Body & Soul0 min ago
If They Say Boris Cant Prorogue Parliament...
46 Answers
Then how comes it was ok for John Major to do it ? (the man who basically damaged the country by signing control of the UK over to the eussr via maastricht
Its now illegal, its anti democratic (oh the irony of that one is simply breathtaking !)
Scottish judge has temporarily refused to make emergency order stopping Boris proroguing p'ment
Its now illegal, its anti democratic (oh the irony of that one is simply breathtaking !)
Scottish judge has temporarily refused to make emergency order stopping Boris proroguing p'ment
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by THELOONYCORBYN. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can personally accept that Johnson's decision is legal, although I'm sure that even his supporters would agree that due legal process to test this claim is also part of how the UK works.
A more serious question is whether the government should even have this power, to dismiss Parliament whenever, and for however long, it so chooses. In future it's a question that deserves serious reconsideration: it's a relic of the days when Parliament served only at the King or Queen's discretion.
A more serious question is whether the government should even have this power, to dismiss Parliament whenever, and for however long, it so chooses. In future it's a question that deserves serious reconsideration: it's a relic of the days when Parliament served only at the King or Queen's discretion.
In3ed not.
But alas I still maintain that it will not be sufficient to prevent the Losers from preventing a proper Brexit.
I don't know if the realise but if they prevent the government from allowing a No Deal exit permanently we might as well turn it in. The EU may well then say "Well, actually, we don't like the only agreement that is on offer any more either. So here's another one: you can leave, but you must remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, you must accept free movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and you must pay us £15bn a year. Take it or leave it"
Then what do we do. The people suggesting No Deal is impossible in any circumstances are complete idiots. Oh no! I'm wrong! They will get exactly what they want.
But alas I still maintain that it will not be sufficient to prevent the Losers from preventing a proper Brexit.
I don't know if the realise but if they prevent the government from allowing a No Deal exit permanently we might as well turn it in. The EU may well then say "Well, actually, we don't like the only agreement that is on offer any more either. So here's another one: you can leave, but you must remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, you must accept free movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and you must pay us £15bn a year. Take it or leave it"
Then what do we do. The people suggesting No Deal is impossible in any circumstances are complete idiots. Oh no! I'm wrong! They will get exactly what they want.
// I still maintain that [proroguing Parliament until Ocotober 14th] will not be sufficient to prevent the Losers from preventing a proper Brexit. //
It places a severe constraint on the time available, which was of course the point. But even allowing that on its own it's not enough, do you really think that this is the only trick up Johnson's sleeve to force through what he wants?
September and October are going to be bloody, as both sides use desperate and only semi-legitimate tactics to try and get their way.
It places a severe constraint on the time available, which was of course the point. But even allowing that on its own it's not enough, do you really think that this is the only trick up Johnson's sleeve to force through what he wants?
September and October are going to be bloody, as both sides use desperate and only semi-legitimate tactics to try and get their way.
A Scottish judge has temporarily rejected calls to block Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament, in a blow to anti-Brexit campaigners.
https:/
https:/
I wouldn't see that the ECHR need have any say either*. Why not allow Parliament to decide how long it sits for instead?
*Except possibly in the extreme case where Parliament and/or the UK government decided that Parliament should either not sit at all, or sit indefinitely without holding a General Election, both of which are theoretically within the power of Government to decide. In that case an independent body stepping in to avoid such gross abuses of power would, I'd have thought, be welcome to everyone.
*Except possibly in the extreme case where Parliament and/or the UK government decided that Parliament should either not sit at all, or sit indefinitely without holding a General Election, both of which are theoretically within the power of Government to decide. In that case an independent body stepping in to avoid such gross abuses of power would, I'd have thought, be welcome to everyone.
I have looked at the case for this being illegal and for it not, and while I understand the latter, the former I don’t fully as it seems more abstract. So I doubt legal challenges will get anywhere.
This is the longest prorogation for hundreds of years I think. The argument that parliament would have been on recess anyway for three of the weeks is a bit misleading, as recess is not the same thing, and MPs already had plans to curtail or halt that recess. Aside from the Brexit consideration, is the fact that this is a new government with a whole new manifesto, none of which has been voted for. A parliament and indeed a government that has lasted this long and run itself out really should be prorogued for an election not a queen’s speech.
This is the longest prorogation for hundreds of years I think. The argument that parliament would have been on recess anyway for three of the weeks is a bit misleading, as recess is not the same thing, and MPs already had plans to curtail or halt that recess. Aside from the Brexit consideration, is the fact that this is a new government with a whole new manifesto, none of which has been voted for. A parliament and indeed a government that has lasted this long and run itself out really should be prorogued for an election not a queen’s speech.
The commons speaker Bercow said,'It's an offence against the democratic process' after the Queen granted the proroguement.
The only undemocratic act yesterday,according to JRM, was that Bercow made this statement in a personal capacity as it was NOT directed by the house.
Perhaps the P.M. should quickly replace the speaker. He has shown, on many occasions, his political bias and imo is totally unsuitable to officiate in Parliamentary proceedings with regard to Brexit.
The only undemocratic act yesterday,according to JRM, was that Bercow made this statement in a personal capacity as it was NOT directed by the house.
Perhaps the P.M. should quickly replace the speaker. He has shown, on many occasions, his political bias and imo is totally unsuitable to officiate in Parliamentary proceedings with regard to Brexit.
