Jo Johnson quits UK government, urges referendum to avoid Brexit chaos

[rooster59]

Jo Johnson quits UK government, urges referendum to avoid Brexit chaos

By Andrew MacAskill and Kylie MacLellan

 

FILE PHOTO: Jo Johnson arrives at 10 Downing Street, London, Britain, January 9, 2018. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Jo Johnson, the younger brother of Boris, resigned from British Prime Minister Theresa May's government on Friday, calling in a withering critique for another referendum to avoid her Brexit plans unleashing Britain's greatest crisis since World War Two.

 

Quitting as a junior transport minister, Johnson called May's Brexit plans delusional and said he could not vote for the deal she is expected to unveil in parliament within weeks.

 

"Britain stands on the brink of the greatest crisis since the Second World War," said Johnson, a former Financial Times journalist who voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum.

 

Johnson, 46, called it the worst failure of statecraft since the 1956 Suez canal crisis, in which Britain was humiliatingly forced by the United States to withdraw its troops from Egypt.

 

"To present the nation with a choice between two deeply unattractive outcomes, vassalage and chaos, is a failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis," he said.

 

"Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say," he added.

 

Johnson's criticism underscored the travails that May faces in getting any Brexit divorce deal, which London and Brussels say is 95 percent done, approved by her own fractious party.

 

The pound sank to a day's low beneath $1.30 on the resignation and also fell against the euro. It was unclear whether others would follow Johnson out of government.

 

In the June 2016 referendum, 17.4 million voters, or 51.9 percent, backed leaving the EU while 16.1 million, or 48.1 percent, backed staying.

 

Johnson wants a three-way referendum giving the people a choice between remaining in the EU, May's deal and no deal.

 

May's office rejected his call, saying Britain would not hold a second referendum on its EU membership "under any circumstances".

 

"UNITED IN DISMAY"

 

Johnson is the 14th minister to have resigned from government since November last year and the most senior to have called for another referendum in his leaving statement.

 

His resignation was published after May spent much of the day in France and Belgium, laying wreaths alongside fellow leaders to mark the centenary of the end of World War One.

 

As negotiations with Brussels enter their final fraught stage, May’s approach is under fire from all sides of the divisive Brexit debate.

 

Many politicians are unhappy with her compromise plans to maintain the free trade of goods with the EU, which they say will leave Britain subject to decisions in Brussels without any input.

 

In his 1,600-word resignation statement, Johnson said May's proposed deal would leave Britain in a "far worse" negotiating position than now, adding he also knew from his work at the Department of Transport how painful a "no deal" Brexit would be.

 

Boris Johnson, a leading supporter of Brexit who quit as foreign secretary in July, praised his brother's decision, saying they were "united in dismay" - despite their opposing views on Brexit - over May's handling of the negotiations.

 

May is expected to hold a cabinet meeting later this month in the hope of securing ministers' support for her negotiating stance and hopes to strike an exit deal with the EU in the next few weeks.

 

Compounding May's problems on Friday, the Northern Irish party that props up her minority government cast her Brexit negotiation as a betrayal and said it could not support any deal that divided the United Kingdom.

 

The Democratic Unionist Party interpreted a promise made by May in a letter that she would never let a division of the UK "come into force" as an admission that such a clause would be included in a final deal.

 

As campaigners step up pressure on the government calling for the public to be given another say on Brexit, the opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn dashed campaigners' hopes he could back another referendum.

 

Asked by German magazine Der Spiegel if he would stop Brexit if he could, Corbyn said: "We can't stop it. The referendum took place....What we can do is recognise the reasons why people voted leave."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-10

[Samui Bodoh]

Boris has a brother? There are two of them? Bloody hell!

 

"...Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say," he added..."

 

I very much agree that there should be a second vote on Brexit.

 

Yes, the pro-Brexit people will say that the vote was taken, the parties stated that they would respect the results and that should be the end of the matter. And, honesty makes me say that there is a great deal of validity to that argument.

 

However, I think the case for having a second vote is even stronger. The UK does not have consensus on this matter, and given that it is the most significant issue of public policy in the last 50+ years, there needs to be some kind of consensus. The parties do not agree, the Parliament does not agree (there isn't even a one party majority government!). Business does not agree. Civil Society does not agree. The four countries that make up the UK do not agree. There needs to be consensus.

