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

ohnonotgmail

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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.

In theory she could have refused. and then britain would be in an even bigger crisis. this part of your post is completely untrue. She has no say over the duration of the prorogration.

Or could have said this is extraordinary I will only prorogue for the usual time(4 days).

FrancieBrady

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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.

Quite possible that Boris could ask her to prorogue again. Would she do it?

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

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:

The opposition will have a general election. when the timing suits them. why would they do anything else?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In theory she could have refused. and then britain would be in an even bigger crisis.

The 'Theory' of how it is run, is the problem in the UK at the moment.
The 'theory' is that it runs on conventions and precedents...those things can be reset as we seen with prorogation.

'Britain could be in an even bigger crisis' is an admission that the monarch has power.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'Theory' of how it is run, is the problem in the UK at the moment.
The 'theory' is that it runs on conventions and precedents...those things can be reset as we seen with prorogation.

'Britain could be in an even bigger crisis' is an admission that the monarch has power.

quite the opposite. it would be the queen exercising a power she has in name only. and there was no reset. progration never happened according to the ruling yesterday.

SeaBreezes

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite possible that Boris could ask her to prorogue again. Would she do it?

Interesting times...

Junkyard Tom

Gina Miller is a formidable woman.

VinLieger

blinding wrote: »

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:

If the PM asks for the extension as he's legally bound to do the opposition would gladly hold an election.


Are you suggesting he break the law?

Cork Boy 53

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite possible that Boris could ask her to prorogue again. Would she do it?

Given the judgement yesterday it is unlikely that Johnson will go down that route again but if he did then the Queen would most likely agree to it.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite possible that Boris could ask her to prorogue again. Would she do it?

She must. In the Supreme Court judgment in the Miller case, it is explicilty accepted that if the Queen is advised to prorogue she is "obliged by constitutional convention to accept that advice".

The rooom for manouvre here is that before advising the monarch to prorogue (or to exercise her prerogative in any respect) the PM of the day will discuss with the monarch the fact that he is considering doing this. In these discussions the monarch may warn, counsel, encourage question, etc, and any warning, encouragement, etc may or may not influence the PM's decision about what advice to offer. But when, at the end of these discussions, he offers his advice, the monarch must accept it.

FrancieBrady

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Given the judgement yesterday it is unlikely that Johnson will go down that route again but if he did then the Queen would most likely agree to it.

He said yesterday that 'there was still a good case for a Queen's Speech', which was taken as an intimation that he may be intending to ask her to prorogue again. (There has to be a short prorogation before a new session begins).

SeaBreezes

Peregrinus wrote: »

She must. In the Supreme Court judgment in the Miller case, it is explicilty accepted that if the Queen is advised to prorogue she is "obliged by constitutional convention to accept that advice".

The rooom for manouvre here is that before advising the monarch to prorogue (or to exercise her prerogative in any respect) the PM of the day will discuss with the monarch the fact that he is considering doing this. In these discussions the monarch may warn, counsel, encourage question, etc, and any warning, encouragement, etc may or may not influence the PM's decision about what advice to offer. But when, at the end of these discussions, he offers his advice, the monarch must accept it.

So the PM (with Privy Counsel) can shut down all of UK goveranance for an indefinite period anytime they want? Wow. Dangerous power.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

She must. In the Supreme Court judgment in the Miller case, it is explicilty accepted that if the Queen is advised to prorogue she is "obliged by constitutional convention to accept that advice".

The rooom for manouvre here is that before advising the monarch to prorogue (or to exercise her prerogative in any respect) the PM of the day will discuss with the monarch the fact that he is considering doing this. In these discussions the monarch may warn, counsel, encourage question, etc, and any warning, encouragement, etc may or may not influence the PM's decision about what advice to offer. But when, at the end of these discussions, he offers his advice, the monarch must accept it.

Yes, I accept that is how it has been done. But the point is that the monarch is only bound by convention.

The PM with the aid of the monarch (it is they who issues the order to a parliament that must obey) managed to suspend parliament for 4 weeks here.

My target of criticism here is not the monarch per se, but the absurd system that allows this to happen.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite possible that Boris could ask her to prorogue again. Would she do it?

Boris should Prorogue again but this time make it legally watertight

If for no other reason than a damn good laugh

ohnonotgmail

SeaBreezes wrote: »

So the PM (with Privy Counsel) can shut down all of UK goveranance for an indefinite period anytime they want? Wow. Dangerous power.

as shown by yesterdays verdict the PM cannot do that.

blinding

The opposition have so much Confidence in Boris Johnson that they do not want to win an Election and put their own policies into action .

Has any opposition ever had such Confidence in the sitting Prime Minister ?

blinding

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Gina Miller is a formidable woman.

With an awful lot of establishment money behind her !:eek:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I accept that is how it has been done. But the point is that the monarch is only bound by convention.

The PM with the aid of the monarch (it is they who issues the order to a parliament that must obey) managed to suspend parliament for 4 weeks here.

My target of criticism here is not the monarch per se, but the absurd system that allows this to happen.

They didn’t manage to suspend parliament for four weeks.

The checks and balances worked, and it never happened.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as shown by yesterdays verdict the PM cannot do that.

There has been no 'law' as such laid down here. This particular set of judges found against Boris. There was another Supreme Court judge on Newsnight last night for instance who said the judgement was wrong based on something from the 1600's.

I don't think (open to correction) there is actually anything in law or statute to stop another PM doing this in different circumstances.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

With an awful lot of establishment money behind her !:eek:

Her lawyers were acting pro bono.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

They didn’t manage to suspend parliament for four weeks.

The checks and balances worked, and it never happened.

Kinda like Back To The Future, yeh?

Cork Boy 53

blinding wrote: »

Boris should Prorogue again but this time make it legally watertight

If for no other reason than a damn good laugh

And how exactly would he do that? Bribe the judges? BTW I fail to see anything funny about this complete and utter farcical Brexit cluster****.

begsbyOnaTrain

blinding wrote: »

The opposition have so much Confidence in Boris Johnson that they do not want to win an Election and put their own policies into action .

Has any opposition ever had such Confidence in the sitting Prime Minister ?

Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since polling began on that. To cap that off, Labour are busy having their own civil war.

I don't blame them for being scared of an election.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There has been no 'law' as such laid down here. This particular set of judges found against Boris. There was another Supreme Court judge on Newsnight last night for instance who said the judgement was wrong based on something from the 1600's.

I don't think (open to correction) there is actually anything in law or statute to stop another PM doing this in different circumstances.

There is. It's now settled law that no PM can prorogue parliament if the effect would be to frustrate or prevent the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, unless there is a reasonable justification for doing so.

This will be the law unless and until (a) parliament legislates to change the law, or (b) in a future case the Supreme Court changes its mind. The latter happens extremely rarely.

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her lawyers were acting pro bono.

Things are bad enough ! Don’t bring bono into this :eek:

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There has been no 'law' as such laid down here. This particular set of judges found against Boris. There was another Supreme Court judge on Newsnight last night for instance who said the judgement was wrong based on something from the 1600's.

I don't think (open to correction) there is actually anything in law or statute to stop another PM doing this in different circumstances.

The UK, like Ireland, runs off common law. In effect this ruling is law, even if no legislation's been written following it.

blinding

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

And how exactly would he do that? Bribe the judges? BTW I fail to see anything funny about this complete and utter farcical Brexit cluster****.

Politicians at one another throats is always funny and also the best way to have them .

If the MPs honoured their General Election Manifestos then Britain would be out of the Eu as the British Electorate Voted .

Its because so many MPs lied to get elected at the last General Election that Democracy is in Peril . Its not surprising that these same MPs are running and hiding from a General Election :eek:

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There has been no 'law' as such laid down here. This particular set of judges found against Boris. There was another Supreme Court judge on Newsnight last night for instance who said the judgement was wrong based on something from the 1600's.

I don't think (open to correction) there is actually anything in law or statute to stop another PM doing this in different circumstances.

The post i responded to said this

So the PM (with Privy Counsel) can shut down all of UK goveranance for an indefinite period anytime they want?

as the verdict yesterday shows they cannot shut down parliament for an indefinite period any time they want.

blinding

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since polling began on that. To cap that off, Labour are busy having their own civil war.

I don't blame them for being scared of an election.

Not to mention all the MPs that Lied to get Elected at the last General Election .

Thats why they are running and hiding from Democracy .:eek:

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is. It's now settled law that no PM can prorogue parliament if the effect would be to frustrate or prevent the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, unless there is a reasonable justification for doing so.

This will be the law unless and until (a) parliament legislates to change the law, or (b) in a future case the Supreme Court changes its mind. The latter happens extremely rarely.

Would you agree that the likelihood is that Boris knew this and just cynically used the absurdity of the system to his own benefit?

To my mind it is an absurd and unnecessary tier of government and having watched parliament shut out for 4 weeks or whatever it was,(even if they want to forget that it never happened ) completely negates the notion that parliament is sovereign.