// Then how comes it was ok for John Major to [porougue] ? //
Parliaments are prorogued often, at least once a year. They shut down in order to open a new session. The closure is usually a week In 1997 Major prorogued to hold a General Election. Shutting Parliament at election time means candidates can go back to their constituencies and canvas the electorate. There was nothing unusual when Major did it, it is not hypercritical for him to object to this latest one.
Parliament has been shut down to shut up MPs and deny them their duty to represent their electors.
The shut down is likely to be 34 days.
If you want to see a real bunch of hypocrites, watch this video...
Parliaments are prorogued often, at least once a year. They shut down in order to open a new session. The closure is usually a week In 1997 Major prorogued to hold a General Election. Shutting Parliament at election time means candidates can go back to their constituencies and canvas the electorate. There was nothing unusual when Major did it, it is not hypercritical for him to object to this latest one.
Parliament has been shut down to shut up MPs and deny them their duty to represent their electors.
The shut down is likely to be 34 days.
If you want to see a real bunch of hypocrites, watch this video...
// Perhaps the P.M. should quickly replace the speaker. //
The PM has no powers to replace the Speaker.
TTT: I see your point but I don't agree that just because a power is legal means it can't be abused. It's the usual clash between legal and moral imperatives. Example: It is legally true that the 2016 Referendum was only advisory, and so Parliament was free to ignore it in its entirety, but good luck finding anybody, even on the side of Remaining, who'd make the argument that ignoring the Referendum altogether by not even bothering to trigger A50 notification wouldn't have been an abuse of power.
The PM has no powers to replace the Speaker.
TTT: I see your point but I don't agree that just because a power is legal means it can't be abused. It's the usual clash between legal and moral imperatives. Example: It is legally true that the 2016 Referendum was only advisory, and so Parliament was free to ignore it in its entirety, but good luck finding anybody, even on the side of Remaining, who'd make the argument that ignoring the Referendum altogether by not even bothering to trigger A50 notification wouldn't have been an abuse of power.
As to John Bercow, his job is to facilitate the will of Parliament (which is, at least constitutionally, equivalent to the will of the People; see Dicey). In this case, whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has expressed a will, again and again, to refuse to countenance leaving the EU without a deal. It's not inconsistent with the Speaker's role and power to try to aid Parliament in expressing and achieving this.
Unless you're saying that this would be an abuse of power...? :)
Unless you're saying that this would be an abuse of power...? :)
Interestingly, many EU diplomats welcomed the move as they saw it a way effectively of panicking MPs finally into voting for the original deal or even an amended version of it post-the Oct 17 summit.
The trouble with that is that there are a handful of Tory MPs who have looked beyond the backstop and are now saying that they wouldn’t vote for it even if that was sorted. One reason I’m so against leaving without a deal is the knowledge that too many regard it as an end in itself, not an unwelcome final outcome. (It wouldn’t of course be a final outcome as we’d have the trade deal negotiations to come)
So bearing the above in mind it’s probably up to enough Labour MPs coming behind a deal and abandoning their “we can do a cuddlier deal” pipe dream.
Although I would prefer a way of staying in the EU, the prospect of Mark Francois and co’s ultra Brexit wet dream being scuppered by Labour MPs voting for an orderly exit might be worth it :-)
The trouble with that is that there are a handful of Tory MPs who have looked beyond the backstop and are now saying that they wouldn’t vote for it even if that was sorted. One reason I’m so against leaving without a deal is the knowledge that too many regard it as an end in itself, not an unwelcome final outcome. (It wouldn’t of course be a final outcome as we’d have the trade deal negotiations to come)
So bearing the above in mind it’s probably up to enough Labour MPs coming behind a deal and abandoning their “we can do a cuddlier deal” pipe dream.
Although I would prefer a way of staying in the EU, the prospect of Mark Francois and co’s ultra Brexit wet dream being scuppered by Labour MPs voting for an orderly exit might be worth it :-)
Prorogue till Oct 31?
1 He could no longer pretend it was nothing to do with Brexit.
2 He’d not get the chance to put his unelected manifesto of business to parliament without the inconvenience of an election.
3 He could hardly claim to be serious about renegotiate a deal if there was no time for parliament to vote on it,
4 Even many full-on right wing Brexit supporting MPs would not support that. Peter Bone for one, and I am sure he is typical of many. (Easy for him to say it of course)
And probably scores of other reasons.
1 He could no longer pretend it was nothing to do with Brexit.
2 He’d not get the chance to put his unelected manifesto of business to parliament without the inconvenience of an election.
3 He could hardly claim to be serious about renegotiate a deal if there was no time for parliament to vote on it,
4 Even many full-on right wing Brexit supporting MPs would not support that. Peter Bone for one, and I am sure he is typical of many. (Easy for him to say it of course)
And probably scores of other reasons.
jim: "It is legally true that the 2016 Referendum was only advisory, and so Parliament was free to ignore it " - yes though they'd find it easier to ignore if they hadn't added the phrase "the governement will implement your decision"
"Unless you're saying that this would be an abuse of power...? :) " - not at all, Bercow has done what he's allowed to do, my objection is him openly taking the side of remain. It's like a football referee controlling a game whilst being a supporter of one of the teams. Yes he can officiate but he's always going to be under the spotlight for bias.
"Unless you're saying that this would be an abuse of power...? :) " - not at all, Bercow has done what he's allowed to do, my objection is him openly taking the side of remain. It's like a football referee controlling a game whilst being a supporter of one of the teams. Yes he can officiate but he's always going to be under the spotlight for bias.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.