personality rather than on policy, to the Westminster System of Party-wide policy where those elected to parliament on the basis of Party policies select a leader from amongst themselves, and that person taking the role of Prime Minister, or Leader of the Opposition. 

 

Did the deaths of John Curtin or Harold Holt lead to General Elections in Australia? No. Government carried on with the policies that the party in government had until the time for a General Election rolled around in the the normal course of events. Nowadays, the Local Member is elected on the shirttails of the Leader's popularity, not many are elected because of their own activities within the electorate. Too many are elected because Party Headquarters have made the decision on who they will back. That results in "parachuting in" candidates who have little connection with the electorate they run in.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Jerry, that's the point of a conscience vote as opposed to a block "party" vote.

 

Although, before the referendum, if there was an internal parliamentary vote on whether to leave the EU, do you think even the conservative party would have voted to leave?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Apropos of the British Clown...

 

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-latest-humiliation-boris-johnsons-dog-resigns-as-his-pet

 

 

[facthunter]

 The "pet" thing is a bit reminiscent of a similar line( warning if you are eating)  So and So had an @r$e transplant but IT rejected him. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

I think the satirical article was based on the fact that his own brother had jumped from the Conservatives.