The Queen won’t get involved in Brexit - she trusts the judgment of the people


Blackleaf
#1
The sheer hypocrisy of the Lefties - Jeremy Corbyn says that if Johnson faced and lost a vote of no confidence then he (Corbyn) would go to the Queen to ask her to make him Prime Minister (so forget about an election, then). This is the same Corbyn who wants to get rid of the monarchy! He seems to like the monarchy when it suits him.

Of course, the Queen would likely tell him to sod off. Unlike Corbyn and many other Remain politicians, she trusts the judgment of the British people...


MATTHEW GOODWIN The Queen won’t get involved in Brexit — she trusts the judgment of the British people

Comment
Professor Matthew Goodwin
8 Aug 2019
The Sun

“SILLY season”, according to my dictionary, is that brief moment in late summer when the media focus on more trivial matters because there is a lack of major news stories.

But judging from what is going on in Westminster this week, it could just as easily refer to the Remainer MPs in Parliament, who appear to have taken leave of their senses.

The Queen won't get involved in the politics surrounding Brexit — she trusts the judgement of the British people, writes Professor Matthew Goodwin

John McDonnell suggested this week that Jeremy Corbyn would pay a visit to the monarch if Boris Johnson lost a vote of no-confidence Credit: PA:Press Association

With Brexit Day rapidly approaching on October 31 — and a new Prime Minister who is committed to seeing it through — MPs who want to block Brexit are panicking so much that some are even contemplating dragging our 93-year-old Queen into this sorry saga.

Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell suggested this week that were Prime Minister Boris Johnson to lose a widely anticipated vote of no confidence next month, opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, would pay a visit to the Monarch.

“I don’t want to drag the Queen into this”, said McDonnell, “but I would be sending Jeremy Corbyn in a cab to Buckingham Palace to say we’re taking over.”

Nor is he the only one who is willing to break with convention and embroil Her Majesty in politics as they desperately work overtime to try to block our departure from the EU.

Dominic Grieve, a Remainer Conservative MP who spent much of the past three years trying to block Brexit, has made similar noises, suggesting he too would be willing to drag our Queen into these dishonourable attempts to thwart the majority will.

But the idea of involving the Monarch is completely at odds with Britain’s long-held political traditions.

RULE IS TO AVOID PARTY POLITICS

The reality is that ever since Charles I lost his head in the 17th Century, following the English Civil War, the head of state has remained strictly neutral with respect to political matters.

This is why, for more than 60 years, the Queen has been careful to stay “above politics”, and helps to explain why she is so adored.

The Queen’s public speeches and actions always rely on advice from ministers and, as constitutional experts have long made clear, one of her key unwritten rules is that she avoids party politics.

Indeed, in 2016 The Sun stunned Westminster with an exclusive story revealing how Her Majesty had, in private, spoken critically of the EU.

A highly reliable political source was quoted as saying that people who heard a conversation “were left in no doubt at all about the Queen’s views on European integration”.

Indeed, this is why younger, or new, members of the Royal Family should avoid making overtly political interventions.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex choosing to send political messages while guest-editing Vogue magazine, or giving barefoot speeches to global elites at a Google Camp focused on climate change was, at best, ill-advised.

The role of the Royal Family is not to engage in “woke” virtue-signalling but to stand firmly above and apart from politics.

The more “politicised” members of the Royal Family become, the more they undermine the Sovereign’s claim to be our neutral head of state.

This is why, in 2016, her Majesty made it abundantly clear that our country’s referendum on EU member-ship was: “A matter for the British people to decide.”

And the people did make a decision. They voted to leave the EU. The only problem, as we have since discovered, is that many MPs don’t share the Queen’s trust in the judgment of the British people. Rather than respect the decision, they have sought to overturn it.

Given their lack of respect for the British people, it is perhaps not surprising to see their total lack of respect for our Monarch and our long political traditions. It is not the job of hard-Left politicians or Remainer MPs to decide what the Queen should or should not do.

HE WOULD BE BREAKING LAW

The only person from whom the Queen can take constitutionally binding advice is the Prime Minister. Should Boris Johnson lose a vote of no confidence then the Queen will be advised by her outgoing Prime Minister about who can or cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons.

