Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Boris Johnson’s Government Fall?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected by his party to deliver on the Conservative Party promise to deliver on the people’s will, expressed in an extraordinary referendum in 2016. Similar to Chamber of Commerce Republicans in our political system, there are Remainer Conservatives, who represent business interests that have done well at the expense of the British people’s interests. Today, one of these members of parliament literally crossed the aisle, ending the current government majority.
MP Philip Lee left the Conservative Party and walked over to sit with the Liberal Democrats this Monday. The ensuing debate is live, carried by ITV:
Remainer Conservatives are desperately trying to justify their position, in an attempt to do their paymasters’ bidding while somehow keeping their seats, that are the basis of their current and further financial prospects. The recent EU Parliamentary election, in which the Conservative Party was wiped out by the three-week old Brexit Party, suggests this crew is not long for the world of British politics. We will shortly see if Britain will bow to Brussels, or go to the polls and give the elites a second two-finger salute.
See the Ricochet podcast “London Calling,” with James Delingpole and Toby Young for a half-hour of more informed explanation and speculation. They referred to a piece by an eminent scholar, Robert Tombs, who dares to be “out” supporting Brexit. A quick search turns up the following readable pieces, worth your time.
From 2018, a taxonomy of the Remainer body: “There are three categories of revolting Remainer: what makes them tick?“
There seem to be three main categories of Remainers: Ideological Remainers, Professional Remainers and Worried Remainers.
The Ideological Remainers, however vocal, are a small minority: opinion polls suggest about 5 per cent of the population. […] They have in common a negative image of both our history and our present society, which they convince themselves are tarnished by exploitation, racism and violence.
…More formidable in numbers and influence are the Professional Remainers: executives of multinational companies, employees of lobby groups and think tanks (many receiving funding from the EU), academics in receipt of EU grants, politicians representing Remain parties or constituencies, retired politicians who supported or indeed worked for the EU, civil servants and diplomats whose careers have been built round integration with the EU. For this group, familiarity with EU systems and contacts in Brussels give a major career advantage; conversely, Brexit poses a career risk.
…The third and largest category are the Worried Remainers. Most who voted Remain – a third of the total electorate – said that they did so primarily because they were worried about economic consequences. Their support for the EU is conditional and negative – as a lesser evil.
On the basic assumption being floated in Parliament by those who would defy the instructions given them by the people through the 2016 referendum, Robert Tombs wrote another brief explanation on who governs, or rules, in Britain. Without a written constitution, it is hard for outsiders to understand. This professor of French History at Cambridge University made it about as clear as can be back in 2016, shortly after the referendum was decided, in “Brexit means Brexit.”
The idea that parliament is the ultimate sovereign probably derives mainly from the writings of the great Victorian constitutional lawyer A. V. Dicey, but he makes it clear that this applies solely to legislation: parliament can make or unmake any law and none of its laws can be overridden by any other authority. […] The Crown governs, through ministers, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 stopped it from legislating. Parliament legislates, but since the fiasco of the Puritan Commonwealth it does not govern. The Courts interpret and apply the law.
Does this mean that parliament is a sovereign body superior to the popular will — expressed in this case through the extra-parliamentary channel of a referendum? Direct popular participation in crucial political acts has been part of our history since time immemorial. […] Parliaments, whether specially summoned or not, were instrumental in some of these great events; but parliaments acting with and as the voice of the national community, not separate from or independent of it.
Does this mean that the people, not parliament, the Crown or the courts, are the true sovereign, the ultimate source of authority? I would say — as a historian, not a constitutional lawyer — that it does: the people do not govern, or legislate, or interpret the law, but they are the ultimate source of the authority of those who do. The idea that parliament itself, in some hermetically sealed manner, holds ultimate sovereignty on the grounds of its inherent wisdom, and that this enables it to oppose a clearly and legally expressed popular choice is a strange perversion of history and of common sense. But we do not have to go so far as to proclaim the sovereignty of the people, if we find that a step too far. Popular consent by the people is a more modest and familiar concept. Expressed in a variety of ways, this consent has always been regarded as necessary for legitimate government. The referendum shows that the majority of the people no longer consent to government within the European Union. It would be a foolhardy parliament or law court that tried to ignore this reality.
