UK reader Richard Willmer took the streets last week to protest the suspension of Parliament by prime minister Boris Johnson. In response to my request, he consented to provide a brief word from the street. Thanks to Richard and I wish good things to the defenders of democracy and immigrants.
Defending democracy; defending immigrants
Last week, the UK’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, asked the Queen to prorogue (i.e, suspend) the UK Parliament for five weeks. In accordance with convention, the Queen ‘did as she was told’ and agreed to the suspension. Many are very unhappy about this, seeing it at an attack on our constitutional order, and thus democracy itself. Small-scale public protest got underway immediately, and the first big gathering of protestors took place last Saturday, August 31st.
The last time I attended a large protest rally was in February 2003, in the run-up to the military adventure in Iraq. Last week, it was time for me to get back on the street.
The protest was a peculiarly British affair, with lots of people saying “excuse me” to each other as they sought to find their spot in the crowd, and the chanting was all rather gentle in its way. But the main message from the speakers was clear: democracy is not something that is handed to us ‘on a plate’ by those with power; rather it is something for which ordinary folk must strive and, if necessary, engage in civil disobedience and direct action. One speaker had voted Leave in EU referendum in 2016, but deplored what he saw as the undemocratic manner in which the Government was seeking to carry it out, and the impact that leaving without a deal could have on those who have come from other European countries to live and work in (and contribute to) the UK. Another speaker was the daughter of an immigrant from Franco’s Spain. She told us that her mother had warned her that, if fascism came to England, it would be served with tea and cake and honeyed words, and paternalistic assurances that the removal of our freedoms would be good for us, while those around us who did not ‘fit the bill’ would quietly disappear.
Many political perspectives and agendas were represented; some press reports understandably questioned the coherence of the ‘message’. But, from what I could see, there was certainly one thing that united us all: a desire to defend the rights, and the personal honour, of immigrants, be they from Europe or elsewhere.
At the end of the rally, we were told to “look out for each other”; it reminded me that if one is concerned for one’s own freedom, one should work to defend the freedom of others.
Richard Willmer
Wasn’t the last guy to arbitrarily suspend Parliament named Charles the First?
Indeed it was!
Nice work, Richard!
Thank you Mirele. I try my best …
Otto English took a look at what lies (even further) to the right of the Johnson Party. This is what he found: https://www.politico.eu/article/my-trip-down-the-brexit-party-rabbit-hole-nigel-farage/
“Or you can take the Red Pill, and find out just how deep the Rabbit Hole goes…”
I’ll pass on that, thanks! 😉
Just in case there’s any confusion, Richard is not saying people are unhappy with the Queen for giving her assent, they are unhappy with Johnson for making the request in the first place.
I would abolish the monarchy tomorrow, but if she had not given her assent, it would have been the first time since 1707 that had happened and would likely have caused a constitutional crisis of a different kind, so it was a given she would not stand in the way.
I’m a British ex-pat, and when I heard the news, it was like a punch to the gut, and I felt it the rest of the day. It’s hard to underestimate the political mess the whole Brexit nonsense has caused, and will cause, and I remain (no pun intended) convinced that it will all be for nothing. Sure, those swept along by British populism will be happy, but it won’t last long. Even if the worst case scenario doesn’t happen, and Britain muddles through, the United Kingdom will be living on borrowed time, with Scotland looking for any possible exit they can, and longer term, the causes of the discontent of the conservative working class that drove the Brexit vote are not going away. Reducing immigration isn’t going to stop globalization, and it isn’t going to stop automation — the jobs are not coming back, and the oligarchs aren’t going to stop accumulating and hoarding the wealth. It’s a fool’s errand.
For example. My British sister-in-law runs an online business that has employed nearly 100 freelancers, most of them who live locally, for over ten years. Their biggest client is an American company who looking to cut costs by so much that to keep the contract, she’s now having to go overseas (Eastern Europe, ironically) to find freelancers cheap enough to hire for the work. If she doesn’t she loses the contract altogether and all the jobs go to India anyway.
