"Well mum, I think you should suspend this parliament." "Yes prime minister.."

"Lawmakers reconvene Sept. 3 but under prorogation will disband the following week. They return Oct. 14, just 17 days before Britain's Oct. 31 deadline to leave the European Union.

In 2016, Britain voted in a referendum to leave the EU. Former Prime Minister Theresa May negotiated a divorce deal with the EU but Parliament rejected the agreement three times. The impasse ultimately brought down her government.

Meanwhile, Brexiteers have insisted that despite concerns over economic chaos, Britain must leave even without a deal.

"All these people who are wailing and gnashing of teeth know that there are two ways of doing what they want to do," Rees-Mogg, a member of Johnson's Conservative Party and a confirmed euroskeptic, told the broadcaster. "One, is to change the government and the other is to change the law."

"If they don't have either the courage or the gumption to do either of those then we will leave on the 31st of October in accordance with the referendum result," he added."  NPR

-------------

Brexit?  I don't really care about that.  IMO the Brits will be better off if they crash out of the moribund EU and make a wide reaching trade deal with the US. 

Ireland's internal border?  Really?  The Micks can't solve that problem between north and south?   Really?  As I said, I don't really care what they do with the Brexit issue.

OTOH I am surprised at the evidently automatic action of the sovereign in abjectly submitting to BJ in this clearly political situation.  It would seem to me that if the sovereign is not sovereign then why have a sovereign?  Tourism?  Really?  The whole panoply of Dukes and Duchesses, lords and lordlings is damned expensive.  Some of the lifestyle of the monarchy and its parasitic "followers" is funded from long held properties acquired  through dubious means but a lot of that lifestyle is publicly funded. 

For what?  The British people are so sentimental that they swoon at the sight of people like Harry and his duchess? 

Does anyone here have a realistic estimate of how much money would be saved in the UK's budget by abolishing the monarchy and its other dimensional and separate world?  pl

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/755326470/many-britons-react-with-anger-over-suspension-of-parliament

Comments

[oldman22]

"a queen?!?! are you guys fighting dragons off with a catapult and shit!?!? you don't have a 'queen'; you have a millionaire without a job."
joe rogan

[johnf]

The British have exactly the same irrational and emotional attachment to the royals as Yanks have to guns.

Me? I'm against both royals and guns.

I voted for Brexit for the same reason many voted for Trump. To drain the bi-partisan swamp.

Meanwhile Bermie and Corbyn wait in the wings.

[turcopolier]

johnf
No. We need to defend ourselves against the power of the government.

[oldman22]

No-deal Brexit will not be as simple as Y2K, that is for sure.
The Irish border question is inextricably wound with the politics of a very few politicians upon whom Johnson relies in a coalition for his slim majority. Scotland and Wales may well leave UK if/when Brexit occurs, as both have a strong preference to remain. Reliance upon USA to make up the loss of EU as trading partner is delusional - USA is far away and is NOT integrated into the stream of UK commerce as is EU.
One thing is for sure: UK is very fortunate that it never gave up the pound when EU was created. Having your own currency makes Brexit possible in a way that did not exist for Greece.
And BTW, everyone seems to forget, Corbyn voted AGAINST joining EU back in 1975. Was he wrong, or simply wise?
Extensive article here:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/09/26/fools-rush-out-boris-johnson-brexit/

[Antoinetta III]

I don't think the Queen "abjectly submitted" to Boris. I think she agrees with escaping from the EU and severing as many of the ties that bind as possible.

She is the Sovereign, after all, and her primary duty is to defend the sovereignty of Britain. What is more destructive to a nations' sovereignty than the EU with its supra-national courts, commissions, etc.; its rules that make it impossible for a nation to make its own decisions on matters like immigration, trade etc.

As far as I am concerned, Merkel, Macron, Tusk and all the EU heads of state are traitors to their own countries. Anyone who cares about sovereignty should demand the dissolution of the EU forthwith.

