Slashdot Mirror
Theresa May Becomes UK's 'Spy Queen' and New Prime Minister (arstechnica.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: Theresa May has become the new British Prime Minister. As she sat down with the Queen on Wednesday, a controversial surveillance draft legislation that looks to significantly increase surveillance of Brits' online activity will be debated during its second committee stage day in the House of Lords. Ars Technica reports: "The Investigatory Powers Act could be in place within months of May arriving at Number 10 -- if peers and legal spats fail to scupper its passage through parliament -- after MPs recently waved it through having secured only minor amendments to the bill. As home secretary, May fought for six years to get her so-called Snoopers' Charter onto the statute books." According to Ars Technica, Theresa May's key political moments on the Investigatory Powers Bill start in 1997 when she became the Member of Parliament for Maidenhead. During her opposition years, her home affairs record shows that she generally votes against the Labour government's more draconian measures on topics such as anti-terrorism and ID cards. Mid-2009: May votes against requiring ISPs to retain certain categories of communications data, which they generate or process, for a minimum period of 12 months. 2010: She was appointed home secretary in coalition government between the Conservatives and junior partner the Liberal Democrats. 2011: The previous government's shelved Interception Modernization Program is rebranded as the Communications Capabilities Development Program (CCDP) by home office under May. Mid-2012: The CCDP morphs into Communications Data Bill, which is brought before parliament. Late-2012: May's Snoopers' Charter bid fails as deputy PM Nick Clegg orders the home office to go back to the drawing board. Mid-2014: May rushes what she characterizes as an "emergency" Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill through parliament, after the European Court of Justice invalidates the Data Retention Directive for failing to have adequate privacy safeguards in place. Late-2015: British security services have intercepted bulk communications data of UK citizens for years, May reveals to MPs for the first time as she brings her revamped Snoopers' Charter bid -- this time dubbed the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) -- before parliament. Mid-2016: MPs support thrust of IPB as it passes through the House of Commons. July 13, 2016: Theresa May becomes the UK's new prime minister as peers in the House of Lords undertake a second day of committee stage scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Bill. UPDATE 7/13/16: Boris Johnson, the former London mayor who led the Brexit campaign, has been made foreign secretary by the new Prime Minister Theresa May.
Ha Ha! Another challenge! Game on!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I keep reading these headlines that Theresa "may" become prime minister. I wish they would make up their minds.
Because we need more spying.
Bloody hell! (in a posh accent)
This system seems awful. A national referendum to decide policy is a pretty bad idea. Isn't that what elected representatives are for? On issues of the Constitution, states decide and there's a lot of deliberation that results. This is a good thing. I also don't understand why losing a national referendum would require a new Prime Minister. That just seems incredibly silly, along with the process that follows to select a new one. The US has its flaws, but it seems far better than this system.
We can hope it works...
Why is my post at -1? When I talk about moderation abuse, this is it. Seriously, can anyone explain why this system makes sense?
1) Scotland and Northern Ireland get a bad deal here since they wanted to remain in the EU. This is against their will. This would be harder in the US system.
2) Why should the Prime minister be ousted? This makes no sense.
3) When votes are done by elected officials, there aren't debates about whether the vote should count or of a revote is needed. No matter how things turn out, people will have a case if they say the outcome isn't valid.
Why is this system a good thing? Seriously, I think the US system makes more sense and I asked my questions in good faith.
She admitted back in November last year, that they'd been doing the bulk warrantless surveillance since about 2009, when "Mastering the Internet" was done despite the rejection of its legal basis: Snoopers Charter 2009.
She also claimed that under the 2009 anti terror act, the spooks have been providing surveillance data to the police.
This was all a BIG FAT SURPRISE to Parliament, who believed Snoopers had been rejected.
But it was also a BIG FAT SURPRISE to the courts, because none of this surveillance evidence had appeared in court cases or been provided to the defense.
So what exactly happened in those cases? The cases where warrantless (and likely illegal) surveillance data was handed to the police, and yet it wasn't handed to the defense or seen by the courts? I'm guessing it went something like the Parallel Construction in the US: Police re-obtained parallel evidence. And this parallel fake version of events was the one told to the courts and defense. Yes May? That's how it worked yes?
And how is it supposed to work now?
