UK: Brexiteers vs. Remainers, Gambling at The Last Chance Saloon

by Andrew Ash
September 25, 2019 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14913/uk-brexiteers-remainers

The [British Remainers] opposition camp, having already succeeded in obstructing Britain's exit from the European Union for three years, have now won themselves extra time in which to block the path of democracy.
Anything and everything is apparently in the cards for the obstructionists, whose true agenda appears to be not to work out a Brexit deal at all -- but to ignore the referendum result, and for the UK to remain in the untransparent, unaccountable and un-unelectable EU.

Anything and everything is apparently in the cards for the Brexit obstructionists, whose true agenda appears to be not to work out a Brexit deal at all -- but to ignore the referendum result, and for the UK to remain in the untransparent, unaccountable and un-unelectable EU. Pictured: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The latest twist in the UK's ongoing battle to leave the European Union has -- unsurprisingly -- reached yet another impasse. The supreme court has ruled that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's suspending of Parliament was unlawful because it "had the effect of frustrating parliament." He was also accused of giving unlawful advice to the Queen in asking her for permission.

As is routine for a newly appointed PM, Johnson suspended Parliament in order to announce his domestic agenda with a Queen's Speech. Furious Remainers claim that he shut it down to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny of his plans to leave Europe -- with or without a deal. The suspension, which infuriated his foes, was the latest move in an ongoing battle to deliver Brexit -- in spite of the opposition's determined refusal to accept the will of the people.

Johnson's detractors, inevitably, have leapt upon the decision, passed by a panel of eleven judges, to void his decision to prorogue -- or suspend -- Parliament. The Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, have called for Johnson's resignation, and demanded a new election. Mr Johnson -- who is currently in New York on his first UN summit -- has steadfastly refused to stand down.

The ruling comes as a blow to the PM, who has set a deadline of October 31 to leave the European Union. The opposition camp, having already succeeded in obstructing Britain's exit from the EU for three years, have now won themselves extra time in which to block the path of democracy.

As a result of the judges' decision, MPs have now been called to return to the House of Commons "as a matter of urgency" by one of Johnson's most staunch opponents, Speaker of the House John Bercow, who "welcomes" the Supreme Court's judgement.

Bercow, a former Conservative, along with his anti-Trump rhetoric, has thrown his all into preventing Brexit from happening ever since the referendum result in 2016, even going so far as to display a "Bollocks To Brexit" sticker on his car.

Shadow PM Jeremy Corbyn, clearly revelling in the latest turn of events, which come at the start of the Labour Party's annual conference in Brighton, said after the ruling, "I invite Boris Johnson to consider his position and become the shortest serving PM there has ever been."

European Union members, somewhat inevitably, have also expressed their unbridled joy at the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Johnson's suspension of Parliament, and once again thwart the democratic rights of the people of Britain.

Member of European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt, oblivious to the irony of his statement, commented:

"At least one big relief in the Brexit saga: the rule of law in the UK is alive & kicking. Parliaments should never be silenced in a real democracy.

"I never want to hear Boris Johnson or any other Brexiteer say again that the European Union is undemocratic."

Mr Johnson, however, insists that the suspension was not obstructive, but necessary, and insisted that MPs were only losing "four or five days of parliamentary scrutiny, when parliament has had three years to discuss the issue."

Despite the hyperbole from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John Bercow, however, the prime minister cannot be forced out of office by today's ruling, although it does leave him open to a potential vote of no confidence when Parliament reconvenes -- which would make the likelihood of a general election far more likely -- quite possibly within weeks. This tactic would be quite a gamble for the Remainers: if the Conservatives win, even if it means forming an alliance with Nigel Farage's Brexit party, it would cause the very same "no deal Brexit" to which his detractors claim to be so opposed.

The opposition seem nevertheless willing to take the gamble: they are running out of alternative methods to hold up proceedings for much longer. Anything and everything is apparently in the cards for the obstructionists, whose true agenda appears to be not to work out a Brexit deal at all -- but to ignore the referendum result, and for the UK to remain in the untransparent, unaccountable and un-unelectable EU.

Andrew Ash is based in the United Kingdom.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: United Kingdom

Recent Articles by Andrew Ash

Shamima Begum: 'Groomed' or 'Indoctrinated'?, 2022-12-07
Socialized Medicine Is No Cure: Britain's Broken Benefit System, 2022-11-15
UK: Welcome to the Medieval Era of 2021, 2021-09-01
Britain: Two-Stepping Toward Totalitarianism, 2020-11-15
The BBC Thought Police, 2019-10-30

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

11 Reader Comments

Ian ogden • Sep 26, 2019 at 10:00

In any kind of conflict Britons can be expected to frustrate the opposition almost to the point they give up. In this case it is Brit v Brit even though one side is in the wrong, they will try any trick to win. However they should have respected the will of the majority, they have lost my respect.

