You mistakenly inserted the rejection of amendment 17 in stead of the adoption of amendment 14. Post Scriptum Let me add that I appreciate your free service very much. I am not the miser that some of my protractors, ehhh detractors, show themselves to be!
Most likely because he made a piece with the passing of 14 and rejection of 17 and then he decided to cut it shorter in the middle with the wrong selection
To be honest, these mistakes are the result of the speed with which TLDR tries move in relation to developments in Parliament; I doubt that this channel has the same editing capacity as, say, the BBC or Sky news.
You misunderstood the point. They literally only add those long, completely unnecessary clips to make the video ten minutes long. If they had 1 minute of substance less, we would have seen an extra minute of that
Sounds like Monty python best joke. Brit troops in the trench shout over to the Germans in their trench. “”Hitlers dog has no nose”””. The Germans shouted “”then how does he smell””? And the Brits replied. “””BLOODY AWFUL “”!!!!!!!
Lelly Parker it would be the same as saying you are going to kill someone to the person you are going to kill in a weeks advance, of course they are going to take action
This season of Brexit looks lit!!! I simply don't know what will happen next. Who could have said that man with a mop on his head was about to become PM?
lmao funniest comment. This sure looks like a drama/comedy from here (France). Also after following those house voting for months, I still don't understand why they do the whole "say yay, say nay" bit, when they have to vote just after that, to say the exact same thing but in the calm. It's like "let's shout our answer then write it on paper like civilized people"
@@timytimeerased Vraiment :-) Or as we say, "you just couldn't make it up" --- LOL! Btw. the point of the Aye/Nay shouting is to see if a division is needed. If almost everyone shouts for one side or the other, then all that walking about can be avoided.
@@timytimeerased As I understand it, the shouting is done, to signal to the speaker, that there are several people for and against the notion. If, for example, very few people are shouting aye, then there doesn't need to be a vote done, because obviously not enough people want the bill anyway.
Keep up the good work! Although in your recent videos I've noticed several animations and other generic errors. I know it must be hard churning these out as fast as the news comes in, take care and take it slower.
if the vote had gone the other way, I'd bet you'd be eating your own words and telling us that it's clear as a hot summer day just because you lost and can't accept the results, that doesn't mean we're going to keep on stalling the made decision until you've gone through all the stages of grief
@@Carl-hs420a Of course. Changing the status quo over something as major as changing the entire basis of the British economy should require a GOOD MAJORITY not a split down the middle. They should have made it 60/40 at least before considering turning the country upside down.
@@lellyparker "GOOD" is a subjective term, and the problem with subjectivity is that it can be easily manipulated. A majority is a majority. An overwhelming majority would have been better, but a majority was the bare minimum, and Leave won it. Just because there's no overwhelming majority doesn't mean to say there needs to be compromise, because there doesn't. Brexit is a black and white issue; we're either in the EU or out of the EU. The winners want out, therefore we leave.
@Xemor Eh, most countries don't really introduce massive status quo changes based on slim majority and small margins. Usually countries require super majorities for massive changes like this and for good reason. I don't believe that those countries citizens have no faith in democracy. The real loss of faith in democracy was acting as if a 52-48 margin with a vote from only 36% of the entire population was seen as an overwhelming mandate for change which simply was not the case.
With a participation rate, that's more like 36% of voters. Also there's the issue that not all "leave" votes were actually for the same thing, some people just wanted more funding for the DHS or a painless trade deal as they were promised by UKIP. That's part of why the current negotiations are such a mess. Trying to deliver on all those contradictory promises is just not possible.
@@TheStephaneAdam that's sctually the reason, why I do think that this entire Brexit-Mess is undemocratic as fuck and absolutely stupid. The people were able to decide wether to stay or to leave. But leaving meant so many different things for the leave campagn. It would have been far better if - after this referendum that's not legally binding, I remind everyone! - there was a second referendum sorting out the leave-ideas. And also, I'd never called 49/51 a win for anything. Especially not with voting rates below 50%. That was the dumbest thing they ever did, in my opinion and the results are seen everytime when TLDR uploads a videos about Brexit...
Yes, it was a very narrow win... and the result of that is May's Brexit deal failed three times in Parliament, 202 - 432 in January, then 242 - 391 and 286 - 344 in March. If the leave vote was higher, there would probably have been more support for the deal also and Brexit would be done already.
@@CellGames2006 And that's the thing I don't understand. 51% isn't the population and doesn't represent the populations will ... Especially not with below 50% who actually went to that vote. That wasn't a referendum to take seriously. This was basically a shame for democracy and an exploit that went well for some people and might damage an entire country/many generations for a long, long time ...
Was it ever explained in this video what the amendment was? "Makes prorogation less likely" is all I got and somehow in all of the 10 minutes I completely missed how they intend on doing that.
Am I the only one to notice that this entire debate is little more than another Aunt Sally? Johnson doesn't need to prorogue Parliament. The legislation to leave is already in place. Only the PM can request an extension to the Article 50 period, and even if he requests there is no guarantee it will be offered by the EU. Therefore all Johnson need to do is not put revocation of Article 50 on the Parliamentary schedule...ie. all he needs do is nothing, something he has a particular talent for apparently. Of course, a backbench motion could be proposed and no doubt Bercow would pass that onto the House...but then you'd have to rely on Tory MP's joining their Labour brethren is confirming that they stand against the referendum result and the manifesto (and therefore mandate) upon which they won their seats . That would take political courage, something evidently lacking in this current Parliament especially amongst the Remain voting cadre.
I'd be interested to see a tldr video on this; surely not can't be as easy, why would they be considering prorogation in the first place if they could simply do this?
Well they could stitch together a really weird Coalition of remainers/don't want no dealers to no confidence him. Then form a temporary government to cancel Article 50 and call a general election.
But Brexit was indeed the will of the people(Notice how I said was, a 2nd referendum now would result in stay winning most likely,it's like 55-45 now with the polls).No deal Brexit is not the will of the people through 100%.
It's a slight shift of power from the legislative to the executive for a time, and considering the UK is a parliamentary democracy with a very strong legislative power, it's not that big of a deal I think, the executive in many countries have much more power permanently.
My friend and I just had a debate over Brexit and the importance of fulfilling the results of the referendums in order to not diminish the power of public voting. I strongly believe that it would be in the interest of the UK to remain in the EU for a multitude of different reasons and although I feel that the public opinion is now more supportive of remaining, I would much rather respect the results and have the people comprehend the severity of not voting/voters remorse for future generations to come. While arriving to my conclusion of the debate, I wondered if it would be possible to suggest that the referendum is not a fair vote because of the simplistic idea of remain/exit for an answer that requires much more than two options. The referendum ends up being a change/no change vote meaning that regardless of whether you want to remain/exit, people are inclined to vote exit because remain would change nothing. Would it be possible to ask for a new referendum with 4 options where you would number off the selection from 1-4 that the citizen would most likely want to see (remain and no change, remain and change, exit with a deal, exit with no deal)? Then you can systematically eliminate the lowest scores and be left with a majority that may be supportive of remaining with changes or exit with deal. Also, this wouldn't diminish the power of referendums and the governments democratic processes with these extended deadlocks.