Spooks run filters, to choose targets, have a good dig to see if they can find anything. Maybe suggest targets for the police to go after? Hide all this from the court/defense under the claim of 'National Security'. Courts kept in the dark and fed scripted narrative instead of truth?
Modding a post at "-1, Troll" is the lazy way of saying, "I disagree with you, but I'm too lazy / uninformed / ineffective to write a post as to why, so have this negative moderation instead."
When your views are not popular you're going to get this kind of crap. Happens to me a lot.
Love sees no species.
This looks a lot like punishment for the unwashed masses for their vote of no confidence in the Politicians (both sides) that the BRExit vote looked like.
I see a large number of the voters in that were voting against the politicians in one of their few chances (elections are not, as you have to vote for
politicians on one side or the other..) due to the complete lack of representation that seems to be in fashion these days, where bills are either pushed through
to support loud minorities 'See! The Government does care!' or corporate sponsors 'We need to protect trade, the economy, jobs!'
It is interesting to watch the developing class wars between those in power and those not, however I am a little surprised that the UK is that close to the leading edge of it - racing to catch up to the US?
This is not spying, which implies some form of balance or power and care, this is just collecting the ability to go hunt for historical dirt on anyone who dares challenge the powerbase.
Left or Right? Socialist or Capitalist? That is long gone, what we have now is the building of totalitarian states with the illusion of democracy, and that is
unfortunately a world wide (mostly) problem. It will not be controlled unless the masses can put aside the petty arguments bout side issues, and address
this elephant in the room.
Unfortunately reality television, cooking competitions, and social justice for [insert this weeks cause] trumps that it seems. Sad times.
They must be scared of something.
In her previous incarnation she was champion of the "Snoopers Charter": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You're forgetting a lot of downsides of the U.S. system, and the fact that individual states do have referendums, and you're oversimplifying the UK system.
David Cameron wasn't ousted, he pushed hard for a specific outcome in the referendum, and he lost. The voters rejected a deal he had negotiated, and a policy he willingly bet his premiership on. All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
The vote itself also wasn't binding, it's up to Parliament to execute it. This wasn't a law that was passed by referendum. Unlike in the U.S., Parliament (technically the "Queen in Parliament") is supreme in the UK, and can change any law it wants. There's no written constitution, and thus not really the concept of an "unconstitutional" law. The PM is elected by a majority of parliament. This system means that a government usually can get its manifesto legislation passed, and it's easier to hold a government responsible for keeping its promises. The U.S. system can allow for years of deadlock, and whereas an independent commission is responsible for defining constituency boundaries in the UK, they're set by politicians in the U.S. If a party can gain control of the legislature of a state (quick - name any member of your state legislature), it can effectively control that state's seats in Congress for a decade. All of this lends a lot more legitimacy to the UK government.
So yes, getting things done in the U.S. system is harder, and it's easier for a few states to block legislation. That doesn't mean the U.S. system has greater legitimacy, quite the opposite. The state governments are barely accountable for their actions, and even a party with strong popular support can fail to get its legislation passed thanks to the byzantine electoral system.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Come on dude, what you said was naive. If you were watching British news and reading articles at BBC, Sun.uk, The Times, etc. you would understand even if you are American.
But you are clueless and don't have any interest in UK politics. Then you talk as is you are speaking knowledgeably --- when in fact your opinion is a demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of UK politics.
Pay attention is fine. Not paying attention is fine. Not paying attention and then trying to speak from a position of knowledge is just lame dude.
The UK will quickly recover and beat European growth. Once more, The Left will be proven wrong.
Yep, it sure is a good thing they didn't become the Prime Minister!
Dear editors,
I'm genuinely interested in understanding this summary but, it's effectively a gigantic wall of text that's almost impossible to understand or follow. Could you please, I dunno, edit...
Yes, gerrymandering causes some problems. I'll concede that. However, states don't directly vote on most federal issues. The exception is amending the Constitution, which is pretty rare thing. States also don't have the nearly absolute power that your post implies. They, too, are subject to the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. While the Constitution doesn't tell states how to run their governments, it does place limits on how they can operate. There are certain things we consider so fundamental that we make it extremely difficult to change. That's why amending the Constitution is so difficult. We also decided that nobody should get absolute power, not the President, not Congress, and not the Judiciary. Congress can override a Presidential veto, but this is rare and still doesn't bypass challenging the law in the courts based on whether it complies with the Constitution. You're right, it's harder to get things done in the US, but efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that something is better. By the way, the Constitution is a wonderful document and it's a shame we don't follow it more closely. The Bill of Rights is one of the best legal documents that any country has ever drafted. We've also decided that the majority isn't always right, and it's a really good thing. The majority may often be right, but it's also east for the majority to trample on the rights of others and our system is designed to prevent that.