Further, as Prime Minister, it would be up to Mr Johnson to advise the Queen on whether to give Royal Assent to a Bill passed by the Commons and Lords blocking a No-Deal Brexit. It would be well within his rights to advise the Queen not to sign such a bill into law.

Were Johnson to seek to remain after 14 days without calling an election, he would be breaking the law, and it would then be for the courts, not the Queen, to intervene.

It is certainly possible in theory that the sovereign could be called upon to choose between two rival claims to form a government. However, this would be regarded as highly political and has not been done since 1834.

In reality, it is far more likely that the numbers in Parliament will tell us who does or does not have a majority, and that a general election will be called before getting the Queen involved.

We all know what this is really about, though. The vote for Brexit was always destined to bring us to a constitutional crisis.

It was the first moment in our country’s long and proud history when a majority of people outside of Parliament asked for something that a majority of people inside Parliament did not want to give.

The right way through this mess is not to drag the Queen into politics but to deliver on the decision that was made by the British people more than three years ago.



Professor Matthew Goodwin is the author of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, out now, Penguin Books, £9.99
Queen Elizabeth II welcomes the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, Boris Johnson, in Buckingham Palace on July 24, 2019 Credit: Getty - Pool

Charles I (1600 - 1649) on the scaffold in front of Whitehall, London, on which he was executed Credit: Handout - Getty

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/968516...ement-british/
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#2
Brexit is divinding your nation in two and I'm quite sure that the Queen doesn't like that at all.
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Brexit is divinding your nation in two

So do general elections.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

So do general elections.

Yeah, but everyone accepts the results of those.
 
Blackleaf
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yeah, but everyone accepts the results of those.

No, they dont. We always get Lefties taking to the streets - because they don't go to work, of course - demanding that the "evil Tory Government" be brought down even though the people voted democratically to have the Tory Government.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

No, they dont. We always get Lefties taking to the streets - because they don't go to work, of course - demanding that the "evil Tory Government" be brought down even though the people voted democratically to have the Tory Government.

That's their right.
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

That's their right.

Seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government?

Yup.
 
Blackleaf
#9
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#10
her bankers are set to make a killing either way.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yeah, but everyone accepts the results of those.

You still haven’t accepted the results of the last American Presidential election . Many are still talking chads from when big Al lost Florida , so no not all accept election results .
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

You still haven’t accepted the results of the last American Presidential election . Many are still talking chads from when big Al lost Florida , so no not all accept election results .

It was clearly rigged. Why accept the proceeds of crime?
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

No, they dont. We always get Lefties taking to the streets - because they don't go to work, of course - demanding that the "evil Tory Government" be brought down even though the people voted democratically to have the Tory Government.


And why do you think lefties don't work? Have you got proof they don't?


The people of Britain voted for a May Tory Government. Now that she's gone and BoJo is in charge, the Tory's are just place holders until the next election. Then, if BoJo wins, he can finally say he DOES have the government of Britain.
 
MHz
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post


MATTHEW GOODWIN The Queen won’t get involved in Brexit — she trusts the judgment of the British people

https://sputniknews.com/europe/20190...r-into-brexit/


Queen 'Dismayed' by Politicians' 'Inability to Govern' as MPs Seek to Drag Her Into Brexit - Reports


The British monarch's alleged remarks were revealed by a UK media outlet amid reports that Labour MPs and Tory rebels are planning to "drag" the Queen into the Brexit saga if newly-elected Prime Minister Boris Johnson refuses to resign as a result of a hypothetical no-confidence vote.

