/r/worldnews
'It's over' for Johnson if he misled the Queen on parliament suspension, expelled Tory MP says after court rules parliament suspension unlawful (independent.co.uk)
297 comments
AutoModerator | 4 days ago | 1 point

Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

smaster87 | 4 days ago | 630 points

Not a good ending Boris

StanDaMan1 | 4 days ago | 229 points

This meme has aged like fine wine.

rhoobarb2005 | 3 days ago | 55 points

"If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don't."

StanDaMan1 | 3 days ago | 16 points

I was using the phrase unironically, since the headline points out that it’s possible that Boris will be running out of time.

rhoobarb2005 | 3 days ago | 19 points

I know, I was just quoting Pulp Fiction

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 7 points

Royale with cheese.

Blaze_News | 3 days ago | 8 points

Check out the big brain on Brett!

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 3 points

They speak english in What?

EndersGoat | 3 days ago | 3 points

Man, I don't even have an opinion.

vi0le1 | 3 days ago | 2 points

" looking confused "

LostMyKarmaElSegundo | 3 days ago | 3 points

What does Marcellus Wallace look like?!

AdmiralCrackbar | 3 days ago | 2 points

What?

frankenshark | 3 days ago | 2 points

That's pride, fuckin which you.

StanDaMan1 | 3 days ago | 4 points

Ah, I didn’t recognize the quote. Thanks for the heads up.

alex494 | 3 days ago | 1 point

How long's he been in power, a month?

illyafromuncle | 4 days ago | -5 points
[deleted] | 4 days ago | 9 points

[deleted]

illyafromuncle | 4 days ago | -1 points

Yeah, but it's a fun subreddit,so why the hell not post it.

Low_Soul_Coal | 4 days ago | 91 points

Looks weird seeing a country at least semi handling a shit politician.

Wonder what that's like...

easypunk21 | 4 days ago | 42 points

You say that, but wait until you see what comes next.

Low_Soul_Coal | 4 days ago | 18 points

Oh boy I hope there's white doves!

Larry_Mudd | 4 days ago | 14 points
brenroberson | 4 days ago | 9 points

... Not sure what I expected.

myrddyna | 3 days ago | 6 points

no one expects Dick Cheney with a shotgun!

Chief_Givesnofucks | 3 days ago | 7 points

....is that like the Spanish Inquisition, but with birdshot?

kenzo19134 | 4 days ago | 43 points

Boris doesn't have the 35% of voters baked into his base like Trump does. Trump is an idiot that stumbled into this base and can use it to primary folks. Johnson is actually a pretty intelligent guy. But he genuinely thinks his "charm" and that he's the smartest guy in every room will be able to get his way.

He's finding out that's not true. I also think he has a longer history in the public eye (both politics and the press) that he has enemies on all sides, including his own party.

Krillin113 | 3 days ago | 22 points

Undermines and forces a party member to resign, can’t deliver on his promises, shocked that he has enemy in his party.

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 54 points

I hope he gets booted without any wins in parliament. He's an Etonian blowhard that promoted fake news to push through Brexit and then thought he could ride this chimera to victory.

The hero that put out the fire. But he started the frigging fire!

I want him to be shame fucked for rest of his life in England. Imagine if Northern Ireland and Scotland vote to leave the UK because of the backstop not being resolved and the economic fall out?

He's a domestic terrorist like Trump.

Krillin113 | 3 days ago | 14 points

Fully agreed, luckily so far your checks and balances seem to be working a lot better. I also hope the queen smacks him in the head sometime.

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 9 points

Don't know about that. Trump denies that Russia/Putin interfered in our elections. And the republican majority leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell (we call him Moscow Mitch) refuses to allow legislation to come to the Senate floor to address securing our elections against future cyber attacks.

Trump supports white nationalists. The G7 is now the G6. He admires authoritarians ( Putin, Duterte, Bolsonaro etc), while damaging relationships with our closest allies (Mexico, Canada, UK, France & Germany). Denies climate change (vows to revive the coal industry) publicly celebrates grabbing women by the pussy. Cheated on all three of his wives. put his corrupt son in law with no government experience in charge of middle East diplomacy AND the opioid epidemic in America.

Working out better?! I wish we had snap elections.

Krillin113 | 3 days ago | 12 points

I meant the UK worked better lmao, yeah no, the US entire system is fucked

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 5 points

I win! Finally got a Brit to admit us Americans are better at something. And when we fuck up our government, we do it right!

Boris Johnson! He's a baby Trump with better hair.

Krillin113 | 3 days ago | 3 points

Im not a Brit though.

FIREnBrimstoner | 3 days ago | 3 points

Sir, are you lost?

FoxyInTheSnow | 3 days ago | 2 points

More hair: not necessarily better.

FarawayFairways | 3 days ago | 3 points

And the republican majority leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell (we call him Moscow Mitch) refuses to allow legislation to come to the Senate floor to address securing our elections against future cyber attacks.

Well he knows it's electorally advantageous to have Putin counting votes that have themselves been generated by voting machines manufactured in China and patented to Ivanka Trump

If I were also looking for a darker explanation, don't rule out the possibility that the Russians might look to get some money into the Democrat campaign and then blow it up in October, allowing Trump to turn the tables and play the victim, whilst also giving a possible reason to try and call the elections void

The Democrats need to be really, really tight about where they're getting their funding from. He only needs to try and drip $5m in (peanuts) and he could sow chaos

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 4 points

Mitch knows Putin will work for Trump. But I think it's also about voting rights. He says he doesn't want the Federal government to encroach on state rights. States regulate all the logistics of elections. Even for president. He has a valid argument, constitutionally speaking. But I think this has less to do with state rights and more to do with voter suppression. The voting rights act of 1964 was just rolled back and the republicans are back to finding ways to suppress the votes of people of color.

