This is where the UK imported Bananas in 1999:
And this is 2014:
Posted on 06/26/2016 10:31:47 AM PDT by orchestra
In the middle of this transformation is none other than Boris Johnson, the leader of the successful "Leave" campaign, who however has cause to celebrate tonight because according to the Sunday Times, the former London mayor has won the backing of a key colleague to replace David Cameron as prime minister. Justice minister Michael Gove, who together with Johnson led the "Leave" campaign, called Johnson on Saturday to say he would back him for the leadership of the ruling Conservative Party, Reuters added.
The Sunday Times said interior minister Theresa May was expected to enter the leadership contest in the coming days and was likely to get support from allies of Cameron who see her as the best candidate to take on Johnson, a former London mayor.
May supported the "Remain" campaign but took a lower profile than Cameron and finance minister George Osborne, whose hopes of becoming the party's next leader took a big blow with the outcome of the referendum.
One also wonders what, if any role, Nigel Farage will hold in the new cabinet: after all, if it weren;'t for the UKIP in last year's elections, David Cameron would have never called the Referendum which has since cost him his job and the UK's presence in the EU. For him to be omitted from any key position would be a massive oversight, and significant gamble, on the part of the Conservative Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Corbyn remaining as Labour leader is far more important than anything the Tories do. With Corbyn in charge, Labour will have a really difficult election.
It won’t be Johnson. Farage will be shut out completely. And there is a strong chance the Brexit will never happen at all.
Where does Boris stand on other issues? Is he similar to Trump?
Well aren’t you quite pessimistic
And you base your opinion on......
I always understood that Boris was the English version of the Tea Party. People were actually talking about him running for office here in the US.
I checked Wikipedia after asking the question. They have a pretty good synopsis of his political views.
He seems to have a lot of overlap with Trump - they’re both pragmatists with no strong ideologies. Boris seems a bit more liberal. Both are nationalists.
EU bureaucrats were meddling in such arcane issues as the shape of cucumbers. Anything not up to a certain standard had to be tossed. This is one reason why the gun laws are so strict. Bureaucrats want to live.
Yay!!
Then expect another hundred years war
Permit me to copy what naturalman1975 has said about this topic. He knows whereof he speaks.
Yes, it is technically true that this vote is non-binding. But that does not mean that the government will be able to get away with not acting on it. Britain’s constitutional law is not neatly expressed in a single document - it’s spread around a variety of different places, but it does exist and at its core, it’s not that complicated.
If a British government tries to ignore this referendum result, they will be acting so far outside British constitutional convention, that the Reserve Powers of the Monarch - which are real even if they are very rarely used primarily because a government and Parliament always backs down well before there is any chance they might - will come into play. (I will discuss the nature of the Reserve Powers at the end of this message).
Let’s say this happened theoretically - that the Referendum said leave, and the government did not pass legislation.
At that point, the Queen would be justified in removing the Prime Minister from office and if necessary dismissing the entire government and appointing a new Prime Minister and government specifically on the condition they enact this legislation and then go to the polls for a general election. At that point, the legislation would almost certainly be passed.
If it still didn’t pass, the Queen would dissolve Parliament for a new election - and the people would have the power to elect a new House of Commons. It is very hard to envisage a situation in which the people would not elect a House of Commons that would pass the legislation - there would be such a level of outrage at Parliament’s ignoring a referendum result that the new Parliament would go the other way. Even many people who have voted to Remain would be so outraged by this abuse of Parliamentary power, that they would vote to put a government in place to enact the Leave legislation.
Theoretically it’s possible - realistically it isn’t. It would bring into play powers the Monarch hasn’t had to use in over 170 years - but they still exist to be used in an emergency.
The United Kingdom has had 12 referendums. All were non binding - they have to be under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty that is at the core of the British constitution (Parliament cannot be bound to any action - part of the reason some people want to leave the EU is because of a belief that EU membership could eventually violate that core principle).
Even though all twelve were non-binding, in every single case, the necessary legislation to give effect to their decision was passed. That is expected and there’s no reason to expect it to be any different this time.
The pointing out that it’s “non-binding” is a tactic being used by some people to try and influence people’s vote (in particular to try and depress the leave vote) and should not be given any real credence.
If Parliament chose to ignore the referendum result, it would trigger a major constitutional crisis that would bring down the Prime Minister, and probably the government that did it.