Antoinetta III

[oldman22]

correction, that Corbyn vote in 1975 was against ECC, which later became EU

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

Col. Lang:

United in Kingdom is unified only in the person of the English Monarch. Without that Office, there is no constitutional structure that would cause there to be a unitary state.

In fact, the entire un-written English Constitution will collapse and burn without the Person of the English Monarch. To this must be added that there are die-hard monarchists in England that would organize, without a doubt, a King's Party again and attempt at the restoration of the Crown.

Empirically, the Constitutional Monarchies, have been, for the most, politically far more stable than their purely republican counter parts.

That is on the political side.

On the religious side, the English Monarch is the Legitimate Religious Authority of the Anglican Church and the removal of the Monarchy would also remove that as well; exposing the society of the British Isles to the same dynamics as that of the United States - which - it might lead to another religious Civil War on that Island.

Over time, different English Monarchs have attempted at placing themselves in different roles; King George VI was the head of the Ideal Family, for example. The Prince of Wales, for example, has interested himself in Architecture and Ekistics, on the other hand.

A chief benefit of the Monarchy in England has been that it has checked the abuses that have come along with the Rise of the Masses. For if the People are Sovereign, it then follows that they are the Sole Legitimate Spiritual and Moral Authority as well; a path to destruction, in my opinion.

[oldman22]

"Yesterday, the Queen did exactly what she’s always done: as she’s told. According to the uncodified conventions of our constitution, the Queen acts on the advice of a prime minister in whom parliament entrusts executive authority.

If MPs want to annul the PM’s authority and reverse the proroguing, they can bring a vote of no confidence or a one-line Act of Parliament.

It’s not up to the Queen to overrule Johnson – it’s up to MPs. It is political, not royal, inaction that is expediting Brexit. But instead of inveighing against parliamentarians’ incompetence, Remainers are ragging on the one person who – much as it pains me to say it – is actually doing her job.

Yet the desire for the Queen to stop Brexit is also deeply ironic. Appalled by the PM’s undermining of parliamentary sovereignty, those in uproar sought to undermine it further by having the Queen overrule the PM. Royal political neutrality was the hard-won spoil of the Civil War and one of the few protections British subjects have against royal tyranny – and centrist Remainers want to throw it out"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/queen-boris-johnson-no-deal-brexit-prorogation-suspend-parliament-a9083811.html

[John Minehan]

Ulster also voted "Remain."

Seems to imply that something like "One Country, Two Systems" could have worked with Ulster, Scotland and Wales "in" and England "out."

[John Minehan]

Great Britain, out side the EU, really is at huge disadvantage. The difficulty they having in doing this is probably a good indicator this is something that should be abandoned.

[walrus]

Col. Lang, you ask about the utility of a monarchy with a straight face? While Larry Johnson is explaining the soft coup attempt in the U.S.? I would have thought that answered your question.

[turcopolier]

walrus

The monarch has no power at all and could not stop a soft coup by withholding assent. Queen Victoria is long dead. The present monarchy is a protection against exactly nothing.

[turcopolier]

JM

No. they do not need the EU.

[JJackson]

My understanding is that the Queen is obliged to follow the advice of her government, had she not rubber stamped the PMs request she would have mired herself in partisan politics which is not her role.
I am not a big fan of the Royals but the Queen, as head of state, has been able to maintain long term continuity of contacts with other heads of state while our idiot politicians come and go.
Putting faith in the US as a replacement tradeing partner is massively unwise, the relationship is far to onesided we will get crushed. I voted remain and am convinced we are in for a hard Brexit and that it will be catostophic for our economy and citizens from which I doubt we will ever fully recover. We are about to go from a second to third rate power I just hope we qualify for the G20.

[turcopolier]

JJackson
We are really quite sentimental about your history, literature, monuments, etc. Europe will eat you, not us. What you are really saying is that you don't like "the Yanks." "Overpaid, oversexed and over here."