I also happened to be talking to someone this very weekend who works for a medical device company here in Texas, and she said they’re almost ashamed to admit how good Brexit will be for their business, since European regulations will go away, opening up the British market to their products in a big way. Given how weak the British negotiating position will be when conducting trade deals with the likes of the US, I cannot help but imagine the British government is going to give away the entire store, and public services, already squeezed hard by a decade of futile austerity, are going to be squeezed dry.
The thinking this morning is that Johnson’s proroguing tactic is backfiring and will only end up with a confrontation with parliament he might not win, but his political future is completely wedded to pushing Brexit through no matter the consequences (if he fails, Farage’s party will compete in the next election and likely siphon off enough votes to send the Tories to a heavy defeat), so a snap election is on the cards now, which would prevent parliament from pushing through legislation for a few weeks, and give Johnson his best chance of boosting his majority.
Just in case there’s any confusion, Richard is not saying people are unhappy with the Queen for giving her assent, they are unhappy with Johnson for making the request in the first place.
I would abolish the monarchy tomorrow, but if she had not given her assent, it would have been the first time since 1707 that had happened and would likely have caused a constitutional crisis of a different kind, so it was a given she would not stand in the way.
I’m a British ex-pat, and when I heard the news, it was like a punch to the gut, and I felt it the rest of the day. It’s hard to underestimate the political mess the whole Brexit nonsense has caused, and will cause, and I remain (no pun intended) convinced that it will all be for nothing. Sure, those swept along by British populism will be happy, but it won’t last long. Even if the worst case scenario doesn’t happen, and Britain muddles through, the United Kingdom will be living on borrowed time, with Scotland looking for any possible exit they can, and longer term, the causes of the discontent of the conservative working class that drove the Brexit vote are not going away. Reducing immigration isn’t going to stop globalization, and it isn’t going to stop automation — the jobs are not coming back, and the oligarchs aren’t going to stop accumulating and hoarding the wealth. It’s a fool’s errand.
For example. My British sister-in-law runs an online business that has employed nearly 100 freelancers, most of them who live locally, for over ten years. Their biggest client is an American company who looking to cut costs by so much that to keep the contract, she’s now having to go overseas (Eastern Europe, ironically) to find freelancers cheap enough to hire for the work. If she doesn’t she loses the contract altogether and all the jobs go to India anyway.
I also happened to be talking to someone this very weekend who works for a medical device company here in Texas, and she said they’re almost ashamed to admit how good Brexit will be for their business, since European regulations will go away, opening up the British market to their products in a big way. Given how weak the British negotiating position will be when conducting trade deals with the likes of the US, I cannot help but imagine the British government is going to give away the entire store, and public services, already squeezed hard by a decade of futile austerity, are going to be squeezed dry.
The thinking this morning is that Johnson’s proroguing tactic is backfiring and will only end up with a confrontation with parliament he might not win, but his political future is completely wedded to pushing Brexit through no matter the consequences (if he fails, Farage’s party will compete in the next election and likely siphon off enough votes to send the Tories to a heavy defeat), so a snap election is on the cards now, which would prevent parliament from pushing through legislation for a few weeks, and give Johnson his best chance of boosting his majority.
Fortunately, the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 means BJ cannot just ‘call an election’ as in days gone by. My own view is that Opposition MPs (whose votes would be needed in order for the House to agree to its own dissolution – which, by the way, HM is now no longer technically able to refuse – pending an election) should effectively say to BJ: “agree to a Brexit delay (of six months at least), so a new government has time to negotiate a new deal, and we’ll let you have your election. That should put him in a tight spot, given all the hostages to fortune (e.g. “we leave on 31 Oct come what may”) he has so keenly embraced since a bunch of party hacks decided he should be our glorious leader.
It is entirely possible that Labour will also simply ask their MPs to abstain on a motion to call an election, which would mean that the vote would struggle to pass (as it needs a two-thirds majority.) After all, they are not the ones scrabbling for survival right now, and they are painfully aware that they cannot really win a majority themselves, since the loss of Scotland has seen to that.
Whoever is in charge when “Brexit” happens* will have to live with the consequences – and at the moment the Labour party really need that to be Johnson.
*not that “Brexit” is an actual thing anyway. It’s a spectacularly good marketing term, I will give you that. But too many people haven’t understood that it’s not like Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot, but more like Alexander trying to untangle the Gordian Knot. With his eyes closed and wearing boxing gloves.