The most that is likely to happen is a large number (potentially as many as two thirds) of MPs abstaining from the vote to avoid having to cast a vote against their wish - leaving 250 or so to vote ‘Aye’ to the legislation needed.
[THE RESERVE POWERS
The Monarch still has a lot of power - but it can only be used in very specific circumstances and a good government avoids those circumstances arising.
They are referred to as the reserve powers.
They include:
The power to refuse to dissolve Parliament on the request of the Prime Minister. This last came close to happening in 1910, but Edward Heath specifically asked the Queen for her assurance she would grant him an election if asked as late as 1974 (when he agreed to take office as head of a minority government).
To appoint a Prime Minister of their own choosing. The Queen did this in 1963 after the conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan resigned from office on the grounds of ill health and it emerged that the Conservative Party had no mechanism to replace a Prime Minister who had resigned - she agreed to use her power to do so, but told them to come up with a procedure to avoid it happening again.
To refuse the Queen’s Consent to allow laws on a very limited number of subjects to be debated in Parliament. The Queen did this in 1999 (the last time she exercised any of her powers) to prevent debate on a law that would have given Parliament the power to authorise military strikes on Iraq without the Monarch’s consent - she did this at the request of the government of the day that didn’t want the change (it was proposed by a group on the extreme left of the Labour Party and was opposed by both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition so had no hope of passing and would have just wasted Parliament’s time).
There are other powers but they either haven’t been used for so long, they are considered largely dead, or they just relate to formalities that aren’t that important.
In the type of situation being discussed here - if a government ignored a referendum, the Queen’s right to appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing and/or to dismiss a government from office and call a general election would become relevant as the Queen would be entitled to act to ensure Parliament respected the will of the people.
While no Monarch has had to do anything like this in the UK since 1834, it has been done by the Queen’s representative in Her overseas Realms - it happened in Australia in 1975 when the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his entire government from office, after Whitlam could not present a legal plan to continue governing without a budget, and refused to ask for an election. The powers are real - but a competent government would not make the Queen use them.
If you go back to the British election of 2010 which resulted in a hung Parliament, you might remember that there was a period in which Prime Minister Gordon Brown was trying to stay in office by making a deal with the Liberal Democrats. When he finally gave up, he is known to have told the Liberal Democrat leader that the Queen had made it clear he’d run out of time - she’d given him the chance to make a deal if he could, but in the end, while she didn’t step in, she told him that he knew what decision he had to make. And being a good Prime Minister who respected the way things are, he did the right thing, rather than force her to intervene. It’s very unlikely any Prime Minister will ever force the issue.
(The fundamental control on the Queen’s powers is that the last time a Monarch abused them and went too far, he had his head chopped off - the Monarch understands that the British people will only accept the use of these powers to protect the Constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and abusing them would bring down the Monarch and possibly the entire Monarchy. But the powers are there for resolve an actual constitutional crisis.)
Thanks j ! Thanks Mr. Natural !!!
I am not up to date with the shape of cucumbers, but the previous joke was the EU regulating how bendy the bananas can be.
A charismatic comedian can paint a picture of an EU drone in Brussels spending sleepless nights worrying about what way the bananas Europeans put into their mouths bend, but the real reason for this regulation was much simpler - good old protectionism.
France, Spain, UK and other European countries either control or have significant interest in banana production and distribution. Their bananas have different bend than Latin American ones and the regulation (now long scrapped) was to put Latin American bananas into disadvantage in European market.
There was a method to what is described as madness.
Actually the article I read also discussed Bananas
Bananas in Europe come from Africa, but taste the same
Leni
This is where the UK imported Bananas in 1999:
And this is 2014:
The Conservative Party will elect a new leader and as the Conservative Party cotrols the House of Commons, he will become Prime Minister.
Technically speaking, the Prime Minister is elected by the House of Commons, but because it is assumed that the dominant party will elect their own leader and they have the numbers to do so, in practice, a vote is not called in the House of Commons. The Opposition have every right to call for a vote of no confidence to test the issue if they want to, but won't under normal circumstances.
It seems to me that the defeat of the government in the referendum is sort of a vote of no confidence in the government.
In addition to an up or down, “Resolved, this House have no confidence in Her Majesty’s government”, there are other motions which are “no confidence” equivalents, the budget, for example.
How is this not such a situation? Please discuss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.