UK lawmakers reject PM Johnson's request to hold an early election

[webfact]

UK lawmakers reject PM Johnson's request to hold an early election

 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seen after Britain's parliament voted on whether to hold an early general election, in Parliament in London, Britain, September 10, 2019, in this still image taken from Parliament TV footage. Parliament TV via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's parliament on Tuesday rejected Prime Minister Boris Johnson's call for a national parliamentary election, voting against the government's request for a national ballot.

 

To call an election, the government needs 434 votes - two-thirds of all lawmakers elected to the 650-seat lower house of parliament. In a vote in the early hours of Tuesday only 293 backed the government's proposal.

 

(Reporting by William James, Editing by Kylie MacLellan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-10

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[TopDeadSenter]

To be fair there is not much point having any more elections. The concept of the losing side consenting to the public vote which is the cornerstone of our democracy has been destroyed by remainers. This was the ultimate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just wait until one day they win an election and then are not allowed to govern(because the voters were too stump stupid to make the "right" decision and further elections are needed). Delicious irony for sure! The age of whoever throws the biggest tantrum winning their political aims will be a rocky ride.

[webfact]

Britain's Johnson tells parliament - You can tie my hands, but I will not delay Brexit

By William James and Kylie MacLellan

 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks ahead of the vote on whether to hold an early election, in Parliament in London, Britain, September 9, 2019, in this still image taken from Parliament TV footage. Parliament TV via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Tuesday he would not request an extension to Brexit, hours after a law came into force demanding that he delay Britain's departure from the European Union until 2020 unless he can strike a divorce deal.

 

For the second time in a week, lawmakers rejected Johnson's request to try and break the deadlock through an early national election. Parliament is now due to be suspended until Oct. 14.

 

Johnson appeared to have lost control of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union with the approval of the law, which obliges him to seek a delay unless he can strike a new deal at an EU summit next month.

 

EU leaders have repeatedly said they have not received specific proposals ahead of an EU summit on Oct. 17 and 18, at which Johnson hopes he can secure a deal.

 

"This government will press on with negotiating a deal, while preparing to leave without one," Johnson told parliament after the result of the vote on an early election.

 

"I will go to that crucial summit on October the 17th and no matter how many devices this parliament invents to tie my hands, I will strive to get an agreement in the national interest ... This government will not delay Brexit any further."

 

Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party was eager for an election, but would not support Johnson's move to hold one until it was certain a delay to Brexit had been secured.

 

"As keen as we are, we are not prepared to risk inflicting the disaster of no-deal on our communities," Corbyn said.

 

Brexit, the United Kingdom's most significant geopolitical move in decades, remains in question more than three years since the 2016 referendum, with possible outcomes ranging from an exit on Oct. 31 without a withdrawal agreement to smooth the transition, to abandoning the whole endeavour.

 

The bill seeking to block a no-deal exit, passed into law on Monday when it received assent from Queen Elizabeth, will force Johnson to seek a three-month extension to the Oct. 31 deadline unless parliament has either approved a deal or consented by Oct. 19 to leave without one.

 

Responding to concerns the government could ignore the legislation, Foreign Minister Dominic Raab earlier told parliament that the government would respect the rule of law but added, "Sometimes it can be more complex because there are conflicting laws or competing legal advice."

 

Johnson took over as prime minister in July after his predecessor Theresa May failed to push the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament.

 

Parliament returned from its summer break last week, and Johnson has lost all six votes held in the House of Commons since.

 

Under Johnson's premiership, Britain's three-year Brexit crisis has stepped up a gear, leaving financial markets and businesses bewildered by an array of political decisions that diplomats compare to the style of U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

BlackRock, a U.S. investment firm that manages $6.8 trillion of assets, said a no-deal Brexit or a referendum had become more plausible.

 

The pound trimmed gains against the dollar <GBP=D3>, to stand slightly higher on Monday at $1.234. It jumped to a six-week high of $1.2385 in London trading after economic data beat forecasts.

 

HOUSE OF BREXIT

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, champion of parliament in its move to rein in the prime minister over Brexit, took a veiled swipe at Johnson as he announced on Monday he would stand down from the role, issuing a warning to the government not to "degrade" parliament.

 

Johnson, a former journalist who derided the EU and later became the face of the 2016 Vote Leave campaign, has repeatedly promised to deliver Brexit on Oct. 31.

 

Ireland told Johnson on Monday that he must make specific proposals on the future of the Irish border if there was to be any hope of averting a no-deal departure, saying Dublin could not rely on simple promises.

 

"In the absence of agreed alternative arrangements, no backstop is no deal for us," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, standing beside Johnson, told reporters.

 

"We are open to alternatives, but they must be realistic ones, legally binding and workable, and we haven't received such proposals to date."