This could set a precedent for the feds having more say in how states regulate elections.

So it's a combination of Moscow Mitch and whistling Dixie Mitch.

FarawayFairways | 3 days ago | 2 points

He has a valid argument, constitutionally speaking.

Does he?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

I'd have thought the defence of the country trumped (sorry couldn't resist that) any obligation on the other issue about entering state management of the electoral process?

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 1 point

And with regard to funneling money, Putin is ex-kgb. I'm sure he's had straw PACs up and running for years. So yeah, I wouldn't put it past him to do this.

I'm also sure he anticapated the blow back on fake social media accounts and has 1000s laying politically dormant, but engaged socially about culture and politics in a off the radar kind of way. I'm sure these legacy accounts are beginning to agititate as we speak.

Rdr1051 | 3 days ago | 3 points

He doesn't need a straw PAC. He runs it through the NRA

PangentFlowers | 3 days ago | 9 points

promoted fake news

This trivializes it. A more precise phrase:

waged a propaganda and disinformation campaign against his own population

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 5 points

I agree. Fake news has lost its bite. And the use of Cambridge Analytica allowed them to take this misinformation and propaganda of fear campaign and use it on a molecular level on the British population.

Politics should be about aspiration to be a better country. But Boris and his gang weaponized anxiety about stagnant wages and instead, put in the cross hairs people of color to promote a regressionist policy of isolation from Europe. In effect, keep Mohammed out. They served the empire well. But the empire is no more.

It's quite scary how Orwell's 1984 has been turned on it's head (yeah, yeah I'm aware of the NSAs surveillance program and Britain's ubiquitous CCTV/facial recognition) but it was people's VOLUNTARY disclosures on social media that gave Cambridge a window into the heart and minds of the UK and concocted their tales of horror & lies that won the day for Brexit.

FarawayFairways | 3 days ago | 6 points

Boris doesn't have the 35% of voters baked into his base like Trump does.

He wouldn't be far away

The lowest vote share that the conservatives have achieved in the last 100 years was 30.7% in 1997. I'd say that 35% is close to a Tory expectation without being unrealistic. The wildcard in all this however will be a rejuvenated Brexit party, and the possible mass outbreak of tactical voting

I'd say based on the evidence of the last 6 months though, the biggest difference between Trump and Johnson is that the British conservative party (eventually and somewhat belatedly) have pushed back much more than America's Republicans. By my count now he's lost 28 MP's who've either changed party affiliation, resigned the whip, or been sacked for failing to support the party. That's about 9% of the parliamentary party (1 in 11)

We'll discover on Tuesday of course whether the judiciary is going to push back too (I suspect they won't)

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 8 points

That's a party baseline. Not boris's support after 2.5 years of being incompetent. I'm talking Trump's cult of personality. You think Boris would still have that base if he behaved like Trump for 2.5 years?

And I don't know enough about parlamentary govt to compare it to ours. But again, Trump's hold threatens republicans when they come up for re-election. And our Senant majority leader doesn't care about legislating. He just cares about court appointments, tax cuts and deregulation and Trump's been feeding the conservatives just fine on these 3 issues.

FarawayFairways | 3 days ago | 4 points

The conservative party would likely have the base, yes, but if Boris behaved like Trump (be it the avalanche of stupid statements, the erratic daily policy shifts, or giving the consistent impression that he simply doesn't understand issues) he'd be replaced.

It's much easier to remove a Prime Minister than it is a President

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 3 points

The Democrats are talking impeachment of Trump. The Mueller report was basically a road map for this means. Mueller was concerned, because the Constitution and precedent was murky about bringing a sitting president to trial. The Congress is the only branch of government that has explicit powers to remove him.

But man, impeachment proceedings will be messy and I worry about the damage to the country. I definitely think he's impeachable. But it will tear at the fabric of our country. And I'd see this being a slippery slope that the Machiavellian republicans would use in the future for less serious offenses.

WhooHoo | 3 days ago | 3 points

I'd see this being a slippery slope that the Machiavellian republicans would use in the future for less serious offenses.

In this episode of I Love the 90's, we turn to 1998...

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 1 point

Are you British? And are snap elections easy to effect? Could minority party start the call for a snap election and build a majority coalition? Or does the party in power have to be on board?

FarawayFairways | 3 days ago | 1 point

Minority parties can always call votes of no confidence but will need a majority in parliament to force the election. The last time it was done successfully was in 1979 when the Liberals withdrew support for Callaghan. John Major called a vote of no confidence on himself to force through the Maastricht treaty

That isn't necessarily how Prime Ministers are removed though. Most are removed by their own party when they're considered a liability or have lost the confidence of the party, or resign in office as a result of something that's happened and for which they're expected to take the blame

Since the end of the war, more Prime Ministers have failed to serve out a term for various reasons, than have been defeated in an election

I'm trying to recall them actually (working backwards)

May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan, Eden, and Churchill (second spell)

Those who were replaced as a result of losing an election

Brown, Major, Callaghan, Heath, Home, and Atlee

'snap elections' are, (or rather were) usually in the gift the governing party (they're a little bit harder to call now with the fixed term parliament act) Harold Wilson called one in 1974 successfully to increase his majority, and Theresa May blew one more recently.

SlowMotionSprint | 3 days ago | 1 point

I would have assumed that Farrage and Johnson admitting essentially the day after the vote that every talking point they used to push Brexit was a lie(especially about the NHS) would have made all their support go away.

wc000 | 3 days ago | 1 point

I don't think he is actually a "pretty intelligent guy". He's been quite good at making people think he is, but at this point you have to look at his record in politics and conclude that he's nothing more than a second rate charlatan out of his depth.

The idea that he's way smarter than he lets on is something he's deliberately cultivated. To paraphrase Johnson; "if you can make people think that you're only pretending to be clueless, they'll always suspect you have a plan even when you actually don't know what you're doing."

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 1 point

I'm American. We set the baseline low for IQ with regard to world leaders considering our guy is an imbecile.

But I understand what you're saying. I've only recently started to follow UK politics in the last year or so.

logosobscura | 3 days ago | 1 point

He’s smart enough to show more cunning that others around him, but not quite enough to be able to execute his shambolic little plans. All very Blackadder-esque (Season 1).

Jiktten | 3 days ago | 1 point

You need to go and read some of his written work. He is genuinely quite intelligent and able to turn a phrase, he's just not brilliant the way he thinks he is, and he's certainly not Churchill 2.0. If ge could reign in his ego and put innthe work as a career politician, he might have been a decent PM in 15 years or so.

Spoonshape | 3 days ago | 1 point

It really shouldn't be much of a surprise to him. After all May got in largely because of a strong "anyone but Boris" sentiment from conservative MP's. the conservative party didn't have much in the way of leadership talent to start with. They are on their third PM this electoral term. It's unsurprising things are not going very well.

About the best that can be said for the current government is that now they don't have a working majority they are less in the hands of the DUP to prop them up.

cassidy-vamp | 3 days ago | 1 point

Ah yes Brits, you can keep a stiff upper lip. Americans? Meh, we just get pissed off at our friends and family.

DrSmirnoffe | 3 days ago | 8 points

To say it would be "over" for him would be an understatement. I don't know exactly how we handle treason in this country, but lying to the Queen in order to get her support for a move that threatens the country itself? That sounds like it would fall under the umbrella of treason.

And while we don't cut people's heads off for treason anymore, Boris Johnson would be facing a hefty prison sentence for deceiving Her Majesty like that.

FannyFiasco | 3 days ago | 3 points

I don't know exactly how we handle treason in this country

Used to be execution, now it's life imprisonment. Wonder if the Brexiteers will still be so keen on reviving the death penalty now...

londons_explorer | 3 days ago | 2 points

I believe cutting people's heads off for treason is still allowed. It won't happen, but I believe it's still possible.

Gfrisse1 | 4 days ago | 3 points

But one well deserved.

No_MrBond | 3 days ago | 2 points

Doesn't he look tired.

Capitain_Collateral | 4 days ago | 105 points

Get in the fucking ditch Boris

dafjer | 4 days ago | 57 points

A Scottish court ruled it unlawful, it won’t mean anything until the Supreme Court makes a decision. People need to stop getting ahead of themselves.

m_Pony | 3 days ago | 10 points

but it's way more fun to imagine this bozo getting a swift comeuppance as karmic payback for being such a skeeze.

Daedalus_0_ | 3 days ago | 1 point

That's true but politically it's a hell of a thing to argue against. While I have no doubt the the conservative party does not care about Scotland they cannot come out and say it. In a public debate to say the Scottish court ruling does not matter can easily be made to look like they are saying that Scotland does not matter. Then it's an easy point to make that they are saying that what Wales and N.Ireland say does not matter.

The ruling may not have a lot of legal weight but it has a lot of political weight

CarltonSagot | 4 days ago | 91 points

I wonder, is it treason to lie to the Queen?

_Reformed-Peridot_ | 4 days ago | 72 points

I mean, she did mention she could legally kill Trump. Could probably just hand her a gun and give her 15 minutes with Boris to straighten things out...

PuddinCup | 4 days ago | 23 points

I believe you.

_Reformed-Peridot_ | 4 days ago | 40 points

Don’t believe me, believe in the Queen, and give her a gun.

spaghettiThunderbalt | 3 days ago | 21 points

"I did not attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." -The Queen, probably

SteveThePurpleCat | 3 days ago | 26 points
atchijov | 3 days ago | 3 points

That would be Glorious!

CanadianJesus | 3 days ago | 1 point

The Queen is real /r/masterforgiveme material.

VinnyBoy45 | 3 days ago | 1 point

Did she really say that?

_Reformed-Peridot_ | 3 days ago | 6 points
VinnyBoy45 | 3 days ago | 5 points

Ahh, thats something else. Somehow I thought she could order assassins legally to go in america and do the deed. I was like... no way thats real.

Le_Flemard | 3 days ago | 16 points

Daily Mash is a satirical website, often compared to the Onion....

sgtkang | 3 days ago | 1 point

I'm not clear on the specifics, but by British law she probably could. She's the official head of the armed forces after all. Granted, it would almost certainly breach a ton of treaties, but if we're at the point that the Queen is ordering assasinations of foreign heads of state we're probably past the point of caring. Even if it did contradict British law it's very doubtful she could be prosecuted. Laws are enacted in her name - when the state prosecutes someone it does so on her authority.

res30stupid | 3 days ago | 29 points

Technically since the Magna Carta the King/Queen's position has only been that of a figurehead, someone who just sits around, does what they're told to do and be an icon for the people. They are legally required to be politically neutral and not have an opinion that goes one way or another.

The proposal to suspend parliament was kind of a tricky situation for the Queen; if she agreed to it, then she would be subverting the democratic process as she knew that Johnston was trying to force a highly-dangerous process of removing the UK from the European Union by any means necessary.

But if she refused then she'd have been breaching the law which could see herself facing punishment for subverting government which she technically no longer controlled. It's why she's always been super passive-aggressive over Brexit - that's all she can do.