Reply->

MsZ • Sep 26, 2019 at 06:27

There is a very strange correlation between Brexit and Trump winning the election in 2016. The establishment on both sides of the Atlantic (or is it the same 'deep state'?) have been trying to reverse the outcome ever since.

Reply->

Bisley • Sep 25, 2019 at 10:50

The British government has become like most other governments, with a continual stream of lies to the public, and maneuvering behind the scenes to do the opposite of what the public wants (and trying to find a way to present it as at least part of what they do want). It seems that the British political establishment of both major parties (and most of the minor ones) intends to keep the UK in the EU.

If they can't find a way to scuttle Brexit altogether, they will try again to push May's deal (probably reworded, renamed, and proclaimed different and better, but still the same) through Parliament. This could be done without too much trouble, but only if enough of the non-Tory remainers can be persuaded that their only choice is between really leaving and pretending to leave -- many would prefer the deal to remain a member without official membership to actually leaving. However it goes, whether the government is forced to leave with no deal, or they can find a way to fake it, leaving will be intentionally mismanaged to try to make it so bad that the public will accept going back to the EU. The whole political effort is geared toward keeping Britain in the EU, and despite the party squabbles and differences of opinion on how to go about it, they will succeed in the long run, unless there's a different sort of government that actually wants to leave, and make a success of it.

Reply->

Kenneth Smith • Sep 25, 2019 at 10:01

We delude ourselves that Britain is a Representative Parliamentary Democracy, but it is in reality is "Parliamentary Dictatorship," where every 5 years the people get a chance to change the dictator. If one thinks this is extreme, a British Prime Minister has virtually unbridled power so long as he continues to hold a parliamentary majority and the government's MPs don't break ranks, and vote against their own Government.

Voting in Britain is not compulsory, with a significant percentage not exercising their democratic rights to have a say in the election of the Government, or in a referendum.
Another feature of British elections is "Tribal Voting" where an estimated 50 or more of voters consistently vote for the Political party of their perceived social caste, with scant attention to the policies, issues or relative merits and qualities of the candidates.

The British Electoral System is First Past the Post, with the candidate with the most votes being declared the winner, a fair system in a two candidate contest, but less than fair as the number of candidates increases. This First Past the Post Electoral system when coupled with "tribal voting" practices has led to a situation where 80% of parliamentary Seats are safe for the incumbent, and with over 60% of MPs being elected with more electors voting against them than for them.
The consequence of this situation is that British General Elections are usually decided by 120 – 140 identifiable electorates.

The Cameron Conservative Government was elected in 2015, with a working majority with 330 seats in the 650 seat House of Commons with 37.2% of the total vote, with a voter turnout of 66.4%. Put simply Cameron's 2015 Conservative election victory was won with the support of 24.7% of registered voters. Hardly an acclaimed endorsement or decisive mandate, and yet no one challenged Cameron's government of not having a genuine mandate.

No British Government post World War 2 has enjoyed the support of 50% of the voters, this is important to keep in mind when MPs are deliberately ignoring the fact that 52% of those who could be bothered voting in the 2016 referendum with a 72% voter turnout, namely 37.4% of registered voters voted leave. I have read arguments stating that the result is not valid as a majority of (registered) voters didn't vote to leave, so in fact Remain won the referendum, on the crass assumption that those who couldn't be bothered voting supported remaining in the EU.

A crucial issue in our Representative Democracy is the selection of party candidates, especially taking into account the anomalous high percentage of safe seats courtesy of "Tribal voting" practices and the skewing of the election outcome to the two major parties attributable to First Past the Post.

The Labour Party has traditionally centrally controlled candidate selection for winnable seats, and the power of factions in the party such as the TUC and more recently Momentum leads to the selection of "right" thinking candidates that are imposed on electorates, whether the electorate agrees or not, and thus can result in a Parliamentary Party that in no way represents the broad spectrum of Labour supporters.
The Conservative Party used to allow local Conservative Party Associations a significant say in candidate selection, until Cameron removed that right and followed the Labour practice of centrally controlling candidate selection, thus imposing the Party's choice of candidates on electorates.

The consequences of this system, is that we have a Parliament that is made up of MPs who do not reflect or support the wishes of the constituents they claim they represent, but those very same MPs cannot be deselected or disciplined in any way by the local party organisation.

Britain's whole political system is in urgent need of major changes and reforms, but there is no will among MPs or their parties to make any move to meaningful reforms that could lead to a fairer and more honest Representation of the people.

To achieve real reforms, voters have to be empowered while disempowering the political parties. Candidate selection must be restored to electorate control and preferably by using primary elections. Electoral Recall by constituent petition needs to be introduced so that MPs who fail to adequately represent the wishes and interests of their constituents, or are guilty of dishonest or unethical dealings may be disciplined and sacked if necessary by the people they claim they represent.

