Brexit or Breaksit?

[Dartz]

It's the hum of desperation from them

"It looks like you're using an ad-blocker!"

Does any other service have the same story?

So am I. Scriptblock also?

[robkelk]

No... so I guess I need one.

[classicdrogn]

Turn off javascript, maybe? I have no complainer popup, anyway.

[Dartz]

And aul Lizzie is pissed

Spoiler

The Queen has privately expressed disappointment in the current crop of British politicians and their "inability to govern," a report has claimed.

The 93-year-old monarch made the comments at a private event after David Cameron resigned following the EU referendum in 2016, the Sunday Times said.

The newspaper, quoting a royal source, said the Queen's frustrations with the political class had only grown since then.

"I think she's really dismayed," the source said.

"I've heard her talking about her disappointment in the current political class and its inability to govern correctly."

The report comes after it emerged that Buckingham Palace and Downing Street are holding urgent talks about how to prevent the Queen from being dragged into the looming constitutional crisis over Brexit.

Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK's most senior civil servant, and Edward Young, the Queen's private secretary, spoke on the phone last week about increasing calls from both pro- and anti-Brexit MPs for her to step into the debate, the Telegraph reported.

The call was prompted by growing speculation that politicians will try and force the Queen to intervene if Boris Johnson loses a no-confidence vote in September or October.

Downing Street sources have said that the prime minister would refuse to resign until after Brexit, prompting anti-Brexit MPs including Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, to suggest the Queen could be force to summon him to Buckingham Palace and sack him.

In a further extraordinary intervention, John McDonnell, Labour's shadow chancellor, suggested he would respond by sending the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn "in a cab" to Buckingham Palace to tell the Queen that the party was ready to assume power.

The Queen has remained impartial throughout her 67-year reign and the Royal household would be highly resistant to making any political intervention into a highly charged debate.

In private, of course. She's otherwise been remarkably quiet. Then again I'd suppose any action whatsoever would risk alienating half the country and that generally ends up with no more monarchy.

[Black Aeronaut]

Come what may, be it good or ill, this is definitely history in the making.

I only hope that the people of the United Kingdom, by and large, support whatever decision Her Majesty makes.

[Dartz]

Why doesn't Ireland like, leave the EU and do a customs union with the UK


Somebody's mental sparkplug is firing just that bit too far after top dead centre.

[hazard]

You mean aside the fact that warts and all, the EU has been pretty good for Ireland?

Not perfect, far from it, but good.

[Bob Schroeck]

Certainly better than the worst of England's history with Ireland...

[classicdrogn]

Some of which history was actually recently referenced by members of the British government as examples to follow, if I recall earlier posts here accurately.

[Matrix Dragon]

And now Boris is going to ask the queen to suspend parliament. WHELP.

[Bob Schroeck]

It's a hair more complicated than that -- he's scheduled the Queen's Speech, which is traditionally preceded by a month-long shutdown of Parliament declared by the Queen, in such a way that by the absolute purest coincidence it would happen to prevent there being much time at all for any kind of action on Brexit. How strange that it supports his agenda...

One article on it here

[classicdrogn]

I'm half-expecting her majesty to simply not exercise her right to call for the suspension and/or have the speech be firmly stating that the legislative priority is to decide on a resolution to the mess rather than running the timer out to a voteless exit by default, but admittedly I only loosely followed British politics up to this business so I'm not sure how firm her own political ground is or how much of the custom is closer to being unofficial but socially binding law.

[hazard]

I'm half-expecting her majesty to simply not exercise her right to call for the suspension and/or have the speech be firmly stating that the legislative priority is to decide on a resolution to the mess rather than running the timer out to a voteless exit by default, but admittedly I only loosely followed British politics up to this business so I'm not sure how firm her own political ground is or how much of the custom is closer to being unofficial but socially binding law.

That would mean she takes a political stance on a severely divisive issue by breaking with tradition. She's not going to do that unless the opposition can instantly topple Boris Johnson and take thorough action to prevent a voteless Brexit.

And that's not going to happen.

[Jinx999]

It's a hair more complicated than that -- he's scheduled the Queen's Speech, which is traditionally preceded by a month-long shutdown of Parliament declared by the Queen, in such a way that by the absolute purest coincidence it would happen to prevent there being much time at all for any kind of action on Brexit.  How strange that it supports his agenda...

One article on it here

According to the BBC, the length of the shut-down varies and is going to be considerably longer than is common, in addition to the traditional shut down for party conference season.

[Dartz]

Hahahaha..... WTF?!

I think someone did that in Canada once to avoid a vote of no confidence. Maybe Rob will correct me on that but I think it went down like a fart in a space station.

How can you even spin such an obvious stunt? It's a complete munchkin stunt? It's a government that's actively hostile to both the parliament or the people - it's not even a coup d'etat, it's more a of a coup de gens. Of course Lizzie signed it - she's no real choice in the matter.

It's a ghastly, odious stunt that sets in stone the demise of the British nation and a economic hellscape for a generation - and for who's benefit? Everyone will be fucked by this. We're fucked by association, and fuck you all for dragging us into it.

[classicdrogn]

Well, at least Johnson's place in the history books is assured! Leaving behind a historic legacy surely makes it all worth it, right? Right...? RIGHT? /s

[Black Aeronaut]

Huh.

So, once everything goes to hell in a handbasket, think anyone will complain if Lizzie exercises emergency powers? (AFTER - that is, once Brexit has happened and everything has already gone to shit.)

[robkelk]

Hahahaha..... WTF?!

I think someone did that in Canada once to avoid a vote of no confidence. Maybe Rob will correct me on that but I think it went down like a fart in a space station.

Prorogue rather than suspend, but yes - Harper in 2008.

And he was a Conservative, too.

You know that myth about nothing exciting ever happening in Canada? It's bull. The exciting stuff happens here first, by a decade or so. Nobody else bothers to notice.

[classicdrogn]

So, once everything goes to hell in a handbasket, think anyone will complain if Lizzie exercises emergency powers?

Well, one would hope. There's not much point in having a head of state if they can't even tell people they've been acting quite poorly and there shall be no pudding until they sit down and work out a solution.

[nemonowan]

So, once everything goes to hell in a handbasket, think anyone will complain if Lizzie exercises emergency powers?

Well, one would hope. There's not much point in having a head of state if they can't even tell people they've been acting quite poorly and there shall be no pudding until they sit down and work out a solution.

Unlikely. She is 92 years old and her main concern in the last decades has been the preservation of Royalty as a British institution (reportedly, Diana's death scandal affected so much the royals' image that it seriously made her fear it would be abolished). As such, she is keeping it together by a combination of her personal popularity and by sticking to being a ceremonial rubberstamper (she approved of Boris' proroguing of parliament within hours, without even bothering to talk to the other politicians who had asked for an audience).
So, no matter what happens in Britain she will never accept to take direct control of anything because that would make her responsible for anything that goes wrong.

[Matrix Dragon]

Unlikely. She is 92 years old and her main concern in the last decades has been the preservation of Royalty as a British institution (reportedly, Diana's death scandal affected so much the royals' image that it seriously made her fear it would be abolished). As such, she is keeping it together by a combination of her personal popularity and by sticking to being a ceremonial rubberstamper (she approved of Boris' proroguing of parliament within hours, without even bothering to talk to the other politicians who had asked for an audience).
So, no matter what happens in Britain she will never accept to take direct control of anything because that would make her responsible for anything that goes wrong.

And given Prince Andrew is caught up in the Epstein scandal, she has more immediate priorities than a bunch of commoners.

[hazard]

Prince Andrew is the 5th in line at the closest and her third son. The scandal will mean much more to the Americans than the British, even if Andrew is quietly forced out of public view.

That said, rubberstamping really is to no small extent her best option. It keeps most of the politicians from speaking poorly of her or the institution that is the Royal Family, and keeps the focus on the legislature and government.

[classicdrogn]

... still a better head of state than Trump, I guess. Even if it enables Johnson to be in that competition as well, at least she's holding to the customs of government that have served more or less for centuries while he's abusing them, and throwing everything out is unquestionably worse because then there are no guidelines to be outraged about people crossing.

That doesn't mean I still wouldn't like to see some of these people get a spanking and sent to bed without supper, though, and it's not even my government.

[Dartz]

Liz can do fuckall unless she wants to risk going the way of Uncle Nick and cousin Annie. Monarchs who take sides on politically divisive issues tend to stop being monarchs soon after.

[classicdrogn]

Historically true, but still disappointing when it seems like there's no one else left to say "Whoa, hey, this isn't sounding like such a hot idea. Wanna run that by me one more time?" Calling the one person who can throw everything into a spin if they get a wild hair across a fundamental aperture Prime Minister or President or King or Grand High Panjandrum doesn't change that. If I am perhaps a little fond of romanticized ideas of the authority and nobility of royalty, well, I can only blame a childhood fascination with the legends of King Arthur and Robin of Loxley.