Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 28, 2019

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.

Posted by b on August 28, 2019 at 11:36 UTC | Permalink

« previous page | next page »

@ Sasha comment #96

Cambridge Analytica went out of business. They weren't any good at what they did.

Posted by: Tony | Aug 28 2019 22:06 utc | 101

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 28 2019 21:23 utc | 96
In other words major portions of the population on both sides of the Atlantic are being persuaded, manipulated and managed by the same Big data/ propaganda company.

Posted by: O | Aug 28 2019 22:09 utc | 102

Posted by: Tony | Aug 28 2019 22:06 utc | 100
They just changed the name on the shingle. Common practice.
Auspex International

Posted by: O | Aug 28 2019 22:12 utc | 103

This monarchy is not without a history of treason and treachery against the United Kingdom. The family is a German family from the House of Hannover, <- BM

This is a hair-raising injustice. A family changes name from Battenberg to Mountbatten to Windsor to mask the sad reality that Anglo-Saxons are now ruled by Saxons. Poor Angles are reduced to "an interesting angle".

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 28 2019 22:16 utc | 104

Anything is better than the low/negative interest rate, population replacement with third world 'migrants (haha yea right) destiny prescribed for Europe. Yea I'd rather die by my own sword than a death by a thousand international banker cuts. Brexit is a big F.U., not a treatise on smooth governorship nor an easy future. It's an act of defiance, so grow a pair and celebrate it.

Posted by: Jezabeel | Aug 28 2019 22:26 utc | 105

Cambridge Analytica went out of business. They weren't any good at what they did.

@Posted by: Tony | Aug 28 2019 22:06 utc | 100

Well, according with the information I have they just changed the name of the business, so as to cover the footprints...take into account that all this may constitute a crime in several countries if probed...The sequel of Cambrisge Analytica had an stelar role in manipulating the Barzilian electoral process to rise Bolsonaro to power. The prevarication of the judiciary to keep Lula in jail and far from the electoral process made the rest.

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 28 2019 22:27 utc | 106

Cambridge Analytica went out of business. They weren't any good at what they did.

@Posted by: Tony | Aug 28 2019 22:06 utc | 100

You are wrongly informed, they just changed name of business so as to cover their multiple footprints at already several electoral processes around the world

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 28 2019 22:31 utc | 107

@103 A slight historical inaccuracy there PB. The Battenbergs were Hessian and the Windsors were once the House of Saxe-Coburgs von Gotha. No matter. Brexit will put everything right. Much to the relief of any remaining Angles the Saxons will be sent back to Saxony, the Vikings will go back to Scandinavia and the Normans will return to France.

Posted by: dh | Aug 28 2019 22:34 utc | 108

@107....not quite done yet. The Plantagenets will go back to Anjou, The Tudors will go back to Wales and the Stuarts will disappear in the mists of Scotland. Then it will just be a question of packing Hanoverians back to Germany and it will be like nothing ever happened.

Posted by: dh | Aug 28 2019 22:46 utc | 109

@Posted by: Jezabeel | Aug 28 2019 22:26 utc | 104

Anything is better than the low/negative interest rate,..

Of course, if you are a capitalist living on rents, but if you have scarce savings due your meager wage first reduced and then frozen from more than a decade ago due the austerity measures plus you have a mortgage in which you incurred in the highest of the real state bubble for a several million euro overvalued home whose price the bank director assured will never low...wel,, that´s a blessing, or at least, a little breath...

Brexit is a big F.U., not a treatise on smooth governorship nor an easy future. It's an act of defiance, so grow a pair and celebrate it.

An act of defiance the Brexit it is not, but a reinforcement of neoliberal trends by liberalizing movements for the US capital and corporations, thus get what the US intended by the fomer TPTA, then rejected by the EU´s peoples, that the US transantional corporations and business will make their own in European soil and will not respond from their defaults or bad management according to EU or national legislation.

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 28 2019 23:02 utc | 110

To the various replies: nope I'm not badly informed. Cambridge Analytica did not change it's name. It went out of business. It's what people who run scam companies which can't make money do: "Change the name, the game's the same."

Btw, Bolsonaro got into power because all his viable opponents were taken out through dodgy legal procedures.

Posted by: Tony | Aug 28 2019 23:12 utc | 111

Cambridge Analytica staff set up new firm
Auspex International will be "ethically based"(lol) and offer "boutique geopolitical consultancy" services, according to its website.

Posted by: O | Aug 28 2019 23:34 utc | 112

As if in anticipation, George Galloway gave a speech about this occurrence back in January. GG was a Remain but is advocating the need to respect the people's choice. All the points I raised in my previous comment I've now read as comments by UK twitters. Galloway is worried UK will end up like France, and he might be correct.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 28 2019 23:36 utc | 113

DH @ 107:

The Angles would have to return to southern Denmark / northern Germany, specifically to the region known as Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany and Slesvig in southern Denmark, if the Saxons return to Saxony. The English language would have to go back with the Angles and Saxons as well.

Then the population of the entire island of Britain would need to learn how to speak Celtic (Welsh and Cornish in Wales and the former England, Gaelic in Scotland).

Good luck to the Angles and Saxons learning to live with Germans and others in Angela Merkel's Germany.

Posted by: Jen | Aug 28 2019 23:43 utc | 114

It seems that there are many here on MoA who have been fooled by false populism to embrace the so-called will of the people in regard to Brexit. (Aside: not "with regard to", a common conflation.)

Saying that BoJo is, somehow, following popular opinion when he is doing exactly the opposite --namely, doing the bidding of his uber-wealthy controllers-- is pathetic.

As Finian Cunningham says so well:

"The [completely unelected] British prime minister is setting up an extortion racket. He is demanding that the EU repudiate the agreement already negotiated with May and the provisions for an open border in Ireland – and if Brussels doesn’t cede to his demands then London will effectively default on its £39bn divorce debt."

An Irish backstop is vital to honour the Good Friday agreement as well as to protect the EU's border. The refusal to honour a debt to which the UK agreed long ago reveals that BoJo is loyal only to his handlers, and probably not too loyal there either.

The irony here is that the current EU is not anything worthy of being championed, yet a hard Brexit will be a disaster for all except the House of Rothschild and its associates. In such a situation, the ruling class wins and the populace loses, no matter what choice is made, yet the fact that that very same ruling class pushes so much for Brexit should make one pause, and consider why any of the 99% should support something that is so desired by the oligarchs.

Posted by: Theophrastus | Aug 28 2019 23:52 utc | 115

First, Ort, thank you! I was wondering and should have searched what would be Galloway's opinion - he usually cuts to the chase, and this indeed was it.

Those poor Brits! First they get asked by the current PM what they would prefer - and they tell him, no ifs ands or buts. Well, he wasn't expecting that, so he resigned. So then the foot dragging started, and it went on, and on.

