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

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think it could ever be done for indefinite periods. Repeated prorogations are technically feasible if there is 'reasonable justification' I persume.

The 'indefinite' nature is not what I am getting at though. It is the absurdity of the prerogative in the first place and how it conflicts with the notion of 'parliamentary sovereignty'

finally you have read my post. thank you.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seem to think I shouldn't have an opinion and keep saying it ..
.

Ah Francie, with your 24,000+ posts, dare I say it no one is stopping you having an opinion, even if that opinion is often wrong.

What poster do though, is call you out on the nonsense you often write, like in this instance.

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he is already obliged by law to ask for an extension.

Boris won’t do it . Sure he might be shagging a Blonde that day / evening / night / week / month .

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Who elects the Prime Minister...

You are welcome.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah Francie, with your 24,000+ posts, dare I say it no one is stopping you having an opinion, even if that opinion is often wrong.

What poster do though, is call you out on the nonsense you often write, like in this instance.

Yawn.

blinding

Just watching the British Parliament now .

Jeez that opposition is Fierce Frit of the Electorate :eek::eek:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Who elects the Prime Minister...

You are welcome.

Who can go to the monarch against parliaments wishes and have an order issued that parliament (the allegedly 'sovereign' Parliament) must obey.

Hmmmm.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

finally you have read my post. thank you.

I seen what you did there.

Padre_Pio

blinding wrote: »

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 .

You keep getting banned for posting this sh*te and you keep coming back.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

That was not an ex Supreme Court judge, it was a QC.
If you want to run with your hobby horse and drag the topic off-kilter, get your facts straight first.

shesty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he is already obliged by law to ask for an extension.

I know.Was hoping it would end in his resignation first.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who can go to the monarch against parliaments wishes and have an order issued that parliament (the allegedly 'sovereign' Parliament) must obey.

No, as per the ruling yesterday, this cannot happen. It has been explained to you many now times in great detail but you have a mental tick of some sort which prevents you from processing this information.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That was not an ex Supreme Court judge, it was a QC.
If you want to run with your hobby horse and drag the topic off-kilter, get your facts straight first.

Accepted. My mistake, he was indeed a QC.

blinding

Padre_Pio wrote: »

You keep getting banned for posting this sh*te and you keep coming back.

Which goes to show that Freedom of Expression is not allowed on this site . When it is pointed out that British Democracy is being Subverted by Anti-Democrats then I must be silenced .

Re-Moaners and Anti-Democrats have no arguments against the Democratic Decision of the People and that is why I must be silenced on this site .

When you don’t like the message = Shoot the messenger .

Thank you for pointing out that I do get banned from this thread for Fighting for Democracy :eek::eek:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No, as per the ruling yesterday, this cannot happen. It has been explained to you many now times in great detail but you have a mental tick of some sort which prevents you from processing this information.

Yes it can. From the ruling.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.

Parliament can still be prorogued. There is no getting away from the fact.

Edit: The Attorney General has just refused to rule out another prorogation. It is still a power at the disposal of the PM and monarch.

Tea Shock

blinding wrote: »

At the last General Election 83% Voted for Parties that said they would respect the Democratic Decision of the People.

And nearly 100% voted for manifesto's that said they'd get a deal and wouldn't leave without one!

blinding

Tea Shock wrote: »

And nearly 100% voted for manifesto's that said they'd get a deal and wouldn't leave without one!

MPs lied to get Elected . They said the would Respect the Vote to Leave the Eu .

They have done the direct opposite and that is why so many of them are Frit to face the Electorate :eek::eek:

When have an Opposition Refused an Election when they thought they would win it ?:eek::eek:

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it can. From the ruling.

Parliament can still be prorogued. There is no getting away from the fact.

Edit: The Attorney General has just refused to rule out another prorogation. It is still a power at the disposal of the PM and monarch.

To be fair, of course they had to leave that in. Proroguing is the mechanic through which a new session of parliament begins. While I agree it being entirely at the discretion of the executive is ripe for abuse, it's not hugely different to the Taosieach requesting the dissolution of the Dáil (except that it doesn't necessitate an election).

Regardless of whether powers of prorogation should be moved or altered or given hard limits or should not, such a decision is beyond the purview of the Court. The Court can only decide if a current prorogation is legal or not. If it's to be changed, Parliament will have to legislate for it.

Tea Shock

blinding wrote: »

MPs lied to get Elected . They said the would Respect the Vote to Leave the Eu .

They have done the direct opposite and that is why so many of them are Frit to face the Electorate :eek::eek:

When have an Opposition Refused an Election when they thought they would win it ?:eek::eek:

So lying only bothers you in an election campaign, but not a referendum campaign?

I've literally only read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread, but even that was enough to see you are a bit thick!

They have not said "We are do not want to leave the EU". They have said they do not want to leave without a deal.

If BoJo thinks he can get a majority for no deal, he will still be able to get it in November. Don't worry your pretty little head so much

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

To be fair, of course they had to leave that in. Proroguing is the mechanic through which a new session of parliament begins. While I agree it being entirely at the discretion of the executive is ripe for abuse, it's not hugely different to the Taosieach requesting the dissolution of the Dáil (except that it doesn't necessitate an election).

Regardless of whether powers of prorogation should be moved or altered or given hard limits or should not, such a decision is beyond the purview of the Court. The Court can only decide if a current prorogation is legal or not. If it's to be changed, Parliament will have to legislate for it.

It goes to the heart of supposed 'parliamentary sovereignty' and is an absurd anomaly imo. There was an MP on his feet looking for legislation a few moments ago.

Penn

blinding wrote: »

MPs lied to get Elected . They said the would Respect the Vote to Leave the Eu .

They have done the direct opposite and that is why so many of them are Frit to face the Electorate :eek::eek:

When have an Opposition Refused an Election when they thought they would win it ?:eek::eek:

They are refusing an election until the Government complies with the outstanding bill to ensure they can't leave the EU on 31st October without a deal. If they agreed to an election now, Parliament is dissolved, there's a minimum 6 week election period, and that puts the new governing party too close or after the October 17th meeting of the European Council where an extension or deal must be agreed by in order for the EU countries to vote on it (not the 31st October which is the current leave date).

The Conservatives calling for the Opposition to agree to an election is nothing more than a ploy to force No Deal through. It's a completely transparent ploy and was rightfully turned down. The opposition is demanding the government comply with the Benn Act which was voted through Parliament and ask the EU for an extension and then they'll agree to an election.

Sir Guy who smiles

blinding wrote: »

The Election could have been held before the 31st of October and who ever won would then implement their policies .

The Opposition did not face the Electorate because they fear the Electorate . If they thought they would win then they would have been well up for the election at that time .

Oppositions that think they can win General Elections do not refuse the chance to have General Elections .

You seem to think people disagreeing with you are supporters of the Labour party in Britain.
I think most of the people disagreeing with you think Brexit is a bad idea, badly handled, and have no particular loyalty to any British political party.

The clue is in the ".ie" part of the URL.

blinding

Tea Shock wrote: »

So lying only bothers you in an election campaign, but not a referendum campaign?

I've literally only read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread, but even that was enough to see you are a bit thick!

They have not said "We are do not want to leave the EU". They have said they do not want to leave without a deal.

If BoJo thinks he can get a majority for no deal, he will still be able to get it in November. Don't worry your pretty little head so much

Funny how Pro-Remainers like you get to insult and get away with it ;)

You just cannot cope with the fact that 17.4 million People in Britain said your Emperor had no Clothes . They don’t want to hang about with the Naked Emperor .

Brexit is going to happen . Run and get some Clothes for your Naked Emperor .

Professor Moriarty

blinding wrote: »

Funny how Pro-Remainers like you get to insult and get away with it ;)

You just cannot cope with the fact that 17.4 million People in Britain said your Emperor had no Clothes . They don’t want to hang about with the Naked Emperor .

Brexit is going to happen . Run and get some Clothes for your Naked Emperor .

What kind of Brexit will the 17.4 million deliver?

blinding

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What kind of Brexit will the 17.4 million deliver?

They will not be in the Eu . They Voted not to be in the Eu . They will not be in the Eu .

They will not have their Democracy taken away from them for the Eu , by the Eu or by Eu-Philes .

Bye Bye Eu .

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It goes to the heart of supposed 'parliamentary sovereignty' and is an absurd anomaly imo. There was an MP on his feet looking for legislation a few moments ago.

I agree it's an anomaly, but it's not quite 100% against Parliamentary Sovereignty. Arguably Johnson had the support of the majority of Parliament when he requested prorogation - he didn't lose his majority until almost a week later. Whether all of his "supporters" in parliament would have agreed with prorogation we've no way of knowing. No vote was held.

It's part of the problem that comes from so much of British Parliamentary and executive procedures being decided on what is, essentially, tradition. Until now, nobody had requested prorogation (with a majority, arguably making it a parliamentary decision) and then lost it before prorogation could happen. They probably never imagined someone would so brazenly smash apart centuries of parliamentary precedence.

If it forces them to legislate that a request for prorogation requires a majority vote to ensure the executive actually does have a majority in the Commons, then at least some good will have come out of it.

Professor Moriarty

blinding wrote: »

They will not be in the Eu . They Voted not to be in the Eu . They will not be in the Eu .

They will not have their Democracy taken away from them for the Eu , by the Eu or by Eu-Philes .

Bye Bye Eu .

Will they be completely out of the EU? Or just a little bit? SM? CU? What kind of trade deal? What regulatory alignment?

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

I agree it's an anomaly, but it's not quite 100% against Parliamentary Sovereignty. Arguably Johnson had the support of the majority of Parliament when he requested prorogation - he didn't lose his majority until almost a week later. Whether all of his "supporters" in parliament would have agreed with prorogation we've no way of knowing. No vote was held.

Which demonstrates that one wasn't required.

It's part of the problem that comes from so much of British Parliamentary and executive procedures being decided on what is, essentially, tradition. Until now, nobody had requested prorogation (with a majority, arguably making it a parliamentary decision) and then lost it before prorogation could happen. They probably never imagined someone would so brazenly smash apart centuries of parliamentary precedence.

If it forces them to legislate that a request for prorogation requires a majority vote to ensure the executive actually does have a majority in the Commons, then at least some good will have come out of it.

I agree. It is an archaic and contradictory tier of government.

Which was my simple point before the usual crew took 'de hump' that I might be talking for de 'RA. .

blinding

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Will they be completely out of the EU? Or just a little bit? SM? CU? What kind of trade deal? What regulatory alignment?

If the Eu does not do a deal acceptable to both sides then they will be completely outside of the Eu . A Deal is an agreement acceptable to both sides if that cannot be achieved then they leave without a deal . Pretty obvious .

If the Eu got sick to the back teeth of Leo and his Socks and told him to fook off with his Country should all Irish people get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for Leo and his Socks .

Life will go on with out the Eu . The Eu is just the latest Institution / Empire / Whatever . They come and go and life goes on . The Eu will be history one day and life will go on .

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament can still be prorogued. There is no getting away from the fact.

The judgment has not ruled out all attempts at proroguing parliament. It can still be done of course. No one has stated the opposite.
But it cannot be done at a time to stop the government being held to account by the HoC nor can it be done indefinitely to shut down parliament.

In other words, proroguing parliament is lawful but only in under certain circumstances.