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

blinding

blinding wrote: »

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 .

But would it not go against Democracy if the Democratically elected representatives of a Democratic UK did not have the Benn Act followed because the government chose to ignore Democracy? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

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.

It can be done with 'reasonable justification'.

It would take just as long again for the Supreme COurt to decide on that. A PM with the monarch can therefore subvert the sovereignty of parliament if they are smart enough.

That should scare all democrats and certainly open their eyes to the quality of their 'supposed democracy'.

As we have seen you can no longer depend on convention or precedent in the UK system.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It can be done with 'reasonable justification'.

It would take just as long again for the Supreme COurt to decide on that. A PM with the monarch can therefore subvert the sovereignty of parliament if they are smart enough.

That should scare all democrats and certainly open their eyes to the quality of their 'supposed democracy'.

As we have seen you can no longer depend on convention or precedent in the UK system.

Wow Francie, so deep and insightful.... this is probably the 5th time you have come out with this narrative..

What actually happened yesterday is the system working so to speak, The courts ruled on the matter and the PM is back in the HoC today.
There won't be a 1917 style Russian revolution just quite yet. :pac:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Wow Francie, so deep and insightful.... this is probably the 5th time you have come out with this narrative..

What actually happened yesterday is the system working so to speak, The courts ruled on the matter and the PM is back in the HoC today.
There won't be a 1917 style Russian revolution just quite yet. :pac:

The system worked yesterday for those who were against prorogation, on another day is is entirely feasible that it might not, as the prerogative to do it has not been removed.

You don't have to be 'deep and insightful' to see the dangers there.

Professor Moriarty

blinding wrote: »

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 .

So the 17.4 million didn't know what they voted for? And you don't know what they voted for? Fair enough.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The system worked yesterday for those who were against prorogation, on another day is is entirely feasible that it might not, as the prerogative to do it has not been removed.

You don't have to be 'deep and insightful' to see the dangers there.

Ah, yes the DANGER!

The system worked. The courts ruled that the current prorogation was unlawful.
I am not sure what else you want, apart spouting hysterical nonsense.

Beasty

blinding is taking an extended break from the forum for breaching their threadban yet again

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, yes the DANGER!

The system worked. The courts ruled that the current prorogation was unlawful.
I am not sure what else you want, apart spouting hysterical nonsense.

I don't want anything here, I am just commenting on an absurd period in the political history of our neighbour.

Thankfully, as Gina Miller, the Scots and members of parliament are now showing, not everyone is as blasé about the safety or quality of democracy as you seem to be.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't want anything here, I am just commenting on an absurd period in the political history of our neighbour.

Thankfully, as Gina Miller, the Scots and members of parliament are now showing, not everyone is as blasé about the safety or quality of democracy as you seem to be.

Do you think you care about democracy? As an avowed supporter of the Provos, this is rather ironic.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Do you think you care about democracy? As an avowed supporter of the Provos, this is rather ironic.

Still trying to shut down conversations with lies Mark? Sad.

Tea Shock

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 .

Why do you get the label me as a pro-remainer?

I want the UK gone on October 31st

Kermit.de.frog

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You keep blaming the queen if it makes you feel better.

It would make me feel better if you would refer to the "British Queen" or the "British Monarch" so we know which queen you are talking about.

ty!

Timberrrrrrrr

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would make me feel better if you would refer to the "British Queen" or the "British Monarch" so we know which queen you are talking about.

ty!

Overuse of the B word makes the "republicans" 73% angrier, best to minimize use imo

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't want anything here, I am just commenting on an absurd period in the political history of our neighbour.

Thankfully, as Gina Miller, the Scots and members of parliament are now showing, not everyone is as blasé about the safety or quality of democracy as you seem to be.

I agree with you that prorogation is an absurdity and should require a parliamentary vote but you were arguing yesterday that the unelected British Queen should have blocked the elected executive which is a bit inconsistent with your anti-royalist democratic principals.

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

I agree with you that prorogation is an absurdity and should require a parliamentary vote but you were arguing yesterday that the unelected British Queen should have blocked the elected executive which is a bit inconsistent with your anti-royalist democratic principals.

I said she 'could have' and 'should have' according to the Supreme Court ruling.

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.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said she 'could have' and 'should have' according to the Supreme Court ruling.

Fair enough I misread that but even in hindsight you're saying the Queen should have blocked government?

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

Fair enough I misread that but even in hindsight you're saying the Queen should have blocked government?

No, the Supreme Court has said she would have been justified, had she broken the 'convention' and denied the request.

Absurd and all as that inference in the ruling is.

J Mysterio

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.

The whole thing being rendered to a pointless charade.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still trying to shut down conversations with lies Mark? Sad.

Ah, the old 'you are trying to silence me' comeback when pressed on the nonsense you spout day in day out.

You are free to your opinion, that is all, you are not free to have free reign and not be questioned on your reasoning, nor your lack of morals when it comes to your previous posting record.

Have at it.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, the Supreme Court has said she would have been justified, had she broken the 'convention' and denied the request.

Absurd and all as that inference in the ruling is.

Yes and you said that the Queen suppressed democracy and was complicit, you seemingly agree with the court's ruling so I am inferring that you would be in favour of her denying the government's request to prorogue.

markodaly

FunLover18 wrote: »

Yes and you said that the Queen suppressed democracy and was complicit, you seemingly agree with the court's ruling so I am inferring that you would be in favour of her denying the government's request to prorogue.

You are correct in your logic here. Francie has difficulty in holding two separate thoughts in his head at once.

He is pushing the notion that BoJo and the Queen 'conspired' to shut down parliament because he is at heart an Irish Supremacist, so every dog has its day.
Yesterday made him very excited.

But, yes back on topic. The Queen takes the advice of the Prime minister. There was no 'conspiring' here, it was a convention that the Queen would have granted proroguing.
It was up to the courts to determine if it was lawful or not. In other words, the checks and balance of power appear to be working.

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

Yes and you said that the Queen suppressed democracy and was complicit, you seemingly agree with the court's ruling so I am inferring that you would be in favour of her denying the government's request to prorogue.

I don't think it should reach or involve the monarchy at all. I am not sure how many times I have referenced a 'pointless/absurd/undemocratic tier of government'.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, the old 'you are trying to silence me' comeback when pressed on the nonsense you spout day in day out.

You are free to your opinion, that is all, you are not free to have free reign and not be questioned on your reasoning, nor your lack of morals when it comes to your previous posting record.

Have at it.

So this justifies you lying about other posters? Very good. :rolleyes:

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think it should reach or involve the monarchy at all. I am not sure how many times I have referenced a 'pointless/absurd/undemocratic tier of government'.

Francie, you're right, I completely agree the monarchy should not exist let alone have any role in governance but it does.

That being the case my issue is that you are criticising the Queen's ability to prorogue parliament (which AFAIK she cannot do on a whim, the process needs to be initiated by government) as undemocratic when the alternative of her blocking the will of government is even more undemocratic given that you have an unelected head of state denying the will of the elected executive.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

He is pushing the notion that BoJo and the Queen 'conspired' to shut down parliament

If you can show that somebody other than the monarch issued the order, have at it.

Parliament would not have had to obey an order from a PM, but they do have to obey one from the monarch. But, yeh, parliament is sovereign. :rolleyes:

There is a huge anomaly here and it isn't often exposed, but it is there nonetheless.

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

Francie, you're right, I completely agree the monarchy should not exist let alone have any role in governance but it does.

That being the case my issue is that you are criticising the Queen's ability to prorogue parliament (which AFAIK she cannot do on a whim, the process needs to be initiated by government) as undemocratic when the alternative of her blocking the will of government is even more undemocratic given that you have an unelected head of state denying the will of the elected executive.

'Parliament' is supposed to be sovereign. Think about what that should mean.

They have been shut out for 4 weeks (or whatever the time was) at a critical time by the act of an 'unelected PM and a monarch.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Parliament' is supposed to be sovereign. Think about what that should mean.

They have been shut out for 4 weeks (or whatever the time was) at a critical time by the act of an 'unelected PM and a monarch.

There are two issues here.

1. The prorogation process - it is ridiculous and should require parliamentary approval. This particular instance is even more ridiculous that as you said the PM is unelected and lacks a majority. On all of this we are agreed.

2. The Queen's role in prorugation - she can either do what she's advised by the executive of elected representatives or she can deny the will of the executive. Given that prorogation unfortunately exists and taking as read that we both disapprove of the Monarch's role in governance, the former of those options and the one which played out is by far the most democratic.

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

There are two issues here.

1. The prorogation process - it is ridiculous and should require parliamentary approval. This particular instance is even more ridiculous that as you said the PM is unelected and lacks a majority. On all of this we are agreed.

2. The Queen's role in prorugation - she can either do what she's advised by the executive of elected representatives or she can deny the will of the executive. Given that prorogation unfortunately exists and taking as read that we both disapprove of the Monarch's role in governance, the former of those options and the one which played out is by far the most democratic.

Only because of how it played out.

Major successfully prorogued parliament to, it was accused, avoid parliamentary inquiry into 'cash for questions'.

Nobody was sure how the Supreme Court would decide a few days ago. It technically could have been a different decision. What then?
I think listening to parliament today, or some in it, they are aware of the anomaly and I am sure steps will be taken to end it with legislation.

But surely a proper written constitution would solve the whole sorry mess they are in?

RobMc59

Roundabout 24 hours on whether the Queen was in cahoots with Johnson-

scamalert

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Parliament' is supposed to be sovereign. Think about what that should mean.

They have been shut out for 4 weeks (or whatever the time was) at a critical time by the act of an 'unelected PM and a monarch.

any elected government body, should act and serve public, last 3 years have been a total jerk off and big middle finger, all the PMs that resigned or majority in parliament have nothing to lose - they have money to fck off to save havens and whatever mess will come out of this wont have any effect on the,.


brexit proves one thing people in goverment are brain dead minions who care for their own agenda, sadly but if we have this in developed countries what hope is theres if those elected look to pocket themselves.


whole queen monarchy is a joke woman is 93 years old, she couldnt give a fck as her time is clicking fast.


its rifdiclious seing parliament acting like 5 year olds like chickens without heads, and yet everyone who casued this mess are living the dream live, while country is going in shables.


one thing to have 3 years to make decent stragedy and yet all of them couldnt care less how it will impact country and economy.


if brexit shows one thing that scaremongering and jumping to radical conclusions and actions, such outdated system will bring misery to UK Scotland Ireland and NI, but who cares if ordinary people have to suffer.


point being corruption for those in wealth is not different to some third world country where few select have a way to keep their riches while rest are left to deal with fallout.


have to be honest being servant in government where you sit on your ass on mobile phone shows true nature that governments have immunity, and none of this is aimed at those who should be looked after.


its pity when you have people that instead make decision to make life easier, elected by people yet when time comes none of em care for people that put their trust in government.


as one has to remember it was nice marketing technique to bring fear of migration to cause turmoil, but those who started it are living under sun and doubt whatever happens those who stared will lose any sleep whatever the consequences.