 

Varadkar's blunt remarks indicate the difficulty of Johnson's gamble of using the threat of a no-deal exit to convince Germany and France that they must rewrite an exit pact struck last November.

 

"I want to find a deal, I want to get a deal," Johnson said in Dublin, adding that there was plenty of time to find one before the October EU summit.

 

The law that took effect on Monday does allow for one scenario in which a no-deal Brexit could take place on Oct. 31 - if parliament approved a no-deal exit by Oct. 19.

 

However the current parliament would be unlikely to switch stance and approve a no-deal exit by then.

 

Lawmakers voted 311 to 302 on Monday to demand the government publish documents over its planning for a no-deal Brexit and private communications from government officials involved in a decision to suspend parliament.

 

Those calling for the documents to be published say they will show the decision to suspend parliament was politically motivated, as a way to limit discussion on Brexit. The government said the suspension was to give Johnson the chance to set out a new legislative agenda.

 

(Additional reporting by Paul Sandle, Kate Holton, Alistair Smout; Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Clarence Fernandez)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-10

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[brucec64]

28 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

To be fair there is not much point having any more elections. The concept of the losing side consenting to the public vote which is the cornerstone of our democracy has been destroyed by remainers. This was the ultimate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just wait until one day they win an election and then are not allowed to govern(because the voters were too stump stupid to make the "right" decision and further elections are needed). Delicious irony for sure! The age of whoever throws the biggest tantrum winning their political aims will be a rocky ride.

Parliament has 3-4 more years to go before an election is required. Are you requesting a do-over because you don't like to parliament that was elected in the last election? Seems like you are the losing side not consenting to a public vote. How is this different from a second referendum? That is true irony. 

[sammieuk1]

At least he's got 5 ducks in a row and that will be his claim to fame and lasting memory of his turbulent tenure ????

[welovesundaysatspace]

When the electorate doesn’t get it right, they’ll be asked to vote again. Until Boris gets his parliament he wants. 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, brucec64 said:

Parliament has 3-4 more years to go before an election is required. Are you requesting a do-over because you don't like to parliament that was elected in the last election? Seems like you are the losing side not consenting to a public vote. How is this different from a second referendum? That is true irony. 

Seiously, you want "3-4 more years" of this clusterfork, they have more clowns than Billy Smarts circus, with Bercow being the Ringmaster.

Can a government govern the country in a minority, I wouldn't have thought so and as much as the remainers would like to believe there isn't a party to topple this one, Boris is still the most popular leader in the land by a country mile, that is why the other parties are scared to death of an election, they would lose.

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by vogie

[stephenterry]

Most sensible people, including parliament, would reject a 'no-deal'. That's clear. But the impasse is how to reach a deal with the EU, when Johnson is intent of ripping-up the current deal on the table?

 

IMO, he should dump the DUP, for starters. Then dump himself.

 

[stephenterry]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

Seiously, you want "3-4 more years" of this clusterfork, they have more clowns than Billy Smarts circus, with Bercow being the Ringmaster.

Can a government govern the country in a minority, I wouldn't have thought so and as much as the remainers would like to believe there isn't a party to topple this one, Boris is still the most popular leader in the land by a country mile, that is why the other parties are scared to death of an election, they would lose.

 

I don't. Sack the ERG MPs, ignore the DUP, and get May's (amended) agreement back on the table with a few cosmetic tweaks on the backstop and it would pass parliament, IMO.

 

And for the vast majority it wouldn't make a jot of difference to their lifestyle, including posters on this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by stephenterry

[JonnyF]

Remainer MP's call for a vote for 2 years and when they are offered one, they refuse it.

 

Absolute Cowards.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

To be fair there is not much point having any more elections. The concept of the losing side consenting to the public vote which is the cornerstone of our democracy has been destroyed by remainers. This was the ultimate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just wait until one day they win an election and then are not allowed to govern(because the voters were too stump stupid to make the "right" decision and further elections are needed). Delicious irony for sure! The age of whoever throws the biggest tantrum winning their political aims will be a rocky ride.

Do you understand the difference between binding votes and not binding votes?

It's not really that difficult. You could look it up.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Remainer MP's call for a vote for 2 years and when they are offered one, they refuse it.

 

Absolute Cowards.

All johnson has to do is put a deal before parliament to vote on or request an extension to brexit, and then there can be an election. 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Remainer MP's call for a vote for 2 years and when they are offered one, they refuse it.

 

Absolute Cowards.

And I thought Boris told us all he does not want an election. Was he lying? 

[OneMoreFarang]

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And I thought Boris told us all he does not want an election. Was he lying? 

He doesn't want one, but it's the only way out of the deadlock.