The First Past the Post Electoral system needs to be abolished and replaced by a system of Preferential Voting, if we wish to retain single member electorates, as this can negate many of the consequences of "Tribal" voting, and therefore drastically reduce the number of safe seats while giving elected MP's a genuine mandate. Otherwise we need a fair system of proportional representation notwithstanding the inherent stability problems with coalition Governments.

Will we get change, I can't see it, the MPs and political parties are not turkeys about to vote for Christmas, but if we are restore trust in and respect for our representative parliamentary democracy, there has to be changes and the can not just kicked down the street.

Reply->

Waggle

Kenneth Smith • Sep 25, 2019 at 15:08

To see a 51% majority you would have to limit the country to just two political parties. And of course the LibDems blew it with their PR referendum. Both main parties have traditionally preferred FPTP but we may now see this changing as one of the two has difficulty winning a General Election despite the boundaries giving it an unfair advantage. So let's eliminate the gerrymandering before we further reform the electoral system in a way that does not give extreme parties an dangerous advantage.

Reply->

Kenneth Smith

Waggle • Sep 25, 2019 at 17:28

With "Preferential Voting" the final result is similar to a two-candidate contest, once preferences are allocated, and it produces a victor with a genuine mandate, it provides one elected MP per electorate from candidates whose names are on the ballot paper not on just a party list, and that voters actually have to rank in order of preference.
Australia has the Hare Clarke System of Preferential Voting and it does not hand power to extreme parties, nor has the system produced weak ineffective Government, it has it's defects but is far fairer than Britain's First past the Post system.
The defects are primarily as follows:
The ballot papers are more complicated, but hey, if Australians can understand it, surely the British could manage to do so.
If a voter fails to rank all the candidates, the vote is invalid even though the voter's intention may be clear. This can be rectified by making the system Optional Preferential Voting, where the voter ranks as many or as few candidates in order of preference and the criteria on validity is the voters intention.
Parties issue leaflets on "how to vote" at poling stations to influence voters, and do preference deals with other parties – answer is simple – outlaw the practice.
Counting votes and is a slightly more complicated and bigger exercise.

The benefits are as follows:
There are far fewer safe seats as the winning candidate needs to obtain sufficient preference to gain 50% plus 1 of the votes, and thus has a genuine mandate.
All candidates are equally advantaged or disadvantaged.
It encourages voters to think about the pros and cons of each candidate, because their preferences will have a major influence on deciding which candidate is the winner of the election.

Possibly the worst feature of our system is the stranglehold the Party Central offices have on candidate selection, simply they impose their chosen person as the candidate on the electorates, irrespective of how the constituents may feel. The selected candidate is frequently an outsider (carpetbagger) with no affinity with the community of the electorate.
It allows the strongest faction within a party to control candidate selection and thus possible maintain a stranglehold on factional power within the party to the detriment of the nation and to party members and supporters. This is painfully obvious in the current crisis with the major disconnect between MPs and the people they claim they represent.

Requiring all candidates for parliamentary office to have a minimum qualifying genuine residence in an electorate as a pre-requisite for candidacy would make MPs more cognisant of the wishes and feelings of the electorate community.
Making party candidate selection/deselection a responsibility of the local party organisation, confirmed by local primaries would solve the problem and empower voters.

The introduction of Electoral Recall by constituent petition would make MPs more accountable to the people they claim they represent.

The problem is unless these fundamental issues are fairly changed the system will stagger on and the current wrongs and dissatisfactions with our Democratic Representation will continue to fester. But hey, does it matter, because if we don't escape from the EU, we will have no real democratic say in the governing of the former independent sovereign nation that was the United Kingdom.

Reply->

Ian Funnell • Sep 25, 2019 at 07:21

I am disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court. I think that dealing with 'Brexit' is a political matter and not a matter for the court. So Supreme Court is interfering with the Prime Minister's decision to commit to 'prorogation' and I wonder, are they all Remainers?

There is no written, specific law on prorogation, no written constitution either and how can they say it is unlawful?

Reply->

MsV

Ian Funnell • Sep 25, 2019 at 13:49

They are making up the 'new rules' as they go, literally!

Reply->

James Mills • Sep 25, 2019 at 07:00

Every law that is broken has a punishment attached to it. Can the judges say just what punishment should be applied to the Prime Minister?

Reply->

John

James Mills • Sep 27, 2019 at 04:18

Every law that is broken DOES NOT have a punishment attached.

Just because a decision is deemed as one that can be 'checked' by a court of law does not mean there's a fine, jail time or any other punishment - but there is redress. That was to void the decision and pretend it never happened.

Reply->

Waggle • Sep 25, 2019 at 05:40

Corbyn and many other MPs will not invoke a General Election until parliament renders the government toothless and unable to negotiate a deal with the EU27 beyond their Withdrawal Agreement which parliament has turned down three times. Remainers are trying every trick in the book to cheat the majority that voted to leave the EU.

Reply->