Brexit Carried - Endgame

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I should clarify my earlier post. As the video that Túrin posted describes, the vote that took place today was not a vote of no-confidence specifically about May, it was a vote of no-confidence about her government, which is different than the vote that took place last month, which was a vote about her by her party.

[Frelga]

Do we have that in the US?

[Primula Baggins]

I wish. It's a parliamentary thing, though.

[elengil]

Kinda?? I mean, there's 25th Amendment...

[River]

The closest equivalent would be whatever mechanisms are used to remove the leadership in Congress. The 25th amendment would be a way to rid the US of her head of state. So would impeachment.

[elengil]

The closest equivalent would be whatever mechanisms are used to remove the leadership in Congress. The 25th amendment would be a way to rid the US of her head of state. So would impeachment.

Is May not considered a head of state?

[River]

No. The Queen is head of state. May's the head of government.

[elengil]

I really wish I understood Parliamentary government better

[Primula Baggins]

It's really hard to get rid of kings and queens. Maybe that's why they've persisted into modern times.

[Inanna]

India has a parliamentary system devoid of kings & queens. They exist, but have to fend on their own now.

An Indian’s perspective on Brexit:
https://nyti.ms/2RWEZsY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

[Frelga]

It's really hard to get rid of kings and queens. Maybe that's why they've persisted into modern times.

Ve haff vays.

[Primula Baggins]

*blanches*

Uh, yeah....

[Frelga]

It was just one tsar, it's not like it was a habit*

* Pratchett reference

[Túrin Turambar]

I really wish I understood Parliamentary government better

Keeping in mind this system was invented by the same people who came up with pounds-shillings-pence currency, cricket, and the English language –
1. All power was originally held by the sovereign, and even today the executive power in a country with the Queen as head of state is referred to as “the Crown” (e.g. criminal trials are traditionally written as R v Smith, “the Crown against Smith”).
2. With the Glorious Revolution in 1688, Parliament established itself as the supreme legislative authority. In other words, to be valid a law needed to be passed by parliament and then given royal assent by the sovereign.
3. Over time, the convention developed that the sovereign would only exercise his or her power on the advice of his or her ministers.
4. Ministers must be a member of Parliament and must maintain the confidence of Parliament. The Queen may only appoint someone as a minister if they have the confidence of parliament, and if they lose a no-confidence vote, they must resign. This state of affairs is referred to as responsible government, as the government is responsible to the parliament.
5. Historically, the House of Lords was more powerful and influential than the House of Commons. This changed over time, particularly following a constitutional crisis in 1910-1911, and since then the House of Commons has had responsibility for the expenditure of public money, and is hence the more powerful house.
6. With political parties, this means that the Queen will always appoint the people chosen by the political party or coalition of political parties which are able to get a majority of the votes in the House of Commons as her ministers. They will advise her collectively, as a cabinet. From memory, the last time a king tried to appoint a cabinet which did not have the confidence of the House of Commons was in 1830. This triggered a constitutional crisis, and since then the convention has been maintained.
7. The prime minister doesn’t actually have any formal or legal role in all this. In the 18th century, the convention began of having a ‘first minister’ who led the cabinet in its dealings with the sovereign, and of this person also holding the office of First Lord of the Treasury. The term ‘prime minister’ was originally given as a joke, and wasn’t used formally until 1905. The executive power originates from the sovereign and is exercised by the cabinet. As an aside, the words ‘prime minister’ do not appear in the Australian Constitution for the same reason.
8. Ministers have individual and collective responsibility to parliament. Parliament can pass a vote of no-confidence in one minister, and that minister must resign. Conversely, parliament can also pass a vote of no-confidence in the entire government. If this happens, the prime minister must advise the Queen to appoint someone else to form a government, or, if no other person can command the confidence of the House of Commons, to dissolve parliament and call an election.
9. If the government loses an election then it is held to have lost the confidence of parliament, and the prime minister will advise the Queen to send for the leader of the opposition. This is sometimes straightforward (as in 1997) but at other times complex when the result is unclear (as in 2010).
10. The prime minister may also be removed by her own party. This isn’t a formal mechanism for removing the prime minister, but flows on from the fact that the prime minister is the leader of the party in government, and the party in government has its own internal rules about who gets to be its leader, so if someone loses a vote to be party leader under the party’s rules it stands to reason that they’ve lost the confidence of the House.

It's really hard to get rid of kings and queens. Maybe that's why they've persisted into modern times.

I’m not sure if it’s “really hard” so much as “not worth the trouble if there doesn’t seem to be any problem with keeping them”. There have been bouts of such removals in times of upheaval, like 1917-1920.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Al (or anyone else), any thoughts about this?

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PE0W0

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Alatar]

I don't think she has a snowball's chance in hell. I'm disturbed she's even considering it.

[Alatar]

I can't believe how uninformed and unintelligible your President is. He keeps lowering the bar. This is pure stream of conscious gibberish.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2329627550387423

[yovargas]

The link isn't working for me.

[Alatar]

That's strange, it still works for me?

[Alatar]

Its from a few months back. This version isn't even as bad as the original clip where he has no clue what a "Hard Brexit" means and thinks they said "Heartbreaking". He then starts rambling about how there were protests, but that was the same at the election, and he won 306 electoral seats including Wisconsin, which Reagan didn't win, and by the way I have a place in Ireland too and they love me there and they agree with me on immigration which is why Brexit happened...