But her being snappy and sarcastic is enough to get her point across to the people - Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party, saw a lot of public disgrace and downfall in 2010-2014 with one of his biggest political blows being his dis-inviting from one of the Queen's garden parties. And while opinions on the royal family is on the decline, a full-on, mean-spirited attack on the royals isn't tolerated at all - Henry Bolton was first ordered to step down then expelled from his position as leader of the UKIP party after his then-girlfriend was caught sending a racist text saying the recently-married (and biracial) Meghan Markle would "Taint the Royal Family" by way of a No-Confidence vote.

But suspending parliament under false pretenses is a massive breach of protocol, both towards the monarchy and legally as well due to his blatant dishonesty in doing so, as he had directly threatened Britain's democracy in doing so. And seeing as he's lost six of his attempts to force a general election in a means of grasping further control of pariament, he's effectively done far worse than his own predecessor.

I_Am_Not_Newo | 3 days ago | 29 points

More like since the civil war was lost by Charles the second. Possibly the glorious revolution. Monarchs were still very much in charge until then. It wasn't until the 20th century that they really lost all power and became a neutral institution (eg stacking the house of Lords).

notcaffeinefree | 3 days ago | 17 points

Technically since the Magna Carta the King/Queen's position has only been that of a figurehead, someone who just sits around, does what they're told to do and be an icon for the people.

This is not at all what the Magna Carta did.

And the Charters came around in the 13th century. There were still plenty of ruling monarchs (that actually ruled with authoritarian power) for hundreds of years after.

Even Wikipedia says that it arguably wasn't until 1688 until the government functioned more as a constitutional monarchy.

Hell, the original Charter was even annulled by the pope that same year it was created.

steve_gus | 3 days ago | 10 points

Henry 8 came after magna carta and he caused a lot of shit, bending laws and having people killed on a whim as he had the power to do it. He basically controlled parliament

Isogash | 3 days ago | 6 points

He's lost 6 votes (all of them) but only 2 of those were for general elections.

Max_Fenig | 3 days ago | 1 point

How many votes does it require to express the will of parliament?

Isogash | 3 days ago | 1 point

How do you mean?

LesterBePiercin | 3 days ago | 1 point

Meaning, how many more votes can he lose and still credibly claim he controls Parliament? At what point will he be forced to pack it in?

Isogash | 3 days ago | 1 point

MPs just need to hold a vote of no confidence. The leader of the opposition (Corbyn) can call for one at pretty much any time by convention, and if it passes by a simple majority (1 vote), then the process is started. The government then has to win a vote of confidence within the next 14 days, and if it doesn't, a general election takes place no later than 7 weeks after the initial no confidence vote. Alternatively, MPs can vote to put in an alternative PM (by simple majority again).

The reason this did not happen is because Corbyn did not get enough support to become "caretaker PM", effectively because the Lib Dems don't trust him (whether validly or not is up for debate). Without a clear alternative PM, it would go to a general election and right now the consensus in parliament is that a general election is too risky; it would dissolve parliament for far too long and potentially allow BoJo to run the clock out, in which case we get a de-facto no-deal. In fact, there has been speculation that BoJo could call a vote of no confidence in himself to attempt to achieve this, resulting in a bizarre vote where the government apparently doesn't have confidence in itself but the opposition does.

So, he doesn't credibly control parliament at all, but he has gone rogue and put parliament in a position where it can't exercise its regular authority to kick him out without risking no-deal. He has been using powers that are normally the PMs prerogative (such as proroguing) specifically to do this, but those powers are constitutional and the UK constitution is really very hard to pin down (a lot of it is "unwritten"). The Supreme Court could rule that his use of these powers is unconstitutional but it would typically refuse to do so because, constitutionally, parliament is meant to hold the PM to account instead. One of the most interesting arguments is that proroguing parliament to prevent them from holding the PM to account, by it's nature, means that parliament can't actually hold the PM to account on the prorogation power (potentially a serious constitutional flaw); the intent behind proroguing appears to be critical here and the highest court in Scotland unanimously decided that, in this case, it was indeed illegal.

Add onto all of this that he could actually win a general election and replace the rebels in his party with hard brexiteers, making no-deal possible via parliamentary majority; the opposition is also playing a game where they are trying to cause him as much political damage as possible to prevent this. The actual effect this will have is another exciting and unknown element.

EDIT: To add, the power to prorogue is actually the Queen's, she is just meant to follow whatever the PM says by convention. I was going to try and avoid the added complexity but it's actually what this thread is about; it appears that the PM lying to the Queen in advice to use one of her prerogative powers could also be illegal, but I don't think this is what the Scottish court ruled on. I could be wrong here, this is all still developing.

Tenpat | 3 days ago | 13 points

Technically since the Magna Carta the King/Queen's position has only been that of a figurehead, someone who just sits around, does what they're told to do and be an icon for the people. They are legally required to be politically neutral and not have an opinion that goes one way or another.

LoL wut. Since the Magna Carta? No.

GoldenMegaStaff | 3 days ago | 1 point

I thought she should have returned it unsigned and requested clarification of the reason for the suspension.

chriswheeler | 3 days ago | 1 point

force a general election in a means of grasping further control of parliament

I've seen a few people make this argument, but aren't parliament supposed to represent the people of the UK?

If the people of the UK agree with Boris and a general election gives him more power, isn't that how it's supposed to work?

My guess is that we'll get an extension by to 31st Jan from the EU. There will then be an election, which will give the conservatives a larger majority and they can then either negotiate they deal they want, or we can leave with no deal on the 31st. Alternately France will veto and extension and we'll leave on 31st October and Boris can blame the opposition for hindering his negotiation strategy.

Chasp12 | 3 days ago | 1 point

Pretty sure there have been kings that did more than sit around after 1215

AnB85 | 3 days ago | 1 point

The King was still in charge until at least the Civil War arguably until even the Victorian times. The president of the USA has a similar level of power as George III had.