Sure we can. We have elections every four years. Congress has the power of impeachment. Our system of checks and balances also limits the amount of damage any President is capable of doing.
If the people vote for more spying, then more spying there should be. Most everyone has nothing of importance to hide.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Clearly you are in the minority. Would you find it more democratic if the minority opinion won?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
* Remain a member of the European Union
* Leave the European Union
Nothing in those two questions asks about who governs Britain. Those are very straight up questions. Stay or stay not was the question, and the majority of Brits clearly chose to stay not.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Our system of checks and balances also limits the amount of damage any President is capable of doing.
You mean Bush didn't declare martial law, seize dictatorial power under a state of emergency, and put everyone into FEMA camps?
You're shitting me.
Next you'll be telling me Obama didn't confiscate everyone's guns and slaughter hundreds of thousands of grandmothers via death panel.
Captcha: crackpot
Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't the only Cabinet Minister she's appointed which will have international implications, she has also created two new cabinet posts;
Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox
The first is getting us out of the EU, the second is for getting new trade agreements for when we are out of the EU.
All these three are Brexiters, and will be responsible for the aftermath. Very clever - as May was a Remainer, she has effectively delegated responsibility for the success or failure of exiting the EU on to those who campaigned to get us into this situation in the first place!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
supposedly 'independent' yet the boundaries were deliberately gerrymandered recently to make it harder to elect Labour MPs...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
If a simple majority of the population is the most democratic thing, then you're advocating for mob rule. There's a reason most places, especially larger ones have representative democracies. The other thing of course is that you only know what the population though on one particular day. If it was a supermajority, sure the numbers would change but the overall outcome likely wouldn't change if the referendum was rerun soon. With such a small swing, it's likely change frequently if it was re-run indicating it's not in any meaningful manner the "will of the majority" that we should leave.
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Correction: The UK DOES have a written constitution, it's just not in a single document. It's split across about 25 acts, and while it's relatively easy to change (by act of parliament) compared to US standards, it does exist.
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
It indicates to me that the British don't take such votes very seriously. But yes, I can see how a nation that would vote to name a royal ship "Boaty McBoatface" would also vote to leave the EU. It's all just a joke after all.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
Cameron was cutting his losses. Being PM is now a poison chalice. He knew that whoever was in the job would have to oversee an economic disaster and the break up of the UK as Scotland and perhaps even Gibraltar and Northern Ireland become independent. It's bad enough that he set up the referendum causing it; he didn't want his legacy to be overseeing it too.
The referendum itself gives May very little mandate. Okay, there was a narrow majority to come out of the EU, but it said nothing about the single market or freedom of movement or any number of other issues.
British democracy is now well and truly broken. May can rule, totally unelected and with no mandate, for another four years. That's long enough to leave the EU and set up deals with no say from the electorate, and by the time the next election comes around it will be too late to undo it. It's not like we can just re-join the EU or the single market. She seems to be planning to implement the wishes of a hard core minority of voters, against popular opinion and without a mandate.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why is my post at -1? When I talk about moderation abuse, this is it. Seriously, can anyone explain why this system makes sense?
1) Scotland and Northern Ireland get a bad deal here since they wanted to remain in the EU. This is against their will. This would be harder in the US system.
2) Why should the Prime minister be ousted? This makes no sense.
3) When votes are done by elected officials, there aren't debates about whether the vote should count or of a revote is needed. No matter how things turn out, people will have a case if they say the outcome isn't valid.
Why is this system a good thing? Seriously, I think the US system makes more sense and I asked my questions in good faith.
1)It wasn't a separate vote, it was a UK vote. The result was the result like it or not for the UK. If you lose a vote you can't just pick up you ball and go do whatever anyway. It doesn't work like that.
2)The PM wasn't ousted he quit because he didn't want to deal with this mess he got us into.
