There is also still a substantial number of people in the UK who believe that “no deal” means nothing happens. They are likely to be very unpleasantly surprised on March 29 if this fiasco continues
7 Likes
And of course it is clear that every single leave advocate and voter was voting for their own individually different version of leave. It was utterly clear what remain meant. Nobody actually had a clue what leave meant, as we are still discovering, even today.
8 Likes
To clarify some stuff here:
- the original referendum was not legally binding; the House of Commons basically has absolute power, but MPs of all parties chose to agree that they couldn’t overrule the result. Much as you might wish otherwise, that was probably their only option because there could never have been a majority for any other interpretation
- under the UK’s unwritten “constitution”, governments are considered to be bound to honour commitments in their general election manifesto, so Theresa May’s botched general election in 2017 did kind of make the referendum binding. Except the government doesn’t have a majority, and MPs are ultimately free to vote however they want anyway. If they voted to cancel Brexit outright, that would be completely legal.
- (the purpose of the Queen is, basically, to prevent anyone else assuming the role. The only real-world situation where it would be conceivable for her to actually intervene would be if someone declared themselves a military dictator or something, i.e. when the political system had already collapsed. Merely having a shitty government is not a reason).
- a second referendum could indeed still result in a shitty Brexit (not that there’s another kind). Although Corbyn didn’t say so, one likely form would be the plan proposed by Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson where Labour would vote for May’s current deal, subject to a public choice between that and remaining in the EU. Presumably the legislation for that referendum would specify that the result did have the force of law, unlike the last one.
- EU peeps have consistently said that extending Article 50 is not a problem on their end, at least if there is a specific reason for the extension (such as organising a second referendum).
Personally, I am pessimistic that another referendum would produce the right result, but the Kyle/Wilson proposal seems like the only plausible suggestion that has any chance of leading to a non-terrible outcome. If the UK did remain in the EU, yes there would be a lot of frustrated jingoistic mouth-breathers, but there already are, so I don’t see that as an argument against it.
14 Likes
7 Likes
Citizen of a parliamentary monarchy here. There is no point, in most parliamentary monarchies the king/queen is just a glorified human rubber stamp or a civil servant with severely limited powers and tasks. A extremelly expensive rubber stamp or civil servant.
Also, the reason monarchs in parliamentary monarchies barely have any power at all is to save them from their own stupidity, witch only leads to the guillotine or exile.
5 Likes
1 Like
A country probably should have a Head of State who represents the nation at e.g. official functions.
The problem seems to arise when the Head of State also has some form of actual executive power, rather than just advisory respect - if a Head of State makes a speech in favour or against something, then that should carry some weight, but they shouldn’t be in a position to e.g. veto things (let alone have “executive action” powers!) This is mostly achieved through making them elected independently of the political process - and thus a sort of “Speaker for the People” - or through in-built respect - e.g. a Constitutional Monarchy. I tend to think that’s a good thing - someone who has status without political obligations provides an extra bit of counterweight to an otherwise overmighty executive branch.
1 Like
Monarchs don’t get elected. Unless you consider the fertilization of an egg cell by a certain person from a certain bloodline “an election”. Also, monarchs give zero shits about respect, they are immune to the law because either they are above the law or they are the law.
For example, in Spain the king can fucking murder anyone anytime and the person who would be held responsible is the president (Article 56.3 of the Constitución Española).
So no. Kings and kings are terrible ideas, if you want someone popular to represent the people that’s what elections are mean to.
1 Like
I believe @Scurra was listing two things:
- a person elected independently of the political process
- a person with “built-in respect” a.k.a. a monarch
1 Like
I guess labour are now officially pro-remain? Another referendum anyone? 
1 Like
Some do. In fact most of them originally were. There’s still a few about. Not many admittedly.
but yes, your general point is well taken.
4 Likes
Just imagine the furious public debates people will have in a hundred years, about whether to remove the Lost Brexit Cause statues from campuses.
“Brexit wasn’t a hyped up and hateful response to immigration fears about non-white people. It was all about state’s rights over the proper sizing of yoghurt containers…”
7 Likes
Your post made me imagine a bronze statue of Boris Johnson resplendent on a tall plinth on his rearing cruiser bike, with bike helmet and his briefcase raised in challenge…
Not cool.
6 Likes
Or maybe he could be sitting on a little model bus?
3 Likes
Someone had a similar idea…
(Note the date though)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
