U.K. Politics: Boris Johnson referred to police (AGAIN) over potential Covid rule breaches

[SholasBoy]

Although I voted to remain, I can't understand what the point of "putting it to the people", when that was exactly what they did in the first place, and the people chose brexit. Not that I would be against another referendum myself. I don't know if it's media spin but whenever I see any of the people in these protests being interviewed they always come across as completely clueless.

[Artoo]

Although I voted to remain, I can't understand what the point of "putting it to the people", when that was exactly what they did in the first place, and the people chose brexit. Not that I would be against another referendum myself. I don't know if it's media spin but whenever I see any of the people in these protests being interviewed they always come across as completely clueless.

I agree. I voted to remain and accept the result. Ultimately, that’s what I think it boils down to - not accepting the result, and desperately trying to do anything to change it. If it been the other way around, we’d all be rolling our eyes (like we do at Nicola Sturgeon every time she continues to push for Scottish Independence) and telling the Brexiteers to pipe down.

I am not in favour of a people’s vote at all. I saw signs today saying ‘Democracy is being able to change your mind’ which is totally true, but surely democracy is leaving the EU then voting again down the line whether we want back in or not (the EU I believe say we can’t, but I suspect we could if it came to it).

[Thriller]

I think it’s mainly to do with the fact that people feel the original vote was swayed by lies and we had no real idea of what we were getting in to. That said, we didn’t vote on HOW to leave the EU, which would’ve been a much more sensible proposition if it were possible. Or, at least promise that if the UK voted yes, that the people would get another vote on the deal.

[jio]

I think it’s mainly to do with the fact that people feel the original vote was swayed by lies and we had no real idea of what we were getting in to. That said, we didn’t vote on HOW to leave the EU, which would’ve been a much more sensible proposition if it were possible. Or, at least promise that if the UK voted yes, that the people would get another vote on the deal.

But it's unrealistic to think that a vote (any vote that is) does not include lies. Even in elections there are loads of lies flying around on all sides. Here too (and in any referendum for that matter) there were lies, once again on both sides. People lie, exaggerate, say half truths , hide facts, bring one-sided arguments, create a distorted perception of reality, you name it and they do that to win the argument. It's completely unrealistic to expect not to be so and, as a result, I find the argument "But we were lied to" completely bollocks. Yes, you were lied to but you still made a decision as an informed adult (if you were not informed, it's your fault) and have to accept the consequences.

That said, the referendum passed judgement on the EU itself and reflected the perception of the British people on the EU. That perception may be shaped by misunderstandings and chronic half-truths (as in every EU member really) but for sure it was not shaped by the referendum campaign so much. Most British people live in the EU all their lives, their view on the EU is shaped way before they went to the vote. What one could debate about is how life outside the EU would be expected to be because that's the unknown. However even in that, there are so many factors impossible to be quantified and be predicted that absolutely nobody can tell you with certainty.

So in the end of the day you decided based on your opinion on the EU. And the British were always notorious for disliking the EU so the referendum result should not have come as a surprise to anyone. So I don't know why there is talk of a second referendum. The first one expressed exactly what we knew for ages that the Brits felt about the EU. If a second referendum brings a different outcome, that would simply be a result of public pressure and fear (of life outside the EU), and that is not really how referendums should be won. So there is no need for a second referendum IMO.

[Thriller]

So in the end of the day you decided based on your opinion on the EU.

Not everyone who voted leave did so because of their opinion on the EU. Many will have voted leave because: they thought it would stop immigration; they thought it would mean immigrants would “go back”; they are racist or deeply ignorant; they are fearful of terrorist attacks by “immigrants”; Britain isn’t white enough anymore; we’ll get millions of pounds back to invest back into the NHS... the list goes on. The sad thing is, a lot of these reasons are caused by media scaremongering that has been going on for over 15 years in Britain by outlets such as the Daily Mail, then you have Nigel Farage doing his best to ride that wave. Also, many of the leave voters, I’m assuming now, will have been older citizens who will live for the shortest time with the consequences of Brexit - that’s the bit that sucks for me.