 

What happens if this goes ahead without some kind of second vote? It is a matter of speculation, but it is easy to see that there will be great rifts in society and politics; every time something goes bad (and it will; something always goes wrong) people are going to blame Brexit. Economy goes bad? Blame Brexit. Lose seat on the UN Security Council? Blame Brexit. Shut out of meetings about European affairs? Blame Brexit. Can't get a favourable trade deal? Blame Brexit. EU makes a policy which hurts the UK? Blame Brexit, Dog escaped the yard? Blame Brexit. Traffic lights go out for an hour? Blame Brexit. Little girl fell off her bike? Blame Brexit. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

Not reaching some kind of consensus will doom the UK (should it still exist in 10-20 years) to eternal debates of 'what if?' 'What might have been?' 'What if it didn't leave?' Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

If there is consensus on a leaving arrangement, the UK will peacefully go to the future as a non-member of Europe/the EU. If not, there will be endless debates, discussions, arguments, spats, recriminations, etc for generations.

 

If you are tired of the Brexit discussion now, wait another five years...

 

Ouch...

 

 

[Somtamnication]

Never knew the other guy had a brother. Yawn.....

[HappyAndRich]

Britain looks like sinking once again. Wonder how that´s gonna affect the already weak pound?

[brewsterbudgen]

The march towards an inevitable "people's vote" on this sorry mess continues...

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sammieuk1]

The sane sibling has spoken wise words on the petrol soaked bonfire that is Brexit ????

[mfd101]

It won't be just 7000 watching B&W television, it'll be the whole 65 million of them!

[anon537687643]

The march towards an inevitable "people's vote" on this sorry mess continues...

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Haha dream on! Just what the obstructionist EU and the Europhile lackies In UK want ! The broken,bankrupt, failing and dying EU can go to hell!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Retiredandhappyhere]

There are of course legitimate arguments on Brexit on both sides, leave or remain, but some of the doom and gloom predictions about the proposed deal, (and there will be one) are so ludicrous as to warrant dismissal.  Clearly, there will be some initial disruption, particularly to the exchange rate, but the UK managed before the EU and will do so again.  The doomsters would have us believe that all trade with the EU will virtually stop and the UK will collapse if there is no deal, which is nonsense.

 

Meanwhile, among all the uncertainty of the prolonged Brexit negotiations, the UK economy in the last quarter performed at its best sine the end of 2016.  So far, the only real casualty of all the uncertainty, so hated by businesses, is the exchange rate.  Once that uncertainty is removed, business and the exchange rate will be able to flourish.

 

People constantly criticising Theresa May for the "uncertainty" might want to explain exactly how she can possibly give certainty while negotiations are continuing.  When big business is in the middle of takeover negotiations, of course there is uncertainty, which can only be resolved when negotiation are completed and not before.  Once a deal is agreed with the EU, all the pessimistic doom and gloom predictions will be shown to be purely alarmist and a few "over the top" alarmists like Boris Johnson's younger brother, who has just resigned, will look a bit silly, as well as jobless.

[damascase]

2 hours ago, markaoffy said:

Haha dream on! Just what the obstructionist EU and the Europhile lackies In UK want ! The broken,bankrupt, failing and dying EU can go to hell!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

What kind of evil has the EU done to you, to wish them to hell?

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by CharlieH
Personal comment removed

[terryw]

If there was a 2nd Referendum then this would lead to a constitutional crisis. We had a peoples vote in 2016.

 

If Mays deal goes ahead the Tories will be defeated at the next election because many Brexit voters will refuse to support them.

 

If it is No Deal then they will likely also lose the next election because of their incompetance in failing to prepare for this situation. The media will destroy the Tories will negative stories everyday.

 

Either way it looks like Corbyn and his idiots will be the next Government.

[Enoon]

37 minutes ago, terryw said:

If there was a 2nd Referendum then this would lead to a constitutional crisis. We had a peoples vote in 2016.

 

 

 

No it wouldn't.

 

The previous vote had/has, in law, no Constitutional strength or validity.

 

The ongoing constitutional crisis is a result of claims that such a vote had/has/would have.

 

Provoked by those who sought/seek to overrule the Supremacy of Parliament and rule by "popular" Dictatorship.

 

Britain is in the midst of the worst domestic crisis since The English and Scottish Civil Wars:

 

A challenge to the Supremacy of Parliament, that would permit Prayuth-like rule by decree, based on the narrow results of this weeks frenzied, hysterical, "popular" vote by the mob.

 

Provoked by, among others, his brother.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Enoon

[David in the north]

What part of "out" is too difficult to understand?

Lets keep voting until we give the "right" answer - as per other countries in the dreadful EU
Pathetic

[dick dasterdly]

"Britain stands on the brink of the greatest crisis since the Second World War," said Johnson, a former Financial Times journalist who voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum."

 

The emboldened part says it all....

 

"Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say," 

 

Good point, but he goes on to make it clear that he doesn't actually care about the likely deal turning out to 'be so far from what was once promised' - as he goes on to say he "wants a three-way referendum giving the people a choice between remaining in the EU, May's deal and no deal."

 

Of course the emboldened part is what he always desired, and has nothing to do with the likely deal being "far from what was once promised".....

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Corbyn said: "We can't stop it. The referendum took place...

Corbyn is an ignoramus. As leader of her majesty's opposition he should know the key constitutional issues: representative democracy with parliamentary sovereignty. He should be publically de-anoraked. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Grouse
Couldn't spell anorak

[dick dasterdly]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Boris has a brother? There are two of them? Bloody hell!

 

"...Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say," he added..."

 

I very much agree that there should be a second vote on Brexit.

 

Yes, the pro-Brexit people will say that the vote was taken, the parties stated that they would respect the results and that should be the end of the matter. And, honesty makes me say that there is a great deal of validity to that argument.

 

However, I think the case for having a second vote is even stronger. The UK does not have consensus on this matter, and given that it is the most significant issue of public policy in the last 50+ years, there needs to be some kind of consensus. The parties do not agree, the Parliament does not agree (there isn't even a one party majority government!). Business does not agree. Civil Society does not agree. The four countries that make up the UK do not agree. There needs to be consensus.

 

What happens if this goes ahead without some kind of second vote? It is a matter of speculation, but it is easy to see that there will be great rifts in society and politics; every time something goes bad (and it will; something always goes wrong) people are going to blame Brexit. Economy goes bad? Blame Brexit. Lose seat on the UN Security Council? Blame Brexit. Shut out of meetings about European affairs? Blame Brexit. Can't get a favourable trade deal? Blame Brexit. EU makes a policy which hurts the UK? Blame Brexit, Dog escaped the yard? Blame Brexit. Traffic lights go out for an hour? Blame Brexit. Little girl fell off her bike? Blame Brexit. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

Not reaching some kind of consensus will doom the UK (should it still exist in 10-20 years) to eternal debates of 'what if?' 'What might have been?' 'What if it didn't leave?' Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

If there is consensus on a leaving arrangement, the UK will peacefully go to the future as a non-member of Europe/the EU. If not, there will be endless debates, discussions, arguments, spats, recriminations, etc for generations.

 

If you are tired of the Brexit discussion now, wait another five years...

 

Ouch...

 

 

"The UK does not have consensus on this matter, and given that it is the most significant issue of public policy in the last 50+ years, there needs to be some kind of consensus. The parties do not agree, the Parliament does not agree (there isn't even a one party majority government!). Business does not agree. Civil Society does not agree. The four countries that make up the UK do not agree. There needs to be consensus."

 

It is extremely unlikely that another referendum will result in consensus amongst the electorate!

 

The same divisions will still exist, and the divisions will probably become even more bad-tempered and divisive.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, terryw said:

If there was a 2nd Referendum then this would lead to a constitutional crisis. We had a peoples vote in 2016.

 

If Mays deal goes ahead the Tories will be defeated at the next election because many Brexit voters will refuse to support them.

 

If it is No Deal then they will likely also lose the next election because of their incompetance in failing to prepare for this situation. The media will destroy the Tories will negative stories everyday.

 

Either way it looks like Corbyn and his idiots will be the next Government.

The correct solution is to have a parliamentary vote and have the decision ratified by referendum

Edited November 10, 2018 by Grouse

[Grouse]

54 minutes ago, David in the north said:

What part of "out" is too difficult to understand?

Lets keep voting until we give the "right" answer - as per other countries in the dreadful EU
Pathetic

No. One remain result will give our spineless politicians the back bone to stop Brexit and NEVER ask the population for an opinion ever again

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Grouse said:

No. One remain result will give our spineless politicians the back bone to stop Brexit and NEVER ask the population for an opinion ever again

For very good reasons, the vast majority of us (?) are not all convinced that politicians act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves....

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, David in the north said:

What part of "out" is too difficult to understand?

Lets keep voting until we give the "right" answer - as per other countries in the dreadful EU
Pathetic

 

it was not a unanimous vote, it was not even a clear majority vote, it was a simple majority vote vote of less 52%.

 

The voters were mislead and there was nether a clear plan of how we would exit and under what terms.

 

Now many of those who did vote leave realize the Sun does not shine out of Jo's brothers backside.

[Grouse]

28 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

For very good reasons, the vast majority of us (?) are not all convinced that politicians act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves....