3) When such a big decision comes out so close to a 50/50 split and pretty much all of the experts agree the 'wrong' side won, not least because of massive lies told during the campaign that were admitted to be lies on result day and the protest vote factor it's not quite as definitive as some people might like to imply.
The system sucks and is rotten to the core but is it seriously worse that what america is facing with trump v clinton. tsa, patriot act and all that? I'm not so sure that either are worth shouting about.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Do you write your replies in notepad and paste them in or something?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
... to ensure that all dystopian fiction UK writers and media produce appear more real.
"So yes, getting things done in the U.S. system is harder, and it's easier for a few states to block legislation. That doesn't mean the U.S. system has greater legitimacy, quite the opposite. The state governments are barely accountable for their actions, and even a party with strong popular support can fail to get its legislation passed thanks to the byzantine electoral system."
I think you have a rose tinted view of the UK's electoral system if you genuinely believe it leads to greater accountability. Let's be clear here, the ruling party has 100% of the power in the UK despite only representing 37% of the voting electorate in this parliament, worse though, party leaders determine the direction of the country and are typically the figurehead that people vote for, and as such when there is a handover in this case, the country can be pushed in a direction that is completely against the will of the people. Theresa May now has the option to take the country in whatever direction she wants for 4 years despite having no democratic mandate to do so, beyond on one simple point, that we should leave the EU but with no definition of when or how.
The UK would be better if it had proportional representation, but it doesn't, due to first past the post, the UK's electoral system nearly always turns out what can be best described as minority backed dictatorship as the British system almost never turns out a party backed by a majority, or a coalition backed by a combined majority. The last government was the first exception in a hundred years where we had a coalition that actually represented a compromise goverment covering over 50% of the population's votes.
The idea of our system is that it leaves us with local representatives, but even this is broken and is in itself the source of the problem - at local level the representatives can be even less representative, in some constituencies a represented is elected with less than 25% of local support, this absurd situation means that someone who is meant to represent his local region is actually opposed by over 75% of the people that live there. If those 75% are liberal and support gay married, whereas the other 25% are an organised church loving, gay hating minority, then that representative may vote in a manner that the vast majority of his constituents are firmly opposed to.
Germany is one of the better examples of governance in the world. Picking between the UK and US electoral systems is like narrowing yourself to a choice between Stalin and Hitler as your leader when you could instead go with a 3rd option and just have Churchill.
1. Democracy rules. Scotland already had an independence vote, the answer was no. They must, therefore, surrender to the will of the Majority.
2. He wasn't ousted, he walked because things didn't go his way. His replacement is the same but WORSE.
3. I don't get it. What did I just read??
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland was bordering on 50% too, so, it's not like it was a blanket vote there either. Around 50% of people will be satisfied either way. So, no, not necessarily a bad deal really for all in those countries as you make it out.
I should note that I live in the only county in Northern Ireland that voted majority leave, what about counties? Should we start splitting up the counties too?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yes, gerrymandering causes some problems...
Some problems? You make it sound like a coffee stain on a brown T-shirt. Gerrymandering is a huge problem in the US.
Why does this reminds me of German politics in 1933? Is there a Nazi party making sure she is elected absolute leader? (Fuhrer/Imperator)
We've got our flag to wave and we've "taken back control"...
Which - unfortunately - is how a large number of people actually think.
Yes, the Boris appointment was very interesting.
Personally, I find it all a little too convenient. It may very well have just been chance, but I wonder if Boris and Gove set up their 'stabbing in the back' thing as a way for Boris to exit from a situation he could not win from. Before his good friend Gove did this, Boris was basically trapped and would have had to follow through with brexit and all the ridiculous promises he made. He would basically have had to upset both the brexiters (by not being able to deliver on all the promises he made) and remainers (who see him as an unprincipled opportunist). He could have ended as the most hated prime minister in history, without anyone else to blame since he was the face of the brexit campaign.
If you consider his position, then what Gove did was actually an incredibly effective way for Boris to escape the trap. Gove spent his public image (which is off little value to him), and Boris got to preserve his by crawling off with hurt feelings, gaining some sympathy from the public instead of its scorn, and not having to deal with being labelled a quitter.