The Sunday Times has cited unnamed sources as claiming that Queen Elizabeth II has privately expressed her frustration with British politicians and their "inability to govern" amid the Brexit chaos.
The Queen made the alleged remark at a private event shortly after Prime Minister David Cameron's resignation following the 2016 national referendum on EU membership, but a royal source insisted that her discontent has since grown.
"I think she's really dismayed. I've heard her talking about her disappointment in the current political class and its inability to govern correctly", the source said
The monarch has hardly shared her political views on the government's efforts to pull the UK out of the EU, but a senior royal source, who claims to have witnessed the aforementioned exchange, has shed light on Her Majesty's outlook as Labour MPs and Tory "rebels" are reportedly planning to ask her to intervene if Prime Minister Boris Johnson refuses to step down in the wake of a no-confidence vote.
"She expressed her exasperation and frustration about the quality of our political leadership, and that frustration will only have grown", the source continued.
According to The Sunday Times, Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the story.
Meanwhile, senior functionaries in the British government and top figures in royal circles told the media outlet that the trio, known as the "golden triangle", which includes Edward Young, the Queen's private secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, and Peter Hill, the PM's principal private secretary, will "bust its gut" to keep the monarch "out of any decision".
"The royal household wants to manage this in a way that doesn't damage the ongoing, long-term position of the crown", a senior government source said.
Their concerns have been prompted by mounting speculation that the Labour Party along with some Conservative Party members will call a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson when Parliament returns from its summer recess in early September.
Just last week, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer John McDonnell suggested that in the event Johnson refuses to quit following a no-confidence vote, he would respond by sending the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to Buckingham Palace "in a cab" to tell the Queen that "we're taking over".
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

https://sputniknews.com/europe/20190...r-into-brexit/


Queen 'Dismayed' by Politicians' 'Inability to Govern' as MPs Seek to Drag Her Into Brexit - Reports


The British monarch's alleged remarks were revealed by a UK media outlet amid reports that Labour MPs and Tory rebels are planning to "drag" the Queen into the Brexit saga if newly-elected Prime Minister Boris Johnson refuses to resign as a result of a hypothetical no-confidence vote.

The Sunday Times has cited unnamed sources as claiming that Queen Elizabeth II has privately expressed her frustration with British politicians and their "inability to govern" amid the Brexit chaos.
The Queen made the alleged remark at a private event shortly after Prime Minister David Cameron's resignation following the 2016 national referendum on EU membership, but a royal source insisted that her discontent has since grown.
"I think she's really dismayed. I've heard her talking about her disappointment in the current political class and its inability to govern correctly", the source said
The monarch has hardly shared her political views on the government's efforts to pull the UK out of the EU, but a senior royal source, who claims to have witnessed the aforementioned exchange, has shed light on Her Majesty's outlook as Labour MPs and Tory "rebels" are reportedly planning to ask her to intervene if Prime Minister Boris Johnson refuses to step down in the wake of a no-confidence vote.
"She expressed her exasperation and frustration about the quality of our political leadership, and that frustration will only have grown", the source continued.
According to The Sunday Times, Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the story.
Meanwhile, senior functionaries in the British government and top figures in royal circles told the media outlet that the trio, known as the "golden triangle", which includes Edward Young, the Queen's private secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, and Peter Hill, the PM's principal private secretary, will "bust its gut" to keep the monarch "out of any decision".
"The royal household wants to manage this in a way that doesn't damage the ongoing, long-term position of the crown", a senior government source said.
Their concerns have been prompted by mounting speculation that the Labour Party along with some Conservative Party members will call a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson when Parliament returns from its summer recess in early September.
Just last week, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer John McDonnell suggested that in the event Johnson refuses to quit following a no-confidence vote, he would respond by sending the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to Buckingham Palace "in a cab" to tell the Queen that "we're taking over".


She's right. Remainer politicians' refusal to accept the democrat will of the British people has no doubt shocked and surprised many people around the world - that politicians in Great Britain aren't accepting democracy.

It really is one of the most vile and disturbing political events of our time.

And then you've got all the Remainers latching onto the news that the British economy has shrunk for the first time since 2012, and are blaming it on Brexit. But it's not the fault of Brexit - Brexit hasn't happened yet. It is, in fact, THEIR fault. The British economy is now suffering because of their refusal to take Britain out of the EU on 29th March.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

And why do you think lefties don't work? Have you got proof they don't?


The people of Britain voted for a May Tory Government. Now that she's gone and BoJo is in charge, the Tory's are just place holders until the next election. Then, if BoJo wins, he can finally say he DOES have the government of Britain.