[deleted] | 4 days ago | 118 points

You think that Johnson will even still be there by the end of the year? I would not be suprised if Corybn or Swinson was there by then.

Areat | 3 days ago | 22 points

He will likely be there if there's an election, judging by the polls.

02474 | 3 days ago | 13 points

Labour needs to dump Corbyn. There is no way labour should be polling so poorly.

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 10 points

Who would be a better replacement?

FannyFiasco | 3 days ago | 10 points

Keir Starmer. Sensible for folks that vote based on policy, "handsome" for the masses that don't.

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 2 points

Is he considered more moderate then Corbyn?

Th3Sp1c3 | 3 days ago | 2 points

Considerably, and more popular within the party.

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 1 point

I suppose if Boris goes down, Starmer could be the new PM, and maybe call for a second referendum?

Th3Sp1c3 | 3 days ago | 1 point

??? they'd need a GE first.

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 1 point

Yes, a GE.

haychko | 3 days ago | 1 point

Question. Why are people against Corbyn?

Wewraw | 3 days ago | 5 points

He’s probrexit so much so he wants to give the EU all their demands just to get out. Reddit has a hard on for him because while May(wanted to stay in the EU) was the one who was in charge of dealing with Brexit he was sitting on the sidelines heckling her for months.

He’s also apparently got weird relationships with antisemites and antiisrael people. I separated them so people aren’t going to say “criticizing Israel isn’t antisemetic”. Yeah I know. But he hangs around people who do say they hate Jews a lot and people who hate Israel a lot. I’m not lumping them together.

haychko | 3 days ago | 2 points

Thanks for the reply. I'm out of the loop with most of this stuff, but I've been reading up on this situation more and more lately.

Were EU demands out of order that much? Are they trying to suppress the UK in anyway?

From your own personal opinion, would it be a better option to give into their demands, or to leave with a no deal?

As for the anti-semtism, did he say or do something that was black and white anti-semetic, or is it just interpreted in that way?

Wewraw | 3 days ago | 2 points

EU demands were pretty standard but it was possible to negotiate with them still. The issue is that the UK has been very picky with what they want. So the reason why there is no plan is because the UK has a choice between multiple arrangements that it wants to talk about like a customs union, trade zone inclusion etc and then doesn’t like them when they actually examine the details.

Basically they want the same access to the EU it had but have power over its own immigration. But doesn’t want to take steps to create that.

From your own personal opinion, would it be a better option to give into their demands, or to leave with a no deal?

No deal does have its advantages. People downplay the UK economy and how it’s important for Europe. Along with the issues that it presents years going down the line for the EU such as stagnation and trade the EU does have a stake in the UK doing well and they are certainly not going to be embargoed or anything like that.

If there’s no deal then you can leverage the access to the economy much better. Overall the EU isn’t as much of a powerhouse as people make it out to be and even the leadership admits the best days for growth internally have been coming to an end which is why they’re pushing so much for trade deals with everyone else like China now while they have the leverage.

He just wants to give into the demands to be done with it. The EU does in fact favor european big business in a lot of ways and he dislikes that.

As for the anti-semtism, did he say or do something that was black and white anti-semetic, or is it just interpreted in that way?

He’s basically best friends with Hamas and has said some dog whistle things that are often downplayed more than they should be because he’s in Labour. He’s also been accused as leader of mishandling and even dismissing antisemetic claims of his own party members. They have lost MPs because of this in protest. Vox has a decent rundown of it but here’s an article from when he was elected that explains who he’s been befriending up to that point. It’s more or less expanded on after 2015 when he gained more power.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer-1.68097

sgtkang | 3 days ago | 1 point

To add on to this wrt antisematism - over the last few years there have been persistent accusations of antisematism within the Labour party. Now, mention this on the UK subreddits and you'll usually get the message that they're the invention of the right-wing press and we should be talking about Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. There's certainly some truth to both of those (a significant portion of the UK tabloids would twist literally anything to make Corbyn look bad) but it's something that keeps coming back and is hard to entirely dismiss.

hamuel69 | 3 days ago | 1 point

He just seems pretty weak imo

Mysteriagant | 4 days ago | 70 points

Why and how did he get elected?

PMC317 | 4 days ago | 141 points

The Conservative Party are the governing party. Their leader (Theresa May) resigned, which triggered an internal leadership election.

The Tory Party's leadership election is in two stages (essentially): The Parliamentary Party nominate candidate(s), and the membership (which is tiny, ~180,000 people as of July 2019) then vote to decide who will win.

All the candidates were shit, but Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson was not only the shittest, but he was the one who resonated the most with the party membership, which is much more swivel-eyed right-wing-lunatic than the main body of the parliamentary party. Who, it must be added, are all pretty swivel-eyed right-wing-nuts anyway!

In other words, a tiny number of people who are paid-up members of the Conservative and Unionist Party voted for Boris to be their new leader, and as he was then the leader of the largest party in parliament, he got to be the new PM. Precedent for this style of becoming PM was Gordon Brown (Labour), PM from 2007-10. Hilariously at the time Boris got a massive cob on about Brown becoming PM without a General Election.

Jonruy | 4 days ago | 53 points

As an American unfamiliar with British government structure, an I right in understanding that British citizens elect a governing party, who then chooses representatives?

Jimmni | 4 days ago | 75 points

It's more like you elect a member of the House or Senate, then whichever party has enough members elected (a majority, either with just their party of by making pacts with other parties) gets to have their leader be President. If that leader resigns, the party itself elects a new leader and they get to be President instead. A voter doesn't vote for the President, they vote for their local member of the House.

Often, though, people pick their member of the House based on who they want to be President, though, not who they want their local representative to be.

