Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

TheValeyard

Well,

In political terms I do believe Boris Johnson is totally fcuked.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I am protecting nobody. I merely corrected the poster.

The palace does not 'have to' act on a PM's advice.

They were wrong as was Boris.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The palace does not 'have to' act on a PM's advice.

They were wrong as was Boris.

history says otherwise. I will leave this side discussion there.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

history says otherwise. I will leave this side discussion there.

Yes it does. But the fact is that this event reveals another absurdity of monarchy. Only 'convention' constrained the monarch. She could have denied the request had she thought it was best. As we have seen this AM, she should have.

quokula

tigger123 wrote: »

How do you mean "everyone knew this"? They didn't know it; the Supreme Court has just decided it was illegal.

Nobody is changing their mind on proroguing Parliament, but a parliamentary majority disagreed with it in the first place. So those people that disagreed with it previously still disagreed with it, and Boris will have to face the considerable music upon his return.

I mean everybody already knew the reasons for proroguing were clearly dishonest. The court case was more of a technical deliberation on whether the courts have the authority to intervene (the previous ruling in favour of the government in England didn't say he didn't mislead the queen, it just said it was none of the court's business)

Like I said, this is significant in real terms because it means parliament can now sit again. But in political terms, I don't see anybody turning against him who hasn't already - those people have already made their beds.

Boggles

quokula wrote: »

But in political terms, I don't see anybody turning against him who hasn't already - those people have already made their beds.

There will be a few more sleeping on the couch after this I imagine.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it does. But the fact is that this event reveals another absurdity of monarchy. Only 'convention' constrained the monarch. She could have denied the request had she thought it was best. As we have seen this AM, she should have.

Another absurdity is that had the Queen refused, you would have had people complaining the royalty intervening in policy decisions.

As an anti-royalist myself, given the choice, I'd take an unelected monarch who follows convention and precedent by going with the advice and carrying out the wishes of the government over an unelected monarch who refuses the wishes of government regardless of whether I agree with that government or not.

Boggles

FunLover18 wrote: »

Another absurdity is that had the Queen refused, you would have had people complaining the royalty intervening in policy decisions.

As an anti-royalist myself, given the choice, I'd take an unelected monarch who follows convention and precedent by going with the advice and carrying out the wishes of the government over an unelected monarch who refuses the wishes of government regardless of whether I agree with that government or not.

If she had refused it would have went to court and she would be proven correct.

The law is the law. Optics are moot.

quokula

It seems I stand corrected, Nigel Farage and the Brexit party are now making moves to distance themselves from Johnson and Cummings and calling for resignations. Looks like the end of that electoral pact.

Not sure what Farage's angle is. Perhaps he's beginning to think he can win serious numbers of seats in a GE with the message that Brexit is still great and it's all the Tories fault that it's turned out awful.

FunLover18

Boggles wrote: »

If she had refused it would have went to court and she would be proven correct.

The law is the law. Optics are moot.

It's not optics, if she had refused it sets a dangerous precedent in terms of the Monarch's power. The Queen is not the law and she is not nor should not be in a position to decide what is lawful.

Bannasidhe

Boggles wrote: »

If she had refused it would have went to court and she would be proven correct.

The law is the law. Optics are moot.

My understanding is that the monarch's ability to refuse is theoretical only and has the weight of precedence against it.

The argument could have been made that should the queen have refused that would have been unlawful.

Better this way.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

If she had refused it would have went to court and she would be proven correct.

The law is the law. Optics are moot.

I haven't read anything to suggest that it would have gone to court if she had refused. Who would have taken the queen to court? can you even take the queen to court? Its all moot anyway. Her power to refuse exists in theory only.

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My understanding is that the monarch's ability to refuse is theoretical only and has the weight of precedence against it.

The argument could have been made that should the queen have refused that would have been unlawful.

Better this way.

Convention is all that stood in her way. She was technically entitled to deny it.

Despite what royalists protest, the palace has been complicit here.


The reality for the British is the ridiculousness of this tier of their politics. It is an absurd anachronism, they need to catch up with the modern world.

26000 Elephants

Parliament will sit tomorrow at 11.30 according to the Bercow. It will be interesting to see how Boris handles the humiliation of having to appear in a parliament that he suspended.

ohnonotgmail

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Parliament will sit tomorrow at 11.30 according to the Bercow. It will be interesting to see how Boris handles the humiliation of having to appear in a parliament that he suspended.

He's in New York so he wont be there.

Dyr

I have to say its shaping up to be a cracking season finale

begsbyOnaTrain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is the internal business of the Labour Party. I have no skin in the game. I no longer live in the UK and am no longer a member of any political party.

Fine, I am living in the UK so have a bit more interest in it all.

And say what you will - despite all the attempts to portray him as the big bad bogeyman Corbyn didn't illegally try and shut down parliament.

Not sure what that's got to do with the price of fish.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Convention is all that stood in her way. She was technically entitled to deny it.

Despite what royalists protest, the palace has been complicit here.


The reality for the British is the ridiculousness of this tier of their politics. It is an absurd anachronism, they need to catch up with the modern world.

As an anti-royalist how can you justify wanting the Queen to block the government's wishes?

26000 Elephants

I'm not going to get myself bogged down in your ongoing colonial wars, but the system worked exactly as it is supposed to. The Queen acted in good faith, trusting the advise of her PM. The courts have done their job by proving he is fraud masquerading as a statesman.

Any other action by the Queen would have been seen as political.

Timberrrrrrrr

FunLover18 wrote: »

As an anti-royalist how can you justify wanting the Queen to block the government's wishes?

Flip flops on matters according to which suits his agenda better.

26000 Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Parliament will sit tomorrow at 11.30 according to the Bercow. It will be interesting to see how Boris handles the humiliation of having to appear in a parliament that he suspended.

He's in New York so he wont be there.

I can wait! ;-)

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

As an anti-royalist how can you justify wanting the Queen to block the government's wishes?

I have no right to take any position here. I am just commenting on what I see as an absurdity.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I'm not going to get myself bogged down in your ongoing colonial wars, but the system worked exactly as it is supposed to. The Queen acted in good faith, trusting the advise of her PM. The courts have done their job by proving he is fraud masquerading as a statesman.

Any other action by the Queen would have been seen as political.

If she had denied it and it had gone to the supreme court and they found that she was right, would have been a better outcome though.

As it is, both tiers are complicit now.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One should have known better and told one to sling one's hook.

The palace are as culpable here as anyone, but of course it will be protected by it's simpering subjects.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those 'guys' who will broach no criticism of the UK.

Why are you so protective of the palace here...they plainly ****ed up and suppressed democracy. They are as culpable as Boris is. Even if the royalists won't admit it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The palace does not 'have to' act on a PM's advice.

They were wrong as was Boris.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it does. But the fact is that this event reveals another absurdity of monarchy. Only 'convention' constrained the monarch. She could have denied the request had she thought it was best. As we have seen this AM, she should have.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Convention is all that stood in her way. She was technically entitled to deny it.

Despite what royalists protest, the palace has been complicit here.


The reality for the British is the ridiculousness of this tier of their politics. It is an absurd anachronism, they need to catch up with the modern world.

You clearly are taking a position though. I'm just curious how you can justify it given your anti-royalist stance.

osarusan

This idea that thinking it was fine for the queen to follow precedent and accept Johnson's request makes that person a 'royalist' is infantile stuff.

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

You clearly are taking a position though. I'm just curious how you can justify it given your anti-royalist stance.

Outlining the facts of the situation is not a 'position'.

My position is that the monarchy is an absurd anachronism that should have zilch power.

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Outlining the facts of the situation is not a 'position'.

My position is that the monarchy is an absurd anachronism that should have zilch power.

I have no grá for monarchs at all but she's a clever lady and she is acutely aware that the sweet gig that the royal family enjoys in the UK could just as easily become the target of raging populist anti-establishment wildfires hence she was always going to ensure that they appear as apolitical as possible. She was not going to go against government. The royal family cares little for the preservation of the UK but for the preservation of their own parasitic way of life.

Even now I'd be surprised if Buckingham palace even commented on the SC ruling...

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Convention is all that stood in her way. She was technically entitled to deny it.

Despite what royalists protest, the palace has been complicit here.


The reality for the British is the ridiculousness of this tier of their politics. It is an absurd anachronism, they need to catch up with the modern world.

I am certainly no monarchist and it's a frankly a bit sad that you feel the need to call anyone who is pointing out the realpolitik of the situation as it pertains in the UK a 'royalist' Francie.

The reality is the UK's written down on scraps of paper, contained in various legal tomes, and back issues of Hansard Constitution is based on precedent.

And precedent says the monarch in the UK's constitutional monarchy follows the 'advice' of the Privy Council. 'Advice' is just a nice way of saying they do what they are told to do and keep their nose out of the politics.

Yes, it's absurd. But really no less absurd then a system where the method of electing a person who will have a great deal of power, including the wherewithal to literally blow up the world, isn't determined by who got the most individual votes which is what happens in the US.

Or here where the person elected to oversee our written Constitution could possibly never have even read it never mind understand what their role actually entails.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I'm not going to get myself bogged down in your ongoing colonial wars, but the system worked exactly as it is supposed to. The Queen acted in good faith, trusting the advise of her PM. The courts have done their job by proving he is fraud masquerading as a statesman.

Any other action by the Queen would have been seen as political.

If she had denied it and it had gone to the supreme court and they found that she was right, would have been a better outcome though.

As it is, both tiers are complicit now.

The only difference in the outcome would be you going on about how "its absurd for the monarchy to be taking political decisions... etc, etc. "

I think your issues with the monarchy are orthogonal to this discussion, though.

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

I have no grá for monarchs at all but she's a clever lady and she is acutely aware that the sweet gig that the royal family enjoys in the UK could just as easily become the target of raging populist anti-establishment wildfires hence she was always going to ensure that they appear as apolitical as possible. She was not going to go against government. The royal family cares little for the preservation of the UK but for the preservation of their own parasitic way of life.

Even now I'd be surprised if Buckingham palace even commented on the SC ruling...

Doesn't change the fact that the mess has just gotten messier because of a pointless, long since redundant, tier of government.