Kernel Cat this isn't a bad idea, actually. My only issue in the long-run is that any vote for status quo vs change is inherently lopsided in one specific way: if the result is change, then a second referendum is seen as undemocratic, but the converse is not true. That is, if the result is status quo, then a second referendum is seen as perfectly acceptable. This isn't just a theoretical consideration. In practice, there has already been a referendum on leaving the EU a few decades ago. The result was remain. So the 2016 referendum could be seen as undemocratic since it goes against the will of the people from the first referendum. But no one is saying that. So, there are two possibilities. First, people forget about history. In this case, using Brexit to "teach them a lesson" about the consequences of voting won't work in the long run. Second, people think it's fine to hold a second referendum on an issue after some time has passed. In this case, it is impossible to determine how much time should pass. You can make an argument for a specific length of time, but ultimately it's just a matter of personal preference, so you won't get general agreement. I've also heard some people say we should leave the EU to respect the democratic will of the people, and then once we've left, we can then hold a second referendum to see if they want back in, after they've experienced the consequences of their actions. There are problems here, too. First, that's a very expensive way to teach someone a lesson. Second, (based on the previous paragraph), people will likely forget the lesson within a few decades. Third, if the result would have been remain, how exactly do you teach the remainders the consequences of their actions through the status quo? And (again, from the previous paragraph), when could you do a second referendum? With change, there is a clear line after which the change has happened that can be used as a cutoff time for any potential second referendum. With status quo, there is no clarity on the timeline.
So when are MP's going to make a choice on what they want, they vote no to each deal and they don't want a no deal scenario, they can't have both so they need to grow some balls and choose
No single deal passes, as there is not a majority in favour of any single one. Many I'm sure want to remain, others are going to 'carry out the will of the people', but want to do so in a way that doesn't cripple our economy, meaning a good trade deal needs to be in place when we leave and the Irish border situation needs a plan. And then you have the ones who are happy to pay any cost as long as we are no longer part of the EU.
@@shanematthews1985 TBH I'm not sure why the house haven't voted on a set of options, eliminated the ones with the least votes, and continued until one option won outright. But I guess no one group is confident their option would win in the end, so they try other tactics first.
75% of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU, but they cant just blatantly overrule the voters that put them there and keep their jobs. What better way of getting what they want than to make the whole thing seem undeliverable and keep it going around in limbo until it eventually collapses and we just end up staying. Then those 75% of remain MPs can tell their voters how sad they are that it didn't work out, and how they tried their very best but couldn't make it work. Sniffle.
So...I'd really appreciate if you make a video about the likeliness of renegotiation. Is the EU just trying to scare the UK, or are they really not going to renegotiate? If they do, how long will it take? Who has the upper hand? Since both candidates promised renegotiation, I think this will be very important to the plot of the next season of Brexit.
I am of the opinion that this is once again political propaganda, the UK keeps thinking they have any negociating power over the EU and whatever they do the EU will comply and simply give them the best deal possible. The reality, however, is that the UK has been wasting time from the moment A50 was triggered and even during this extension have done absolutely anything to solve the Brexit crisis. If the EU were to begin negociations once again it will be very damaging to their image and it might set a bad precedent for other member states wanting to leave. At this point the UK only has to decide between no deal and no Brexit, since they really have no other option, and they have only themselves and their incompetence to blame.
spoopytime I don’t think they would renegotiate. They could have done this with May long time ago rather than now with all this mess. Apparently this doesn’t really threat anybody, at least not now. I doubt that the EU would want to renegotiate given everything happening with the Brexit Party drama at the EU parliament.
Renegotiate is pointless and avoiding the problem. It's mainly filibustering. Why would the EU bother to renegotiate? It's either an inevitable no deal Brexit and then do catch up on the wasted 2-3 years May's government had to plan for this potential outcome or some informal political civil war to not leave.
It’s kinda funny to see how there are people who find it realistic that a bureaucratic apparatus should be good at playing mind games… whereas they’re more like a human machine.
Explain how this is propaganda, the events are presented as they happened and the consequences explained in an unbiased factual way. Just because you don't like the outcome informing you of it doesn't make it propaganda.
@4:53 "The country sent us all a very clear message at the polls that they want this [brexit] done." No, no they didn't. They sent the very clear message that it is divided right down the middle.
Because those seeking a second referendum want to ensure the questions only allow for a light partial Brexit that keeps the UK tied to the EU, or full on remaining in the EU. It is a pretext to try and prevent a full Brexit. If they wanted a simple referendum between No deal, or the withdrawal agreement, almost nobody would mind. They don't want that though, they want to have another go at getting us to agree to stay.
@@hiXhaX-YT Well if there was a suggestion of a second vote to ONLY decide what sort of leave option people wanted, most people would likely agree to that. But the "peoples vote" activists want an essentially rigged question on their planned referendum. They want two or more leave options, none of which can be "no deal Brexit" because they don't like it and don't think it should be on the ballot. Then they want a single remain option. That would obviously split the leave voters two ways, and make the single remain option seem to be the most popular even if the leave options together outnumbered it. Not surprisingly all the people that WON the first referendum do not want to agree to a second vote based on those rules.
I'd like to suggest a particular topic for your next video: What is a ‘Humble Address’ in Parliament? How could it be used? What are its chances and what implications could it have? Apparently, according to the BBC, very senior Tories are examining the possibility of asking the Queen to exercise her right as head of state to travel to the next European summit to submit a request for an extension to article 50.
Why the hell would she do that? The union of the UK with Europe diminishes her sovereignty over her own country. she can't possibly be a remainer or want a deal that allows the EU to maintain any sort of grip over the law making of her Parliament and her own sole approval of those laws..
EU played well with UK's monarchy because it was understood as being stripped of any political power. If the queen starts touring Europe for political reasons, the EU might as well throw UK out of EU, since it is not a democratic country, since the Queen is not elected. If this happens, it would be bad for UK, and honestly, rather embarrassing. I would say leaving without a deal is better than having the image of being thrown away. I don't believe the Queen will get involved. She didn't make it through all these years by being stupid.
You should state that if UK reaches no deal with the EU on the WA, then the UK DEFAULTS to WTO trading. Language is important here, and the use of the word default conjures negative connotations. Leaving with no deal sounds like you've left the blackjack table at a casino
@@peterebel7899 It is being implemented, through a representative democracy not a direct democracy. The only sovereign vote the public has is a general election every 5yrs where you get to choose who will represent you. Parliament is sovereign, this is what taking back control looks like even if it's not how you thought it was how things would work out.
Really hard to say what the sentence of the OP really means. Is it undemocratic to have a second referendum? I can see arguments for or against this. Is it democratic to leave without a deal when *everybody* didn't see that as an option during the time of the election? What exactly *is* the will of the people at this point?
@@geztaylor Shhhh they dont like it when you tell them that due to parliamentary sovereignty the ref was a suggestion and not a mandate. No matter what a politician says or wants everything is irrelevent unless it goes through the house. Anything that happens in parliament is the definition of democracy in this country, prorogation is the complete opposite of how our democracy has been for hundreds of years. This is what happens when referendums are used in representative democracies and the masses (on both sides) dont actually understand what is law and what is not.
Isn't this already irrelevant anyway? He doesn't have to "force" a no deal, if the legal default is a no deal without a deal agreed; in other words if Boris doesn't request an extension, then it's a no deal regardless.
MISTAKE - The vote made as shown in this video is NOT legally binding. So any new leader can ignore it. The government make laws, so there is NO law made here.