 

Unfortunately the cowardly Remainers know they would lose, so they blocked it to protect their own seats.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

All johnson has to do is put a deal before parliament to vote on or request an extension to brexit, and then there can be an election. 

The date of the election could have been easily mandated by Parliament for before the current exit date. 

 

If they Remainers were confident of winning they could have got a majority for Remain and extended themselves and taken power at the same time. But they know they'd lose, so the cowardly anti-democrats blocked the election (as you well know).

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The date of the election could have been easily mandated by Parliament for before the current exit date. 

 

If they Remainers were confident of winning they could have got a majority for Remain and extended themselves and taken power at the same time. But they know they'd lose, so the cowardly anti-democrats blocked the election (as you well know).

They know Boris can't be trusted. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Another problem for Boris. ????

 

[Rookiescot]

If we can organize an election so quickly why cant we organize a referendum with the options deal, no deal or remain.

 

That way the will of the people can be demonstrated and acted upon.

[TopDeadSenter]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you understand the difference between binding votes and not binding votes?

It's not really that difficult. You could look it up.

"The prime minister said: “Everyone is going to have to make their own decision. This is not a debate between politicians. It’s a debate for the whole of the country to get involved in and to make their decision. It’s a very simple question on the ballot paper. You either remain in the European Union or you leave the European Union. It’s a single decision, it’s a final decision.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/26/david-cameron-eu-referendum-peoples-choice-uk

 

 Yes I understand what you are trying to say about binding votes and non binding votes. When your team wins the vote was binding, when you lose it wasn't binding. With Brexit as per the Prime Minister of the day insisted. The people must chose and their decision will be implemented. Can't get much clearer than that I'm afraid!

 

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The date of the election could have been easily mandated by Parliament for before the current exit date. 

 

If they Remainers were confident of winning they could have got a majority for Remain and extended themselves and taken power at the same time. But they know they'd lose, so the cowardly anti-democrats blocked the election (as you well know).

It doesn't work like that. If Johnson had won the vote last night he would then be able to choose the date of the election. Now the opposition parties (not just Labour) have the power to set the date of the election.

 

The decision to vote against revolved around Boris Cummings being a slimey git and choosing a date prior to October 31st to further prevent parliament from preventing a no deal Brexit, which only some Tory MPs want and virtually no one in the opposition. Nothing to do with being cowards. Why would the SNP vote against an election when they are set to sweep the board in Scotland and wipe the Tories off the map? Same with Lib Dems who are predicted to make big gains.

 

Nothing to do with cowardice, all to do with Boris Cummings playing schoolboy games to prevent parliamentary democracy.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

If we can organize an election so quickly why cant we organize a referendum with the options deal, no deal or remain.

 

That way the will of the people can be demonstrated and acted upon.

Only the losers of the referendum support another referendum, most people are quite content to adhere to the one we've had. Not that another referendum would be honoured anyway.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Only the losers of the referendum support another referendum, most people are quite content to adhere to the one we've had. Not that another referendum would be honoured anyway.

I should quote this the next time you demand an early election. 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Only the losers of the referendum support another referendum, most people are quite content to adhere to the one we've had. Not that another referendum would be honoured anyway.

What was the result of the last referendum?

Leave with a deal or leave with no deal?

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Only the losers of the referendum support another referendum, most people are quite content to adhere to the one we've had. Not that another referendum would be honoured anyway.

And then there are the people who educated themselves about the facts about leaving. And many people discovered that the Brexit politicians lied to them.

I am sure you will agree that now, after learning the facts in the last years, the people will be able to make a much better informed decision than in 2016. That's great news, correct?

Who is scarred of listening to better informed voters?

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

What was the result of the last referendum?

Leave with a deal or leave with no deal?

The result............Leave.

[soalbundy]

Just now, vogie said:

Only the losers of the referendum support another referendum, most people are quite content to adhere to the one we've had. Not that another referendum would be honoured anyway.

We don't know if they are quite content, considering what has come to pass I should think that many regret voting leave and would prefer the status quo, of course we could always ask them but I doubt BJ RM and Farage would like that too much.

[vogie]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

And then there are the people who educated themselves about the facts about leaving. And many people discovered that the Brexit politicians lied to them.

I am sure you will agree that now, after learning the facts in the last years, the people will be able to make a much better informed decision than in 2016. That's great news, correct?

Who is scarred of listening to better informed voters?

So original.

[Rookiescot]

Just now, vogie said:

The result............Leave.

Yes we understand that but did the people who voted leave want a deal or no deal exit?

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

The result............Leave.

Yes we understand that but did the people who voted leave want a deal or no deal exit?

No deal was never even mentioned.

I remember them talking about the easiest trade deal ever...