For those appalled by US politics, our UK politics isn't anything to be proud of

[pjknibbs]

If I have to say a reason, probably because many who wanted to stay didn't think they needed to vote, believing no one crazy enough to vote leave anyway.

A colleague of mine at work never, ever votes, yet complained about the Brexit result anyway--I did point out to him that he really didn't have many grounds for complaint since he didn't involve himself in the process!

[Mightysword]

In the UK it is possible for an incompetent Prime Minister to be removed from office. The country retains the possibility of the no confidence vote.

The US has the same capacity. It starts with the impeachment vote in the house and end with the removal vote by the senate, and that's not even the only mechanism. Two things to keep in mind:

- The US president is an elected position, whether the UK prime minister position is an appointed position. It's naturally a lot harder to remove the former than the latter.
- The US government works on the principal of separation of power, while the UK system AFAIK is more uniformed. I think most people probably are not aware or forget the fact that the UK Prime minister is actually a more powerful/influential position within the government than the US president because they're guaranteed as the head of the majority party.

The only time it may not be the case is if the president's party controls both chambers of congress which does not very often. When it does happens, you can argue it's per the will of the electorate, and if things does not go well, it's also often very quickly corrected (that's what the mid-term election is for). So even without the risk of being easily removed from office, a president can still get hosed and not be able to do a lot of things (lame duck). It's simply different check and balance system that's more opened to the voters rather than a closed circuit among politician.

On the other hand if the Prime Minister is removed from her post, but the government remains under an even worse PM then perhaps I spoke too soon.

There you go. Japan flipped through 6 Prime Minister in 5 years, did it help their country? Nope. People should not pretend a country problem is caused by one person, and can be solved simply by removing said person. A PM or President, in a way is just the outlet or representation of the problems in a country politic/populate.

@Bruce: seemed you removed the post when I was replying, regardless, my points still stand.

[brucewarren]

Sorry about that.

After I'd posted that I realised that Mrs May might be in danger of being replaced by someone like Boris Johnson. That being the case I realised
that I'd just contradicted myself and wasn't adding to the debate.

I hope you're right about impeachment but my fear is that it's become one of those rules that exist only in theory. To my knowledge no president
of the US has ever been removed from office by that mechanism. On the other hand prime ministers have been removed by no confidence votes.

[BugMeister]

- Europe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vAvoaOaJNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblfKREj50o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQr24qVt7f4
- you gorra larf..

[Mightysword]

I hope you're right about impeachment but my fear is that it's become one of those rules that exist only in theory. To my knowledge no president
of the US has ever been removed from office by that mechanism. On the other hand prime ministers have been removed by no confidence votes.

Like I said, for good reason, and that reason being one is elected and the other is appointed. I think you're underestimating the significance of that difference, even as simple as it sounds.

- The UK PM does not have a direct or personal connection to the voters. And it's much more simple to remove an appointee and appoint another one, since it doesn't involves the populate's opinion.
- The POTUS has that connection. You also have to consider that being an elected position, you're effective removing someone 'the people' elect and substitute with an unelected person. The succession hierarchy exist to ensure the government can function if the president is removed under extreme circumstances, it's definitely not meant to be utilized in the same manner of a non-confidence vote.

Remember all those people screaming "NOT MY PRESIDENT" when Trump took office? Now try to imagine what the people who did voted for him gonna do if he's removed for political reason. I think the closest parallel for you guys is imagine if your government say "men, Brexit is rough, it's really not working out so let's forget about the referendum and stay in Europe, it was a bunch of lie anyway". Now, while many probably would cheer or even hoping for that idea (at least that's the impression I got), your governments still have to grit its teeth and go through with it even if it seems their butts being skinned. Being a result of a 'vote' simply empower the process that much, you can't go back on it even when it seems the majority want it to happen. Because think about how the people who voted exiter (no matter how few you think they are) will react.

Not saying it can't happen, but again just like Brexit, it's only the absolute last option when no other recourse is possible. So yes, the POTUS has a much better job security than your PM, but it's also a lot harder to become a POTUS then a PM (Hilary would be our President every time Democrat win majority, and I'm not sure that's a good thing). And instead of a general election every 5 years, the American system have a soft referendum every 2 years and a hard 4 to control his power.

[Antilogic]

Looks like we are about to see the Brexit Hardliners drag themselves into the 1922 to vote, having already shot both of their legs off at the knees.

[BugMeister]

the truth is out - they don't care..
- they just don't care..
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ns-un-says

while Sainsbury's starts selling insects to the public:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... a-uk-first

meanwhile the in-bred political charade to garner yet more power continues in Westminster:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nt-workers

- something has gone TERRIBLY wrong..

[BugMeister]

stupid governance is stupid governance wherever it rears its ugly head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmX3RWDciWo

and then there's the BoJo factor:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... 00000-loss

-stupid is stupid ..nationalism doesn't come into it..

[Bishop149]

Erm, UK law about fraud, bribery and corruption is mandatory for organisations to be aware of and take action over. Covered under UK Bribery Act 2010, UK Fraud Act 2006, employees and their managers are liable.

Yes but as you point out this was a fairly recent change to the law, well . . . . recent enough that I can remember the point at which companies stopped bribing me with freebies, mores the pity (no sportscars or expensive wines here, scientists are INCREDIBLY cheap, we'd be happy with a nice pen and some biscuits)
I'm curious as to how these laws apply in regard to expenses.
For example: My work place allows me to claim £20 / person / day for an evening meal when away on business, a perfectly reasonable amount that should cover a decent dinner in any high street restaurant.
However, if I am "entertaining" someone who does not work for my institution with said evening meal this doubles to £40 / person / day . . . . . implying that a fancier restaurant can now be used. I think there are even special rules that bump it up even further but I've never been in a position to know about those.
This is basically bribery innit.

More eligible people in the UK who voted said Exit than Stay. That's how democracy works over here. There's no cause for any rigging conspiracy or technical dispute over that.

There is one further point here.
In regard to the EU referendum the UK governments chose to ignore its own guidelines (Note: only guidelines, not law) on conducting referenda. These state that in order to be carried the option to change the status quo must carry an absolute majority of the ELIGIBLE vote. Not the CAST vote, meaning that technically those that chose not to vote are still acknowledged in some way.
This makes a certain amount of sense, if people can't be bothered to turn out to vote for a thing it stands to reason they don't consider it important enough to change.
Even these guideline are more permissive than the rules of most countries which often require a supermajority of some kind in order to carry the change. The idea there being to avoid the possibility of an indecisive 49:51% split which might lead to political paralysis. Hmmmmm, I wonder what that looks like.

[BugMeister]

Brexit promises misery - especially for the poor..

- good time to read 1,Corinthians Ch13 methinks..

[BugMeister]

says it all really:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hrhcGzcTGI

the only thing that unites us here in England, is the absolute stupidity of our politicians..

[Chips]

Yes but as you point out this was a fairly recent change to the law, well . . . . recent enough that I can remember the point at which companies stopped bribing me with freebies, mores the pity (no sportscars or expensive wines here, scientists are INCREDIBLY cheap, we'd be happy with a nice pen and some biscuits)

Erm, when you see a date on a piece of legislation, it doesn't mean that was the first instance in history. So 2010 was a consolidation/updating of various laws sprinkled around legislation over the years. e.g. Anti bribery/corruption acts date from 1880's forwards; possibly a multitude of various locations.

However, no real idea how much it changed over the years.

This is basically bribery innit.

No. Perhaps get reading However, I wouldn't read legislation. There's likely handy bitesized bullet points you can read from companies and/or maybe Government websites.

[silenced]

I'm amazed how you think your politics are bad or similar. You want to have our Angela for a month or two? With all her staff. She will show you how to make your politicians be angels in comparison, and you wish you had taken her for a week only.

[BugMeister]

- it's rough out there:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... arity-says

[RegisterMe]

However, no real idea how much it changed over the years.

Much of the UK's view of itself is based on WWII.
Much of the UK's position in WWII was based on The Empire.
Much of The Empire was based on the East India Company.
Much of the East India Company was based on capital provided by Elizabeth I.
Much of the capital that Elizabeth I had available to her was based on investments she'd made in Drake's anti-Spanish ventures.
Much of the capital that Drake pulled together, to fund those ventures, derived from slave trading and piracy (and indeed in their own right involved piracy and slavery).

So not much then.

(and yeah yeah, a very superficial rundown, and there are some glaring omissions, obvious amongst which is our tax evaders to the left and the French to the right, oh, and proto-Germany and that bugger Bismarck. Etc etc etc).

Still, hopefully an amusing lens for my countrymen to use to reflect on our national virtue .