MvdV>>> So... he realises there is no way he can deliver on his MvdV>>> promises, throws the towel in the ring and lets others clean up MvdV>>> the mess he made . What a coward!
DR>> That's a very simplistic reply! How little you understand politics.
MvdV> Sometimes the simplistic aproach is the right one. If it walks like a MvdV> duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, chances are it is a MvdV> duck.
That sounds very clever but is completely inapplicable to this situation.
MvdV> Things ARE different in The Netherlands. I already mentioned that MPs MvdV> are not associated with a geographical area. No gerrymandering here, no MvdV> writing to your local MP. There is no such thing.
That is unusual. So your MPs are not answerable to any constituents?
MvdV> An even more important difference is that here cabinet ministers and MvdV> secretaries of state are not MPs. That is against the law. If they come MvdV> into the position of cabinet minister from being an MP, they have to MvdV> resign as MP.
How do they get to become ministers? Can non-MPs become ministers? Or are your ministers more like our Upper House (the House of Lords)?
MvdV> Third: a situation where the prime minister resigns but the rest of the MvdV> government remains in place is impossible here. Individual cabinet MvdV> ministers can resign and usually they are replaced without much ado MvdV> within a couple of days, this is impossible for the prime minister. The MvdV> resignation of the prime ministers equates to the resignation of the MvdV> entire government and that triggers a general election.
Parliament is not the same as the government, nor are all of the MPs belonging to the party in government actually members of the government. The prime minister chooses his or her government from among the most talented MPs and, if he resigns, then the new prime minister will then choose a new government.
However, if the prime minister resigns through losing a parliamentary vote of confidence then he has to advise the Queen that the country must have a general election. The outcome of the referendum was not a parliamentary vote of confidence.
DR>> Before anyone puts themselves up as a candidate in a leadership DR>> election, they have to ensure that they have the backing of a critical DR>> number of MPs.
MvdV> Again that is different here. It is not the MPs that decide, it is the MvdV> party that decides who will be the leader for that party. There are no MvdV> uniform rules for that. In some parties the committee decides, in MvdV> others the members decide.
Each party in the UK has its own method of choosing a leader. In my last message I wrote how the Conservative Party elects its leader. The Labour Party is different. Their leader and deputy leader are chosen at their annual conference. Hence the mess they've got themselves into. If there were five candidates in an election then all of those candidates are put into a ballot in which the whole party takes part, and thus the MPs don't actually have a direct say. Jeremy Corbyn was elected that way but it was well-known that he was not a popular candidate amongst the MPs. The MPs really wanted someone who would continue along the lines of Tony Blair whereas the grass-roots supporters, and the trades unions (who are great supporters of Labour), wanted Old Labour back again, the Labour of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson.
If Labour did it the Conservative way then the field of candidates is whittled down by the MPs to just two, thus ensuring that, whichever wins when the grass roots supporters have their say, the winner would be someone with whom the MPs could work.
DR>> You haven't seen the last of Boris Johnson.
MvdV> We will see.
You have for the moment. But wait for a general election in about five years' time.
MvdV> And now Nigel Farrage has resigned as well. This side of the pond it is MvdV> looked upon as the rats leaving the sinking ship. That Cameron resigned MvdV> stands to reason. He lost. But Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage? They MvdV> won. Here the winners don't resign, they grab the reigns.
It's "reins" as in horses' reins.
But no, no, no!!! You still don't understand. Boris and Nigel Farage did NOT lead their respective parties into Brexit in order to become prime minister. That is a totally different matter. They led a campaign to secure a vote to leave the EU. That was all. The matter of leading the country's negotiations for Brexit is an entirely different matter. They wouldn't automatically have become prime minister. They, or at least Boris, would have to go through all the business of getting elected. Farage, even if still the leader of UKIP, would never have had any opportunity of doing any more except to shout from the sidelines which is what he has been doing all along. Boris withdrew because he didn't have enough support and, rather than split the vote, he withdrew in order that a weak candidate got in by default. Not only do you not understand the situation but, listening to reports from the EU parliament this lunchtime, neither do they! They haven't a clue (and probably don't care either) how British politics works. As far as I could understand, they were just letting off steam because Brexit is going to cause problems for them as well as us.
It's reported by MSN that Angela Merkel is moving towards trying to remove Juncker as president. She seems to think that his inflexibility has caused this crisis - and she's probably right. Inflexibility is the antithesis of politics. Why do you think it's called politics?
David
-- Formerly ICHTHUS (Reading) UK (1987-2007 R.I.P.) (2:292/854.110)