This would also explain a plot hole that didn't make sense to me before, around why Boris didn't just remain in the leadership race despite Gove joining. In the end all Gove had was claims that Boris wouldn't be a good leader. A seasoned politician like Boris could have easily run a PR campaign back that he would be a good leader, and discredit Gove (after all Gove had just stabbed him in the back). So why did he decide he suddenly had no chance of winning?
I suspect from this appointment that May was involved as well, and was promised the premiership at least until the next election. My prediction is Gove will do his 'penance' and then come back to the cabinet in a few months time, and Boris will start figuring out how to engineer a comeback as the 'hero of brexit' once May has done all the dirty work for him.
"-1, Overrated" works, too.
I always find it funny to get a "-1, Overrated" applied to a post that has no other moderation.
Love sees no species.
British democracy is now well and truly broken.
It's always been like that. 99+% of the population didn't vote for the porcophile either.
I guess that also explains Boris Johnson as Foreign Minster.
We are seriously going to run out of simile soon. This is quite the most bizarre and unlikely position to be in, truth being stranger than fiction and all that.
She's put Bam-bam in as foreign secretary, and she's left a homeopathy supporter in charge of the NHS. However she HAS had the good sense to get rid of Michael Gove (snake in the grass has been returned to the green pastures of the Back Benches).
Where is Spitting Image when you need it?
She will begin as prime minister of UK, and end as the prime minister of United England and Wales, once Scotland and Northern Ireland leaves.
Scotland voted no because they would not be able to stay in the EU otherwise. Since UK exits the EU anyway, there is one reason less for Scotland to remain a part of UK.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
Cameron was cutting his losses. Being PM is now a poison chalice. He knew that whoever was in the job would have to oversee an economic disaster and the break up of the UK as Scotland and perhaps even Gibraltar and Northern Ireland become independent. It's bad enough that he set up the referendum causing it; he didn't want his legacy to be overseeing it too.
The referendum itself gives May very little mandate. Okay, there was a narrow majority to come out of the EU, but it said nothing about the single market or freedom of movement or any number of other issues.
British democracy is now well and truly broken. May can rule, totally unelected and with no mandate, for another four years. That's long enough to leave the EU and set up deals with no say from the electorate, and by the time the next election comes around it will be too late to undo it. It's not like we can just re-join the EU or the single market. She seems to be planning to implement the wishes of a hard core minority of voters, against popular opinion and without a mandate.
Indeed, its clear why all the 'Leave' campaigners ran away as soon as they won; they knew what a mess they had created and have distanced themselves from it. All I can think is that the likes of Boris, Farage and Gove hate Britain and would like to see it broken up.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
It indicates to me that the British don't take such votes very seriously. But yes, I can see how a nation that would vote to name a royal ship "Boaty McBoatface" would also vote to leave the EU. It's all just a joke after all.
'Boaty McBoatface' was the least offensive option; the names that actually won the most votes were "Fuckface" and "Poopybum" but they got censored out. You might be able to tell from this that the British have a juvenile sense of humor but are too prudish to admit it and therefore hate themselves. Thats why they voted 'Leave'; because they hate themselves, and they especially hate young people (who will be the ones who have to grow up with the results of this fiasco).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
Very much so. If you strongly disagree with a decision, and can't see how to do it without causing a disaster, you are definitely not the person to be implementing it. Let someone who thought it was a good idea show you what nuance you were missing.
I read that appointing BoJo as Foreign Minister is like appointing Dan Quayle as US Sec'y of State... or maybe worse.
I remember an Atlantic? NatRev? cover in the late eighties, that was a map of the world, divided into "ok to send VP Dan Quayle, not ok, and deep do-do if he goes there...."
mark
The U.K. Constitution is now almost wholly written in light of decades of law reform in the area, but it's not consolidated into a single document, and is not especially well codified. (See the final paragraph below).
Since 1997 there has been a significant roll-back of the personal prerogative by successive Parliaments legislating in areas where it was routinely exercised. As a recently relevant example, the Lascelles principles (from the Senex letters, for example) became obsolete with the Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 (which controls events upon the demise of a government by expiration, resignation or loss of confidence), and several recent Representation of the People Acts and some acts controlling secondary legislation such as the Cabinet Manual, which outlines the continuity of government in the event of a demise (death or resignation) of the Prime Minister. The Queen did not have a right to reject Theresa May as Prime Minister even if Cameron's careful announcement of his plan to first tender his resignation and then recommend his successor described the actual order of events; her personal prerogative in the area is obsolete, and the (advised) prerogative vested in Cameron is now strictly controlled by statute.
For better or for worse, what's missing in the UK Constitution is a clear and standard entrenching mechanism. Practically every Constitutional scholar and lawyer in the country would agree that there *is* entrenching, and the concept that one Parliament cannot bind the next has been obsolete as a legal reality for some time, and as a political one for even longer. Ignoring entrenchings coupled to international treaties (e.g. the Single European Act), and entrenchings in the terms of statutes themselves, there are entrenchings controlled by terms in other Acts of Parliament. The tower of legislation needed to remove the Scotland Act would be enormous, for example. And the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Attorney-General will be busy for years trying to identify what legislation will need to be included in the effective repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. A misstep will indeed risk the whole enterprise being declared defective by UK courts, which would effectively require Parliament to legislate to correct the defect or outright overrule the ruling (which in turn would need to be done carefully, otherwise "ping pong" results).
In effect, the major difference between Parliamentary supremacy in the UK in 2016 and Constitutional supremacy in Canada or Australia in 2016 is that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Australia have prerogative powers that are *protected from* the federal parliaments by the Constitution. In the UK, any royal prereogative can be removed by Parliament, and the only protection today is the Queen's Consent (or the Prince's Consent where relevant), which are implemented as standing rules of the House of Commons and subject to change at the will of the majority of MPs. In Canada, for example, an enumerated power of the executive (e.g. the power to appoint Senators where there are vacancies) cannot be removed without the consent of some or all of the provincial legislatures. Several non-enumerated powers have been held by the courts in Canada to require provincial consent too. In the UK, by contrast, the power to summon members of the House of Lords has been modified by Parliament (and in some cases the House of Commons) acting alone several times in the past century, and even in the years since the effective federalism of devolution has arrived as a constitutional reality.
(A clear example is considering the difference between the Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 in the UK, which withdrew a prerogative power altogether (preventing the executive from dissolving Parliament and calling an election), and the Canada Elections Act 2000 which in establishing fixed election dates had to consider that dissolution cannot be removed without a formal constitutional amendment involving provincial consent
The Mandate for naming the RSS Boaty McBoatface was clear. The mandate for leaving the EU is not. Guess which we're doing!
This is why I love the British, their sense of humor makes a joke of everything. "Boaty McBoatface", "Leave the EU", it's all the same to them.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
>Picking between the UK and US electoral systems is like narrowing yourself to a choice between Stalin and Hitler as your leader when you could instead go with a 3rd option and just have Churchill.
While I thoroughly agree with your post - your choice of a 'good' third choice was terrible. Churchill was one of the worst leaders in world history. He willfully starved over 3 million children in India and when called out for it said 'let the Indians learn to take care of themselves, like we did' - which ignored that they HAD. The Indian government had over thousands of years developed a system to protect themselves from famines during that part of the monsoon cycle where you get several years of consecutive drought (which comes around ever few decades). They mandated a minimum percentage of crops be storeable crops (grains generally) which were kept in central storage locations and handed out in times of drought. It was Britain who dismantled this system - the empire demanded cash crops like cotton over storeable food crops like grains, and didn't store anything for droughts. When drought inevitably came - it came with famines. The one under Churchill was merely the last one - in total the British dismantling of India's food security program killed close to 20 million people (mostly children) over numerous famines. He was also the first head of state to ever use chemical weapons - and he used them on civilians.
In short - Churchil was a truly terrible person, he only looks good because the guy opposite him is literally Hitler.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>1)It wasn't a separate vote, it was a UK vote. The result was the result like it or not for the UK. If you lose a vote you can't just pick up you ball and go do whatever anyway. It doesn't work like that.
You should tell Texas that - they threaten secession every time a democrat wins the white house. The difference of course is that, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland - there isn't a pre-existing and well defined protocol that allows for Texas to leave the union and form an independent country if enough Texans support it. The last time states tried to do so - it led to a civil war. It's unlikely that if Scotland chose to leave the UK they UK would start a war to force them to stay and not only because the UK's nukes are all in Scotland and the Scots would obviously cease them if a war happen and basically get to say "End the war or London is a glass parking lot".