For more, see his September 2, 2019, coauthored report: “Sovereignty: people, parliament, government.”
Brexit has always been about the sovereignty of the nation. It has now become just as much about sovereignty within the nation.
Updated September 4th: The rest of the Remainers voted against the government to seize control of the legislative calendar, allowing the Remainers to force a vote to stop Brexit, with the false claim of only wanting “delay.” PM Johnson is now effectively rid of them, having removed their Conservative Party authorization to continue running for office. By carrying through on his threatened sanctions, he shows the British public that he is serious and not using the cover of difficult MPs to excuse decisive action. Now he is hammering Labour for suddenly wanting to avoid a general election, where they once expected to win the next election.
This flow chart from the Daily Mail Online, on “the Battle for Brexit,” shows the possible paths ahead (click image to enlarge):
Like our Never-Trumpers.
You mean Reagan Republicans who believe in limited government, free trade, and an inclusive approach to all?
So long as “all” does not include those bitter clinger.
Those “who believe in limited government, real free trade, and an inclusive approach to all” believe in President Trump. Those who do not believe in President Trump believe in handing the reins of the country to those who want to destroy America, it’s Constitution, it’s inalienable rights and it’s the economy, and in the process destroying the poor and the working class in a racist attempt to push them into a welfare state dependency from which they will be trapped forever.
LOLing out loud (as I used to say to embarrass my children).
Gary, I know you like the Reagan Republican tagline, but you don’t get to own it. I’m a Reagan Republican too — and a Trump supporter. So I can’t let you get away with conflating “never-Trumper” and “Reagan Republican.”
Most Republicans — including, I’m sure, most Reagan Republicans — support Trump’s reelection. I’m one of those.
(Incidentally, Reagan is the only President I ever met — though he was just a candidate at the time.)
Still LOLing out loud.
For crying out loud, people. Lots of people can’t stand President Trump but still love America and the Constitution. President Trump is problematic: many of us who voted for him, and will vote for him again, aren’t dead certain that, in the long run, he won’t do more harm than good. (I think he will, I’m pretty confident he will, but I won’t be flabbergasted if I’m proven wrong by history — by which I mean the next decade, not the next century.)
I think never-Trumpers are about the second most tiresome kinds of people, right after LGBT activists, but let’s dispense with the knee-jerk “hater” rhetoric.
Clifford,
Sorry to go off on a tangent there. Thanks for the post; I’ve been busy, and haven’t been keeping up with the glacial process known as Brexit. I’m sorry to read of a setback, but hope the new Prime Minister is still able to make good on his promise to get Britain out by the end of October.
And I’ll second your plug for London Calling. It remains one of this Anglophile’s favorite podcasts.
I’m updating with an excerpt from an author they referenced.
Excellent! I’ll count on you and James “Big Jim” Gawron (@jamesgawron) to keep me up to date — and I’ll get back to work. ;)
Oh boy are the British public going to punish the Tories in the next election if they don’t deliver Brexit again.
And show it by voting for Democrats, donating money to Democrats, working to elect Democrats? Those “Reagan Republicans”?
I don’t think there’s any limit to what the Remainers will do to avoid acceding to the wishes of the people on this issue. And, when you think about, you have to wonder why. With a return to full sovereignty, the politicians will have more say in how their country is governed. Yet, they don’t want that.
This is like American politicians use of the Supreme Court, the administrative state, and the sacred rule of the filibuster. Blame avoidance.
Why is there always a group in government that thinks it knows best, in spite of the will of the people? It’s so tiresome and so wrong. Thanks for the post, @cliffordbrown.
No I think they mean vengeance driven desperados like myself. I have dug two graves and I will take down my enemy or haunt them for eternity! You my gentle Robbins still have hope that something can be salvaged of these Republicans. But I see the deeper truth. Nothing can be saved. Only oblivion will give us release from the torment of existence. And I shall bring it about by summoning my new master into this world.
“Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn“.
On a serious note. They need new elections? But can those happen. Before 31st of October? If they vote to pass a law blocking no deal which they are poised to do tomorrow, which to date is the only position that has won a majority in Parliament. What is there left to do? The problem though is that even with a new government they have the same three unpopular options before them. Overrule the referendum and remain, May’s Brexit deal, or crash out with no deal. Only a new referendum can override the old one, or provide cover for the other two options.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ~ Frederic Bastiat
Not sure anyone has ever described the EU as “limited government” before.
November 5th should be interesting this year. V.
Because in a representative government they have been tasked by the people to know more than them and exercise their better judgement. The will of the people is maybe the most cited excuse of tyrants for their ambitions. The people of the UK elected the Parliament. If their will is so clear why did they not exercise it in their vote in the post Brexit election? Is it perhaps because their will is confused, splintered, and of two minds? The people sadly have no better insight than the individual.
Well, you are just flat wrong again. Parliament acted before the Brexit referendum of the people and voted to have that issue submitted directly to the people for a vote and the people voted to leave. This is very similar to how our elected Democrats and some Republicans have acted in trying to overturn our 2016 Presidential election.
Does that include Trump?
If you bother to read up on the positions the various parties in Parliament took before the last election, you would notice that a solid majority recognized the will of the electorate in the referendum. Both Labour and the Conservatives ran on implementing Brexit. Many MPs in both parties lied to get reelected.
In theory, yes, but principally only with Labour’s cooperation. The Fixed-terms Parliament Act allows a general election with a 2/3 majority vote. After some initial wishy-washiness, Corbyn said Labour would not vote to hold an election unless an anti-no deal bill first gets passed.
Not quite right. The one other proposal that has won a Commons majority is the Brady amendment favoring alternative arrangements to the backstop in order to avoid a hard border with Ireland.
But yeah, the UK remains divided over what the future of the EU-UK relationship should look like–whether a single market with the four freedoms, a customs union, or a free trade area.
Emphatically not.
When there is a straightforward Conservative Republican like Governor Doug Ducey, I vote for him. I also voted for Martha McSally despite her Trump embrace. But when the Republican Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in AZ-1, or the AZ Secretary of State bill themselves as the authentic “Trump Republican” candidate in the primaries, well no.
This is what confuses me about having an unwritten Constitution, though: what’s to prevent Parliament from repealing the Fixed-terms Parliament Act by simple majority?
This from Valiuth sounds like it’s intended to be a philosophical answer to Susan’s question. It reminds me of the differences among the social contract theorists (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and debates about representation.
There’s a salutary notion of representation associated with Edmund Burke that allows the representative to make judgments independently of his constituent’s preferences.
However, precisely on the point you raise, this is emphatically not the British position. As one of the sources I cite points out, Burke tried acting on his personal theory and was thrown out of office by his constituency. Burke made theoretical, self-serving, claims that have been utterly rejected by the British electorate, starting with throwing out Burke himself.
The public expressed its will twice, first in the referendum, which the politicians offered in hope of getting the opposite answer, and then by electing MPs who stood on party platforms, although they showed afterwards that they were lying to get into office, that affirmed they would carry out the peoples’ will expressed in the referendum.
Rather goes to the heart of the debate or what should be the debate. Since admittance into the EU parliament is no longer the ultimate sovereign. The EU Court of Justice has overridden them multiple times.
Save the lecture. I can’t hear anyone who donates thousands to the Democratic party and poses as a “Reagan Republican”. Want to go around again on this? I can cut and paste too.