[Amir]

“They do not need EU” is a very broad statement. The Scotts are not part of “English they”. The former wants independence: www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/boris-johnson-crosses-the-rubicon-we-must-react-now
No one needs no one, as North Korea proves. But the question is whether Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be better off within E.U. and a majority of them answered with an affirmative to that question. Especially Scotland will regain its oil fields under UNCLOS, that were stollen by the English.
Nationalism is a double edged sword and Perfidious Albion (I AM biased) will hopefully get what it deserved. E.U. should never have admitted U.K., as de Gaulle wisely had envisaged & they should have never expanded to Eastern Europe under US government’s pressure as both forced decisions lead to undermining of Schuman’s vision for Europe ( a this old comedy, is tragic: youtu.be/37iHSwA1SwE ).
The Queen/ENGLISH monarchy, with the latter’s not so hidden sympathies for extreme-right, is an essential part of this centuries long tradition of sowing discord in Europe: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/the-queens-active-role-in-the-right-wing-coup/
The US government’s trumpeting of support for extreme-right in Europe, is a continuation of a longstanding policy to undermine a major economic competitor and use E.U. as a vassal in the former’s confrontation with other power centers. It is true that it would be better for the current US government to have England as another one of it’s territories, with their markets open but without any vote for the latter but not the other way around.

[Amir]

Having a disunited Europe is very good for the OUTSIDERS: www.moonofalabama.org/2019/08/saudi-arabia-acknowledges-defeat-in-yemen-starts-to-sue-for-peace-.html#more
And for those who think that the European human impulses are different than the non-Caucasian Yemenis, I refer to the former Yugoslavia & current Ukraine.

[turcopolier]

Amir
Yes, it is, and Scotland does not need England wither.

[Mark Logan]

oldman22

The Queen's job is thereby very much like that of the Emperor of Japan, but in Japan, IIRC, a PM would not bother The Emperor with such matters. I imagine the Queen is envious.

[turcopolier]

Amir

The notion that only the English are "white" is very English. I saw that often in all the time I spent in England. The notion that Arabs without African blood are not white is laughable. Yemenis are "white." Rashida Tlaib is "white."

[walrus]

I strongly disagree. The Queen can remove Boris in an instant, dissolve parliament and call elections tomorrow if she felt like it. This is what happened in Australia in 1975.

The fact is that the british military, judiciary and civil service are ultimately responsible to HER not Parliament. She doesn’t use this power very often, maybe once a century but don’t mistake good manners and politesse for fopery there is iron under there. They take their role as Commander in chief very seriously and woe betide anyone who tries to horn in.

To put that another way, if the Queen so directed tomorrow, then I am back in active service.

If you spend enough time watching the royals closely, you will realise they do a great deal of work, especially preventing the big guys from running over the little guys.

[turcopolier]

Mark Logan

How true, but then, she is the descendant of Hanoverian usurpers.

[turcopolier]

walrus

If the queen did what you say she might the monarchy would end quickly.

[John Minehan]

I'm not a Brit, but I have often wondered if a lot of the success of the Crown has been QEII who has been (for the most part) a very astute politician (see, e.g., her subtle use of her influence against Scots Independence in '14).

One thought is her long reign and unprepossessing sons might be an issue.

[Barbara Ann]

Boris' move is straight out of Trump's playbook and I applaud its boldness. It may be constitutionally unconventional, but it is not illegal and it is certainly no coup. If the British Parliament feels strongly enough they will call for a no confidence vote and force a general election.

Boris is trying to prevent legislation against a 'no deal' Brexit. If he fails his hands will be tied in last minute negotiations with the EU, another extension will follow and he'll go the same way as his predecessor. Next please.

British political satire used to be peerless. But life has imitated art on a grand scale and the Groundhog Day farce of Brexit has turned the mother of parliaments into a parody worthy of Monty Python. It has to end and Boris is giving it his best shot.