Will that be before or after Brexit ?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#17
The "Revolt Against Liberal Democracy" is a revolt against democracy itself. It will be the last revolt as none more will be allowed when liberal democracy is gone.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Populism is on the rise. According to one mainstream analysis, the number of identifiably populist governments around the world has increased five-fold in less than two decades, and this is before we even consider other trends, like deepening populism in parties of opposition. The US has a president who seems to have little time for the norms of constitutional liberal democracy; the UK is grinding its way through a series of wholly unpredicted political developments, including the far-reaching implications of a high-turnout referendum instructing the government to leave the European Union. Mainstream centrist parties are on retreat in many parts of the world, while the premiers of Turkey, Hungary and Brazil pivot sharply to the right.

How did we get to this point? One of the great themes of recent years has been the befuddlement of not only the establishment, but of established ways of predicting and explaining political events. Social scientists may instinctively reach for a clarification that involves the economic substructure of society. But one of the key contentions of Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin’s National Populism is that it is not the economy, stupid: that while the apparent uptick in populist public sentiment and politics is real, economic circumstances are not the key variable that will help us to explain the emergence of an international wave of populist politics that prioritises national identity and autonomy over globalisation and cosmopolitanism.

While the impact of the financial crisis is ‘important’ in so far as it deepened ‘existing divides among voters’, nevertheless ‘the notion that it is the primary cause [of national populism] is not convincing at all’. We are reminded that the countries suffering the worst recessions were not those producing most surges in populist support, that comparable historical crises have not prompted similar political and cultural shifts and that the historical rise of Mussolini in Italy occurred more than a decade before the Great Depression.

Relatedly, socio-economic status alone is starting to lose its explanatory power in UK politics. It is now generally more useful to look to the (related) variables of age and education levels to predict the likely political preferences of British citizens. Eatwell and Goodwin have almost as little time for these explanations as they do for the economic case, however. Younger people are ‘instinctively receptive’ to national populism, they write, and if you count the Momentum campaign group as populist, it is clear that the promise of simple, spending-heavy political solutions have a great deal of appeal for younger people.

In place of these variables, Eatwell and Goodwin point us toward their ‘four Ds’: ‘distrust’, which highlights the broad success of anti-politics movements as an output from very low levels of public trust in the classical establishment; the ‘destruction’ of long-held notions of communal identity by accelerating patterns of globalisation and movement between cultures; ‘deprivation’ brought about by geographic inequalities and the effects of ‘neoliberal’ economics; and ‘de-alignment’, the long-discussed phenomenon of dislocation between personal identity and specific political parties or brands (a particularly useful concept to bring into the analysis of populism).

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofb...tthew-goodwin/
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Populism is on the rise. According to one mainstream analysis, the number of identifiably populist governments around the world has increased five-fold in less than two decades, and this is before we even consider other trends, like deepening populism in parties of opposition. The US has a president who seems to have little time for the norms of constitutional liberal democracy; the UK is grinding its way through a series of wholly unpredicted political developments, including the far-reaching implications of a high-turnout referendum instructing the government to leave the European Union. Mainstream centrist parties are on retreat in many parts of the world, while the premiers of Turkey, Hungary and Brazil pivot sharply to the right.
How did we get to this point? One of the great themes of recent years has been the befuddlement of not only the establishment, but of established ways of predicting and explaining political events. Social scientists may instinctively reach for a clarification that involves the economic substructure of society. But one of the key contentions of Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin’s National Populism is that it is not the economy, stupid: that while the apparent uptick in populist public sentiment and politics is real, economic circumstances are not the key variable that will help us to explain the emergence of an international wave of populist politics that prioritises national identity and autonomy over globalisation and cosmopolitanism.
While the impact of the financial crisis is ‘important’ in so far as it deepened ‘existing divides among voters’, nevertheless ‘the notion that it is the primary cause [of national populism] is not convincing at all’. We are reminded that the countries suffering the worst recessions were not those producing most surges in populist support, that comparable historical crises have not prompted similar political and cultural shifts and that the historical rise of Mussolini in Italy occurred more than a decade before the Great Depression.
Relatedly, socio-economic status alone is starting to lose its explanatory power in UK politics. It is now generally more useful to look to the (related) variables of age and education levels to predict the likely political preferences of British citizens. Eatwell and Goodwin have almost as little time for these explanations as they do for the economic case, however. Younger people are ‘instinctively receptive’ to national populism, they write, and if you count the Momentum campaign group as populist, it is clear that the promise of simple, spending-heavy political solutions have a great deal of appeal for younger people.
In place of these variables, Eatwell and Goodwin point us toward their ‘four Ds’: ‘distrust’, which highlights the broad success of anti-politics movements as an output from very low levels of public trust in the classical establishment; the ‘destruction’ of long-held notions of communal identity by accelerating patterns of globalisation and movement between cultures; ‘deprivation’ brought about by geographic inequalities and the effects of ‘neoliberal’ economics; and ‘de-alignment’, the long-discussed phenomenon of dislocation between personal identity and specific political parties or brands (a particularly useful concept to bring into the analysis of populism).
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofb...tthew-goodwin/

