Sep 132019
 
 September 13, 2019  Posted by at 7:03 pm Primers Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Max Ernst Untitled 1913

 

No, I don’t want to talk about last night’s US Democrats’ debate. That’s just lousy comedy. But I’ll admit I’m happy to see Tulsi Gabbard demolished DNC favorite Kamala Harris’s chances before the same DNC managed to get rid of Tulsi. She should have been at that debate just for having that kind of influence.

Instead, unfortunately, and I’m almost apologizing, I have to revisit Brexit yet again. Hey, at least it’s better comedy. But I’ve addressed it a bit much lately. I did find it interesting to see Julian Assange’s view the other day in Assange, Varoufakis, Brexit. After all, Julian’s been in Britain for so long he could probably apply for citizenship. That makes his view more interesting than for instance mine, I think.

By the way, he was in court again today, Friday the 13th. Or not really in court, he appeared via videolink. Only to be subjected to more derogatory nonsense from the British court system. I’m sure he saw that coming, he never even requested bail, but still. These people lack all decency.

Julian Assange To Stay In Prison Over Absconding Fears

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange is to remain in prison when his jail term ends because of his “history of absconding”, a judge has ruled. He was due to be released on 22 September after serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions. But Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard there were “substantial grounds” for believing he would abscond again. [..] District judge Vanessa Baraitser on Friday told Assange, who appeared by video-link: “You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end.


“When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.” She said that his lawyer had declined to make an application for bail on his behalf, adding “perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings”. “In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.”

I don’t even want to get into the reasoning behind that insulting behavior. But it does make one think about the deep dive the UK justice system has taken. I would propose no longer using the word Justice to describe it. A court system that functions as political theater it not worthy of the title.

 

And that’s a good link back to Brexit. A few days ago two different courts in the Once-United Kingdom, the Inner House of Session of Scotland and the High Court of England and Wales, issued entirely opposite judgments on the legality of the prorogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson’s government.

Or, rather, to get the details right, the Scottish court said the matter was ‘justiciable’, and the prorogation was unlawful, while the English court simple said the case was not ‘justiciable’, and it’s Parliament that has to decide on this. Yes, the same Parliament that has effectively been shut down.

Longtime friend of the Automatic Earth, Mike ‘Mish’ Shedlock, has been running quite a series of articles on Brexit lately. Since he’s American, his views are no more relevant than mine, but whereas I am -or try to be- fully neutral on the issue, Mish is a fervent supporter of Brexit. He sees it as something fair and just. I have my doubts on that, but I do agree with Mish that the EU is a pretty bad institution.

It’s just that I also think the UK has prepared itself very poorly for leaving the EU, and that this lack of preparation will end up hurting the British population, a substantial part of which is already suffocating under a yoke of extreme austerity. Britain is very much still a class society, and Boris Johnson and his ilk will be fine, but millions of others will not.

 

I saw something in Mish’s latest today that I though I’d highlight. See, I think it’s obvious that there are not two, but three ‘factions’ in the UK today where Brexit is concerned. There are those who want to Remain in the EU, there are those who want to Leave no matter how or what, and as we’ve seen a lot off late, there are many who want to leave but only if a deal with Brussels has been agreed.

Now, the tendency has become, as the bickering worsens, to group that third faction, which wants a deal before leaving, in with those who want to Remain. If you’re not with us you’re against us. This has appeared as a sort of tactical move for the Leave campaign. Here’s Mish quoting Eurointelligence:

If the Supreme Court, as we expect, does not intervene on prorogation, that leaves Hilary Benn’s legislation – requiring Johnson to seek an extension to the Art. 50 withdrawal period – as the main tactical approach left for Remainers.

It’s obvious that those seeking that extension are not only Remainers. Many are not, there are for instance a lot of Labour party members and voters who favor Leave, but with a deal. Jeremy Corbyn himself is one of them. There are many in the Conservative party who want to leave only with a deal. 21 MPs were banned from the party for exactly that. Casting these people in with the Remainers may be a dangerous game.

Beacuse let’s play with the numbers a little. If that third faction, Leave With A Deal, makes up one third of all Leave voters, which seems quite reasonable if not even lowballing it, than what does that do to the 51.89% majority for Leave in the June 23 2016 referendum? I’ll go with 51%, easier to play with. One third of 51% is 17%. Add that to the 48% who voted Remain, and you’re at 65%. Almost 2/3 doesn’t want to Leave without a deal.

That leaves the ‘pure’ Leavers with just 34%, little more than a third of total votes. Does that still sound like The Will of the People to you? And the people behind Boris Johnson who wish to push Leave through even if there is no deal (some would prefer that) can say all they want, but Boris doesn’t even have a majority in Parliament anymore.