Technical question. Could you please switch to a dark mode for your slides / animations? It is extremely unpleasant to watch these videos at night, before sleep. Can’t decide which is worse: 60” tv blasting light in the entire room, or watching a bright (even when dimmed) phone screen before sleep - that’s when I have the time to watch your videos. I’m guessing lots of your viewers do this, too. I know you are recognized by your color scheme, but the frustration about the lightness of your slides is distracting. Thanks. Keep up the great work.
Yep, the danger of all this attempting to prevent No Deal bs is just strengthening the EU's hand. They are just laughing at us at this point. Most rational people realise that you don't remove an option like No Deal, as it just leaves us extremely weak in any negotiations. The EU knew May could never get No Deal through, so they treated her as such. The real objective of removing No Deal appears to be more about preventing Brexit altogether. But the real danger is, we get a deal that is worse than No Deal now, in that instance we would have been better off staying in all along.
Can poeple who voted leave explain to me how stating the fact that a No Deal will severely damage the economy proproganda? Especially when the head of the bank of England (a Royal institute so about as patriotic as you get) , the treasurer, the chancellor and WTO chiefs haves said it will severely damage the british economy and add to that the Director General of the WTO said that the No Deal that hard brexiteers want is actually impossible under WTO rules (Article 24, Section 5C for example). So please remind me again how that is proproganda?
battered walrus I honestly cannot wrap my head around their ideology: instead of trading with familiar partners in a largely hospitable and favorable market, they instead choose to subject themselves to a much larger, more hostile market. Set aside dangerous nationalism, that’s just lousy business practice.
battered walrus no one trusts these people they have never been right they wanted the uk to be a part of the euro thank god we didn’t do that and about brexit they keep on changing their numbers before the vote they said the economic growth will drop by 3% to 12% but now they are saying 2% so why should people listen to them when they are wrong all the time
@HazardousPleb V well we do know that the NHS is certainly on the chopping block to hand out to private companies for profit so yeh ignoring the economic parts that alone is enough for me to be against leaving. That's all I'll say about my opinions though
The reality is no one knows how this is going to play out. Preparing for the worst is always favourable in any case. A no deal brexit will bring a great deal of strife to both the British and Irish guaranteed but to what extent is unknown for the moment.
@@richardhills6952 aye but that's what speculative economics is they make the best guestemations they can, but depending on what factors they look into it can change dramatically, part of the reasons why their estimates were all over the place was simply down to the fact that *no one has ever* done this type of radical economic change before so it was limited data and a lot of guessing. Now 3 years in we have a much more solid data set to make informed estimates on hence why it took the Bank of England and others like the treasurer, Chancellor and WTO Chiefs to come to the more recent economic conclusion
Me: I haven't been keeping up on news, I'll watch this to catch up 1:12 : ...Boris Johnson, who will *almost certainly become Prime Minister next week* ... Me: WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS
Yeah its been his masterplan since the start. He lies through his back teeth, gets rid of the prime minister, knows it's a poisoned chalice, rules himself out knowing May will fail and he can sweep in and pick up the pieces. Let the nation decide if this pillock should be in charge of the country!
People are already fed up of the antics taking place in parliament. The longer this show goes on, the more likely it is labour and tories will face an absolute annihilation in the next GE.
I'd say it is more like a game of Battleships, but we yelled where half our pieces are at the start and keep shooting as the same space somehow thinking the ships can move and that even if they could, the other guy will somehow be stupid enough to move all his ships there because we told him to while insulting him.
It is absolutely encouraging to see that more and more inhabitants, more deputies and even cabinet members are turning to the same path. On a path with clear directions. And with a clear targett. That is: We see the right answer -- Revoke -- -- Remain -- -- Reform --
It would be interesting to see a flow chart of the possible outcomes from this point, along with a rough idea of the likelihood of each outcome. Then update that flow chart each time one of the events on the chart either happens or is ruled out. Right now, it looks like every possible outcome is very unlikely, which is a contradiction given that there will, eventually, be some kind of outcome. So for example: Government hangs on in there and gets an acceptable deal (quite unlikely) or parliament agrees to no deal (very unlikely). OR Government collapses (quite possible) followed by General Election. Followed by the various reasonable outcomes and likelihoods. Then what an incoming party or coalition could do. Etc.
"Right now, it looks like every possible outcome is very unlikely, which is a contradiction given that there will, eventually, be some kind of outcome." That's not a contradiction. There are just a lot of possibilities.
Do MPs that vote against the general position of their party get punished by their party in any way? In the US, legislators who don't vote by party lines tend to lose committee positions, campaign financing, etc.
The whips usually have dirt on all mp's so essentially try to blackmail them into voting the right way. Additionally if they vote against their own party they can kiss any chance of a government job goodbye. In normal times this is enough to ensure good party discipline but this Brexit issue has revealed many lawmakers to be unhinged.
The standard punishment is that they lose a government position if they vote against the government if they're a backbencher they could lose any future chance at a higher position in the government or party. There is also the risk of being deselected or outright booted by the party in certain circumstances. However, given how small the government majority is doing so would make it even weaker.
The party system is breaking down over Brexit. The fight now is between those who care most about the well being of the UK, and those that want Brexit at all costs. Even at the expense of the democracy that Brexit was supposed to deliver.
You show your own bias by how you phrase that statement. Some consider Brexit harmful, but is membership of the EU good for the wellbeing of the country? How is having your country slowly taken over by a supranational league with plans to become a united states of Europe a good thing? Your country wont exist at all then.
Agreed, the public has clearly lost confidence in the current parliament and its government. I suggest an immediate general election. You're welcome to run Boris Johnson as your Tory prime minister candidate and a Brexit party.
In the end, it wouldn't help much. Unless there were a second referendum coalition in power, any other parties would still have the same impossible situation to get through parliament.
"The people gave us a clear message." The people voted yes for a question they didn't understand, and British politics succeeded in making a bad idea even worse... THIS IS ORDAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
parliament is full of remoaners remoaners are traitors parliament is full of traitors i can guess what happens next and its that traitors in parliament will use whatever legal instrument they've got at their disposal to make sure that the will of the British people is overruled
The problem with the Brexit negotiations is that the PM doesn't seem to have full negotiation rights with the EU not while the MPs meddling in the process and by limiting the options available for negotiation UK is putting themselves in bad position before the negotiations even started.
@@gralfighter Three-ish minutes into the video a clip from parliament is shown. The wrong clip. I also noticed sloppy sound editing across several videos. If the staff of TLDR reads this: Get some rest.
TLDR, if you been watching all videos you can start @3.39 before then is just fill and recap like alot of starts on this channel to hit the 10 min marker
Because the UK is subject to EU rules and EU rules are made by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone. Further, they are foreigners with no loyalty to the UK, yet their decisions are binding on the UK. Even the elected part of the EU is foreign so you have a group of foreigners passing laws on the UK that the UK must obey even if they are harmful to the UK and the citizens of the UK don’t support it. It would be like a group of Canadians and Mexicans getting together to pass laws on the US without getting consent from the US and that the US cannot override or ignore. You also have the decisions of other countries impacting the UK, like Germany deciding to let in millions of third worlders, even though the UK has a more sensible immigration policy, it doesn’t matter because once Germany lets them in they are free to go anywhere in the EU and the UK is not allowed to keep them out.
wanderer10k Sure, but could the EU pass laws on the UK even if every single UK representative voted against it? Yep. Can the UK do anything to stop it, or decide not to obey it? No.
