What would represent justice in the opioid crisis? This week, a ruling and a settlement offer suggest paths forward, but litigation alone is unlikely to offer a complete solution.
Welcome to your Daily. Our five handpicked stories touch on聽the question of responsibility in the opioid crisis, a changing vision of Western leadership,聽efforts to address an overlooked consequence of megafires, signs of progress on child labor, and Hollywood鈥檚 evolving views on age.听
But first, Brexit!
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just swerved British politics into oncoming traffic. We鈥檒l have more to say tomorrow about Mr. Johnson鈥檚 decision to suspend Parliament until Oct. 14. But in essence, he鈥檚 daring Parliament to oppose his plans on Brexit.
Mr. Johnson wants to leave the European Union by Oct. 31, no matter what. To prevent that, Parliament now pretty much needs to blow everything up, calling for new elections Mr. Johnson thinks he鈥檒l win.
Maybe he鈥檚 right, maybe he isn鈥檛. But one thing is more certain: There is no easy out for Britain on this issue. The country鈥檚 vote on Brexit was legitimate. But so, too, is parliamentary power. If they conflict, that鈥檚 no mistake. It鈥檚 democracy.
If a country can鈥檛 make up its mind, no democratic process 鈥 be it a prorogue (or discontinuation) of Parliament, a referendum, or an election 鈥 can magically concoct a solution. Britain, like the United States, can鈥檛 forever avoid the fact that many of its citizens have strongly opposing views that aren鈥檛 likely to change soon. That means the only practical way forward, democratically, is in the much harder work of finding common purpose, however distasteful that might seem in a polarized age.