If you must suspend Parliament to push through something that will affect the country for decades and that 2/3 of people don’t want, you are on very thin ice. And it doesn’t look like you’re executing The Will of the People, at all. Because many would not have voted Leave if they had been told it could take place without that deal.

And of course when you see EU commission head Juncker’s successor Ursula von der Leyen setting up an office for the “Commissioner for Protecting our European Way of Life”, you too think “get me out of this asylum, and fast”, but you can’t do that unless that is The Will of the People.

This will end with the Supreme Court deciding what that will is. Which is far from ideal. But Boris can call an election; he just needs to agree not to Leave without a deal. Because that is the Will of 2/3 of the People’s chosen representatives.

Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper this week defined British politics as “what results from the collision of an unstoppable force, an immovable object and a clown car.”

Good theater. I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

Home Forums The Will of the People

This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  democritus 3 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49846

    Max Ernst Untitled 1913   No, I don’t want to talk about last night’s US Democrats’ debate. That’s just lousy comedy. But I’ll admit I’m happy to
    [See the full post at: The Will of the People]

    #49847

    Dr. D
    Participant

    Ugh, Tulsi. So frustrated.

    First because I could vote for her, second because she could win. It’s hard to watch anyone commit suicide, but especially in public. But if the DNC is going to kill themselves, at least make it quick without the crazy-ex theatrics.

    Absconding? Brits can tell me, is this a common word there?

    If he’s served his sentence, then…isn’t he free? What happens next is his problem. And the United States Judiciary’s. So if they can get him, fine. Or will the U.K. hold him forever, outside of his sentence, because the U.S. MIGHT, SOMEDAY, successfully extradite him? Go jump off a pier.

    Brexit will indeed be hard, and as I said, you could very seriously improve matters by saying, “We all in this together. Whatever the costs are, we will all pay them together, each doing all they can.” etc, etc. Nope. Nunavit. Westminster just wants the same ruinous extraction they’ve run for 30 years, and Brexit only wants a win. Sure, Brexit MAY help, someday, but that’s not the same when it’s so easy to at least PROMISE to share the hardship. I mean, how hard is it to just lie? Everybody else always has. This sudden lack of lying when it’s serious is confusing me. Like, they’re now so far beyond lying, so far outside of democracy they no longer care?

    The No Deal opposition are also divided: Half, like May, disingenuously pretend their objection is only a deal, but then torpedo it over and over forever, making Britain’s situation not only worse, but irrevocable. The other half actually want a deal and don’t see why we can’t get one. But the reason they can get one is faction one, who will, and has sold out to Europe and always will. No deal can be made so long as traitors are in the gates, lowering the drawbridge. …And that’s aside from how Europe would rather die than deal anyway: one because no jilted psycho ex-wife is going to be rejected, lose superstar status, and give up huge payments from their spouse, and second because as Soros said, if Britain leaves the EU collapses, goes bankrupt, is no more, goes kaput, ends, along with all their unelected, unaccountable, unaudited money and power. No ways. Which is what I and Mish said from the start, maybe as far back as ‘97. And true, true, true, although meandering.

    Most probably you are right: the leave-at-any-cost voters are nowhere near 51%. However, since Europe will grind Britain for 10,000 years if necessary, you can also see why Leave, and probably the Queen, can only attempt to cut off British tragedy as soon as possible. How would it be the will of the people to stay for the 10,000 years the EU and Westminster will delay? That has only 1/3 of the vote as well.

    I’d say put it to a vote. But they did. May lost. BoJo was in. BoJo called for a vote himself, twice, to again win a plurality of the people and thereby clarify the true sentiment on the matter. Westminster vetoed him, and you can bet it wasn’t because they were about to discover a savage win in favor of Staying-at-all-costs. You can bet they only stopped democracy because they were about to lose big. I’d rather have the vote, but doesn’t that strategy tell you even more what must be going on? Leave is still increasing, ‘though slowly.

    Well, I guess Britain’s history and character is hard and messy that way. That’s okay: it’s theirs to choose.

    #49855

    democritus
    Participant

    “already suffocating under a yoke of extreme austerity”

    The suffering of the poor is government policy. Many people say they object to Brexit because it will be bad for the poor. But in this country it is already bad for the poor, and if it gets worse, that will be government policy too. There is really no need for the poor to be so poor, but there is always an excuse. Last time it was the debt, which never got paid off, this time it will be Brexit.

    I will not read Cameron’s memoirs until 70 years after his death, to be sure he doesn’t get paid for it, and even then he won’t because I will be dead too.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.