It's a talking point for people who are pro-Leave. By invoking tyranny they hope to imply a lack of democracy and exploit people who lack understanding of the EU by making it seem like its something it's not.
@@cplinstructor that's always the case though. every MP in [insert any city in UK] could vote against a law in parliament but that won't be enough to stop the passage of the law if the rest of the country votes for it, and that city can't do anything about it. Foreigners are always making laws that you have to follow, they may just be foreigners to your city. You don't see Bristol saying "we need to leave the UK because of these people not from Bristol, these foreigners, are making laws that we have to follow." They don't say it because they'd be worse off if they left
I'm disappointed that the attention to detail and accuracy of this channel has fallen dramatically in the past few weeks. I really like your content, please try and be more careful.
no where in the video is it explained what the amendment actually is; and as others have already pointed out, the wrong video of the other amendment passing was inserted. I'm not being critical for being critical sake; having watched this video (a few times to make sure it wasn't me, and having watched the previous video about the Northern Ireland amendments earlier) literally confused me more though.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
But you didn't explain what was the amendment! How/why does it prevent prorogation?
There’s no need to force through a no-deal. If Parliament doesn’t revoke the Article 50 Act then it can still happen. Especially if some of the EU27, are less likely to support another extension.
fair enough. But I ain't left mate. Both feet firmly planted in the centre, that's where we build, develop, grow as a nation and people. Just because I don't agree with your diatribe, doesn't mean I'm a lefty.
What happens if the new PM calls an election sometime in October , parliament will be on hold come the 31st , do we just leave by default ? If we're in the middle of an election , what's to stop the default position leaving ,no deal , will this not be the same position as prorogation ?
Wayyy too many adverts on this video, really ruins the flow when they are put in the middle of the video. I like your channel a lot but this is not good. Don’t know if I’ll keep my patreon.
I still think it's utterly hilarious that a non-binding vote continues to have such weight, especially after such large changes in government that've happened and are yet to come. You have so many people speaking as if this vote were utterly binding in every way, as if not heeding a non-binding vote would destroy the very concept of democracy
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
You mistakenly inserted the rejection of amendment 17 in stead of the adoption of amendment 14.
Post Scriptum
Let me add that I appreciate your free service very much. I am not the miser that some of my protractors, ehhh detractors, show themselves to be!
Most likely because he made a piece with the passing of 14 and rejection of 17 and then he decided to cut it shorter in the middle with the wrong selection
Jan Meh I agree - it's also noticeable in the audio editing, really choppy sometimes.
To be honest, these mistakes are the result of the speed with which TLDR tries move in relation to developments in Parliament; I doubt that this channel has the same editing capacity as, say, the BBC or Sky news.
@Jan Meh Or have more people working on it. QC needs to be more stringent.
You misunderstood the point. They literally only add those long, completely unnecessary clips to make the video ten minutes long. If they had 1 minute of substance less, we would have seen an extra minute of that
3:20 isn't this the wrong video (A17). That vote failed - but the vote you were talking about (NC14) passed by one.
"The eyes to the right ... the nose to the left ... " I love this joke.
But I'm German. So what do I know about humor.
UK gonna be slapped back in EU slave line so hard this October they might as well have "eyes to the right and nose to the left".
Apparently: enough!
Sounds like Monty python best joke. Brit troops in the trench shout over to the Germans in their trench. “”Hitlers dog has no nose”””. The Germans shouted “”then how does he smell””? And the Brits replied. “””BLOODY AWFUL “”!!!!!!!
The moral of the story is never tell people in advance how and when you intend to screw them over if you don't want them to stop you.
Lelly Parker it would be the same as saying you are going to kill someone to the person you are going to kill in a weeks advance, of course they are going to take action
Other than Bercow's supple "OOOODAAAAH!" calls, this whole thing i s a shitshow.
The only good thing about this whole Brexit farce is the increasing fame of John Bercow! 😀
So said Lord Buckethead
What ever happened to Bercow anyway?
"However what happened yesterday in parliament..." Oh Boy, a new episode of Brexit, our favorite drama!
This season is just getting silly, it's obvious the writers ran out of ideas. They should have wrapped it up last season.
i live in norway and is sick and tired of eating POPCORN VAITING FOR BREXIT. hehe
This season of Brexit looks lit!!! I simply don't know what will happen next. Who could have said that man with a mop on his head was about to become PM?
I know, right? They should have gone for Lord Buckethead instead…
lmao funniest comment. This sure looks like a drama/comedy from here (France). Also after following those house voting for months, I still don't understand why they do the whole "say yay, say nay" bit, when they have to vote just after that, to say the exact same thing but in the calm. It's like "let's shout our answer then write it on paper like civilized people"
@@timytimeerased
Vraiment :-)
Or as we say, "you just couldn't make it up" --- LOL!
Btw. the point of the Aye/Nay shouting is to see if a division is needed. If almost everyone shouts for one side or the other, then all that walking about can be avoided.
@@timytimeerased As I understand it, the shouting is done, to signal to the speaker, that there are several people for and against the notion. If, for example, very few people are shouting aye, then there doesn't need to be a vote done, because obviously not enough people want the bill anyway.
There is a US version where the man with the mop got the keys to a White House. So I think this show does have some similarities.
* shouts very dramatically * DIVISIOOOOOOOOOONN"
* camly says * clear the lobby
This was even funnier when I, for some godforsaken reason, read it in Theresa May's voice.
Keep up the good work! Although in your recent videos I've noticed several animations and other generic errors. I know it must be hard churning these out as fast as the news comes in, take care and take it slower.
A 52/48 split is not a "very clear message", my goodness. That is not a mandate to do anything and never should have been presented as such.
if the vote had gone the other way, I'd bet you'd be eating your own words and telling us that it's clear as a hot summer day
just because you lost and can't accept the results, that doesn't mean we're going to keep on stalling the made decision until you've gone through all the stages of grief
@@Carl-hs420a Of course. Changing the status quo over something as major as changing the entire basis of the British economy should require a GOOD MAJORITY not a split down the middle. They should have made it 60/40 at least before considering turning the country upside down.
@@lellyparker "GOOD" is a subjective term, and the problem with subjectivity is that it can be easily manipulated.
A majority is a majority. An overwhelming majority would have been better, but a majority was the bare minimum, and Leave won it. Just because there's no overwhelming majority doesn't mean to say there needs to be compromise, because there doesn't. Brexit is a black and white issue; we're either in the EU or out of the EU. The winners want out, therefore we leave.
@@Carl-hs420a While you can argue that 52-48 gives a mandate to leave the EU, you can't say it's a mandate for the hardest of brexits.
@@Carl-hs420a he also offered a ratio 60:40
Anyone want to bet that by the end of 2019 the UK will still be in the EU with no end in sight as to when the UK will be leaving the EU?
UK is now a fake democracy anyway you slice it.
I love the clips of the parliamentary votes. The pure chaos and barbaric shouting is truly the peak of tradition and democracy. lol.
But now with smartphones!
For those who watch all the videos, the new stuff starts at 4:00
This is what happens if you say ‘No’ to everything.
