I think I’ve found the problem with your argument. Labour/Conservatives have no intention of doing this, Ukip are worse and there is no chance of any other alternative being in government.
Maybe the answer is to work towards anarcho-communism. I’ll be happy to do that.
It’s true, the governments have no intention of doing this. But nor does, as the recent punishment of Greece and similar developments in Portugal have show, the EU. So either way, the result of this referendum will not be causing the pain, the governments’ attitude will.
And yes, UKIP will be even worse than the Tories, of course. If such a thing were even possible. A shift is needed to people who actually care about peaople. Sanders and Corbyn are good beginnings, but yes: Beginnings we can’t rely on. More self-determination and self-organization is direly needed. As you say.
…when clearly the votes should have been weighted by how much money people have, right?
Sure there is. Labour voters want Corbyn, who would do this. The only thing in the way is the current crop of not-really-Labour MPs… and their days are probably numbered. Their next move is to boot Corbyn out… at which point his best move is to start a new party. Since he’s got all the votes… not-really-Labour won’t be around for long.
[quote=“thaumatechnicia, post:72, topic:80379, full:true”]
Isn’t it be the job of the Queen to appoint or ask someone?
[/quote]I don’t think so, in this case… so long as the Conservatives can still vote as a bloc and hence control the Commons, their new leader will become Prime Minister. If the Conservatives schism… then we probably have a snap election to sort it out (as the Queen probably wouldn’t find anyone capable of controlling the Commons at that point).
Comedy option - new election votes in a leader on a platform of rejoining the EU… It’s not impossible.
I was asking because Cory had mentioned that a Deputy PM hadn’t been appointed by Cameron. For instance, if Cameron were to resign tomorrow with no Deputy PM available, then the Queen is supposed to consult with the House to determine who the PM is supposed to be, no? (Don’t the Brits get anything for all the money they pay the royals?)
Quoting from a Canadian Government website: “The Governor General is responsible for the appointment of the Prime Minister. In practice, he or she must appoint the leader of the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons in a general election. The Governor General does, however, have some discretion when the governing party is in a minority position in Parliament and loses the confidence of the House.” Doesn’t the Queen play a similar role in Parliament? Just curious.
Try the basque region of Spain. It is surprising that someone who flies the black flag would be defending neoliberalism.
You mean there was a non-neoliberal option that offered workers co-operatives for everyone? I must have missed that option.
Most of the anarchists I have been talking to don’t like the EU, but the Brexit campains were so heavily focused on immigration (even the smaller left wing ones) that they felt they had to vote (noteworthy by itself) against it as an act of anti-fascism.
The EU was the least worst option in my opinion, having studied European case law regarding civil liberties. Maybe I would change my opinion if there was a large scale libertarian-socialist movement ready to take over Britain, but there isn’t.
Ah, I’ve found the ballot paper that you must have had. I never got that one
Drawing that box on the bottom then ticking it would be a splendidly satisfying way to spoil your ballot, I must say. Mind you, we usually have at least one communist standing in most elections, which saves me having to aid Nick Brown’s career, the fat useless toad.
Really? That’s the only alternative to a simple majority vote in your mind?
“Fuck it” is exactly why Leave won.
Well, in the US a constitutional amendment requires 75% of the states to ratify it. I think that requiring say, a 2/3 majority to Leave to trigger it on something as radical as EU membership would have been reasonable. As would have allowing 16yos to vote.
Yeah, but they seem to have been joined by a subset of angry, young white males and those who are just voting for Trump for the lolz (or as a protest).
That wouldn’t have fulfilled Cameron’s need to defuse the EU rift in his party, before it could destroy their General Election hopes.
Epic cowardice, and epic backfire.
I find myself surprised to be agreeing with Noel Gallagher of Oasis, who before the referendum questioned why something so massive, complex, and momentous was being put down to a simple-majority vote by the people. “Run the fucking country and make your fucking mind up…What are you asking the people for? 99 percent of the people are thick as pig shit.”
Not that I think 99% of Britain is thick as pig shit. But a bit more…er… leadership would have been a good idea here possibly.
I remember there was talk about this before a general election when the expected outcome was a hung parliament. In that case, the convention is that the prime minister remains the prime minister until someone else can be found who can command a majority in the house.
In the event that the PM was unable or unwilling to continue in the role, the chain of command would usually have the deputy PM take over. But if they are also dead / resigned / never appointed, then the succession goes:
PM → Deputy PM → Home Secretary → Defence Secretary → Foreign Secretary → Chancellor
This would put Theresa May in power.
Happy happy joy joy.
She might beat Johnson, too.
Jaysus.
What stops the Queen from overriding all of this? The Cabinet serves at her pleasure, and the military has all pledged allegiance to her personally.
Her wiki page says: “Outside politics, May lists her interests as walking and cooking.”
Oh, she sounds like a well-rounded, inquisitive person. Lucky you…
Technically the Queen can do almost exactly what she likes.
In practice, there are conventions and precedent laid down for everything so that the monarch doesn’t actually use those powers, in order to keep the monarchy above politics, and still in existence (The establishment being acutely aware of what happened when monarchs tried to push the “personal power” thing too far in the past.)
However, Brexit and an absent PM might just be an Outside Context Problem, in which case all bets are off.
I hadn’t thought of this. This might be a chance for the monarchy to actually provide some usefulness (as a USian, I’m continually baffled why they haven’t been told to go out and get real jobs)
What was the Queen’s position on this to begin with? I’m assuming that older conservatives=more positive feelings about monarchy. Do they give her views weight and benefit of the doubt that they might not give to bankers, lawyers and bureaucrats, to the point where they would say “well, ok, I guess if the queen says we should stay in…”
As a rule, I don’t think the Queen takes a public position on political matters.
She has probably been giving advice, privately, to Cameron, so he probably knows how she feels on the matter, but if she takes a public stand on something contrary to what the government does, it could get awkward for all involved.
