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

Roger Hassenforder

If I was BoJo I'd be staying away from Parisianne road tunnels for a while.

Nobody fcuks Lizzie like that and gets away with it.

Kermit.de.frog

SeaBreezes

Best comment: Looks like Brexit has had it's Johnson cut off....

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those claiming that the monarch has 'no power' are living in cuckoo land. The monarch and the PM just conspired to prorogue parliament. Simple as.
The monarch does have the power to say no to the PM...even if the present one declines to get involved.

The monarch also has other powers:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/16/qanda.jubilee

What are the Monarch’s Personal Powers?

These can be distinguished into two types: personal prerogative powers of the monarch and the political prerogative powers. Personal prerogative powers are linked to the monarch's status of head of state. The prerogative powers of ministers are those that are exercised by ministers in her name. The idea that such powers are personal (Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government, CUP, 1959) implies an element of personal discretion. The political reality is however, that such powers are not personal discretionary powers, but are constitutional duties to be carried on the advice of the Prime Minister. There are two important personal prerogative powers of the monarch:

The Appointment of the Prime Minister
The monarch must appoint the person who has the best chance of commanding a majority in the commons, which is usually the leader of the party who wins the most seats after a General Election. There are two possibilities where a monarch may be required to intervene in the appointment of the Prime Minister (PM).

In the case of a Hung Parliament where no one party commands an absolute majority.
In the case of the resignation or death of the PM.

The Dissolution of Parliament
The monarch's prerogative power to dissolve Parliament was transformed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Prior to the 2011 Act the Queen could in theory dissolve Parliament at any time and call a General Election. Notwithstanding the 2011 Act there are situations in which Parliament can be dissolved without the government carrying out the full five-year term.

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/public-law/the-royal-prerogative/lecture.php

You're welcome.

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/public-law/the-royal-prerogative/lecture.php

You're welcome.

The political reality is however, that such powers are not personal discretionary powers

'Political realities' change. The power is there even if the convention is not to use it. MP's were obeying an order from the monarch.

It is an absurd tier of government, and we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't there.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Political realities' change. The power is there even if the convention is not to use it. MP's were obeying an order from the monarch.

It is an absurd tier of government, and we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't there.

No. The monarch was obeying an order, framed as 'advice', from the Privy Council issued by the Prime Minister. You want her to have refused to obey that order. She didn't overturn the very conventions you seem to be insisting are easily dismissed. I doubt it even occurred to her.

Do you get as worked up about the Dutch monarchy? Or the Spanish? Or the Swedish?

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The monarch was obeying an order, framed as 'advice', from the Privy Council issued by the Prime Minister. You want her to have refused to obey that order. She didn't overturn the very conventions you seem to be insisting are easily dismissed. I doubt it even occurred to her.

Do you get as worked up about the Dutch monarchy? Or the Spanish? Or the Swedish?

You are refusing to see a situation where a monarch might not observe convention or 'political realities'.

The notion that parliament is sovereign has been busted by the past few weeks.

*I think all monarchy is absurd and should be consigned to biscuit tin tourism and have nothing to do with democratic governments btw.

McMurphy

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are the worst.

Has either been seen since?

I hope kid chameleon reconsiders his aspirations to become a clairvoyant.

ArmaniJeanss

FunLover18 wrote: »

Himself and Crypto are very quiet today.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Has either been seen since?

I hope kid chameleon reconsiders his aspirations to become a clairvoyant.

He (KC) actually pm'ed me an hour ago. Thread banned apparently but, (and I obviously won't post pm's) acknowledged that he had got it wrong and hadn't seen that verdict coming at all. Fair dues I guess.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are refusing to see a situation where a monarch might not observe convention or 'political realities'.

The notion that parliament is sovereign has been busted by the past few weeks.

*I think all monarchy is absurd and should be consigned to biscuit tin tourism and have nothing to do with democratic governments btw.

what exactly about the last few weeks has busted that notion?

McMurphy

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

He (KC) actually pm'ed me an hour ago. Thread banned apparently but, (and I obviously won't post pm's) acknowledged that he had got it wrong and hadn't seen that verdict coming at all. Fair dues I guess.

To be acknowledged at the very least.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what exactly about the last few weeks has busted that notion?

They had to submit to an order from the monarchy. Dress it up how you wish.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are refusing to see a situation where a monarch might not observe convention or 'political realities'.

The notion that parliament is sovereign has been busted by the past few weeks.

*I think all monarchy is absurd and should be consigned to biscuit tin tourism and have nothing to do with democratic governments btw.

I am refusing to go along with your trying to lay the blame for any of the Brexit mess at the foot of the British monarch. She followed the procedures and the conventions. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and the Privy Council did not.

That is not a defence of monarchy. It is saying fair is fair. Her hands were tied. Same as the hand of an Irish President would be tied if presented with a piece of legislation they personally abhor but is nonetheless constitutional. They would be obliged to sign it.

As for monarchy, I agree. It's outdated and absurd. But if a country wishes to have a constitutional monarchy then that is their business and who am I to point at the British, Dutch, Danish, Swedes, or the Norwegians and say Oi! Change your system of government it's absurd and I am going to go on and on and on about it until you do.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had to submit to an order from the monarchy. Dress it up how you wish.

you seem determined to remain willfully ignorant despite the best efforts of many. the decision to prorogue is made under the terms of Fixed Terms Parliament Act. an act passed by parliament. the monarchy has no real say.

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am refusing to go along with your trying to lay the blame for any of the Brexit mess at the foot of the British monarch. She followed the procedures and the conventions. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and the Privy Council did not.

That is not a defence of monarchy. It is saying fair is fair. Her hands were tied. Same as the hand of an Irish President would be tied if presented with a piece of legislation they personally abhor but is nonetheless constitutional. They would be obliged to sign it.

As for monarchy, I agree. It's outdated and absurd. But if a country wishes to have a constitutional monarchy then that is their business and who am I to point at the British, Dutch, Danish, Swedes, or the Norwegians and say Oi! Change your system of government it's absurd and I am going to go on and on and on about it until you do.

I am not on a UK forum saying this. I am commenting on what is going on there on an IRISH forum. Please stop with the 'how dare you' hectoring. It is cringe.

And I didn't blame the monarchy for the Brexit mess either.

That mess is because the political system as it is in the UK at the moment is not fit for purpose on multiple levels. And parliament has been shown that it isn't sovereign when a monarch and PM conspire against it.

You can witter on till the cows come home but the reality is that they had to obey an order from the Monarch. How that comes to pass is immaterial.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not on a UK forum saying this. I am commenting on what is going on there on an IRISH forum. Please stop with the 'how dare you' hectoring. It is cringe.

And I didn't blame the monarchy for the Brexit mess either.

That mess is because the political system as it is in the UK at the moment is not fit for purpose on multiple levels. And parliament has been shown that it isn't sovereign when a monarch and PM conspire against it.

You can witter on till the cows come home but the reality is that they had to obey an order from the Monarch. How that comes to pass is immaterial.

Ok Francie.
I understand.

Disagreeing with you is hectoring.
Pointing out that you are wrong makes you cringe.
You keep blaming the queen if it makes you feel better.

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ok Francie.
I understand.

Disagreeing with you is hectoring.
Pointing out that you are wrong makes you cringe.
You keep blaming the queen if it makes you feel better.

You seem to think I shouldn't have an opinion and keep saying it = hectoring in my book.
I have an opinion on monarchy, on what is happening in the UK...on which there are many many opinions. Get over it maybe?

Was parliament obeying an order from the monarchy - YES it very much was.

Should monarchy have the power to do this in somewhere that pretends 'parliament is sovereign'...IMO, no it should not.

If you want to portray that point of view as some sort of irrational personal hate of the queen...knock yourself out, it is you who is the fool.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seem to think I shouldn't have an opinion and keep saying it = hectoring in my book.
I have an opinion on monarchy, on what is happening in the UK...on which there are many many opinions. Get over it maybe?

Was parliament obeying an order from the monarchy - YES it very much was.

Should monarchy have the power to do this in somewhere that pretends 'parliament is sovereign'...IMO, no it should not.

If you want to portray that point of view as some sort of irrational personal hate of the queen...knock yourself out, it is you who is the fool.

Right. This is my last response to you on this.

I don't care whether or not you have an opinion on monarchy. I don't even care that I happen to share your opinion on monarchy.

What I am disagreeing with you about is your insistence that the queen 'ordered' parliament to be prorogued as if she had any say in the matter whatsoever.
You are willfully leaving out that the monarch was acting on the advice and at the request of the executive.
You are finding her guilty because she didn't do what you claim at some point some monarch might do and overturn conventions.

And I am the one who needs to get over it???

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Right. This is my last response to you on this.

I don't care whether or not you have an opinion on monarchy. I don't even care that I happen to share your opinion on monarchy.

What I am disagreeing with you about is your insistence that the queen 'ordered' parliament to be prorogued as if she had any say in the matter whatsoever.
You are willfully leaving out that the monarch was acting on the advice and at the request of the executive.
You are finding her guilty because she didn't do what you claim at some point some monarch might do and overturn conventions.

And I am the one who needs to get over it???

And I have pointed out that how they got to that point is immaterial.

The monarch made an order that parliament had to obey = parliament is not in fact or reality, sovereign.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I have pointed out that how they got to that point is immaterial.

The monarch made an order that parliament had to obey = parliament is not in fact or reality, sovereign.

Parliament is soverign in the UK, the monarchy is an institution that only exists and only has any power because parliament has allowed it. It is established in law in the UK that the monarchy has no power outside that confered to it in law by parliament.

If parliament wants to create an institution and give it a role in the formal proceadures of parliament, then it is within its rights to do so. That parliament in the UK has, for its own reasons, chosen to this does not mean that the monarchy has sovereignty over parliament. Clearly it does not.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Parliament is soverign in the UK, the monarchy is an institution that only exists and only has any power because parliament has allowed it. It is established in law in the UK that the monarchy has no power outside that confered to it in law by parliament.

If parliament wants to create an institution and give it a role in the formal proceadures of parliament, then it is within its rights to do so. That parliament in the UK has, for its own reasons, chosen to this does not mean that the monarchy has sovereignty over parliament. Clearly it does not.

How did parliament end up shut out then?

Their system is clearly a paralysing mess. It has lost it's ability to function because of the absurdities of that system. No other reason.

If it were anywhere else we'd be calling it 'tinpot' and dysfunctional.

Prorogation isn't a parliamentary act. It's done by the executive.

blinding

Let the People decide in a General Election who runs Britain .

Have you ever seen opposition parties running and hiding from a General Election if they thought they were going to win .

The Re-Mainers in Britain , having subverted Democracy are now running and hiding from Democracy because they fear Democracy .

Democracy will win out in Britain because when the choice is between Democracy and the Eu in Britain , Democracy will win out !

The British people will not sell their Democracy for the Eu . Who in their right mind would ?

Blinding, you're an impressive blend of a non-native English speaker who refuse to use pronouns, and shltty websites a decade ago that spammed words to get higher in Google's search rankings.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

Let the People decide in a General Election who runs Britain.

Oh, they will, darling, they will. Just not until Parliament has first made doubly sure that the hiatus caused by an election cannot be used by an unelected government of arrogant elitists enjoying no majority in parliament to ram through a Brexit policy for which it has no mandate, either from parliament or people.

blinding wrote: »

Have you ever seen opposition parties running and hiding from a General Election if they thought they were going to win.

Well, the question hasn't arisen before, since it's only relatively recently that Parliament has had any say at all in the timing of elections.

But back in the days when the timing of elections was controlled by the government, governments routinely used that power to time elections so as to maximise their chance of winning. Nobody regarded this as improper. And now that Parliament has a say in the timing of elections, why would we regard it as improper that members of Parlaiment should also use their voice in the matter to try to time elections so as to secure the outcome they want? How did you think they were going to use it? Why did you think the power was given to them?

blinding wrote: »

The Re-Mainers in Britain , having subverted Democracy are now running and hiding from Democracy because they fear Democracy.

This is deeply, deeply ironic, from the people who are trying to prorogue paraliament so that the elected represntatives of the people cannot hold the government to account.

blinding wrote: »

Democracy will win out in Britain because when the choice is between Democracy and the Eu in Britain , Democracy will win out!

The choice is not between democracy and the EU, though, is it? The choice is between democracy and those unelected elites who claim the right to dictate to the people what form of Brexit they voted for, regardless of what they thought when they voted or what their elected representatives think now.

blinding wrote: »

The British people will not sell their Democracy for the Eu. Who in their right mind would?

Who in their right mind would think the EU was trying to buy their democracy? It's the Leavers who have been receiving all the undisclosed dodgy funding from foreign sources, and nobody thinks those sources are the EU.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

If you want to portray that point of view as some sort of irrational personal hate of the queen...knock yourself out, it is you who is the fool.

Francie, its about as relevant to the British political situation as a bishop throwing in the ball affects the result of an All Ireland final.

Your obsession with this is derailing the thread. Go ride your hobby horse somewhere else.

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Let the People decide in a General Election who runs Britain .

Have you ever seen opposition parties running and hiding from a General Election if they thought they were going to win .

The Re-Mainers in Britain , having subverted Democracy are now running and hiding from Democracy because they fear Democracy .

Democracy will win out in Britain because when the choice is between Democracy and the Eu in Britain , Democracy will win out !

The British people will not sell their Democracy for the Eu . Who in their right mind would ?

Because their system is so messed up, nobody can take the risk of allowing a general election to happen just at the moment.

The PM cannot be trusted, it is as simple as that.

SeaBreezes

First Up wrote: »

Francie, its about as relevant to the British political situation as a bishop throwing in the ball affects the result of an All Ireland final.

Your obsession with this is derailing the thread. Go ride your hobby horse somewhere else.

That's not actually true. If the Bishop refused to throw the ball in, would the game be delayed for a month?

The queen DOES have the power to refuse. Or could have said this is extraordinary I will only prorogue for the usual time(4 days). Now, I understand that really for optics she can't. Otherwise she makes the monarchy a target. But the power is there, it is HER power Boris used to close all government business for a month.

It's a loophole that really should be shut down. No-one should have that power. Even if they don't use it. It's an impossible situation for the monarchy, dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

And ridiculous in this day and age that it is possible at all. No one person (or in this case 4 people) should have the power to shutdown all governance on the UK for such an obvious lie. That's not a democracy, that's a monarchy.



And the fact that Lizzie has skin in the game, does her no favours either.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because their system is so messed up, nobody can take the risk of allowing a general election to happen just at the moment.

The PM cannot be trusted, it is as simple as that.

The Subverters of Democracy are running and hiding from Democracy .

Its Plain to be seen who is afraid of Democracy = The Anti Democrat Re-Moaners .

The British will never give up their Democracy for the Eu . Democracy and Freedom go Together . Both will Prevail in Britain .

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because their system is so messed up, nobody can take the risk of allowing a general election to happen just at the moment.

The PM cannot be trusted, it is as simple as that.

The PM cannot be trusted and the Opposition Parties will not have a General Election:eek::eek:

You and they have Jumped the Shark:eek::eek: