Parliament Grabs Control of Brexit From a Wounded Theresa May

The New York Times ^ | March 25, 2019 | Stephen Castle

[KC_Lion]

LONDON — Britain’s Parliament grabbed control Monday of the government’s efforts to leave the European Union, challenging the country’s political traditions and inflicting on Prime Minister Theresa May a rebuke not suffered by any recent predecessor.

By stepping into the process known as Brexit and trying to define an alternative path, lawmakers could create a constitutional showdown in Britain, where the government normally controls the agenda in Parliament, especially on its most pressing issues.

Parliament passed an amendment giving itself the power to vote on alternatives to the government’s Brexit plan. Its attempt to take control of the process came as Mrs. May prepared for a last-ditch effort to persuade lawmakers to support her withdrawal plan, which has already been rejected twice by huge margins.

....

Mrs. May’s grip on power is ebbing, with members of her cabinet openly discussing contradictory Brexit policies, rumors swirling of a plot to replace her and several of her Conservative Party lawmakers calling on her to name a date for her departure from power. She has already said she will not lead the party into the next general election scheduled for 2022.

The latest maneuvers come at the start of a week that was supposed to see Britain leaving the European Union, something that Mrs. May had promised more than 100 times would happen on March 29. Instead, Britain will remain at least until April 12, though what happens thereafter is anyone’s guess at the moment.

[Spktyr]

Some leftist form of government was guaranteed in Russia. If it wasn’t Bolshevik branded Communism, it could have been some flavor of socialism. As best I recall of all the agitating entities in Russia prior to 1917, *none* of the serious ones were demanding democracy. Remember that prior to Lenin’s October Revolution, there had been a February Revolution *without* Lenin and the government that resulted was heavily manned by socialists.

[Cronos]

I’m inclined to agree with you about some kind of leftist government, though I do know that the monarchists like Denikin etc. were also strong AND they had the army on their side, so a cabal like post-Imperial China

[Spktyr]

The Imperial Russian Army was corrupt as heck, morale was very low and they were both worn down and war weary by 1917 - having basically been at constant war since *1904*. The Army being on the monarchists’ side was far less of a benefit than it would sound.

[TexasGator]

Y’all have convinced me.

England started WWI, invented communism and Nazism. Thanks

[Cronos]

You're jumping from one extreme to another -- reductio ad hitlerum

The FACT that the German Empire of World War One did not aim to destroy the UK (a historical fact) has nothing to do with the FACT that communism was given a boost by the German Empire in 1917 nor by the FACT that Naziism was given a boost due to

1. French harshness in the treaty of Versailles
2. The Triple entente (Britain-France) not advancing INTO Germany so creating ground that allowed for the "stab in the back theory"
3. and the collapse of the global monetary system that hit Germany

World War one was to a large extent one with no clear "good guys" and "bad guys" except for the USA. The other fighters were all imperialists. This is in marked contrast to world war 2

[Cronos]

Interesting point - I was basing my statement on the performance of the White Army and that Trotsky managed to co-opt some of the Tsarist army into the Red army

[TexasGator]

Not really if you go back and see what Reily posted to me.

You chitterlings focus on details while missing the big picture.

[Cronos]

Ok, so that's what Reily posted to you -- not me.

you are focusing on the details and incorrectly mixing up the German Empire with the Nazis. The entire culture seems to have changed in just 15 years.

The big picture is that Germany was still finding itself in 1914 - it was confident, but it still had (and has) internal tensions -- neither Germany nor Italy are truly nation-states but rather countries made up of nations - nations that are close to each other (closer than Scotland and England for instance) but still distinct enough.

I know a Germanic and slavic linguist and she pointed out to me how different German dialects are more distinct from each other than different Slavic languages

Anyway, I digress, but Germany in the early 1900s was the brash newcomer but it still saw the English as a role model to emulate but France as the enemy (strangely enough it was the same with the English - when the English troops first went to France the troops were chanting that they were off to "fight the frogs" and had to be convinced otherwise!)

Germany saw France and Russia as their enemies (hangover from the Napoleonic wars). The UK saw France and Russia as its enemy and Germany as a rival. France saw Germany and the UK as enemies. Russia saw Germany as the enemy along with the Turks and the English as enemies/rivals

[Reily]

Agree about Russia & Austria-Hungary!

And yes the Brits would have been much much better off sitting on the sidelines offering to mediate.

[TexasGator]

“Ok, so that’s what Reily posted to you — not me.
you are focusing on the details and incorrectly mixing up the German Empire with the Nazis. “

In your post you directed me to reily.

I am not focusing on details and am not mixing up this up.

Germany wanted war and to blame England id downright sick.

[Cronos]

I don't blame England or the UK for starting the war or in general "for" the war. The blame for that lies on, in no particular order:

• Tsarist Russia's panic
• Germany's fear of encirclement merged with its aim to become a superpower
• the characters of Kaiser Wilhelm IIAustria-Hungary's fear of Slavic awakenings
• Serbia's intransigence over Bosnia

My objection is factually based and against you in any way saying that Germany of world war 1 aimed to destroy Britain

[Cronos]

Or the Brits could have done what they did best during the Napoleonic wars - give financial aid to any side that appeared to fight against the upstart

[Reily]

One thing I have never gotten a definitive answer on - the Kaiser’s afflictions his withered arm (right or left Don’t remember?).

1. Birth defect?,
2. Damaged during delivery?

I remember reading Pricess Vicky having a difficult delivery & the OB using “forceps(tongs)”.

[RightGeek]

https://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2014/02/treating-the-kaisers-withered-arm.html

[Reily]

Thanks !

The oxygen deprivation at birth I had never heard before.
Wilhelm’s personality I think contributed a lot to the bad decisions that lead to WWI. He was Queen Victoria’s favorite grandchild. Edward VII couldn’t stand him!

Sometimes we forget that these historical figures were human beings. All subject to same fears and flaws that we have.

[Cronos]

I believe it was problems during delivery.

[TexasGator]

Germany’s blockade of England was designed to help England?

[Svartalfiar]

if that is the case, then perhaps it is somewhat of an achievement that May got as far as she did with Article 50...(???)

Yea, although there's an odd disparity with the people over there. They think differently - there's an inherent peasant/serf mindset, being under the crown. Their idea of freedom is much different than ours, and that bleeds into a lot of their stances. And not just political stuff - Europe is tiny, Especially the western side. It's similar to the NE US - a couple hours to the next country. Not like Texas where it's a 12+ hour drive across! So you add just a different view of life to a different political base, and they're going to be off once you get into the actual issues and such.