@Xemor
Eh, most countries don't really introduce massive status quo changes based on slim majority and small margins. Usually countries require super majorities for massive changes like this and for good reason. I don't believe that those countries citizens have no faith in democracy. The real loss of faith in democracy was acting as if a 52-48 margin with a vote from only 36% of the entire population was seen as an overwhelming mandate for change which simply was not the case.
"very clear message" wasn't the brexit vote 49% stay 51% leave or something like that?
With a participation rate, that's more like 36% of voters. Also there's the issue that not all "leave" votes were actually for the same thing, some people just wanted more funding for the DHS or a painless trade deal as they were promised by UKIP.
That's part of why the current negotiations are such a mess. Trying to deliver on all those contradictory promises is just not possible.
@@TheStephaneAdam that's sctually the reason, why I do think that this entire Brexit-Mess is undemocratic as fuck and absolutely stupid.
The people were able to decide wether to stay or to leave. But leaving meant so many different things for the leave campagn.
It would have been far better if - after this referendum that's not legally binding, I remind everyone! - there was a second referendum sorting out the leave-ideas.
And also, I'd never called 49/51 a win for anything. Especially not with voting rates below 50%. That was the dumbest thing they ever did, in my opinion and the results are seen everytime when TLDR uploads a videos about Brexit...
A referendum based on false information. Ohhh snap... conveniently people forget to mention this.
Yes, it was a very narrow win... and the result of that is May's Brexit deal failed three times in Parliament, 202 - 432 in January, then 242 - 391 and 286 - 344 in March. If the leave vote was higher, there would probably have been more support for the deal also and Brexit would be done already.
@@CellGames2006 And that's the thing I don't understand. 51% isn't the population and doesn't represent the populations will ...
Especially not with below 50% who actually went to that vote.
That wasn't a referendum to take seriously. This was basically a shame for democracy and an exploit that went well for some people and might damage an entire country/many generations for a long, long time ...
Was it ever explained in this video what the amendment was? "Makes prorogation less likely" is all I got and somehow in all of the 10 minutes I completely missed how they intend on doing that.
Nobody is talking about the real reason why No Deal could happen. The EU could simply refuse an extension.
they have already said 5 years would be ok.
@@samuelvaughan5972 Yes. But give weeks maybe not. Five years effectively cancels Brexit.
Am I the only one to notice that this entire debate is little more than another Aunt Sally?
Johnson doesn't need to prorogue Parliament. The legislation to leave is already in place. Only the PM can request an extension to the Article 50 period, and even if he requests there is no guarantee it will be offered by the EU.
Therefore all Johnson need to do is not put revocation of Article 50 on the Parliamentary schedule...ie. all he needs do is nothing, something he has a particular talent for apparently.
Of course, a backbench motion could be proposed and no doubt Bercow would pass that onto the House...but then you'd have to rely on Tory MP's joining their Labour brethren is confirming that they stand against the referendum result and the manifesto (and therefore mandate) upon which they won their seats . That would take political courage, something evidently lacking in this current Parliament especially amongst the Remain voting cadre.
He could also call for a general election, at just the right time so that parliament is closed for the election campaign at the end of October?
@@iceniwargames6347 he could, but he won't...for the same reason.
It would take courage to do this (plus a hefty dose of self-delusion).
I'd be interested to see a tldr video on this; surely not can't be as easy, why would they be considering prorogation in the first place if they could simply do this?
Well they could stitch together a really weird Coalition of remainers/don't want no dealers to no confidence him. Then form a temporary government to cancel Article 50 and call a general election.
The necessary legislation for no deal Brexit is not in place. The UK would fall in a legal vacuum, as EU law will not be transferred in UK law.
The front of "Brexit is the will of the people" is such utter non-sense - why do they not get called on it?
except that they have a referendum backing them up , sadly but true
But Brexit was indeed the will of the people(Notice how I said was, a 2nd referendum now would result in stay winning most likely,it's like 55-45 now with the polls).No deal Brexit is not the will of the people through 100%.
@@wansichen3743 which - if it had been legally binding - would have been ruled non-and-void due to election fraud.
@@TheDispiteous Was the election fraud actually proven?
52-48
Finally Bercow is back! 😁
I missed him shouting "DIVISION, CLEAR THE LOBBY" so much
I imagine that the house is so unruly that Bercow ia called to be the voice of reason.
He Jon Snow of Houses of Parliament he knows nothing lol
@Mil e uma Receitas de Miojo Is one of them a little weasal shit called Olly lol
It's just as with the new Honest Game Trailers. The replacements do their best, but they're no substitude for the original epic voice.
Prorogation is fancy dress for the term "tyrannical take over"
puts the Brexiteer's sham defence of sovereignty and democracy into perspective.
It's a slight shift of power from the legislative to the executive for a time, and considering the UK is a parliamentary democracy with a very strong legislative power, it's not that big of a deal I think, the executive in many countries have much more power permanently.
Prorogation doesn't actually mean that. Do you know how many times Parliament has been prorogued recently?
Being in favor of an unelected hereditary monarch having powers would certainly be against democracy, if nothing else.
No it doesn't. It's just a end of session that happens often.
Although, ERG MPs are saying that its still extremely difficult for parliament to stop no deal happening.
My friend and I just had a debate over Brexit and the importance of fulfilling the results of the referendums in order to not diminish the power of public voting. I strongly believe that it would be in the interest of the UK to remain in the EU for a multitude of different reasons and although I feel that the public opinion is now more supportive of remaining, I would much rather respect the results and have the people comprehend the severity of not voting/voters remorse for future generations to come. While arriving to my conclusion of the debate, I wondered if it would be possible to suggest that the referendum is not a fair vote because of the simplistic idea of remain/exit for an answer that requires much more than two options. The referendum ends up being a change/no change vote meaning that regardless of whether you want to remain/exit, people are inclined to vote exit because remain would change nothing. Would it be possible to ask for a new referendum with 4 options where you would number off the selection from 1-4 that the citizen would most likely want to see (remain and no change, remain and change, exit with a deal, exit with no deal)? Then you can systematically eliminate the lowest scores and be left with a majority that may be supportive of remaining with changes or exit with deal. Also, this wouldn't diminish the power of referendums and the governments democratic processes with these extended deadlocks.
Also the fact that with May's deal, there is now a concrete idea what "exit with a deal" would look like.
Kernel Cat this isn't a bad idea, actually. My only issue in the long-run is that any vote for status quo vs change is inherently lopsided in one specific way: if the result is change, then a second referendum is seen as undemocratic, but the converse is not true. That is, if the result is status quo, then a second referendum is seen as perfectly acceptable.
This isn't just a theoretical consideration. In practice, there has already been a referendum on leaving the EU a few decades ago. The result was remain. So the 2016 referendum could be seen as undemocratic since it goes against the will of the people from the first referendum. But no one is saying that. So, there are two possibilities. First, people forget about history. In this case, using Brexit to "teach them a lesson" about the consequences of voting won't work in the long run. Second, people think it's fine to hold a second referendum on an issue after some time has passed. In this case, it is impossible to determine how much time should pass. You can make an argument for a specific length of time, but ultimately it's just a matter of personal preference, so you won't get general agreement.
I've also heard some people say we should leave the EU to respect the democratic will of the people, and then once we've left, we can then hold a second referendum to see if they want back in, after they've experienced the consequences of their actions. There are problems here, too. First, that's a very expensive way to teach someone a lesson. Second, (based on the previous paragraph), people will likely forget the lesson within a few decades. Third, if the result would have been remain, how exactly do you teach the remainders the consequences of their actions through the status quo? And (again, from the previous paragraph), when could you do a second referendum?
With change, there is a clear line after which the change has happened that can be used as a cutoff time for any potential second referendum. With status quo, there is no clarity on the timeline.
So it'll be a default No Deal instead of a forced No Deal.
So when are MP's going to make a choice on what they want, they vote no to each deal and they don't want a no deal scenario, they can't have both so they need to grow some balls and choose
No single deal passes, as there is not a majority in favour of any single one. Many I'm sure want to remain, others are going to 'carry out the will of the people', but want to do so in a way that doesn't cripple our economy, meaning a good trade deal needs to be in place when we leave and the Irish border situation needs a plan. And then you have the ones who are happy to pay any cost as long as we are no longer part of the EU.
@@Coldheart322 sure but they need to make a choice either way
@@shanematthews1985 TBH I'm not sure why the house haven't voted on a set of options, eliminated the ones with the least votes, and continued until one option won outright. But I guess no one group is confident their option would win in the end, so they try other tactics first.
@@Coldheart322 They did that, twice. And still they refused to back any possible option.
75% of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU, but they cant just blatantly overrule the voters that put them there and keep their jobs. What better way of getting what they want than to make the whole thing seem undeliverable and keep it going around in limbo until it eventually collapses and we just end up staying.
Then those 75% of remain MPs can tell their voters how sad they are that it didn't work out, and how they tried their very best but couldn't make it work. Sniffle.
*DIVISSIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN!*
So... despite this bill parliament is being prorogued anyway? How does that work - explain, please!
Nothing could possibly go wrong by calling a general election to cement a majority; after all, it worked out for May so well...
"Time to go medival" - Frank Underwood Season 2
So...I'd really appreciate if you make a video about the likeliness of renegotiation.
Is the EU just trying to scare the UK, or are they really not going to renegotiate? If they do, how long will it take? Who has the upper hand? Since both candidates promised renegotiation, I think this will be very important to the plot of the next season of Brexit.
I am of the opinion that this is once again political propaganda, the UK keeps thinking they have any negociating power over the EU and whatever they do the EU will comply and simply give them the best deal possible. The reality, however, is that the UK has been wasting time from the moment A50 was triggered and even during this extension have done absolutely anything to solve the Brexit crisis. If the EU were to begin negociations once again it will be very damaging to their image and it might set a bad precedent for other member states wanting to leave. At this point the UK only has to decide between no deal and no Brexit, since they really have no other option, and they have only themselves and their incompetence to blame.
spoopytime I don’t think they would renegotiate. They could have done this with May long time ago rather than now with all this mess. Apparently this doesn’t really threat anybody, at least not now. I doubt that the EU would want to renegotiate given everything happening with the Brexit Party drama at the EU parliament.
Renegotiate is pointless and avoiding the problem. It's mainly filibustering. Why would the EU bother to renegotiate? It's either an inevitable no deal Brexit and then do catch up on the wasted 2-3 years May's government had to plan for this potential outcome or some informal political civil war to not leave.
It’s kinda funny to see how there are people who find it realistic that a bureaucratic apparatus should be good at playing mind games… whereas they’re more like a human machine.
@@marekj1100 Yeah maybe I forgot that I'm way too used to that adjecent country of ours playing mind games by threatening us with nukes.
Please, Please keep up the great work. This type of content which is what we need more of in general.
@HazardousPleb V Neutral viewpoints are propaganda now? What a world we live in.
@HazardousPleb V I mean, yes in fact, It's presenting the facts in a very unbiased nature.
@HazardousPleb V What would you say isn't neutral about the video?
@HazardousPleb V If you don't like neutral unbiased content you can not watch it. That's okay.
Explain how this is propaganda, the events are presented as they happened and the consequences explained in an unbiased factual way. Just because you don't like the outcome informing you of it doesn't make it propaganda.
@4:53 "The country sent us all a very clear message at the polls that they want this [brexit] done." No, no they didn't. They sent the very clear message that it is divided right down the middle.
Why cant they make a referendum askimg the ppl what kind of brexit they want and follow the peoples decision?
Because those seeking a second referendum want to ensure the questions only allow for a light partial Brexit that keeps the UK tied to the EU, or full on remaining in the EU. It is a pretext to try and prevent a full Brexit.
If they wanted a simple referendum between No deal, or the withdrawal agreement, almost nobody would mind. They don't want that though, they want to have another go at getting us to agree to stay.
@@lesigh1749 my question is rather "why dont they want this kind of referundum"
@@hiXhaX-YT Well if there was a suggestion of a second vote to ONLY decide what sort of leave option people wanted, most people would likely agree to that.
But the "peoples vote" activists want an essentially rigged question on their planned referendum. They want two or more leave options, none of which can be "no deal Brexit" because they don't like it and don't think it should be on the ballot. Then they want a single remain option. That would obviously split the leave voters two ways, and make the single remain option seem to be the most popular even if the leave options together outnumbered it.
Not surprisingly all the people that WON the first referendum do not want to agree to a second vote based on those rules.
I'd like to suggest a particular topic for your next video:
What is a ‘Humble Address’ in Parliament? How could it be used? What are its chances and what implications could it have?
Apparently, according to the BBC, very senior Tories are examining the possibility of asking the Queen to exercise her right as head of state to travel to the next European summit to submit a request for an extension to article 50.
Why the hell would she do that? The union of the UK with Europe diminishes her sovereignty over her own country. she can't possibly be a remainer or want a deal that allows the EU to maintain any sort of grip over the law making of her Parliament and her own sole approval of those laws..
EU played well with UK's monarchy because it was understood as being stripped of any political power. If the queen starts touring Europe for political reasons, the EU might as well throw UK out of EU, since it is not a democratic country, since the Queen is not elected. If this happens, it would be bad for UK, and honestly, rather embarrassing. I would say leaving without a deal is better than having the image of being thrown away. I don't believe the Queen will get involved. She didn't make it through all these years by being stupid.
"A very clear message that they want this done" I dont think so pal.
The star of this whole show 5:28
MPs don't have the power to stop no deal as far as I'm aware? All the government has to do is nothing
They can pass a law revoking article 50 if needed. Parliament is supreme, that can include the government or it can not.
You should state that if UK reaches no deal with the EU on the WA, then the UK DEFAULTS to WTO trading. Language is important here, and the use of the word default conjures negative connotations. Leaving with no deal sounds like you've left the blackjack table at a casino
Democracy in the United Kingdom must be protected
Democracy in United Kingdom must be implemented.
(Today only a marionette democracy is installed)
Wisdom in the UK must be protected, not the chaotic democracy.
@@peterebel7899 It is being implemented, through a representative democracy not a direct democracy.
The only sovereign vote the public has is a general election every 5yrs where you get to choose who will represent you.
Parliament is sovereign, this is what taking back control looks like even if it's not how you thought it was how things would work out.
Really hard to say what the sentence of the OP really means. Is it undemocratic to have a second referendum? I can see arguments for or against this. Is it democratic to leave without a deal when *everybody* didn't see that as an option during the time of the election? What exactly *is* the will of the people at this point?
@@geztaylor Shhhh they dont like it when you tell them that due to parliamentary sovereignty the ref was a suggestion and not a mandate. No matter what a politician says or wants everything is irrelevent unless it goes through the house.
Anything that happens in parliament is the definition of democracy in this country, prorogation is the complete opposite of how our democracy has been for hundreds of years.
This is what happens when referendums are used in representative democracies and the masses (on both sides) dont actually understand what is law and what is not.
Isn't this already irrelevant anyway? He doesn't have to "force" a no deal, if the legal default is a no deal without a deal agreed; in other words if Boris doesn't request an extension, then it's a no deal regardless.
MISTAKE -
The vote made as shown in this video is NOT legally binding.
So any new leader can ignore it.
The government make laws, so there is NO law made here.
Now that was a Patreon push I liked. No commenting on personal situation, plain benefits explanation. Thumbs up.
@Qimodis ?
Yikes this may cause riots.
Technical question. Could you please switch to a dark mode for your slides / animations? It is extremely unpleasant to watch these videos at night, before sleep. Can’t decide which is worse: 60” tv blasting light in the entire room, or watching a bright (even when dimmed) phone screen before sleep - that’s when I have the time to watch your videos. I’m guessing lots of your viewers do this, too. I know you are recognized by your color scheme, but the frustration about the lightness of your slides is distracting.
Thanks. Keep up the great work.
MPs voting to minimize the future options for the UK ... they must be geniuses.
God level IQ
Yep, the danger of all this attempting to prevent No Deal bs is just strengthening the EU's hand. They are just laughing at us at this point. Most rational people realise that you don't remove an option like No Deal, as it just leaves us extremely weak in any negotiations. The EU knew May could never get No Deal through, so they treated her as such.
The real objective of removing No Deal appears to be more about preventing Brexit altogether. But the real danger is, we get a deal that is worse than No Deal now, in that instance we would have been better off staying in all along.
Can poeple who voted leave explain to me how stating the fact that a No Deal will severely damage the economy proproganda? Especially when the head of the bank of England (a Royal institute so about as patriotic as you get) , the treasurer, the chancellor and WTO chiefs haves said it will severely damage the british economy and add to that the Director General of the WTO said that the No Deal that hard brexiteers want is actually impossible under WTO rules (Article 24, Section 5C for example). So please remind me again how that is proproganda?
battered walrus I honestly cannot wrap my head around their ideology: instead of trading with familiar partners in a largely hospitable and favorable market, they instead choose to subject themselves to a much larger, more hostile market. Set aside dangerous nationalism, that’s just lousy business practice.
battered walrus no one trusts these people they have never been right they wanted the uk to be a part of the euro thank god we didn’t do that and about brexit they keep on changing their numbers before the vote they said the economic growth will drop by 3% to 12% but now they are saying 2% so why should people listen to them when they are wrong all the time
@HazardousPleb V well we do know that the NHS is certainly on the chopping block to hand out to private companies for profit so yeh ignoring the economic parts that alone is enough for me to be against leaving. That's all I'll say about my opinions though
The reality is no one knows how this is going to play out. Preparing for the worst is always favourable in any case. A no deal brexit will bring a great deal of strife to both the British and Irish guaranteed but to what extent is unknown for the moment.
@@richardhills6952 aye but that's what speculative economics is they make the best guestemations they can, but depending on what factors they look into it can change dramatically, part of the reasons why their estimates were all over the place was simply down to the fact that *no one has ever* done this type of radical economic change before so it was limited data and a lot of guessing.
Now 3 years in we have a much more solid data set to make informed estimates on hence why it took the Bank of England and others like the treasurer, Chancellor and WTO Chiefs to come to the more recent economic conclusion
3:10 That moment when a show changes an actor without explanation.
5:30 ... and they bring him back in the same episode.
I am literally getting ptsd with the definition of prorogation...
Me: I haven't been keeping up on news, I'll watch this to catch up
1:12 : ...Boris Johnson, who will *almost certainly become Prime Minister next week* ...
Me: WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS
Yeah its been his masterplan since the start. He lies through his back teeth, gets rid of the prime minister, knows it's a poisoned chalice, rules himself out knowing May will fail and he can sweep in and pick up the pieces.
Let the nation decide if this pillock should be in charge of the country!
Brexit: Like playing chicken, but you're driving a country. Don't worry, we're SURE the other guys will swerve first!
Clearly the EU would not be stupid enough to keep driving forward without swerving, its bulldozer would be smashed by our bicycle!
If you watch TLDR News regularly, skip to 3:33.
It’s 2:00am in the US
Me: yes! Another tldr Brexit explained video!
Cant wait for brexit season 3 in october
People are already fed up of the antics taking place in parliament. The longer this show goes on, the more likely it is labour and tories will face an absolute annihilation in the next GE.
Its like a game of poker but everyone can see our cards.
Pathetic.
It's like a game of chess where everybody can see the board.
@@czarzenana5125 but not all the chess pieces are playing for the same team.
I'd say it is more like a game of Battleships, but we yelled where half our pieces are at the start and keep shooting as the same space somehow thinking the ships can move and that even if they could, the other guy will somehow be stupid enough to move all his ships there because we told him to while insulting him.
@@ricco123tube
LOL, the chess pieces of the UK are playing for the same team, but they didn't agree on the outcome.
Can we have more information on the woman doing her best Bercow impression? Where's John?
Her order is just not as good as Bercow's Order
It is absolutely encouraging to see that more
and more inhabitants, more deputies and even
cabinet members are turning to the same path.
On a path with clear directions.
And with a clear targett. That is:
We see the right answer
-- Revoke --
-- Remain --
-- Reform --
This parlament looks like a madhouse filled with mental illness patients playing their game
I know it’s hard but try to make an effort to be a bit less remain bias in the future. Makes leavers want to unsubscribe
You say that like its a bad thing.
Thank you for the vid!
Sound seemed slightly off but maybe you're feeling sick or blocked up in which case that's that, just noting, love the vids
It would be interesting to see a flow chart of the possible outcomes from this point, along with a rough idea of the likelihood of each outcome. Then update that flow chart each time one of the events on the chart either happens or is ruled out. Right now, it looks like every possible outcome is very unlikely, which is a contradiction given that there will, eventually, be some kind of outcome. So for example: Government hangs on in there and gets an acceptable deal (quite unlikely) or parliament agrees to no deal (very unlikely). OR Government collapses (quite possible) followed by General Election. Followed by the various reasonable outcomes and likelihoods. Then what an incoming party or coalition could do. Etc.
"Right now, it looks like every possible outcome is very unlikely, which is a contradiction given that there will, eventually, be some kind of outcome." That's not a contradiction. There are just a lot of possibilities.
Those 315 eyes. Are they sure they didnt change their mind? They have that right. Maybe they should revote.
Do MPs that vote against the general position of their party get punished by their party in any way?
In the US, legislators who don't vote by party lines tend to lose committee positions, campaign financing, etc.
The whips usually have dirt on all mp's so essentially try to blackmail them into voting the right way. Additionally if they vote against their own party they can kiss any chance of a government job goodbye. In normal times this is enough to ensure good party discipline but this Brexit issue has revealed many lawmakers to be unhinged.