On the news tonight it was suggested that Labour would vote against dissolution should Johnson so request. And I think that would be the correct course: to give Johnson anything he wants right now would be to add fuel to the fire.
Anyway, there is far too much for politicians to deal with just now; an unscheduled election (there doesn’t have to be one until June 2022) would just add to the chaos.
Maybe the best outcome would be for Johnson to lose the vote this week against ‘No Deal’ (for which people did NOT vote in 2016 – the Vote Leave Manifesto made it clear that a deal was envisaged), be rebuffed when he asks for a dissolution vote, suffer defections by sensible Tories (who want to stick with an “orderly exit” as promised in the Conservative Party Manifesto in the 2017 election), lose a vote of confidence next month after the EU has told him to p*** off and have his ministry replaced by a cross-party ministry who will then negotiate a proper exit deal. It might just happen that way, although I am not that hopeful, if I’m honest!
I think we must leave the EU, but with a sensible deal now, the door to re-entry at an opportune time could remain open.
Liked your analysis of Brexit as a marketing tool, by the way
Yes, we clearly have to leave – regardless of what might think about the inadequacies of the referendum (and dearie me, they were legion!), the outcome of the vote was clear.
The sane Leavers had long proposed plans that would have consisted of declaring an intent to leave (probably through an election manifesto pledge rather than anything else), a ten year or so negotiation period and only then a referendum on the deal.
But the insane Leavers insisted on not having a plan because nobody would ever vote for a specific plan. And, like Donald Trump, they were caught wrong-footed when they actually won.
(I’m an ultraRemainer – I think we should be in the Euro and Schengen – but I have come round to accepting that the UK wasn’t really ready for the “political and economic union” project, and we still aren’t, even now. We should have stepped aside back in 1992 and helped create a multi-speed “three rings” Europe but we got obsessed with sabotaging France and Germany instead.)
Wasn’t the margin 2% or less? That doesn’t seem very clear to me. I would submit that something as dire as leaving the EU and all it entails should not be put to a popular vote in the first place. However, if it were to be, at least a 60/40 margin should have been required. Having essentially a tie is not a way to make such decisions.
As I said, the inadequacies of the referendum itself were legion – and, it should be noted, many groups, including one I am an active member of, not to mention MPs and members of the House of Lords, were repeatedly pointing out that if the referendum were to be binding, it would need supermajorities (and, ideally, the same result in all four of the constituent nations of the UK) as the consequences would be dramatic.
We were consistently reminded that referendums in the UK can only ever be advisory as Parliament is sovereign (it’s what we had a civil war over, after all!)
The fatal misstep was the issue of the government information leaflet which committed the government to implementing the outcome of the vote. This was seized upon by the Leave campaign as their case for “the Will of the People”, and it was all downhill from there.
But the result was clear, even if the margin was dangerously close to a coinflip.
(Indeed Nigel Farage said – before the vote – that if the result had been 52/48 to Remain, then it would be unfinished business. He changed his tune after the result, of course.)
I suspect this is the last step for Great Britain to become just England. I just can’t understand the eagerness to head into chaos, anymore than I can understand the US dive into the morass of nationalist nonsense. It’s as if both countries have lost their collective souls.
As I said on another post: Anglo-Saxon politics is in crisis.
Was at a protest rally this evening (it is still going on, but I left it to the young ‘uns to keep up the chanting!). The mood was for an election, but I still think that many Labour MPs want to deny BJ what he might want, and work things round to the a point where they can ‘set the agenda’. About to get the vote on the ‘countercoup’ (as some might see it) …
… and our elected representatives have just voted to take control of tomorrow’s legislative agenda by a majority of 27 (rather larger than expected – but some Tories are really annoyed by the prorogation business and voted against BJ’s gang, err, sorry, ministry).
(The suspension of parliament due to take effect next week has not be rescinded.)
On your last point: given the discoveries in the court cases (that the Johnson team had been planning the prorogation for two weeks and simply flat-out lying about it and then claiming it was an action of last resort), I wouldn’t be at all surprised if at least one of the cases resulted in it being rescinded and the Supreme Court getting involved.