[SholasBoy]

I think it’s mainly to do with the fact that people feel the original vote was swayed by lies

Isn't that the same with every political vote

[Rihab]

Theresa May’s Cabinet in Open Revolt, Plotting Overthrow: Times
By Nick Lichtenberg

Theresa May’s cabinet is in open revolt against the prime minister and wants an interim leader to complete the Brexit process.

According to the Sunday Times, at least six senior ministers want her deputy, David Lidington, to take the job until there’s a formal leadership election. They’ll confront her at a cabinet meeting Monday, and threaten a mass resignation if she doesn’t step down, the report said. Michael Gove, a leading Brexiteer in the 2016 referendum, and Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt also have some support.

The paper, which spoke to 11 ministers, also noted:

- Hunt isn’t in favor of Lidington because he thinks the deputy will strike a deal with Labour that allows the U.K. to become a permanent customs union member.

- Gove is willing to take on the role and has been putting together a leadership campaign team.

- Home Secretary Sajid Javid would back Lidington if the other candidates step aside; he wouldn’t support Gove or Hunt.

May has grown increasingly isolated in recent months, at home and in Brussels. She has twice tried and failed to steer her EU-approved deal through Parliament, last week’s televised address irked colleagues by pinning the blame for the deadlock on the House of Commons, and her dramatic shift in tone toward embracing a no-deal Brexit has angered the bulk of her Conservative Party lawmakers.

The report comes hours after hundreds of thousands of Britons poured into the streets of London demanding a second public vote. Most of the attendees favor Britain staying in the bloc.

If May were removed, it wouldn’t necessarily trigger a general election. Under the country’s Fixed-Term Parliament Act, the next election is scheduled for May 2022.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...verthrow-times

No words.

[heppolo]

Gove as a PM? I didn't thought this Brexit would get even more bizarre. Why not BoJo or Rees-Mogg then?

[Kpop]

Gove as a PM? I didn't thought this Brexit would get even more bizarre. Why not BoJo or Rees-Mogg then?

Gove and Johnson were leaders of the official Leave campaign: yet Gove voted for May's deal; whilst Johnson voted against it.

“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.” – Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, April 2016.


And Rees-Mogg is a disaster capitalist (financial psychopath). That's why he's happy for a no-deal Brexit

[Thriller]

Isn't that the same with every political vote

Yep, but this feels like a potentially much bigger upset than a general election.

[Artoo]

So May has admitted defeat and won’t hold a meaningful vote due to a lack of support for her deal. She’s going to have to step down, surely?

[Wayne]

So May has admitted defeat and won’t hold a meaningful vote due to a lack of support for her deal. She’s going to have to step down, surely?

This therefore means that unless she can get something over the line before April 11th, we will exit with no deal.

[Artoo]

This therefore means that unless she can get something over the line before April 11th, we will exit with no deal.

Not according to what she’s saying now - she’s just said unless the house agrees to it, no deal will not happen.

Grow a spine, FFS. It’s the only thing that will keep Brexit together at the moment!

[Artoo]

Oh and the DUP talking sense - “what’s going to happen in another two weeks that couldn’t have happened up to now?”

Give that man her job

[Wayne]

Not according to what she’s saying now - she’s just said unless the house agrees to it, no deal will not happen.

Grow a spine, FFS. It’s the only thing that will keep Brexit together at the moment!

With all due respect to our PM, that decision isn't ours to make.

Our domestic politics are secondary to the legal position here - the "right" to exit the EU is enshrined within Article 50 (an EU treaty) and therefore, all of these votes on whether we exit with "no deal" or not are not legally binding.

The legal position on Brexit is actually very simple to understand now that May has formally agreed to the terms of the extension:

* May gets the votes she needs before 29th March, and the European Council will then agree to an extension pushing Brexit back to May 22nd.
* May doesn't get the votes she needs before 29th March, we defer to the legal default of exiting the EU with "no deal" on April 12th.

There is no mechanism for extending Brexit beyond April 12th unless May gets her deal past Parliament before the original Brexit date of March 29th.

[jio]

Wayne is right...

[AlphaMale]

#Breturn!

[Artoo]

With all due respect to our PM, that decision isn't ours to make.

Our domestic politics are secondary to the legal position here - the "right" to exit the EU is enshrined within Article 50 (an EU treaty) and therefore, all of these votes on whether we exit with "no deal" or not are not legally binding.

The legal position on Brexit is actually very simple to understand now that May has formally agreed to the terms of the extension:

* May gets the votes she needs before 29th March, and the European Council will then agree to an extension pushing Brexit back to May 22nd.
* May doesn't get the votes she needs before 29th March, we defer to the legal default of exiting the EU with "no deal" on April 12th.

There is no mechanism for extending Brexit beyond April 12th unless May gets her deal past Parliament before the original Brexit date of March 29th.

Oh of course. I don’t agree with her at all. It’s almost like she’s suggesting if we can decide what we want and present it, we can. I’m not sure we can. She needs to grow a backbone and stick with no deal.

Or worse - revoking article 50. Which I doubt she’ll do because frankly, parliament as a whole will be crucified I think.

Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t an enquiry into how this mess was handled.

[Wayne]

Any enquiry should lay the blame at the feet of parliament - the amount of discord that has been created by their actions will influence British culture and the economy for generations to come.

[Artoo]

Here we go again. Another loss in parliament and more cabinet resignations.

[Wayne]

Brexit: MPs vote to take control of Brexit process for indicative votes

MPs have voted to take control of Commons business in an unprecedented move to try to find a majority for any Brexit option.

The government was defeated by 329 votes to 302 on the cross-party amendment setting up a series of votes on Wednesday to find out what kind of Brexit has most support among MPs.

PM Theresa May has said there is no guarantee she will abide by their wish.

Thirty Tory MPs voted against the government, including three ministers.

Richard Harrington, Alistair Burt and Steve Brine resigned to join the rebels, with Mr Harrington accusing the government of "playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods" of Britons.

Mr Harrington said in his resignation letter that as industry minister, he had been told the government approach was "resulting in cancelled investment decisions, business being placed abroad, and a sense of ridicule for British businesses".

Mrs May had tried to head off a defeat by offering MPs a series of votes on Brexit alternatives, organised by the government.

She said allowing MPs to take over the Commons agenda would set an "unwelcome precedent".

But supporters of Conservative backbencher Sir Oliver Letwin's amendment said they did not trust the government to give MPs a say on the full range of Brexit options.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was among them. He said the government "must take the process seriously".

He added: "The government has failed and this House must, and I believe will, succeed."

He said MPs would want to find a consensus on the way forward, including a possible "confirmatory vote" on the PM's deal by the public - something Mrs May told MPs earlier she did not want because Remain would be on the ballot paper.

MPs involved in the bid tonight say if there is a majority for a plan that's not the prime minister's deal then there would be "uproar" if Theresa May tried to ignore it.

It is possible, of course, that Brexiteers who have been resisting the prime minister's deal so far take fright at Parliament having more control of the process, and are more likely to come in line.

That's because, generally, the make-up of MPs are more likely to back a softer deal than the one on offer.

So faced with the choice of Theresa May's compromise this week, or a much longer wrangle to a closer relationship with the EU than the prime minister has negotiated, it is not impossible that the numbers will move in her favour.

How did MPs react?

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "Another humiliating defeat for a prime minister who has lost complete control of her party, her cabinet and of the Brexit process.

"Parliament has fought back - and now has the chance to decide what happens next."

The SNP's Joanna Cherry said: "It isn't just Wednesday. Now that Parliament has control of the order paper... on Wednesday Parliament could award itself another day and so on and so forth.

"The consensus we are now trying to build is something Theresa May should have reached out to try to build two years ago."

Conservative former Brexit Minister Suella Braverman told the BBC's Newsnight it was "a Parliamentary massacre".

"MPs [in the House of Commons] where we know there is a majority against Brexit, who don't want to respect the referendum, who don't want to honour referendum pledges, are seeking to overturn that and it's unacceptable," she said.

What happens next?

In a series of so-called indicative votes, MPs will be able to vote on a number of options - likely to include a "softer Brexit", a customs union with the EU and another referendum - designed to test the will of Parliament to see what, if anything, commands a majority.

But the precise format of the votes and how they will work was not set out in the amendment.

And the prime minister said she was "sceptical" about the process - as it was not guaranteed to produce a majority for any one course of action - and she would not commit the government to abiding by the result.

"The votes could lead to an outcome that is un-negotiable with the EU," she told MPs.

Parliament is expected to pass a law this week postponing the Brexit date from 29 March to at least 12 April.

A Department for Exiting the EU spokesman said that when considering Brexit options, MPs should take account of how long negotiating them would take and whether this would require a longer delay and the UK having to take part in European Parliamentary elections.

Those elections are taking place between 23 and 26 May. Both the British government and European Commission believe that if the UK has not exited the EU by the end of May it will be legally required to hold elections.

PM's course unchanged

Mrs May remains committed to winning over MPs to the withdrawal agreement she negotiated with the EU.

She said on Monday it did not have enough support to get through the Commons "as things stand", but she still hoped to persuade enough MPs to back it so she could hold another vote on it this week.

The deal has already been rejected twice by a large margin - and the PM was forced to ask the EU for Brexit to be delayed.

On Monday the government was defeated on its main motion, as amended by Sir Oliver Letwin, by 327 votes to 300, a majority of 27.

The government narrowly defeated a bid by Labour's Dame Margaret Beckett to give MPs a vote on asking for another Brexit extension if a deal has not been approved by 5 April. Dame Margaret's amendment was voted down by 314 to 311, a majority of three.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47701591

This whole thing is utterly disgraceful - none of these motions are legally binding, and they're all fruitless as the EU has said they won't consider anything other than what's on the table. These politicians frustrate the limitations of a parliamentary democracy.

[Artoo]

The best way out of this mess is to leave without a deal. Not a single alternative that has been proposed - including revoking article 50 - has enough support to be viable.

Not even calling a general election has enough support from the people

Watching the votes last night, they were absolutely split down the middle - with as little as 3 votes making the difference in some cases.

We can’t go on like this. We need to leave with no deal then have an election in my opinion, and each MP needs to really go out there and fight on their own merits and stop relying on the party lines. Frankly, I think it’s time the career politicians were given the boot.

[shinydiscopaul]

No deal? lol. Are you even aware of what that would mean for the country! That's worse than this mess we're in right now.

They need to either revoke and hold a general election or extended and hold another election until a leader who is capable of doing their job can negotiate the a stronger deal.

I have no idea why Theresa May would put herself through this kind of humiliation other than sheerly to hold on to the "power" which she doesn't appear to have much of at the moment.

The UK is an absolute mess. I never thought they would allow it to get so badly out of control it's a disgrace.

[beredy]

This whole thing is utterly disgraceful - none of these motions are legally binding, and they're all fruitless as the EU has said they won't consider anything other than what's on the table. These politicians frustrate the limitations of a parliamentary democracy.

The whole thing has been badly handled by the UK from the start. The vote on Brexit wasn't legally binding as well. But politicians decided to go into it and promise the UK public stuff they can't deliver. They knew fully that EU won't go easy on the UK for coming out of the Union. But somehow it seems that people still blame EU for all of current UK's problems. EU remains this evil force that does bad things and won't let sunshine into UK, and milk and honey to flow free there.

And jio will still come in here and talk about democracy (which he is right of course and it is democratic to voice your opinion and negotiate, etc.) as if democracy cannot be misused. And what UK is going through right now is complete and utter misuse of democracy and they can only blame it on their politicians. Not EU as a whole, not certain member countries who oppose future dates on UK exit... UK politicians are the one making UK chasing its tail all this time without even noticing that the world (EU) keeps on going without paying mind to internal UK scrambles (neither should they pay much attention TBH, every country has its own problems that are more important than May not being able to secure votes for her deal).

I think there will be no deal exit, or before the clock strikes midnight May's deal might get enough votes. It's obvious UK is trying to play as a big force and make EU change their mind and give them anything they want. But as I said before - UK's vote might've been a strong one while they were in EU, but leaving the Union gives them absolutely no leverage to get everything their way, nor should they. It's basic logic.

[jio]

You are wrong to think the UK is the weak part in this though