The World has been in exactly this place before ... In the 1930s. The outcome of that was quite horrible but nothing compared to what is going to happen this time around. Populist tribalism in a world with 7 billion plus and weaponry that was science fiction back in the 30s is a massive bloodbath in the making.

Maybe our species will survive it. Maybe not.
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The World has been in exactly this place before ... In the 1930s. The outcome of that was quite horrible but nothing compared to what is going to happen this time around. Populist tribalism in a world with 7 billion plus and weaponry that was science fiction back in the 30s is a massive bloodbath in the making.

Maybe our species will survive it. Maybe not.



Oh yeah, and who is it that creates the Far-Right? The Left, of course.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post


Oh yeah, and who is it that creates the Far-Right? The Left, of course.

The selfish, of course.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The selfish, of course.

It is the Left and their ruinous policies that create the Far-Right.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It is the Left and their ruinous policies that create the Far-Right.

They drove the naturally selfish and socopathic into defensive mode.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Then, if BoJo wins, he can finally say he DOES have the government of Britain.

He already has the government of Britain. He leads the government.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

He already has the government of Britain. He leads the government.

... for a few months, snyway. ...
 
Blackleaf
#26
Brexiteer Rod Liddle destroys BBC Remainer Emily Maitlis on Newnight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGBBBTs50Ig
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

He already has the government of Britain. He leads the government.


Because he won the popularity contest among the Tory Party members.

Sorry Blackie, he's not the true PM of all Britain until he's voted for in a general election.

And yes, I'd say that of anyone in Canada who has undergone the same thing.

(Kim Campbell anyone?)
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It is the Left and their ruinous policies that create the Far-Right.


So... you don't like left ideas or policies?

Okay, no more freedom of speech for you.

No more health care.


No more fire brigade for your home.


No more police.

No more benefits.

Sure it might mean lower taxes and you keep more of your money, and it means your fellow Brits can go screw themselves if something goes wonky because you don't give a shit, but hey! You'll be more like your true Motherland, the US, so all's good, right?
 
MHz
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

She's right. Remainer politicians' refusal to accept the democrat will of the British people has no doubt shocked and surprised many people around the world - that politicians in Great Britain aren't accepting democracy.

I cannot understand the Royals not picketing the Govt for their blatant disregard for such basic human rights.



Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It really is one of the most vile and disturbing political events of our time.

Do you mean for the UK or on a global setting. Was it a fluke or would this have happened ifScotland had voted for an exit. I seem to recall the Queen being a busybody in that one too. Little bored is she??



Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

And then you've got all the Remainers latching onto the news that the British economy has shrunk for the first time since 2012, and are blaming it on Brexit. But it's not the fault of Brexit - Brexit hasn't happened yet. It is, in fact, THEIR fault. The British economy is now suffering because of their refusal to take Britain out of the EU on 29th March.

Translation: those fukking sanctions on Russia will be the death of the whole EU, . . . except the Netherlands, . . . again.
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#30
Blackleaf you must be one of Andems friends who he just cant shake off.

Honestly you contribute nothing here, you have said some messed up stuff even compared to me.

And I've gone deep son