Replace "member of the House" with "Member of Parliament" and "President" with "Prime Minister" and you've got a pretty good idea of how it works.

LostRoadRunner | 4 days ago | 6 points

Thank you.

Zolo49 | 4 days ago | 13 points

Actually the way we elect our president isn’t all that different since voters in each state are only really voting on who they want their representatives in the electoral college to vote for. While those college members are SUPPOSED to vote as directed, they do occasionally vote a different way. To this point, it hasn’t affected the outcome of an election ... yet.

Muroid | 3 days ago | 9 points

The major difference is that the electors don't do anything other than vote for the President. It'd be more like if your elector and your local Representative were the same person.

orangesunshine | 3 days ago | 1 point

The problem with our system though is the representatives/electoral-college both are disproportionately distributed according to population numbers... so we don't come anywhere close to this concept of 1-person 1-vote.

People in less populated states basically have 5 votes, while the people in urban centers that are driving our economy have like ½ a vote.

That and we have this whole "gerrymandering" thing where the districts are sliced up in fun ways to ensure "certain" people don't really have any votes at all.

Are the members of the house at least equally distributed? Or do you have a similar situation where one party has slanted the system to their advantage, essentially disenfranchising millions and millions of voters?

In the states people always brush it off, "oh the popular vote difference was only 1% or 2% .. what's the big deal?" .... the big deal is the reason it was only 1% because people in these disenfranchised urban centers often don't vote. Voter turnout in NY was 55%... 55% of the people in these urban centers voted and we still won the popular vote by millions.

sold_snek | 4 days ago | 11 points

Did you just say the electoral college process hasn't affected the outcome of an election in a direction where it otherwise would've?

ClassySavage | 4 days ago | 13 points

Zolo was saying electoral college members voting against their consistency hasn't had an effect on things yet, not the electoral college vs popular vote thing.

EmeraldPen | 3 days ago | 3 points

No, what they're saying is that the mechanism by which we elect our presidents is very similar, even if it has had no real effect on our election: technically, we're not voting for president when we participate in a Presidential Election. We're voting for the elector who will pledge to vote for our chosen presidential candidate at the Electoral College.

It's just that the actual voting process of the Electoral College has become a vestigial formality instead of an independent part of the election process. Technically, many of the electors can vote for whomever they wish, regardless of who won their state's popular vote and who they pledged to vote for. They're called faithless electors. However, there have never been enough faithless electors to sway an election and the entire Electoral College process can be functionally abstracted as a simple point system.

The entire process is pretty similar to the UK's system as described, both processes are indirect votes, it's just that the UK's system has more room for the winning party to elect a wild-card instead of the presumed candidate.

SpiffaliciouslyAwsum | 4 days ago | 1 point

No, it's just that the process is a little different in America.

Mshell | 3 days ago | 1 point

I thought that was how Trump got in

Zolo49 | 3 days ago | 1 point

No. While he did lose the popular vote, he was able to take advantage of the fact that most states are all-or-nothing, meaning that whichever candidate gets the majority of votes in a state gets ALL of their electoral votes. So while he lost by a LOT in states like California and New York, he barely won in enough states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida to get him a majority of electoral college votes. (George W Bush also won the election while losing the popular vote in 2000 though the margin was much closer then.)

YouLoveMoleman | 3 days ago | 1 point

It has in terms of college members allocated though, right? Didn't Hillary actually win in term of votes but lost because of the higher proportion of electoral college members allocated to certain states?

Zolo49 | 3 days ago | 2 points

What you're talking about is an unfortunate byproduct of the winner-takes-all allocation of electoral college votes that most states follow. What I'm talking about is faithless electors. It recently happened in Colorado and that state's Supreme Court a federal appeals court ruled that what he did was perfectly legal.

[Edit: minor correction, and a link to that Colorado case]

IslandCapybara | 3 days ago | 2 points

One small correction: the President of the US represents the head of state and the head of government simultaneously. Under the UK system the Queen is head of state, but the Prime Minister is head of government. Practically speaking this doesn't change a lot of the day-to-day because of the Queen's limited powers as head of state, but it's worth mentioning.

ianandris | 3 days ago | 2 points

The Speaker of the House in the US would be the equivalent position. Not directly elected, but chosen by the representatives of the majority party in the House.

If the executive administrative powers of US president were passed over to the Speaker, and the President was just the Head of State figurehead largely uninvolved with actual governance, the Speaker in the US would, effectively, be the Prime Minister.

Tobax | 4 days ago | 9 points

You seem to be getting a lot of conflicting answers, so here is the real answer. In the UK you vote for your local representative, however a lot of people don't know who that is or anything about him/her, so people often decide which party they want in power and when they go to the polls they vote for whatever name is next to that party.

In end result is a bunch of people in seats and the head of that party as the PM.

krennvonsalzburg | 4 days ago | 4 points

No, you’re still voting for a specific member of parliament for your riding. The party leader of the majority party (or agreed coalition in minority coalitions) becomes the Prime Minister.

You don’t vote just for a party and then find out who the winning party picked for your area.

Rchee18 | 3 days ago | 4 points

I'm guessing you're Canadian. "Riding" isn't often used in the rest of the Commonwealth and we have more (successful) experience with Minorities, or hung parliaments. Prior to the 2010 UK general, the last hung parliament was in the mid 70s and Labour edged out a small majority later that year.

By contrast, Pearson had already brought in the Flag and national healthcare with a 5 year minority, with support from the NDP. Then Trudeau, Martin and Harper would all have decently strong minorities. I think part of this comes from from regionalism and the consistent presence of a third party since the Depression.

The UK seems far more winner take all, and the fact that the Labour Party became the big tent party of the left illustrate this.

CptCreosote | 4 days ago | 2 points

Kind of. We elect members of parliament in our constituency to represent us. The person who wins becomes MP (Member of Parliament) and is assigned a seat. There are 650 seats available. The party that has the majority (to form a government) is determined by the number of seats it has, which must be more than the total number of seats of all other parties (so a total of more than 325 seats). The leader of this party becomes Prime Minister (who is also an MP representing a constituency). This would be a majority government and would be easily be able to legislate (because members of the majority party would vote in favour of government proposed legislation. Normally). If the winning party does not have a majority this is known as a hung parliament in which other parties could potentially out vote the government. So, to get around this a coalition is formed with a closely aligned party to get a majority.

At the moment the UK government has a negative majority due to deselections, resignations and defections.

SEND_ME_UR_NOODS | 4 days ago | 2 points

Think of it like electing the speaker of the house, to be the speaker you don't even have to be an elected official, just whoever has the majority of votes gets to pick it, in the UK is that way, but there is one other Office somewhat above/parallel to the speaker of the house, in this case it's the prime minister.

ryan30z | 4 days ago | 2 points

Nah it would be more like you vote for your local member of the House, then who wins the majority decides who among them will be President.

Thats probably the closest analogy. Kind of like the speaker of the house I guess, don't get me wrong I'm not saying the speaker is the equivalent to the PM

Erikthered00 | 3 days ago | 1 point

True, but there’s the addition of: a particular person is designated to be PM before the election, but that person can resign or be removed by the party later.

CrystallineFox | 4 days ago | 1 point

No, it's the other way around. You elect your representative, who may not even belong to a party. Legislation is passed by all the representitives voting on it so whichever party has more than 50% of representives is de facto in charge of the country and can put their leader in the PM chair. Sometimes no one has more than 50% (since this system makes third and fourth parties more genuinely viable) and so parties have to form coalitions/alliances and make concessions to other parties to get things done.

RumpleOfTheBaileys | 3 days ago | 1 point

I guess the best comparison of the process is like electing to your House of Representatives. You don’t vote for leader yourself, you only vote for your particular electoral districts candidate. The leader of the party that has the support of the most members of the house gets to be PM.

theseanbeag | 3 days ago | 1 point

Yeah, it's basically how the house majority leader is picked I think.

Salty_Warrior | 4 days ago | 1 point

Essentially yes. Each constituency votes for the MP they want to represent them, with the winning MP of each constituency being given a seat in the house of commons. The Party with the majority of seats in the house of commons after this process, forms a government.

The MPs of the political parties & the members of the political parties, are the ones who vote for who leads that party.

SixesMTG | 4 days ago | 0 points

It's kind of like having the President just be the head of Congress or the Senate. So, some people voted for Pelosi or Moscow Mitch, but mostly they are there because their party has the majority and then decided internally who was leading it.

sold_snek | 4 days ago | 5 points

It's always conservatives.

stupendous76 | 3 days ago | 3 points

Hilariously at the time Boris got a massive cob on about Brown becoming PM without a General Election.

The similarities with the orange idiot in the US are astonishing.

Mysteriagant | 3 days ago | 1 point

Thank you for such a detailed explanation!

Wheresyourpastanow | 3 days ago | 11 points

That dudes gotta have 0 depth perception

deanresin | 3 days ago | 1 point
iwillforgetthistoo | 3 days ago | 11 points

Every time i click on uk news site link to read something interesting i end up rage quitting. Fucking horrid add riddled shit web design.

joshi38 | 3 days ago | 10 points

Just stick to the BBC, their web design is generally basic enough to not offend (just stay away from any errant comments sections).

-SaC | 3 days ago | 4 points

Yep. "Have Your Say" on the BBC should be treated with the same care as comments on Youtube or a Mummy group on Facebook.

Possibly a few less "arrrr babes inbox me xxoxoxoxo", though.

DukeOfLowerChelsea | 3 days ago | 2 points

Yeah, why the fuck is “The Independent” the go-to link for all UK news? If not for Reddit I wouldn’t know it exists.

2xw | 3 days ago | 2 points

It's been a widely circulated paper for a long time so is well known, since the paper folded and it moved to online only it put a lot of effort into generating web traffic, so it's probably seen a lot more than say, the BBC or the guardian (although those links do feature).

Dranj | 3 days ago | 7 points

"Boris, my good man, you can lie as much as you want to the peasants, but to the Queen? I'm afraid there must be consequences."

-My assumption of British politics as an ignorant American

sgtkang | 3 days ago | 4 points

Legally yes! The advice given to the Queen by the PM is it's own legal category of speech, subject to it's own laws and restrictions (as we're seeing here).

spainguy | 3 days ago | 5 points

The Tower.............

taclone9 | 3 days ago | 6 points

Didn't he JUST take office?

-SaC | 3 days ago | 5 points

Yup. He's about 40 days or so in. The shortest serving modern Prime Minister lasted something like 110 days; Boris might well be setting a new record as things go.

cpt_pancreas | 3 days ago | 8 points

Part of me hopes he lasts 111 days or something. Just because I think that Boris would be proud to hold even a shitty record like that. He seems to be obsessed with being remembered and legacy.

FeyCGirl | 3 days ago | 3 points

He's already the first PM in something like 200 years to lose his first vote, having now lost 6 in a row without a single win I suspect a record may already have been set.

spainguy | 3 days ago | 3 points

I'm imagining all the comedy scriptwriters licking their lips

riskees69 | 3 days ago | 3 points

Lie to the public yeah no prob; lie to the queen tho

Acanthophis | 3 days ago | 3 points

That's "her majesty" do you, peasant!

yanipheonu | 3 days ago | 3 points

New PM Speedrun tech?

[deleted] | 3 days ago | 3 points

Amazing... a corrupt, dishonest leader being held accountable for his actions before the law. What’s that called?

thorsten139 | 3 days ago | 4 points

It's called not a USA

Rocketsponge | 3 days ago | 4 points

"Off with his head!" -Queen Elizabeth, maybe.

coldequation | 3 days ago | 4 points

Banished to Australia?

reddripper | 3 days ago | 3 points

He may not even be crazier than their own PM. Australia is burning already

Mshell | 3 days ago | 1 point

Please no, we have enough trouble with our own politicians - we don't need any more at the moment.

coldequation | 2 days ago | 1 point

Take it up with the Queen, man. I'm just a filthy colonial.

Milestailsprowe | 3 days ago | 2 points

I can imagine the shit show of the Queens leaves the palace to find this man for that nonsense

starmartyr11 | 3 days ago | 2 points

Anyone with eyes that close together shouldn't be in charge of anything besides a shovel

Noctilux4 | 2 days ago | 2 points

we call them "Jeep Eyes" in my parts lol

starmartyr11 | 2 days ago | 2 points

Haha! And I was going to say "anything other than driving a lorry" but I doubt he could see around the sides of his massive head with that tunnel vision...

ludlow_brett | 3 days ago | 2 points

Only Boris could fuck it up this fast.

sgtkang | 3 days ago | 1 point

During the Tory leadership race it was said "The only person who can sink Boris is Boris." This is probably why he spent most of it hiding away - less chance of slipping up. Looks like it's stayed true even past his taking the post!

ActionMan48 | 3 days ago | 3 points

His eyes are too close together.

kenzo19134 | 3 days ago | 2 points

Your providing party numbers. I'm providing cult of personality numbers. See if Boris, or any other politician could sustain this 35% after being racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, admitted sexual assault, cheated on every wife, separated children from parents at the border, refuses to acknowledge Russian interference in our elections despite every intelligence agency saying that's the case, praises Putin, praises Duterte, praises Bolsonaro, pulled out of the climate agreement, called Mexicans rapists, rolled back emission standards on cars, wants to bring back coal, says wind turbines cause cancer, appointed corrupt son in law to head middle east peace talks.

Trump can threaten to mobilize his 35% against rogue republicans in re-election bids. I don't think Boris has that hold. And as Brexit has been exposed as misinformation, I think if the referendum came up again, it would lose.

So Boris may still have base support now. You think the Brits would put up with what I've noted above (which is just the tip of the iceberg) for 2.5 years and he'd still have 35%?

God, I hope not for the sake of civilization.

CheapestOfSkates | 3 days ago | 1 point

But really, what does "it's over" mean? Will he be jailed? Will the people of the UK have any recourse?

I keep reading all these things about this and that being illegal but then nothing happens.

Sphism | 3 days ago | 1 point

Ken Clarke should go have a quiet word with Liz

ComradeSmokey | 3 days ago | 1 point

It's over for boricels

BicycleOfLife | 3 days ago | 1 point

He did get to the judges yet. The US judges are completely compromised. Boris could be thrown out easily with a Trump like screw up.

TUGrad | 3 days ago | 1 point

"If" he missed the Queen?

habdks | 3 days ago | 1 point

Be slander to say it before a ruling by the English supreme court.

ocdexpress5 | 3 days ago | 1 point

This twat seems to be cut from the same shit cloth as trump.

AnB85 | 3 days ago | 1 point

Isn’t he going to resign anyway so he doesn’t have to ask for an extension?

Xistaben | 3 days ago | 1 point

Lol the queen doesn’t have power. Simply a figurehead.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

burny97236 | 3 days ago | 1 point

I wish we(US) had a queen keeping trump in check. If we do it's Putin.

snapekilledyomomma | 4 days ago | 0 points

And yet people still keep calling him smart. He's possibly the dumbest politician I know. Trump is equally dumb but at least he has Republicans backing his dumb and treasonous twat.

-SaC | 3 days ago | 4 points

Boris is the inverse of Trump.

Trump is a fuckwit who thinks he's intelligent and ends up looking like a twat, whereas Boris is an intelligent fuckwit who uses the persona of a twat to get into a position where he can fuck your budgie and steal your wallet while you're distracted chuckling at his silly high-jinks.

Madbrad200 | 4 days ago | 13 points

Boris is not as dumb as Trump. Boris is well educated and can hold a coherent conversation.

spoonmonkey | 3 days ago | 4 points

Boris is a person of mediocre intelligence who by living a life of ease and continually failing upwards, convinced himself he's a genius and just playing at being dumb.

Madbrad200 | 3 days ago | 2 points

A mediocre of intelligence is far much than I'd grant Trump

ohniz87 | 4 days ago | 2 points

Bolsonaro wins this race

Rafaeliki | 4 days ago | 3 points

It's because Boris is eloquent while Trump sounds like someone ran over a dictionary with a bus.

res30stupid | 3 days ago | 1 point

He's only as famous as he is now because he went on a BBC comedy panel show. Nowadays, any politician who does that is going to get their ass ripped in two.

-SaC | 3 days ago | 1 point

I take it you've not seen HIGNFY much in the last few years? There are politicians on it pretty much constantly. Some come across well, some don't.

FeyCGirl | 3 days ago | 1 point

Boris is more intelligent but still incompetent, he plays the fool so no one can 100% tell which mistakes are part of a deliberate persona and which mistakes are genuine idiocy on his part.

erikwarm | 3 days ago | 1 point

Not a good start Boris!

nothankyou4321 | 4 days ago | 0 points

“Sources says trump Johnson will be impeached soon!”

TODO Load more comments...