And as a commercial says about something else - don't mess with Britain's Queen, folks! Sure, she's obliged to conform, thanks to historical precedent, but I think this Queen wouldn't do so. She's nearly at the end of her reign, and precedent means a lot to her. So, she adheres to it, but I've a sneaking suspicion she does so happily. I remember her as a beautiful young lady touring the commonwealth - my school went out to wave our colored flags for her and her handsome prince. She's a bit older than me but not much, and we oldsters like to remember our youthful integrity. I'm betting she does, and anyway her people love her.

Don't disparage her because of what her children may have become - you will only make enemies doing that.

James @71 - Yes, Boris is an opportunist, no question! But I think the Brits know him better than any of us on the outside. They have waited and waited all this time seeing power mishandled and the spectre of Greece - you bet! They want their country back. First things first; that. They'll deal with Boris; he'd better not fail, but if he does they have other options. These people have character. It's not just about 'the elites'. That queen ran an ambulance through the Blitz. She's one of them.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 28 2019 23:59 utc | 116

This right here explains how simple it all is.

Ask yourselves this - "If dominic cummings the alleged master of herding 'the new media' to force sheeple behave as he wishes, manages to get so many trolls, astroturfers and 5p a word drongos here at MoA a site this mob have shown scant interest in previously, how many of these desperates has he employed across the net, and more importantly who has paid for all of it?

Obviously it is the types who reckon they will profit from the Johnson destruction of parliament. In other words mos def not the oppressed recipients of torydom's last initiative 'austerity' up in the midlands and further north, who will do even worse with this deliberate destruction than they fared under thatcher's malign cold shoulder, blair's neolib south eastern love fest, or cameron's austerity.

Posted by: A User | Aug 29 2019 0:15 utc | 117

Going back to Ort @ 93, here's his link in different format:

It's well worth a watch.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 29 2019 0:23 utc | 118

@113 "Good luck to the Angles and Saxons learning to live with Germans and others in Angela Merkel's Germany."

Yes indeed. They would find Germany much changed. I imagine the original Britons would speak some Celtic least until the Romans arrived when if you wanted a good job it probably helped to learn Latin.

Posted by: dh | Aug 29 2019 0:24 utc | 119

- Craig Murray is quite adament. The current government in London is more right wing than the Thatcher government in the 1980s

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 29 2019 0:27 utc | 120

karlof1 @112

The great and much maligned George Galloway has always been a leaver.

Posted by: ADKC | Aug 29 2019 0:30 utc | 121

ADKC @120--

I don't know what prompted me to write GG was a Remainer when he so clearly endorsed Farage's Brexit Party. Thanks for your correction!

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 0:52 utc | 122

No one besides a handful of nutters voted for a No DEal Brexit, and the Brexiteers certainly didn't promise one.

There is no mandate for this power grab or the catastrophe it is designed to allow.

Posted by: Sigil | Aug 29 2019 0:56 utc | 123

I ve always figured that in the UK at least the queen would be a staunch
earth rooted beyond negotiation patriot. She would hit her royal club against the ground and say: NO! And if necessary shout a harsh 'hurrah' just as in the indomitable charges of the light brigade.
Come on, how naive i ve been so far.
Now I realize that the untouchable divine gold birthin crowned queen of England accepts the game hand of a mere Joebo third rate clown, a looney salamander crook of the thames filthy bank.
And the brits who might negotiate an acceptable deal are so stupid as to
forcibly WAIT, what for? FOR A mere formality of a speech... from an impotent queen.
If things go on as planned by the 10 Downing st clown this will be the most e.x.p.e.n.s.i.v.e speech in UK's History right since the battle of Hastings.

Posted by: augusto | Aug 29 2019 1:09 utc | 124

Craig Murray makes an excellent point:

"There is an irony here. Johnson has been able to take over without facing the electorate because of the polite constitutional fiction that it is the same Conservative government continuing and nothing has changed. Yet he justifies the prorogation of parliament by the argument that it is a new government and a new Queen’s Speech is thus needed. Johnson is of course famously in favour of having cake and eating it, but the chutzpah of this is breathtaking."

Posted by: WJ | Aug 29 2019 1:15 utc | 125

people voted for Brexit.
Well, then the same people realized a negotiated leave was a good thing. The best one under the circunstances.
To suffer a few EU stings was part of the game.
Now they leave the maneuvering ground all open and cleaned up for aan arrogant bum to brush it top to bottom with his dirty tail as he wishes?
And what for?
For a complete give up surrender to the hands and imperial will of the US of A in exchange for some american promises?
Have they studied History of the world for the last 60 years
to believe that this time... bad old US of A will keep its promises?

Posted by: augusto | Aug 29 2019 1:22 utc | 126

Not having a detailed understanding of the particulars of parliamentary government, I found this Guardian piece useful:

By their lights it is not necessarily the prorogation itself that is troubling but the timing and the length.

Posted by: loneplateau | Aug 29 2019 1:54 utc | 127

Given the progress of the past 3 years, it's unlikely that another month would have made any difference. Boris is a coward and a fool not to let that happen.

The government had endless ways to reverse the referendum, but chose not to, because they were afraid to lose votes.

That's how democracy works by not working. Sometimes it works better by having more courageous leaders who propose solutions that become more popular over time, rather than riding the crest of popularity right over the cliff.

A properly primed socialist program could deal most humanely with the trade restart problem, but that seems not in the cards. The establishment also pulls all levers to keep Labour from power, including bogus charges of anti-semitism.

Posted by: Charles Peterson | Aug 29 2019 2:06 utc | 128

Re The situation R.E. BoJo is very well explained in a recent video lasting over an hour by The Duran. The Prorogue of Parliament is a quite normal exercise and every new Prime Minister does it. There is nothing treacherous in what BoJo is doing. However the remainers are having fits because he is using his authority to facilitate the democratic decision taken in 2016 to leave the E.U.

Posted by: Beibdnn. | Aug 29 2019 3:18 utc | 129

Sasha best comment of the year.. @ 96 exposing the hidden flaw in the EU agreement.. nothing EU does really counts, ..its all for show..

There cannot be democracy without a government VietnamVet@97 <= yes there can.. a government (nation state or whatever) is an armed, ruling making, structure, which allows those in charge of the structure to rule the governed as if they were pigs in a coral; that is if the government is top down led. If the governed rule, the armed structures is operated at their discretion and the structure becomes a security force since it is no longer a government, but instead has become an enforcement-arm of the might, right and demands of the button up majority rule (<==that's called direct democracy) .

Posted by: snake | Aug 29 2019 4:29 utc | 130

whether britain exits or not, is not immportant as the the fact the EU will swallow Britain later on as it did with the eastern european states in its periphery.

Posted by: jason | Aug 29 2019 7:02 utc | 131

Posted by: dh | Aug 28 2019 22:34 utc | 107

And Prince Philip is a German/Greek

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 29 2019 7:15 utc | 132

Johnson, who led the Tory side of Leave, refused to become PM to implement the result he engineered--why he did so is a very good question that I don't believe has been satisfactorily answered. Same with Cameron .. karlof1, 63

I have tried to figure this out. It goes to the heart of the matter. On the surface the story is that Gove ‘changed his mind’ about BoJo becoming party leader and stood as a candidate himself, whereupon Bojo withdrew his bid. (bbc link gives gossipy interpretations.)

Then .. May was pushed forward - chosen (sole candidate after Leadsom withdrew, so there was no party vote.) May was a kind of ‘place holder’ - she probably genuinely tried to ‘get a deal’ (the WA, which reads like it was written by Sabine Weynand) but was doomed to failure, because, a) ‘a deal’ that would satisfy a majority in Parliament simply can’t be found - any proposal is unsatisfactory to some large faction - leaving only the default option, a no-deal crash out, open. (I predicted a crash out about a year ago.) b) EU intransigence on some points, with unreconcilable differences between UK and EU positions. Plus, imho, the UK political system is not really fitted to dealing with an issue like Brexit. (Entrenched party structure, party first, FPTP, misuse of the referendum tool, House of Lords, etc.)

The forces for Leave, imho, perceived some/all of this, and realised Leave would be very difficult to attain, and had to become an inevitability -> therefore May, and pushing her to action article 50 bang off. Then …all the events we saw, with Michel Barnier, saying over and over, “Ze clok iz ticking..” - now to its end point. The view sketched here also illustrates the fact that the negotiations (May..), the position(s) of the parties, the proposals, the schisms (new alliances, etc.) the stances taken, the speechifying, etc. were for a large part empty, ineffective, often rubbish, this continues e.g. hoping to legislate to ‘stop a no-deal Brexit.’ (Which is impossible!) Nobody called out the BS (includes Corbyn), everyone was left to flouder about seeking approval, better ideas, etc…and the clock ticked on…while the Ultra leavers watched and waited. (Boris is 100% sincere with his Do or Die Deliver Brexit!)

from a history pov, one should recall Cameron negotiated the ‘new rel. with the EU’ 2015 - note all the points hit ‘populist’ objections to EU as instrumentalised by UKIP. Why 'binding' is another story.–16_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 29 2019 8:29 utc | 133

Still don't get the German obsession with the UK leaving the EU. If it's such a mistake, let them, if they're objecting getting something out of it, why shouldn't they? Due to the high levels of neoliberal nonsense present in the UK, there was no 5 year waiting period instated in the UK, Ireland or Denmark only out of the original 15 members for freedom of movement for the 8 former Warsaw Pact countries when they joined in 2004. This led to outrageous levels of immigration which has hammered the working class in terms of ethnic displacement and wages. Non-EU immigration has never had the impact the post-2004 immigration has had. It has also led to a terraforming of the economy towards low wage immigrants.

The rest of Europe didn't experience this, only Britain and Ireland. Therefore there is absolutely no understanding of Brexit. For those communities that were substantially displaced socially and economically and were promised an unending spate of the space, why shouldn't they have voted to leave? Will the right to work and freedom of movement by undone? Maybe not, but what other choice were they given?

Why shouldn't they have had the right to leave? Why the neocon style vitriol? (Much of it pioneered by neocons)

Posted by: Altai | Aug 29 2019 8:31 utc | 134

Tony 100
No. I think the western media has had a monopoly on misusing the English language for too long.
A better headline would be. "Opportunistic Tory Regime seizes power.
Or: Boris Johnson Regime threatens democracy in our green and pleasant land.
Give them a taste of their own weasel words.

Posted by: Ike | Aug 29 2019 8:53 utc | 135

Imho Cameron’s negotiations with the EU pre-referendum were not ineffective and just for show (as has been suggested) but were quite successful. Note - see the wiki - some of the points were conditional to a Remain result! E.g. the UK could in some measure avoid “ever closer union” provided her Majesty’s subjects voted to remain in the EU. As that didn’t happen, the whole lot of the agreed points fell away or were no longer ‘valid.’ (While the EU of course can if it so wishes take measures identical or similar to the ones proposed.) The public imho was not really informed of all this..

So in this sense, in a rather strange way, the referendum became ‘binding’ —> previous agreements could not be implemented and new negotiations would HAVE to take place.

One might say that Cameron was trapped by the EU…. They told him, if you ppl show you want to remain, we will make some adjustements, concessions, etc. but if not, well then too bad for you. Cameron accepted this weak position either because he hadn’t an alternative, and/or for other reasons.. Possibly, Cameron was certain of a Remain result (could he have been that naive?)

That goes part of the way to explain the binding aspect of a non-binding referendum - the ref. had some inevitable, obligatory results. The other part is of course the Ultra leavers in the know insisted on the will of the ppl, democracy upheld, etc. etc. as this was in their interest. The Brexiteers voters themselves jumped on the bandwagon, for once their voice was heard, they were the winners, the losers had to bow down and accept Brexit, and on and on.

This quickly became set in stone and no Remainer (potentate, pol, group, citizen..) dared to suggest different..–16_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 29 2019 9:13 utc | 136

Well, not much point in having a contrarian opinion on this site, if it just gets zapped! Might as well try Facebook.

(b is a little bit new age sensitive. He doesn't like to get his feelings hurt by anyone disparaging his latest expert opinion)

FFS - In the past complaining about the monetization of this site got the instant delete response. Now seemingly, just being less than obsequious is enough to elicit the delete key response.

Posted by: DM | Aug 29 2019 9:16 utc | 137

ADKC @61

has the best reading of the situation in my view. Project Fear continues unabated and only some faces have been changed to keep the audience entertained.

Theresa May was supposed to be a modern-day copy of Margaret Thatcher who the Brexit-leaning Tory voters are very fond of: doggedly working to get the best out of the EU for the Brits, determinedly if with a sour mien straining against the superior forces in Brussels to come up with the best amongst the circumstances: May's Withdrawal Agreement. This after 3 years which normally would have long exhausted the attention span of the voter, accompanied by a ceaseless barrage of Project Fear propaganda.

Then the unexpected happened: the Brexit voters were still there, still wanted Brexit and remained unfazed. May was not revered as a new Thatcher but rather seen as an obstinate obstructor of popular will. Her withdrawal agreement is so disadvantageous for the UK compared to regular EU membership that she earned herself the nickname Treason May.

"No Deal" hysteria: another clever element of fear propaganda. Go to any working to middle class supermarket and you'll find that products are mostly not sold for a price, but rather as a "deal". Every silly offer is a "deal" and the average Brit is conditioned to fear missing out if not acquiring something as a "deal".

Enter Boris Johnson: he'll "overplay" the Brexit card, be "reckless" and "too extreme" and seemingly go "too far" to exploit another British reflex: to stick to the sensible middle ground, abhorring extremism in any form.
Or he lets Oct 31 pass - "crashing out" as Project Fear has it - only to call an election, send the Brexit Party to the history books while pulling his own party back from brink as the celebrated saviour. Then he either signs a Brino ('Brexit in name only') such as the Withdrawal Agreement, or agrees yet another extension with the EU to perpetuate the Brexit negotiations until nobody can remember what it actually was.

In short, don't hold your breath for an actual Brexit happening anytime soon, for better or worse.

Posted by: Leser | Aug 29 2019 9:25 utc | 138

The process for an orderly exit from the EU had been agreed but was rejected by Parliament. A minority within the Conservative Party of militant brexiteers gave - from their own point of view which I do not share - coherent reasons for rejecting it but it was rejected because the Labour voted with them for no reason other than wanting to embarrass a Tory government. This was contemptible. Parliament is now being treated with the contempt it deserves.

Posted by: Peter Brooke | Aug 29 2019 9:31 utc | 139

Tangentally related to Brexit, in reply to several comments about the flailing incompetence of many western democratic governments.

In those western democratic systems the party generally enforces rigid adherence to the party line. The party line is often in direct conflict with the greater common good, and clever, intelligent people tend to avoid situations that force them to conflict the interests of the people they are paid to represent. The result is that each iteration of "democracy" sees an ever less competent and clever crop of politicians charged with conducting a nations affairs. What we are witnessing is the inevitable result of this endless political inbreeding.

There is a solution, and it lies in the hands of the voters.

Stop voting for party politicians. Vote in as many mongrel independents as can be found and enjoy the benefits that come with hybrid vigor.

Posted by: eagle eye | Aug 29 2019 9:33 utc | 140

Altai 134
Britain does have the right to leave the EU, that's not the issue. The problem is the Leave side claimed the UK was in such a strong position compared to the other 27 countries in the EU that the UK would be able to retain most of the advantages of being in the EU. And their lies were sufficiently persuasive to con a small majority of the people who voted in the referendum to vote Leave. But the UK isn't strong enough to get a better deal from the EU than what it already had, which is why the deal to leave the EU that May negotiated was so bad for the UK that Parliament voted against it three times. Since Johnson will personally benefit from Brexit, he is now pushing to force the UK into it, even though the UK will be in an even weaker negotiating position once it's fully outside of the EU. This will almost certainly prove a disaster for most of the people in Britain but if he can do enough damage to the US's European rivals, Johnson will probably make a great deal of money giving speeches in the US, once he is no longer Prime Minister.

Posted by: Glenn | Aug 29 2019 9:34 utc | 141

Did you ever think the cabal of financial globalists in "The City" would ever let Brexit happen, despite any vote by the people? Nah. Never gonna happen. All our democracies have become shams, sleight-of-hand by oligarchs.

Posted by: Fran Macadam | Aug 29 2019 9:40 utc | 142

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday the possibility of issuing ultra-long U.S. bonds is “under very serious consideration” by the Trump administration, Bloomberg News reported.

“If the conditions are right, then I would anticipate we’ll take advantage of long-term borrowing and execute on that,” Mnuchin told Bloomberg in an interview.

Mnuchin said his renewed interest in 50- or 100-year bonds was unrelated to the drop in yields on shorter-term U.S. debt, Bloomberg reported.

Currently, the 30-year bond is the longest-dated U.S. Treasury bond.

Posted by: OffTopic | Aug 29 2019 10:34 utc | 143

Glenn says 'the UK isn't strong enough to get a better deal from the EU than what it already had, which is why the deal to leave the EU that May negotiated was so bad for the UK that Parliament voted against it three times.' We need always to remember that this was not a final deal. It was merely setting the terms of the continuing relationship with the EU during the period after we had left the EU and were negotiating a final settlement. It dealt with only three issues - the financial settlement, the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa, and arrangements for the Northern Ireland border. I don't think Glenn can point to a single criticism made by the Labour leadership of this interim deal, while several Labour Party spokesmen made it clear they had no objection. They said their objections were to the 'political declaration' but that was non-binding, just a list of practical problems that would need to be addressed.

Posted by: Peter Brooke | Aug 29 2019 10:44 utc | 144

Sorry. I should have added to the above that in exchange for the agreement on these three issues the EU gave the UK access to the single market, with some enhanced ability to control immigration, and membership of the customs union during the transition period. It wasn't a bad deal.

Posted by: Peter Brooke | Aug 29 2019 10:47 utc | 145

Brexit would not be allowed to happen except that it is what the owners want. The rest is just show. They are not going through this circus because 52% voted to leave in non-binding referendum. Time for the show to close I'm afraid.

Then Germany and France can deal with what remains.

The more interesting question is why did it become necessary for UK to leave?

Meanwhile, seems that the continent is developing a more eastward stance.

Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 10:52 utc | 146

Galloway is worried UK will end up like France, and he might be correct.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 28 2019 23:36 utc | 113

Macron is doing just fine, most of the French are happy with him. UK would be doing very well, if it could end up like France.

Posted by: Laguerre | Aug 29 2019 11:26 utc | 147

Let UK go.
M&M to have secret discussions with Putin - application to join the EU.
Just tilt the missiles the other way.

Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 12:30 utc | 148

La @148

"Macron is doing just fine, most of the French are happy with him."

And here I thought those yellow vest folks were protesting.

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:24 utc | 149

Jared @146

"Brexit would not be allowed to happen except that it is what the owners want."

I seem to not know why that Brexit referendum came about and have not seen the reason on this thread.

I have an idea that "leave" was not the expected outcome. I also think that "Leave" was more a genuine protest against the status quo conditions in England.

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:31 utc | 150

And here I thought those yellow vest folks were protesting.

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:24 utc | 151

I thought someone would come up with that dim response. The gilets jaunes have stopped (haven't you noticed?), because they weren't complaining about anything anybody can do something about. Same as many Brexiters by the way. They're going to be disappointed when things get worse in UK as a result of Brexit.

Posted by: Laguerre | Aug 29 2019 13:34 utc | 151

@ arby | Aug 29 2019 13:31 utc | 152

Something about the pig f-er (Cameron), agreeed to put it up for referendum.
Later claimed he regretted doing so.
Resigned when results were in.
All very proper.

Such a thing is not left to chance.
Nor is such a thing left to referendum, unless the outcome is assured.

Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 13:41 utc | 152

La @153--

dim, maybe, but I see they are still going on. The media does not report stuff that does not fall in line, but that does not mean they are not happening.

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:47 utc | 153

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:31 utc | 152
Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 13:41 utc | 154

Brexit is large scale social manipulation.

Cambridge Analytica did work for Brexit groups, says ex-staffer
The disgraced data analytics firm did work for the Leave side of the 2016 Brexit vote, according to emails.

Cambridge Analytica and Online Manipulation
It's not just about data protection; it's about strategies designed to induce addictive behavior, and thus to manipulate

Posted by: O | Aug 29 2019 13:50 utc | 154

Can the manipulation of big data change the way the world thinks?
Jonathan Gornall writes that the companies that control our data will soon be able to shape our very intellectual foundations.
"By default, the manipulation of big data is about parting us from our imaginations and the mind-broadening benefits of serendipity. Thumb through a newspaper, for example, and you might well stumble upon something that challenges your preconceptions and makes you think differently about the world and your place in it."

Posted by: O | Aug 29 2019 13:59 utc | 155

"These 3 Facts Explain Why the U.K. Held the 'Brexit' Referendum"

"3. Cameron made a promise, and kept it

The current U.K. Prime Minister, David Cameron, rejected calls for a referendum on his country’s continued membership of the E.U. in 2012, but announced less than a year later that his Conservative government would hold one if re-elected in 2015.

Soon after he was voted in for a second term, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced in the British Parliament to kickstart the process that culminated on Friday.

Subsequently, in a speech to the Parliament’s House of Commons in February 2016, Cameron announced that the referendum would be held on June 23. A staunch advocate of remaining within the E.U., Cameron announced his resignation soon after the results of the vote were declared on Friday."

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 14:03 utc | 156

"This potential targeting of U.K. voters on social media ahead of the Brexit vote is part of a wider push by political groups across the Western world and beyond to use digital political campaigning to target people with increasingly sophisticated messages. It comes as lawmakers and policymakers are calling for greater oversight over how these groups use the likes of Facebook, Twitter and Google amid concerns that there is a lack of control over how these digital political campaigns operate."

Posted by: O | Aug 29 2019 14:09 utc | 157

arby @152 noted: "I seem to not know why that Brexit referendum came about and have not seen the reason on this thread."

The Brexit referendum was allowed for the same reason that Trump was put on the ballot for PotUS, which was to crush the opposition to the Atlanticists' neoliberal project. The idea was to brand that opposition as deplorable racists, misogynists, antisemites, homophobes, and primitive throwbacks and then subject them to withering ridicule when they were proven to be a lunatic fringe minority of the population. This would shut down opposition to the neolibs for a generation and lock in political correctness to silence debate and solidly fix identity politics as a replacement for genuine socio-economic justice. It was unimaginable to the strategists for the elites that Trump could win the US election or that the Brexit crowd could win the referendum. How is it that so many people could choose to be tarred with the label "deplorable" anyway?

There are valid and legitimate reasons to support Brexit, particularly as Brexit is a precondition for England reversing austerity. If the elites left the public discussion about the EU to develop naturally it would not be possible for them to oppose breaking from the EU without exposing themselves. If the elites took the lead on the issue then they could redefine it as a conflict between vile and hateful racists vs good and beautiful people. Being able to control the narrative about the issue is why the elites went ahead with a referendum on Brexit rather than waiting for it to be forced upon them by a movement from below within society.

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 29 2019 14:38 utc | 158

it is all mind manipulation now... anyone who pays any serious attention to fb, twitter or google deserve what they get...

Posted by: james | Aug 29 2019 14:49 utc | 159

@116 juliania... thanks... i don't agree with you about the queen however... i think she is definitely part of the elite..

@160 william gruff... interesting speculation.. thanks...

Posted by: james | Aug 29 2019 14:52 utc | 160

My two-pennyworth (for what it's worth):

The Bojo's 'coup' can be explained quite simply by the fact that the UK's political class (Including 'Corbyn's' Parliamentary Labour Party), will do ANYTHING to keep Corbyn out of 10 Downing Street. This is ALL about Corbyn and what he (allegedly) represents, the victims of neoliberalism, a good 20+ million people who have been shafted by capitalism.

Bojo of course, has taken an immense gamble in prologuing (suspending) Parliament. My guess is that an election WILL be called, maybe as early as next week in the hope that the witch hunt conducted against Corbyn by the media and the ruling class will ensure, at the very least yet another coalition of Lib-Dems (curse the bastards) and the Tories.

The question is, is Bojo sufficiently reviled across the nation to ensure a Tory defeat? Knowing just how conservative the Brit public is, I wouldn't bet on it.

Corbyn is a decent fellow, no doubt, but he's a wanker and a political coward, who cares more about saving the Labour Party (from itself) than advancing a real socialist agenda.

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 29 2019 14:55 utc | 161

The more interesting question is why did it become necessary for UK to leave? jared at 146.

History boiled down, rad potted. The UK was an enthusiastic member while it kept ‘control’ - EEC - third application accepted early 1970s, after de Gaulle’s vetos - perfidious Albion! Heath a EU enthusiast (?)

1975 ref. result: Remain.

Thatcher was all for ‘free trade’ and the like, + negotiated favorable conditions for the UK.

Bliar, third-wayer, was keen to play a leading role in the EU. Bliar supported the Iraq war, whilst Germany and France opposed it, so he could not fulfill his dream. One of many contradictions.

Cameron was pro-EU, trouble erupted when UKIP grew in influence and Tories won a majority. On the face of it, Cameron attempted to put the Brexit Demon to rest, and failed. All those mentioned so far (except de G.) were, are, some flavor of neo-liberal globalist adherents, supporters, independent of pol party.

Within such a scenario, a gingerly UK participation in the EU, was endlessly exploited for at-home politics to control ppl, blaming the EU for the wrapping of kippers (see Bojos recent speech) and vital stuff such as lousy public transport, which lead smoothly to "Leave" opinions, votes, public stances.

Did something specific cause a ‘tipping point’ (—> we gotta leave!) or do we see cynical pols, chancers and hucksters, disaster capitalists, playing games amongst themselves? Huxley type globalists vs. local Orwellian nationalists?

Imho the tipping point, if there was one, was related to finance.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 29 2019 15:00 utc | 162

@ Noirette | Aug 29 2019 15:00 utc | 164

Well, you have a more nuanced view.

I think it's:
1) Germany/France (the continent) dominated EU, in practice
2) The fun departed from globalisation when China appeared to be winning

Besides, UK was never more than 1/2 in.

Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 15:08 utc | 163

William Gruff @ 160

With due respect, the reason for Cameron calling the referendum was almost certainly as a result of the endless warfare in the Tory Party about Europe, ongoing for at least a generation. He expected a small majority for Remain, and probably would have got it except for two small details.

Firstly, it was impossible to ignore the floods of refugees pouring into the EU at that time as a result of NATO’s usual idiocies, (“Wir schaffen das” - yeah, right) and secondly, and in my view more importantly, when Cameron went to Europe to try and muster some support for “a new deal”, he was sent home publicly and humiliatingly empty-handed by the ghastly duo of cardinals - Juncker and Tusk.

I would prefer the UK to remain in the EU, but when I contemplate the bone-headed, complacent, arrogant, self-satisfied
Incompetence of these two, I do sometimes waver.

Incidentally, if anyone wonders why the Ukraine is a mess, do read the awful Tusk’s interview with the FT in Nov 2014 (“Lunch with the FT”). He is so pleased with himself it makes you sick.

Posted by: Montreal | Aug 29 2019 15:08 utc | 164

jared @ 165. Yes the UK was never more than 1/2 "in" and it exploited that position cleverly, both at home at abroad, for a long time.

Globalisation sure is no fun seen from the USuk-Isr-EU position since China Rising.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 29 2019 15:17 utc | 165

@ Noirette | Aug 29 2019 15:17 utc | 167

Yes, and while it's fun to make treaties.

There is also sovereignty.

But it all sounded splendid after some sparkling wine.

Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 15:37 utc | 166

Noirette in many places--

Thanks for your replies and the additional information provided! IMO, voter turnout is what carried Leave as Remain voters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales didn't come out compared to Britain's Leavers, although voter participation probably needed to be @85-90% to make up the difference--yet another example where voting matters!

On the Queen and the Coup, Craig Murray makes yet another salient point:

"The monarch appoints the UK Prime Minister. The convention is that this must be the person who can command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That does not necessarily have to be from a single party, it can be via a coalition or pact with other parties, but the essential point, established since Hanoverian times, is that the individual must have a majority in the Commons.

"The very appointment of Boris Johnson by Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha was a constitutional outrage. Johnson may have been selected by Conservative Party members, but that is not the qualification to be PM. Johnson very plainly did not command a majority in the House of Commons, proven by the fact that still at no stage has he demonstrated that he does. I do not write merely with hindsight."

Off with her head it seems:

"The Queen has appointed a Prime Minister who does not have the support of the House of Commons and then has conspired to prevent the House of Commons from obstructing her Prime Minister. That is not the action of a politically neutral monarchy. The institution should have been abolished decades ago. I do hope that all those who recognise the constitutional outrage, will acknowledge the role of the monarchy and that the institution needs to be swiftly abolished." [My Emphasis]

Hmm... Seems MPs must show up to Parliament as if nothing has occurred and conduct business; and if they're locked out, to hold court in the street as long as they can raise a quorum. And since the UK constitution's unwritten, who has the authority to abolish the Monarchy? Anyone care to say, Constitutional Crisis!

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 16:18 utc | 167

Anyone care to say, Constitutional Crisis!

What Constitution? The UK is only country in the world that has an 'unwritten constitution'. Everything is done by precedent and there's a vast pile of paper in the basement of Parliament to prove it.

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 29 2019 16:48 utc | 168

I seem to not know why that Brexit referendum came about and have not seen the reason on this thread.
I have an idea that "leave" was not the expected outcome. I also think that "Leave" was more a genuine protest against the status quo conditions in England.
Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 13:31 utc | 152

The UK has been wavering over membership of the EU for decades, and Cameron thought that with his ploy of the referendum he could lay it to rest for a bit longer. The belief was that Leave could not conceivably win.

As far as the motivations for the vote is concerned, I agree that there is good reason to believe the result was in large part a protest vote. There was also substantial concern about the corporatism and unelected bureaucracy of the EU.

What seems to have motivated the those of the elite in favour of Leave, it seems, was radically different, as far as I understand. The EU has been pushing for more transparency of offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and for tighter measures against money laundering - of which the world-wide capital is the City of London, linked very closely with the offshore tax havens through the very opaque links that risked being opened up by the EU transparency measures. The UK oligarchs were then determined to get out of the EU at all costs before the transparency measures could be implemented.

I think it is this gross contradiction between the motivations of the pro-Leave oligarchs and the pro-Leave ordinary voters that seems to be the biggest problem, almost mutually exclusive. The oligarchs such as Boris "Yeltsin" Johnson care passionately about their personal mega financial interests, and not at all about anything else. If ordinary people face catastrophic hardships, small and medium businesses face bankruptcy, local services collapse, and society implodes, that is of no interest to the oligarchs as long as they can preserve their abilty to launder money opaquely through the City of London and offshore tax havens.

If the Brexit referendum was sold as a referendum on the immunity of offshore tax havens and the City of London to transparency and regulation under the law, and yet still won, then Boris "Yeltsin" Johnson's power grab could perhaps be justified as implementing "the will of the people". But considering that most people voting Leave resent the excessive hidden power and secret manipulation of the deep state and long to curtail such powers, it would be a huge distortion of reality to suggest that what is on offer as a "no-deal Brexit" is what ordinary voters voted for in the referendum.

I think it's:
1) Germany/France (the continent) dominated EU, in practice
Posted by: jared | Aug 29 2019 15:08 utc | 164

What is strange is that for the last 3 years Germany and France seem to have been ganging up against Britain in the negotiations, where Britain wanted to be a part of the tax-free zone, while France/Germany said no, that's out of the question unless you're fully in. Yet now it emerges that Germany faces economic hardships because their economy depends so heavily on trade with the UK. Whilst part of the problem was undoubtedly the need to prove to other potential leavers that leaving the EU is impossible and too catastrophic to the leaving party, it is difficult to believe that Germany was really so stupid all along. White is black and black is white.

Posted by: BM | Aug 29 2019 16:51 utc | 169

Karlof1 @ 168

In my post 165 I carelessly omitted one of the main reasons why the referendum swung to the Brexiteers. That was because your man Obama, on a visit to London, told the UK to vote remain. This was greatly resented, even by the Remainers, and may well have swung the vote in favour of Leave.

Most people over here think that the monarchy won’t survive the present incumbent for long, but we appreciate your presumably mischievous attempt to hasten the complete ruination of these poor islands.

Posted by: Montreal | Aug 29 2019 16:53 utc | 170

Britain has been a toy poodle at the feet of the Rothschild cabal for centuries. It took awhile for it to show.

Posted by: Tony B. | Aug 29 2019 16:55 utc | 171

At least we've stopped hearing about royal babies, with further evidence of why the US is fortunate to not be a part of the United Kingdom, or Queendom? It's all so silly and yet b didn't display Boris in one of his costumes because (I guess) this is getting Serious. Or not.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 29 2019 16:56 utc | 172

Off Topic.. Check out the MC21. Boeing 737 Max where are you? Also try and check out the new MIG 35 video from MAKS 2019.

Posted by: Maximus | Aug 29 2019 17:02 utc | 173

Thanks BM, Gruff, Montreal and others.

Very clear now and what I suspected.

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 17:16 utc | 174

Montreal @171--

Thanks for your reply! I'd forgotten that Obama incident, one amongst all too many. I'm sure that motivated some voters as you suggest. I did my best to review the situation for my partner as she lacks the time required to investigate and concluded by saying the situation's best understood by those raised within UK.

I'd say to Barovsky @169 that it's entirely possible to have a Constitutional Crisis over an unwritten constitution, and that's precisely what it seems is occurring.

BM @170 shows why the simplicity of the referendum question created havoc as there was no way for voters to detail why they voted to Leave or Remain, which is reflected in the contradictory factions within the Tory and Labour Parties. IMO, further referenda asking such questions ought to have been presented and voted so political direction could be provided to the government. But it seems it's far too late for that now.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 17:24 utc | 175

Honestly, who fucking cares? This is all much ado about nothing: they were in the EU for a long time, so now they want to leave? Go and give it a try! All of these headlines acting so overly dramatic, as if this was a life or death matter for this country–its all bullshit. It is not sink or swim, it is not do or die. Nothing is cast in stone: let them try to do the full Brexit with no strings attached for several years. If they like it, keep doing it. If they don't like it, they can re-enter the EU in some capacity. What a bore this whole affair is, dragging on endlessly. If it does any good anywhere, it is for journalists to torture bored readers with yet another boring article about a zero issue.

Posted by: Deschutes | Aug 29 2019 17:45 utc | 176

At the risk of repetition - there’s very little to understand. It is mainly about emotionally based belief. I have many friends who believe the UK will be better off outside the EU and many of these are a lot brighter than I am.
I would say that the solid centre is undecided and can be swayed either way but towards the extremes it is Yeats land.

It’s like King or Parliament, or Catholicism and Protestantism, a question of faith rather than logic.

God help us..

Posted by: Montreal | Aug 29 2019 17:51 utc | 177

Galloway says the only coup is the ongoing one bent on denying the initial will of the people to Leave.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 17:52 utc | 178

As I understand it Galloway isn't much of a fan of BoJo the Clown. That he can stay focused upon the real issues and not succumb to tribal reactions says a lot about him.

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 29 2019 18:03 utc | 179

Jonathon Pie's take--

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 18:06 utc | 180

James@161 - Not to have too big a quibble, but I'd like to reformulate my message that 'it's not about the elite.' I would say that yes, there is 'the elite' which is in Britain all who are very mindful of what it means to be in the wealthy class - just as in the US and other places it is a matter of finance and status. And yes, the royals are right in that mix.

I don't know how to characterize the queen in this, because I don't think politically speaking she's part of anything, nor would she consider herself to be. It's an interesting role that she has, and much of it is probably, as others have remarked, unique to her. The monarchy may well become something farcical or insincere after she is gone - in this modern day and with all the baggage of her family it's hard to see it otherwise. She may well be the last genuine monarch. And you only have one of those at a time. I don't class her as part of the elites because unlike them, she follows the rules. They may be crazy rules from any perspective, but she follows them. If she didn't, then you would have karlof1's constitutional crisis.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 29 2019 18:13 utc | 181

William Gruff @180--

Seems Galloway and Murray both present valid points but neither's in government. Corbyn is and has this vid, and he agrees with this op/ed. His threads are clogged with Hate Trolls of a most virulent sort. He does have a plan as explained in the vid; so, we'll need to await its outcome.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 18:17 utc | 182

The Brexit Question-- another Pie episode. Seems the referendum did not point out that "it ain't that simple mate."

Posted by: arby | Aug 29 2019 18:19 utc | 183

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 17:24 utc | 176

I didn't say we don't have a crisis, I said we don't have a constitution. What we do have are 100s of years of laws that have been passed that collectively are called the Constitution but as the events of the past couple of days show, it's a 'constitution' that is interpreted in any way you choose, that's why the 'constitution' is defined by precedent, in other words, in a court of law or Parliament (or both). It's a joke, a sick joke, but a joke all the same. There is no democracy here.

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 29 2019 18:29 utc | 184

Austerity in the UK:

UK food banks run low as demand surges in school holidays

20 years ago, it would even cross my mind this kind of problem existed in a First World country. Nothing like one day after another.

Posted by: vk | Aug 29 2019 18:34 utc | 185

Brexit General Election Now Inevitable – Johnson Must Be Removed

In this article the author concludes that people in the UK voted for Brexit for very different reasons, but mainly uninformed about the consqueneces of such move, and believing all the evils the UK working class have suffered during the last years are due to the EU membership ( an idea fraudulently spreaded by UKIP ), which are not, but have been movements by the Uk ruling class in dismantling the British welfare state initiated by Thatcher, a process that only will accelerate were the Uk enter into free-trade agreement with The Donald. Thus, Johnsosn is in any way lloking for the welfare of Uk citizens but for assuring the rate of profit of those of his class...hence the Queen´s support...."Amongst firefighters, they do not step on each other´s hosepipe", that we say around here ... This should be crystal clear for everybody, unless you are under payement of this upper class minority......

But, in any case, the author, who notes he himself voted in favor of Brexit, adds that neither he, nor the people of Britain, ever voted for a Brexit without agreement, which is what Johnson is trying to do to beneffit the elites he represents, which, far from not having made huge gains into the EU, promise themselves being able to make even more by allying with "without laws and rules" Trump´s US administration, once getting rid of former EU partners while leaving the bill owed unpayed....

The author agrees with me in the fraudulent figure of Nigel Farage ( renaming him "Nigel Fraudage")as a stooge of the elites to fool the UK masses into willingly going to the slaughter house....

He concludes calling for Johnson´s removal and new electoral process on a Brexit with deal or without it, once the people well informed of the consequences of both moves.

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 18:39 utc | 186

Has anyone else noticed...

Posted by: O | Aug 29 2019 18:52 utc | 187

A couple of points here.
First, in the British Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is elected by the House of Commons. It has almost always been the leader of the party holding the most seats. Not having faced the electorate as Prime Minister is irrelevant. There is no guarantee that in a general election, the leader of a political party will win a seat in Parliament.

Second, a throne speech occurs when the government lays out its plan for the upcoming session of parliament. It happens several times during a government's mandate. In this particular case, Bozo, errr, BoJo is quite correct in pointing out that no one has bothered looking at a post no deal Brexit, and what the government needs to plan for.

Third, at this point, the remainers want another extension in order to leverage time for another referendum. They don't like May's deal, the EU keeps saying 'take it or leave it', so there is really nothing to discuss in Parliament. If the EU blinks, then a deal may be done. If the EU doesn't blink, they will be in as big a mess as the UK.

Fourth, had the EEC not morphed into the soul-sucking EU, with no input from the citizenry, there never would have been a referendum. Every time a referendum has been held about morphing the EEC into the EU, it has been rejected in referendums. Brexit is a symptom of a much bigger problem. As for the "young" in favour of remaining, they ignore the fact that the "old" people voting to leave are the same ones that voted in favour of joining the EEC in the early 70s. Their complaint is that what they got wasn't as advertised.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Aug 29 2019 19:01 utc | 188

It seems that the Brexit referendum was proposed in the same confussing and fraudulent way to the masses as it was the referendum on NATO membership in Spain in the 80s.

The absolutely ignorant Spanish people then ( there was no internet then...) never knew what they were really voting due the confussing and freely interpretable questions the ballots included, and even with this clear intend on fooling them, the premises included in the referendum as gurantees for Spanish sovereignity and neutrality would never be respected, and the US ended planting its bases in Spain and dragging us into all its wars, transforming Spain into a de facto colony under foreign occupation, where, obviously, any government of the left, or even shared with the left ( even when it enjoys a not despicable part of the eletorate´s votes...) is authomatically forbidden from the WH...and whatever shenaingans will be made, including so called "socialists" flirting with and begging to the far-right of always, to twist the people´s will...

Did you see Sánchez in Biarritz? Yes, there was he, smiling in the second row of the group photo...

This shenaningans are respeated at every country so that the same far-right elites remain drainning us from our blood....

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 19:21 utc | 189

Sasha @187--

Thanks for linking to that op/ed; it was very well written and addressed all the relevant issues at hand; I highly recommend it be read.

Unfortunately, the author assumes BoJO will lose and Corbyn will become PM when it may well be that no party commands a majority.

Barovssky @185--

Thanks for your reply! To be sure, your situation is fraught. Is a snap general election along the lines of those suggested by the author at Sasha's link the answer, or is there some other remedy?

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 19:22 utc | 190

Anybody brought up offguardians view jet, seems to me as some of the most reasonable interpretation off events, see also their interpretatoin of the amazonas burning meme by catte black

‏ @OffGuardian0
28. Aug.

OffGuardian hat Jo Swinson retweetet

Note how the narrative has been manipulated to the point that overturning the referendum is now the only 'democratic' option. BoJo playing Heel or genuinely motivated, he's defeating/discrediting his own cause - a thing he often seems to do

Posted by: mx | Aug 29 2019 19:46 utc | 191

I think at this time it would be interesting for both, the barflies here and the genuine UK citizens and representatives so that be able to prevent ending with an undesired result which could compromise your country´ss future and destiny for decades to come, learn about how the Spanish people was fooled by the so called "NATO referendum":

Chronicle of a hoax: 30 years of the NATO referendum

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 19:58 utc | 192

Austrian retweets comment about democracy and UK:

"Boris Johnson unlike @NicolasMaduro has never been elected to lead any country & as he was bout to be removed by ELECTED MPs, he ran to an unelected monarch & begged her to suspend parliament.

"Yet according to MSM #Venezuela is a 'dictatorship' & the U.K is a healthy democracy."

Wonder what's being discussed over a few pints at local UK pubs this evening, or perhaps the issue's already been talked to death.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 29 2019 20:09 utc | 193

thanks for the many fine, informative posts people... noirette, @170 BM, barovsky, karlof1, montreal, william gruff, sasha and a few others.. thanks muchly..

@182 juliania.. i hear what you are saying.. the queen has had an amazing run and been very steady in a world that is very unsteady at present... i think she has played the role exceedingly well.. it looks like it might be ''times up'' for the monarchy though... it will be hard to replicate anything near to what she has done.. it isn't fun holding poor images of others.. counterproductive actually.. in spite of that, i continue to believe little people are getting the shaft and i have to point the figure at someone! bojo, the queen and the elites/rich are my first targets, lol... cheers james

Posted by: james | Aug 29 2019 20:12 utc | 194

figure - finger...

Posted by: james | Aug 29 2019 20:12 utc | 195

Posted by: mx | Aug 29 2019 19:46 utc | 192

Bojo has no principles! Initially he was a remainer, then he switched sides when he saw which way the wind appeared to be blowing. The man is an out-an-out opportunist.

Posted by: Barovsky | Aug 29 2019 20:40 utc | 196

@Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 19:58 utc | 193

Very illustrating with respect to a possible coming referendum on Brexit ( or whatever..) on the Spain NATO referendum hoax, this CIA paper including all the outcomes and prospects, even the no effective put in practice by the so called "socialist" leadership to real implantation of a "no NATO" win, suggestions on the ambiguous wording of the referendum questions presented to the people ( where do you think that final text originated from?...), as well as assured belief in the collaboration of "conservative forces", the King, the military, and the "business community" in supporting a not effective application of a "no NATO" possible win by then president Gonzalez, in spite of them recognizing majority of rejection amongst the Spanish population, even majority in the bases voting the "socialist party" ( the same situation as today with the coalition government with the left, btw, where Snaches is widely ignoring the claim of his bases in the electio nday of not sahring power with the far-right...) in charge.

On why they feared losing their bases privileges and why they meddle since ever so that the people´s will is always twistted and never respected in any part of the globe to this very day unless it benefits the US interests.

Notice also how they even calculate the most convenient timing for an snap election to assure the most favorable outcome for the US...Thus beware, Britons....

The conclusion I take from this "paper", is that the Gonzalez government simply followed the script dictated by the CIA/Pentagon/WH, since what this paper describes as possibilities to beneffit the US desired outcome is what really happened to direct the country towards becoming both, a nuclear military target and at the same time a hostage of conservative oligarchic interests. Thus,they called it "democracy" but really it is not....

Spain: The NATO Referendum and the US/Spanish Military Ties

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 21:03 utc | 197

mx @192

Yup. Same view as james and I and a couple others in this thread.

Why do so many ignore the obvious:

> No EU country has been allowed to break from the EU - previous referendums that drew an anti-EU result have been rescinded, re-voted, or ignored;

> The establishment reacted with horror at the outcome of the Brexit vote and there were immediate calls for a re-vote;

> Theresa May has dragged her feet on Brexit for years (those Parliament votes were a joke) - exactly to set up BoJo's power play;

> BoJo's threat to crash out of Brexit would be dumbf*ckery at it's finest, if Corbyn hadn't took the bait (or played along?).

In the few days that Parliament has prior to Brexit, will they vote "no confidence" in BoJo (maybe, but likely to fail) or for a Brexit re-vote (seems likely and with Corbyn's support)?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 29 2019 21:24 utc | 198

@Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 21:03 utc | 198

Btw, that at the time this was being plotted in Spain, Pat Lang, such a "constitutionalist, people´s sovereignist, democrat", was already at the head of US of the places this paper was sent....

Posted by: Sasha | Aug 29 2019 21:28 utc | 199

The Brexit referendum was not accompanied with any of the qualifications the remainers try to add now. Never was stated that Brexit required a parliamentary approval.

The Brexit referendum most definitely is not compatible with a May type of agreement reducing the UK to an associated non-member state forced to comply with EU regulation without having any influence just like for instance the Ukraine. However that May kind of "deal" did comply with the European Neighborhood Policy aimed at creating an exclusive EU sphere of influence by a periphery of dependent non-member states. May proposing that actually amounted to a betrayal of the Brexit referendum.

Refusing to pay that 39 billion is an excellent counter move to the EU trying to reinitate the Ireland troubles and thus trying to destroy the UK. The EU is an extremely vindictive "Hotel California" type of organization.

Posted by: JR | Aug 29 2019 21:29 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.