MPs are spineless for the most part and are focused on their own seats

 

They SHOULD be voting remain in the obvious best interest of the country and their constituents.

 

A Remain ratification would give them the back bone

[Basil B]

The big mistake was not to make it binding on a "clear" majority of 60% or 65% or 2/3rds else let it remain "status quo", I feel this should be the norm for all referendums.

[Lokie]

I always thought you have a vote and who ever gets most votes wins, seems fair and square to me that

 

Unless you are a Remainer it appears...?

[dick dasterdly]

40 minutes ago, Grouse said:

MPs are spineless for the most part and are focused on their own seats

 

They SHOULD be voting remain in the obvious best interest of the country and their constituents.

 

A Remain ratification would give them the back bone

"They SHOULD be voting remain in the obvious best interest of the country and their constituents."

 

Quite apart from the fact that "SHOULD" is the operative word in this sentence, this is clearly not the case as you agree "MPs are spineless for the most part and are focused on their own seats"!

 

So why on earth do you have such confidence in them??

 

It's very clear that they will not necessarily act in the "best interest of the country" - far less the best interest of "their constituents" - unless forced to do so, and only then - because they fear losing their seats....

[sukhumvitneon]

7 hours ago, mfd101 said:

It won't be just 7000 watching B&W television, it'll be the whole 65 million of them!

Just make sure you adjust your TV license billing so you get the B&W discount

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The big mistake was not to make it binding on a "clear" majority of 60% or 65% or 2/3rds else let it remain "status quo", I feel this should be the norm for all referendums.

Actually, I agree with this.

 

If the govt. had declared that a 60% majority of those that voted was required to change the status quo, I've no doubt that the leavers would have accepted this - whilst (of course), those who felt very strongly on the issue would have continued voting for UKIP.

 

But it's too late now to use this as an argument.  The govt. stated that they would accept and implement a simple majority vote.

Edited November 10, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[300sd]

As an outsider, let me just settle this for you:

 

Get out, no deal.....run as fast as you can. Be a country again.

[gamini]

5 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

There are of course legitimate arguments on Brexit on both sides, leave or remain, but some of the doom and gloom predictions about the proposed deal, (and there will be one) are so ludicrous as to warrant dismissal.  Clearly, there will be some initial disruption, particularly to the exchange rate, but the UK managed before the EU and will do so again.  The doomsters would have us believe that all trade with the EU will virtually stop and the UK will collapse if there is no deal, which is nonsense.

 

Meanwhile, among all the uncertainty of the prolonged Brexit negotiations, the UK economy in the last quarter performed at its best sine the end of 2016.  So far, the only real casualty of all the uncertainty, so hated by businesses, is the exchange rate.  Once that uncertainty is removed, business and the exchange rate will be able to flourish.

 

People constantly criticising Theresa May for the "uncertainty" might want to explain exactly how she can possibly give certainty while negotiations are continuing.  When big business is in the middle of takeover negotiations, of course there is uncertainty, which can only be resolved when negotiation are completed and not before.  Once a deal is agreed with the EU, all the pessimistic doom and gloom predictions will be shown to be purely alarmist and a few "over the top" alarmists like Boris Johnson's younger brother, who has just resigned, will look a bit silly, as well as jobless.

The UK performed well because it is still in the EU!

[joecoolfrog]

I voted remain , not because I agree with the EU federalist dream ( which is a grand illusion ) , simply because I feared the current mess.

The die is now cast though , there is no pulling back , we will leave the EU though frankly in name only.

I predicted immediately after the vote that very little would actually change , we would simply have wasted 5 years ( and more importantly I would have suffered from a weak Sterling rate for the duration).

Nothing I have seen persuades me I was wrong , we will end up with a fudged deal that will essentially satisfy nobody. There is no alternative though when the country is almost equally at odds with itself.

The blame game will go on but nobody comes out well , the EU dont forget have blood on their hands as well. The beaurocrats have rigidly stuck to an agenda and ignored the desires of millions of citizens ( not merely the British by any means).

Had Cameron been offered a few scraps of comfort , Brexit would not have happened , thats the truth of it.

 

[AlexRich]

The problem with the referendum decision is that the extreme Brexiteer’s viewed it as a “winner takes all” situation, allowing them to force the hardest of Brexit down the throats of the UK populace, some 66 million. 17 million voted leave, for a variety of reasons. But what about the rest? The wisest approach would have been to find some common ground, respect the fact that many people did not want this, and went for a softer option. I think most would have got behind this. What surprises me about Jo Johnson is his surprise that we ended up here?