|
Boris Johnson Seizes Power
The British Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson wants to lead Britain to an exit from the European Union without a specific agreement that would regulate the various details. A majority in Parliament is against leaving the EU without a deal.
Parliament will convene again in early September. The Brexit date is October 31. The opposition planned to seek legislation to stop Brexit and/or to hold a vote of no confidence in the Boris government. This would install a new government with the sole task of preventing Brexit without a deal.
The problem is that the process takes time and Parliament days are limited. The government has several means to prevent Parliament from having enough time to discuss the issue and to vote on it. Today it used a quite effective one.
The Johnson government, only inaugurated weeks ago, asked the Queen to announce its legislative program, a ceremonial event known as the Queen's Speech. Custom demands that Parliament is shut down for several weeks before the Queen's Speech is held. Parliament will thus have little chance to prevent a no-deal Brexit:
The government has asked the Queen to suspend Parliament just days after MPs return to work in September – and only a few weeks before the Brexit deadline.
Boris Johnson said a Queen's Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his "very exciting agenda".
But it means MPs are unlikely to have time to pass laws to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
Tory backbencher Dominic Grieve called the move "an outrageous act".
The Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow is not amused about the unexpected move. Many members of Parliament will, like Dominic Grieve, be against this power grab.
Unfortunately there is little they can do:
A number of high profile figures, including former Prime Minister John Major, have threatened to go to the courts to stop it, and a legal challenge led by the SNP's justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry, is already working its way through the Scottish courts.
Britain has no written constitution. The courts rule along precedence and the government would thereby likely win the case:
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the precedent was for Parliament to be suspended before a Queen's Speech, and it would be "impossible" for the Queen to reject the government's request to do so now.
He said that convention lifted the pressure off the Queen and to some degree, in some people's eyes, depoliticises it.
"The fundamental is the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers – in particular, on the advice of her prime minister," he added.
Laura Kuenssberg said only a small number of government ministers knew about the plan in advance, but the government would argue it was "a bog standard Queen's Speech process", despite all of the surrounding noise.
In a letter to the Members of Parliament Johnson only allows for one day, September 9, for a Parliament sitting.
The prime minister, not elected through a general election, is essentially making a power grab. Closing down Parliament at the moment when the most significant decision on the future of the country is at stake is a deeply undemocratic move.
Britain is on its way to falling apart.
The European Union was created and shaped to serve the interests of the transnational capital and corporations, especially those the other side of the Atlantic in the US. The smoke screen of so called Brexit, a project of the same elites who created the EU, only serves the interests of those same elites in turning the EU more neoliberal and less social.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Brexit
What is written in the marble of the agreement guarantees not only that the euro does not have a State that supports it, but that its financial capital remains London, so that a fundamental part of the financial interests that operate in the Eurozone are outside the Union jurisdiction. The state orphanage of the euro is thus perpetuated because every serious project of political integration would require recalibrating the free movement of capital. And the regulatory impotence of the Union is guaranteed, because a part of the regulated are outside its jurisdiction, and the others can simply threaten to be (without the Union being able to do anything to prevent it, courtesy of the right to freedom of establishment and of free movement of capital). In this way, not only does the City win (and the shareholders of the Paris and Frankfurt stock exchanges losing), but so do all the great financial capital holders, as the asymmetry is insurance against an eventual European political will aimed to regulate financial activity seriously.
In other words, the agreement perpetuates the spraying of sovereignty that is characteristic of the Eurozone. And that spraying benefits not only the City, but also the great capital holders, European or not(…)
That the EU should disolve or be reformed to better serve the interests of its peoples, and not only conserve but reintegrate and reinforce the welfare state the European peoples awarded themselves by fighting and leaving their blood in the battle fields of the last great war, take it as discounted, and many of our representatives in the EP fight for this outcome with our mandate, or at least manage to denounce the obvious selling out of certain representatives and unelected officials lobbing for spurious interests contrary to those of the peoples of Europe.
.
But that the peoples would benefit from a hard breaking up, once, not only their educational systems and socioeconomic policies, but their industry, agriculture, cattel raising, mining, shipbuilding and each and every business or slight economic activity under the sun, be it at familiar or industrial scale, was or dismantled or conveniently shaped, reduced, or simply, wiped out, to better conflude in the union, is something any person with two fingers of forehead would easily understand, as it easily would be understood by anybody who would have invested so much in a business venture which then pass through bad times, of course would not throw all its effort and money out of the window, but would fight to keep at least part of its huge inversion alive while it manages to reconvert it into a more productive state
Only people who makes a living of moving money from one place to another, without ever playing its own flesh and money, and even when that happens,that they play their money, they manage to go without paying the count, or are rescued y the huge monetary interests behind them, give them a damn what could happen to millions of people in Europe, especially if this people live tha other side of the Atlantic and these people are thinking of benefitting from a naufrage caused by themselves. These are the same people who manipulate electoral processes around the world with the help of obscure new corporations which manage big data and spin doctors of clear fascist ideology….
For the UK subdits here pretending to believe they have decided anything in the whole Brexit issue, in case you are so genuinely naive, a bath of reality. But for your long story as commenters ( at least so long as mine…) at several blogs of the so called “alt-media” and obvious access to so many sources, allow me to have doubts about your naivety, since all this has been aired enough for you to know…Why am I not surprised to find that you were also strongly supporting Trump and the bloggers campaigning for The Donald past 2015/2016…?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win
Mr. Brexit
All was quiet for about a year. Then, in November 2015, the more radical of the two Brexit campaigns, “Leave.EU,” supported by Nigel Farage, announced that it had commissioned a Big Data company to support its online campaign: Cambridge Analytica. The company’s core strength: innovative political marketing—microtargeting—by measuring people’s personality from their digital footprints, based on the OCEAN model.
After the Brexit result, friends and acquaintances wrote to him: Just look at what you’ve done.
Now Kosinski received emails asking what he had to do with it—the words Cambridge, personality, and analytics immediately made many people think of Kosinski. It was the first time he had heard of the company, which borrowed its name, it said, from its first employees, researchers from the university. Horrified, he looked at the website. Was his methodology being used on a grand scale for political purposes?
After the Brexit result, friends and acquaintances wrote to him: Just look at what you’ve done. Everywhere he went, Kosinski had to explain that he had nothing to do with this company. (It remains unclear how deeply Cambridge Analytica was involved in the Brexit campaign. Cambridge Analytica would not discuss such questions.)
For a few months, things are relatively quiet. Then, on September 19, 2016, just over a month before the US elections, the guitar riffs of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Bad Moon Rising” fill the dark-blue hall of New York’s Grand Hyatt hotel. The Concordia Summit is a kind of World Economic Forum in miniature. Decision-makers from all over the world have been invited, among them Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann. “Please welcome to the stage Alexander Nix, chief executive officer of Cambridge Analytica,” a smooth female voice announces. A slim man in a dark suit walks onto the stage. A hush falls. Many in attendance know that this is Trump’s new digital strategy man. (A video of the presentation was posted on YouTube.)
A few weeks earlier, Trump had tweeted, somewhat cryptically, “Soon you’ll be calling me Mr. Brexit.” Political observers had indeed noticed some striking similarities between Trump’s agenda and that of the right-wing Brexit movement. But few had noticed the connection with Trump’s recent hiring of a marketing company named Cambridge Analytica.
Posted by: Sasha | Aug 28 2019 21:23 utc | 97
|