After centuries of war and conquest the system of today was formed - which makes Scottland's membership of the UK voluntary and they still have their own parliament, laws and their own legal system (which is markedly different from the English one). If they wanted to leave the UK entirely (which would basically come down to replacing the Queen with a President or something and no longer being subject to English foreign policy or treaties) they have the legal right and means to do so.
There are areas where becoming sovereign is an easy option to allow you to avoid being forced into something voted for by others - and areas where it is not. But your claims is a major oversimplification of reality at best, an outright lie at worst.
>2)The PM wasn't ousted he quit because he didn't want to deal with this mess he got us into.
Well he was a terrible PM, getting rid of him is a good thing - but her track record suggests the BEST we can hope for is for May to be AS BAD as he was.
>3) When such a big decision comes out so close to a 50/50 split and pretty much all of the experts agree the 'wrong' side won, not least because of massive lies told during the campaign that were admitted to be lies on result day and the protest vote factor it's not quite as definitive as some people might like to imply.
If there is something key missing from modern day representative democracies it is a way to instantly punish failures to follow through on election promises. Imagine if - as part of the campaign a party had to publicly publish draft legislation for each election promise they made - and all of this automatically got agenda'd in parliament/congress if they won. Where it could get amended (but not so it fails to fulfill the promise - which a court challenge could judge) or lose but there would simply be no option NOT to introduce it. And if you walk back a promise after a vote the vote is automatically invalidated.
The first brexit promise to be walked back happened less than an hour after the results - by the end of the weekend they had walked back every promise they made, with zero intention of making any of them happen. That alone ought to invalidate the result.
Now it's possible that leave could win without those lies - but I strongly doubt it, failing to implement (or at least table legislation) to achieve a promise made should invalidate the election and lead to an automatic revote.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>The vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland was bordering on 50% too
Only if you combine them - which doesn't make any sense. By itself Scotland OVERWHELMINGLY voted remain - closer to 60%.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually, if I combine them, it makes your point. However, I didn't combine them, I looked at the largest geographical areas for Scotland on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-p...
The vast majority of larger counties in reality are closer to 50% than 60%, it's really just the numerous smaller counties that pushed it upwards. That's not really "overwhelming" to me.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
"While I thoroughly agree with your post - your choice of a 'good' third choice was terrible."
I don't see how this can realistically be blamed on Churchill, it was an inherited problem, and Britain was in the midst of war with barely enough resources to feed it's own population. What exactly could he have even done by that point? India was already defacto out of British rule by that point anyway because it was a condition of India's support for Britain in the war, hence why a mere 4 years later they were able to transition to full independence.
Do I think Churchill was perfect? No, his government after all was responsible for the treatment of Turing and Turing's resultant death. But Churchill did a lot of incredibly good things as well, the European Court of Human Rights being an obvious example, but his efforts post-war were what led directly, and indirectly to things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, the EU and so on and so forth - institutions he either led creation of, or created the environment in which such institutions could be created have created decades of European stability, and given justice to and protected the human rights of millions.
If you judge him by the standards of the time he was far and away about the most progressive leader going. Of course, standards at the time were pretty poor sure, but it's still a night and day choice between Churchill, Stalin and Hitler - declaring him one of the worst leaders in history is rather over the top hyperbole, you're effectively basing that on making him guilty of inaction in not pulling a magic trick to resolve a problem he did not cause and could not realistically resolve, and ignoring the fact that the ideas he had and institutions he created are what have led to the stability and success of the modern Western world. This is something that is all too well being eroded as modern leaders regularly declare things like human rights as bad, or try and shout down the international criminal court because it dares to try and tackle war criminals and so forth. Churchill sought to create structures and institutions that would prevent or minimise the likelihood of the atrocities of World War II ever coming to the fore on that scale again, and to bring justice when they do happen. As much as modern world leaders are now fighting back against that, he has to date, been completely successful, and so if you do blame those 3 million Indian deaths on him you must also credit him with the 100s of millions of lives he's saved both in helping to push an end to the war, and with the prevention of further instability preventing further wars and war crimes since. You cannot simply pick some indirect problem and blame it on him without also accepting the other indirect good things.
An inherritted problem is only an excuse if you did something to fix it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *