No exit (a) from brexit (a)

There were two ballots in a row in the House of Commons of Great Britain. January 15 and January 16.

Before the January 15 vote, both the government and the opposition turned on their demagogy.

Prime Minister Theresa May pompously (in the style of Napoleon’s “My grenadiers! The sun of Austerlitz shines for you!”), Mentioning history and future generations, rehearsedly worried: “I appeal to all political groups ... When in historical documents ... Future generations will decide that we have failed the British people ... "

Teresa May's opponent - the old man, the leader of the Labor Party, Jeremy Corbin - is straightforward, like nails to the head: "The government that has lost confidence must surrender its mandate! .." (I did not say that, they say, we, the Labor Party, should pass, but that meant.)

Before the January 15 vote, British analysts and journalists wrote that, in general, the parliament was against Theresa May.

So it turned out. On January 15, 432 deputies of the House of Commons voted against the May plan for secession from the EU and only 202 voted for the May plan.

By any measure, two-thirds of the composition of the lower house of parliament against it sounds very convincing. Here they would stop and point out the door to the government, which failed to cope with its duties in two years.

But then Jeremy Corbin got out again (a typical left-wing professor: some hair around the skull, dandruff is not visible, but most likely there is - Head-and-Shoulders left intellectuals do not use) and shouted: "The largest defeat in the House of Commons since the 20s! Therefore, I am bringing up the issue of a vote of no confidence in the government! ”

Happiness at the same time, as they say, full pants from the professor: it was obvious from his face that he was happy. The bureaucrat is always happy when he arrives according to the regulations.

Well made. The vote took place on January 16, that is, the day after the vote against the May plan.

Please note that the same people voted.

Voted.

The results are strikingly different from the results of the January 15 vote: 306 deputies voted for mistrust in the government, and 325 deputies voted against.

What happened? After all, the same people voted the next day. ON THE NEXT DAY!

And it happened because in fact in Britain there is a two-party political system (several small parties change little — yes, they don’t change anything!) When the country is initially divided in two by political parties. “They would take Mondays and cancel”, introduce another, not bipartisan system. But no - they will still vote fruitlessly every day. The tradition binds them more terrible slave chains!

May remained the prime minister. Now, May has a few days to amend his plan and submit it to the EU and again to the House of Commons, where they will vote again.

British media write that there are as many as three options for subsequent events:

1) a new referendum (perhaps the people of Great Britain decided not to leave the EU);
2) the UK will leave the EU without a contract, that is, "without a deal";
3) the resignation of the government and early parliamentary elections.

British media claim that the UK is most likely to leave the EU without agreement, that is, in a wild way.

My personal opinion.

The British political system is hopelessly outdated, does not work at all. They are there helplessly wallowing, proud, in their antediluvian (as the oldest in the world! Damn he is glad if he is helpless!) Parliament.

Every day they vote and look like idiots in the eyes of the whole world, even in the eyes of Europe, too, antediluvian (but to a lesser extent) located across the strait. The main problem of the UK is a two-party system, a tradition that forces the British to split into two opposing teams in advance (in fact, they have not been different from each other for a long time). The nation is actually divided by tradition.

Britain does not shine anything, as long as it remains a two-party system.

The January 15 vote was a sensible vote on the case. But the results of his (the vote on January 15) were destroyed by a vote on January 16, and it was the usual vote of traditions - an actual always draw. Why did you do it, this wall to the wall?

After these two ballots, should one be surprised that they needed the Skripale case to divert the world's attention from their disgrace, from their powerlessness in which they dwell.

Yes, you finally change your antediluvian political system, eh!

Your traditions prevent you from living, the British!

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.