A successful no confidence vote in the UK triggers an election at the earliest opportunity
Comment on [deleted]
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 days ago
They do, it’s impeachment, it works about as well as a non-confidence vote.
9point6@lemmy.world 2 days ago
higgsboson@piefed.social 2 days ago
And likewise a successful impeachment would be required for it to mean anything in the US.
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Trump has been successfully impeached twice. Impeachment just doesn’t mean “removed from office” like everything thought it did. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is who makes the decision about whether an impeached president is removed from office or not.
Triasha@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The Constitution is clear, the house votes to impeach, the Senate votes to convict and needs a supermajority.
Nixon resigned because it was a done deal that he would be convicted. Trump remained and his party did a little jury nullification and voted not guilty regardless of the evidence.
The SC didn’t need to do anything to stop impeachment (and doesn’t have the legal authority to do anything about it regardless)
d00phy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
AFAIK, the only involvement SCOTUS has in a presidential impeachment is the chief justice presides over the hearing in the Senate. That’s the procedure that would remove the president from office.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Impeachment just opens somebody up to trial without the protections of the office. It does not remove them from office.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Party leader resigns and their next party leader takes over and nothing changes most time. A no confidence election doesn’t happen if they resign, there’s ways around it.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 day ago
It changes.
In the UK the sequence Cameron -> May -> Johnson -> Truss -> Sunak definitely had differences. They were variations on a theme sure, but there were differences.
Admetus@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Even if they resign, a no-confidence vote can occur for the next prime minister. It’s just that everybody is placated for a bit.
wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
No confidence votes are a referendum that forces a new vote. Impeachment is done by representatives and kicks off a process that gets blocked by the senate and results in no change, ever.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
It was ridiculously political (shocker) and a lot more complicated, but the simple explanation is that the case against Nixon was so solid that he preemptively resigned to save face and get a pardon.
So not a true impeachment but effectively the only successful one.
wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
It still didn’t result in a conviction and removal from office
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
It was legal (adjacent) action that resulted in removing a criminal from office.
The rest is just nitpicking.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
*in the USA
Other countries exist with that mechanism and have had successful impeachments.
It’s more that one side of the fence has so many more times that’s it’s been able to happen. How many leaders in impeachable countries have their been vs countries with a non-confidence vote instead?
Could just be different scales here.
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Under most (all?) parliamentary systems, a simple majority is all that’s required to pass a no confidence vote.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
And when the leader resigns before the non confidence vote is cast? What happened then?
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
generally it’s a no confidence vote in the government regardless of who’s leading it
insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
That doesn’t seem true.
en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat…
vs
Nixon resigning so he could get pardoned (that’s it).
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Leader resigns before the vote, next leader takes over and nothing changes no new election happens. Trick is to resign before the vote.
There’s always ways out.