The standard punishment is that they lose a government position if they vote against the government if they're a backbencher they could lose any future chance at a higher position in the government or party. There is also the risk of being deselected or outright booted by the party in certain circumstances. However, given how small the government majority is doing so would make it even weaker.
The party system is breaking down over Brexit. The fight now is between those who care most about the well being of the UK, and those that want Brexit at all costs. Even at the expense of the democracy that Brexit was supposed to deliver.
This is why I fundamentally disagree with the multi-party system
Brexit is just the deep cleaner revealing the rot underneath the paint.
You show your own bias by how you phrase that statement. Some consider Brexit harmful, but is membership of the EU good for the wellbeing of the country? How is having your country slowly taken over by a supranational league with plans to become a united states of Europe a good thing? Your country wont exist at all then.
Agreed, the public has clearly lost confidence in the current parliament and its government. I suggest an immediate general election. You're welcome to run Boris Johnson as your Tory prime minister candidate and a Brexit party.
In the end, it wouldn't help much. Unless there were a second referendum coalition in power, any other parties would still have the same impossible situation to get through parliament.
yes why not lets do another march as well get the torches out lol
@Jake L oh yes and the street party afterwards lol
5:30
*HUMANITY RESTORED*
Indeed
"The people gave us a clear message."
The people voted yes for a question they didn't understand, and British politics succeeded in making a bad idea even worse...
THIS IS ORDAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Where does the Speaker get his ties? They are brilliant.
Uhhh ... you didn't actually explain what the amendment was?
But how can the public force a no-deal brexit ???
Palace of Westminster: **something happens**
TLDR News: _Ah Shit, Here We Go Again_
brexit is so exciting, i have no idea what will happen next
i know right? It's like the peak of political entertainment XD
parliament is full of remoaners
remoaners are traitors
parliament is full of traitors
i can guess what happens next and its that traitors in parliament will use whatever legal instrument they've got at their disposal to make sure that the will of the British people is overruled
@@Carl-hs420a Mate you should stop introducing crayons into your nose. Be careful, you may take out that one or two lonely neurons.
@@bfedezl2018 whatever you say, loser
Thanks for the straightforward explanations of a complicated subject, as always, including your use of graphics.
The problem with the Brexit negotiations is that the PM doesn't seem to have full negotiation rights with the EU not while the MPs meddling in the process and by limiting the options available for negotiation UK is putting themselves in bad position before the negotiations even started.
you need to get some rest . Videos can wait ,you are making lot of mistakes
nav k care to name some examples?
@@gralfighter
Three-ish minutes into the video a clip from parliament is shown. The wrong clip.
I also noticed sloppy sound editing across several videos.
If the staff of TLDR reads this: Get some rest.
Keep up with the good work about brexit boys … brexit keeps changing , so we need you to update us
TLDR, if you been watching all videos you can start @3.39 before then is just fill and recap like alot of starts on this channel to hit the 10 min marker
Ok, can anyone please explain what this "tyranny of the EU" means? Nobody ever explained it to us Americans.
Because the UK is subject to EU rules and EU rules are made by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone. Further, they are foreigners with no loyalty to the UK, yet their decisions are binding on the UK. Even the elected part of the EU is foreign so you have a group of foreigners passing laws on the UK that the UK must obey even if they are harmful to the UK and the citizens of the UK don’t support it. It would be like a group of Canadians and Mexicans getting together to pass laws on the US without getting consent from the US and that the US cannot override or ignore. You also have the decisions of other countries impacting the UK, like Germany deciding to let in millions of third worlders, even though the UK has a more sensible immigration policy, it doesn’t matter because once Germany lets them in they are free to go anywhere in the EU and the UK is not allowed to keep them out.
@@cplinstructor Dude, we have elected members by the UK in the EU parliament. We actively take part in it! FFS
wanderer10k
Sure, but could the EU pass laws on the UK even if every single UK representative voted against it? Yep. Can the UK do anything to stop it, or decide not to obey it? No.
It's a talking point for people who are pro-Leave. By invoking tyranny they hope to imply a lack of democracy and exploit people who lack understanding of the EU by making it seem like its something it's not.
@@cplinstructor that's always the case though. every MP in [insert any city in UK] could vote against a law in parliament but that won't be enough to stop the passage of the law if the rest of the country votes for it, and that city can't do anything about it. Foreigners are always making laws that you have to follow, they may just be foreigners to your city. You don't see Bristol saying "we need to leave the UK because of these people not from Bristol, these foreigners, are making laws that we have to follow." They don't say it because they'd be worse off if they left
I hate to say it but... British politics are a bit more exciting than Canadian politics
Boring is good! (The bland is strong!)
I think it was always a lot more likely that they do nothing and go with a default no deal, rather than anyone forcing them to take a no deal.
Is there any way the exit process could expire that would result in the UK remaining with the EU rather than having a no-deal Brexit?
It’s weird hearing a non-Bercow say “clear the lobby” and “ordaaaaaar”
Head hurting more ...
The UK government process desperately needs updating.
Brexit season 3 has had so many twists, surely the writers will run out of ideas by the time season 4 comes around
Aye a shoutout for Brecon and Radnor!
Can you do a video on the tory mps wanting the queen to step in
Honestly, I want her to step in. She still does have supreme authority even if she doesn't use it.
I'm disappointed that the attention to detail and accuracy of this channel has fallen dramatically in the past few weeks. I really like your content, please try and be more careful.
no where in the video is it explained what the amendment actually is; and as others have already pointed out, the wrong video of the other amendment passing was inserted.
I'm not being critical for being critical sake; having watched this video (a few times to make sure it wasn't me, and having watched the previous video about the Northern Ireland amendments earlier) literally confused me more though.
But you didn't explain what was the amendment! How/why does it prevent prorogation?
There’s no need to force through a no-deal. If Parliament doesn’t revoke the Article 50 Act then it can still happen. Especially if some of the EU27, are less likely to support another extension.
What are they doing on the other site of the channel. I hope they know it.
delightful...
Wrong clip for Amendment 15
No deal = economic kamikaze
pathetic propaganda
@HazardousPleb V You all lost if you're not a tax avoider
HazardousPleb V get your country back? Which country?
only asking as you've not given any context to your argument. Your profile has no info so for all we know you could be a spotty teenage Russian kid.
fair enough. But I ain't left mate. Both feet firmly planted in the centre, that's where we build, develop, grow as a nation and people. Just because I don't agree with your diatribe, doesn't mean I'm a lefty.
What happens if the new PM calls an election sometime in October , parliament will be on hold come the 31st , do we just leave by default ? If we're in the middle of an election , what's to stop the default position leaving ,no deal , will this not be the same position as prorogation ?
There are two options: the withdrawal agreement or no deal. Why this show?
Wayyy too many adverts on this video, really ruins the flow when they are put in the middle of the video. I like your channel a lot but this is not good. Don’t know if I’ll keep my patreon.
I still think it's utterly hilarious that a non-binding vote continues to have such weight, especially after such large changes in government that've happened and are yet to come. You have so many people speaking as if this vote were utterly binding in every way, as if not heeding a non-binding vote would destroy the very concept of democracy
6:02 cheeky little look from Bercow
Doesn't parliament blocking a no deal just kill the negotiating power of the UK, that surely isnt good
What negotiating power is gained by threatening no deal? Standing there threatening to shoot yourself in the foot isn't exactly a stellar tactic.