Maybe. But I think it might be academic now, given what could happen tomorrow: “No Deal” made unlawful, then a general election next month.
I have to say at least the Cons in the UK have more backbone than the Reps in the US. 21 of them stood up to Johnson. A LOT more than have stood up to Trump.
And a 22nd joined the 21 today.
Actually, counting Phillip Lee MP, it’s 23 since Sunday.
If this keeps up Johnson may end up a “party of one” 🙂
btw, can Johnson expel party members on his own or does it require some sort of committee approval?
Richard would be the expert to answer this but I was just discussing it with a friend of mine in the UK and he told me that he can do it on his own. They can still vote as they please as they are still a PM but they aren’t in that party. Seems counter-productive to me as Johnson just reduces the number of people in his own party (as you implied). Then again, like Trump, this makes no sense in the first place. Richard correct me if necessary.
Richard would be the expert to answer this but I was just discussing it with a friend of mine in the UK and he told me that he can do it on his own. They can still vote as they please as they are still an MP but they aren’t in that party. Seems counter-productive to me as Johnson just reduces the number of people in his own party (as you implied). Then again, like Trump, this makes no sense in the first place. Richard correct me if necessary.
No need on my part to correct you, David! As far as I know, you are ‘spot on’.
Unless reinstated, the MPs will be deselected and new (presumably pro-hard Brexit) candidates will replace them in the next election. Presumably, Johnson believes it’s the only way for him to regain a working majority to push Brexit through, assuming he gets his wish for a snap election.
It is certainly impossible for anyone else to agree with him, as it is never clear with what one is being asked to agree. Johnson, like Trump, is extraordinarily capricious.
Part of me wants to wait a couple of months for an election. Assuming the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill becomes law, BJ would be forced either to climb down over 31 October, or to act illegally. Then what he is about would become crystal clear.
Incidentally, to anyone buying the Johnson line that leaving the EU without a deal is somehow democratic, I would say many things! Here are IMO the two most important (in reverse order of importance):-
2. The ‘victorious’ VOTE LEAVE manifesto clearly envisaged there being a deal;
1. Leaving with no deal would put in doubt the rights of hundreds of thousands of UK residents, and removing or threatening people’s legitimate rights is NEVER ‘democratic’.
Here’s what VOTE LEAVE proposed by way what leaving should mean: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
(Note “Safety first” and “No need to rush”, etc)
Theresa May set the scene (maybe unwittingly – but that would not excuse her folly, given that is capable of reading history) by ‘feeding the fascists’ with red lines and deadlines instead of proposing a sensible way forward at the outset of her premiership. IMHO, she has a lot to answer for …
(Let us not forget that one of her ‘special contributions’ was the promotion of a – and I quote – “hostile environment” for immigrants during her tenure as Secretary of State at the Home Office. She may have voted Remain – probably because she thought she would be on the winning side – but, when it comes to her attitude, she has much in common with hard right leavers.)
My friends in Scotland and England are horrified by Johnson. As here with Trump, they consider Johnson an opportunistic buffoon, devoid of any democratic values and concerned only with seeing himself on the front page of the newspapers and sucking the oxygen out of the news shows. (Hmm, where have we seen this before?)
But this is how it can start: suspension of the democratic process under the guise of some “emergency”, and the elimination of the power of the people’s representatives. From there it’s just a question of time before the tumbrels start rolling and the box cars are loaded. The UK has gone insane, and its people will dragged into the asylum and told to shut up.
All with the utmost courtesy, of course. And there will still be tea. Though maybe not in Ireland.
The best line I’ve seen was someone calling it “A very British coup.”
That’s actually the name of a book I haven’t read and a miniseries I haven’t seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_British_Coup
I’ve found the British, and especially the English, go at any problem with a certain aplomb and civility we that disparage here. Then again, they don’t kill nearly as many people for sport as we do.
Brexit is essentially an English problem …
Civility? I wonder how long it will last?
It’s not essentially a British (not just English) problem. The world economy is interconnected far more than people realize. When (not if) the British economy tanks after Brexit, it will reverberate throughout world markets. And not in a good way.
I meant in terms of how it came about.
In terms of its effect: the UK as a whole will be affected greatly with reverberations far beyond the UK. Yes.
Gotcha.