Argue in circles about British politics thread
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
Argue in circles about British politics thread
Looks like they’re heading to prorogation — shutting down parliament for 6 weeks. So 6 weeks of no debate on Brexit.
I wanted to the queen to say “fuck democracy, no Brexit”, instead she’s handing Boris a no-deal.
And all the brexiters complain “but you have to follow the vote/democracy!”
I wanted to the queen to say “fuck democracy, no Brexit”, instead she’s handing Boris a no-deal.
And all the brexiters complain “but you have to follow the vote/democracy!”
-
- OneTrickPony
- Reactions: 64
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:48 pm
Another pensioner determined to take the country with them when they go.
Demented old fool.
Or, did Boris threaten her with some dirty photos of one of the members of her family?
With any luck, this could kill two birds with one stone: the monarchy and the Conservative party.
Demented old fool.
Or, did Boris threaten her with some dirty photos of one of the members of her family?
With any luck, this could kill two birds with one stone: the monarchy and the Conservative party.
Up the workers!
- Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 74
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Right behind you
Lots of faux outrage around but most of that period Parliament will be in recess so the number of sitting days lost is only 4.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, remember?
The real power of the monarchy died when Charles the 1st lost his head, from then on it was a slow erosion of power.
When governments ask the Queen to prorogue parliament it’s only a formality. She can't say no because it is not her place to, it is decided by the government of the day.
Successive administrations have centralized more and more power and acted in less and less of a democratic manner. Parliament is sovereign and it can do what it likes.
I heard the Queen curtsied to J.R.M
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, remember?
The real power of the monarchy died when Charles the 1st lost his head, from then on it was a slow erosion of power.
When governments ask the Queen to prorogue parliament it’s only a formality. She can't say no because it is not her place to, it is decided by the government of the day.
Successive administrations have centralized more and more power and acted in less and less of a democratic manner. Parliament is sovereign and it can do what it likes.
I heard the Queen curtsied to J.R.M
-
- OneTrickPony
- Reactions: 64
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:48 pm
Could such a crisis be worked out in the courts? The power to prorogue Parliament falls within the royal prerogative. This power was expressly preserved by section 6(1) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. As established in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 6 (“the GCHQ Case”), The prerogative is, with certain exceptions, subject to judicial review. As established in Bancoult (No. 2) [2008] UKHL 61, the same principles generally apply to a review of prerogative power as apply to the review of other government powers. Certain prerogative powers are, however, excluded from review. It is generally understood that these include matters of pure international law, the Royal Assent, and the use of “personal” prerogative powers. This third class includes the power to prorogue Parliament.
Does this make the “Brexit through prorogation” plan immune from judicial review? Not necessarily. Two avenues may be successful. First, as they did in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 (pdf), the courts may determine the scope of the prerogative power even where that power is one of those excluded from the traditional principles of judicial review. The courts may determine that to prorogue Parliament so as to prevent Parliament from exercising control over Brexit is outside the scope of the prerogative power (the substantive reasons for this are set out below). Further, it was stated by the majority in Miller that the court could not accept that ‘a major change to UK constitutional arrangements can be achieved by ministers alone’. Parliament should be consulted on significant constitutional changes. Given that, by effect of Article 50, the UK will automatically leave the EU on 31 October, the government’s failure to stop it will create a substantial constitutional change by default. I do not think this argument is as strong in this case as it was in Miller, however, because it begs the obvious response that Parliament sanctioned the serving of a notice under Article 50 in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 in the full knowledge of the effect of Article 50. There has not been any subsequent Act of Parliament suggesting that the position has changed on that point.
Second, there is nothing to indicate that the Queen will exercise her personal prerogative to prorogue Parliament otherwise than on the advice of the Prime Minister. I would argue that the decision to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament is separate from the Queen’s decision to do so. The latter could (constitutionally speaking) be made independently of the former. The courts may, therefore, entertain a judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament without trespassing on the personal prerogative of the monarch herself. Given the analysis below, the courts will have good reason to find such a constitutional fix.
What of the substantive grounds for review? It is almost certainly beyond the power of the Prime Minster to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate the will of that same Parliament. It is also arguably outside the scope of the Queen’s prerogative power to exercise it so as to frustrate the will of Parliament. As the House of Lords held in R (Fire Brigades Union et al) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] 2 A.C. 513 (albeit in the case of a clear statutory steer from parliament), the executive is not permitted to use prerogative powers to frustrate the will of Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament have expressed the view that a “no deal” Brexit should not be permitted. Parliament has exercised control over the process of Brexit so as to ensure a “no deal” Brexit is avoided. It will likely seek to do so again in October. The act of advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament before (and across) 31 October would have the effect of excluding Parliament from the Brexit process.
Parliament’s democratic mandate is fundamental to the UK constitution. In Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC’s words, Parliamentary sovereignty “is the stone upon which our Constitution is not writ”. The government holds office because it is able to command a majority in the House of Commons. The Commons hold office because they hold a mandate from those they represent. Legitimacy flows upwards from the electorate. As Lord Hope of Craighead put it in Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 (pdf) at 126:
Does this make the “Brexit through prorogation” plan immune from judicial review? Not necessarily. Two avenues may be successful. First, as they did in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 (pdf), the courts may determine the scope of the prerogative power even where that power is one of those excluded from the traditional principles of judicial review. The courts may determine that to prorogue Parliament so as to prevent Parliament from exercising control over Brexit is outside the scope of the prerogative power (the substantive reasons for this are set out below). Further, it was stated by the majority in Miller that the court could not accept that ‘a major change to UK constitutional arrangements can be achieved by ministers alone’. Parliament should be consulted on significant constitutional changes. Given that, by effect of Article 50, the UK will automatically leave the EU on 31 October, the government’s failure to stop it will create a substantial constitutional change by default. I do not think this argument is as strong in this case as it was in Miller, however, because it begs the obvious response that Parliament sanctioned the serving of a notice under Article 50 in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 in the full knowledge of the effect of Article 50. There has not been any subsequent Act of Parliament suggesting that the position has changed on that point.
Second, there is nothing to indicate that the Queen will exercise her personal prerogative to prorogue Parliament otherwise than on the advice of the Prime Minister. I would argue that the decision to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament is separate from the Queen’s decision to do so. The latter could (constitutionally speaking) be made independently of the former. The courts may, therefore, entertain a judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament without trespassing on the personal prerogative of the monarch herself. Given the analysis below, the courts will have good reason to find such a constitutional fix.
What of the substantive grounds for review? It is almost certainly beyond the power of the Prime Minster to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate the will of that same Parliament. It is also arguably outside the scope of the Queen’s prerogative power to exercise it so as to frustrate the will of Parliament. As the House of Lords held in R (Fire Brigades Union et al) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] 2 A.C. 513 (albeit in the case of a clear statutory steer from parliament), the executive is not permitted to use prerogative powers to frustrate the will of Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament have expressed the view that a “no deal” Brexit should not be permitted. Parliament has exercised control over the process of Brexit so as to ensure a “no deal” Brexit is avoided. It will likely seek to do so again in October. The act of advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament before (and across) 31 October would have the effect of excluding Parliament from the Brexit process.
Parliament’s democratic mandate is fundamental to the UK constitution. In Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC’s words, Parliamentary sovereignty “is the stone upon which our Constitution is not writ”. The government holds office because it is able to command a majority in the House of Commons. The Commons hold office because they hold a mandate from those they represent. Legitimacy flows upwards from the electorate. As Lord Hope of Craighead put it in Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 (pdf) at 126:
Up the workers!
Oh, and it is Queen, not queen - this is the queen:
Meum est propositum in taberna mori,
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
I got news for you Johnny Boy; Great Britain doesn't have a constitution ... only Acts of Parliament & other assorted stuff even still including Magna Carta all the way back from 1215!BBC wrote:The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has called the suspension a "constitutional outrage" designed to prevent MPs from debating Brexit.
That Parliament has gone to the dogs, all sides - pretty sure Lizzy is wishing she could pull a "Make it look like a terrorist attack Bond" and start over.
Meum est propositum in taberna mori,
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
ut sint Guinness proxima morientis ori.
tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:
"Sit Deus propitius huic potatori."
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
LOL, I think the Brexiteers have been saying all along that the result of the vote should be respected and not overridden by parliamentary manipulation or the use of seldom enacted parliamentary laws and procedures, which the remain camp have been attempting over and over again. Then the second the Brexit camp use a regulatory loophole it's all of a sudden a travesty and a dirty underhanded tactic.
Even though the whole reason for objecting it, is that it shortens their window of opportunity to use such an underhanded tactic themselves.
The whole affair reminds me of the end of this hilarious scene in Blackadder:
- Fuzzhead22
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 12:29 pm
Of course, this is all due to the Remainers turning down May's exceptionally 'soft' Brexit deal, not once, but 3 times!
The Remainers have casued 'no-deal' liklihood here - the irony is great.
The Remainers have casued 'no-deal' liklihood here - the irony is great.
-
- I Love 440 More Than Real Life
- Reactions: 12
- Posts: 2760
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:12 am
- Location: entering the void
Exactly what I was thinking.kungfufighter wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:37 am
With any luck, this could kill two birds with one stone: the monarchy and the Conservative party.
-
- OneTrickPony
- Reactions: 64
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:48 pm
I'm afraid you may have it wrong old chap. It wasnt that the majority of MPs didnt want Brexit, but that they couldn't decide which sort of Brexit they did want. A complete shit show right from the word go. It was an impossible idea because of Ireland, and the fact that Cameran had worked out a deal, but somehow the wording on the referendum forgot to mention leave WITH a deal; although, all the rhetoric made most people believe it was based on one. What you have had for months now, is the Brexiters shitting their pants that the people might get a second chance at a democratic vote.Fuzzhead22 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:51 amOf course, this is all due to the Remainers turning down May's exceptionally 'soft' Brexit deal, not once, but 3 times!
The Remainers have casued 'no-deal' liklihood here - the irony is great.
A clean split, or none at all. Impossible because of TGFA, or a hard border between Ireland and the UK. Never going to happen.OR a customs union that meant we may have well just stayed in because we would have more of a say if we did.
Shitshow, of the first order. Students will be studying it for many years to come.
This new phase should be interesting. Democracy at work.
Up the workers!
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
OK, a lesson in Parliamentary procedure.
As Urinal Mints correctly pointed out, it only takes 4 sitting days off. In fact by proroguing Parliament now, the number of days available to debate the Brexit issue increases. If KFF and his merry band of alarmists cannot work that one out, then go and post on some childrens forum.
The comment that the BBC wrote "The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has called the suspension a "constitutional outrage" designed to prevent MPs from debating Brexit." is so erroneous as to sum up most of the opposition to this issue.
It was not the Speaker who said this, it was John Bercow in his role as an ordinary MP. Again, if KFF and his little band of anti democratic comrades cannot understand this comment, go and post on a children's forum.
So to sum it up. By proroguing Parliament , Boris has actually given MPs more time to debate the issue rather than less.
Remainers, what are you complaining about?
As Urinal Mints correctly pointed out, it only takes 4 sitting days off. In fact by proroguing Parliament now, the number of days available to debate the Brexit issue increases. If KFF and his merry band of alarmists cannot work that one out, then go and post on some childrens forum.
The comment that the BBC wrote "The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has called the suspension a "constitutional outrage" designed to prevent MPs from debating Brexit." is so erroneous as to sum up most of the opposition to this issue.
It was not the Speaker who said this, it was John Bercow in his role as an ordinary MP. Again, if KFF and his little band of anti democratic comrades cannot understand this comment, go and post on a children's forum.
So to sum it up. By proroguing Parliament , Boris has actually given MPs more time to debate the issue rather than less.
Remainers, what are you complaining about?
Sleep, those little slices of death — how I loathe them.
Hi Just came off the Children's forum,. One of the many consequences of The Clown's disgraceful decision to shut down parliament is that select committees will not be able to meet and hold Government to account. This isn't about left, centre, leave or remain...... This is about ensuring that democracy can never be put on pause when an unelected politician finds it inconvenient.
Thousand on the streets of Westminister last night and no BBC coverage of the event. Wonderful.
Thousand on the streets of Westminister last night and no BBC coverage of the event. Wonderful.
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
Well done. You admit to not understanding what Boris has done. Only 4 sitting days have been lost due to this proroguing so I have no idea what you are blabbing on about re select committees etc.EIKROY wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:21 pmHi Just came off the Children's forum,. One of the many consequences of The Clown's disgraceful decision to shut down parliament is that select committees will not be able to meet and hold Government to account. This isn't about left, centre, leave or remain...... This is about ensuring that democracy can never be put on pause when an unelected politician finds it inconvenient.
Thousand on the streets of Westminister last night and no BBC coverage of the event. Wonderful.
Strange, I thought Boris Johnson was elected to Parliament in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, by a majority of 5,034. He was the legally elected Leader of the Conservative Party and in turn as Leader and under UK standard norms he became Prime Minister. The UK have never elected a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has normally been the Leader of the Party that forms the Government.
Sorry to lecture you but you seem to have no grasp on Parliamentary procedure in the UK or what the word "elected" means.
The Toff that you hate so much (JRM) completely destroyed a Sky reporter on this very subject this morning. Eloquent, articulate, legally correct and patient with the idiotic reporter who was so blatantly remain.
By proroguing Parliament now, Boris has allowed more time to debate Brexit than would have been available had he not done so. Also, thanks to some one called May who seemed in a permanent daydream, we have not had a Queens speech for two years, thus being unable to reset the Parliamentary timetable.
Sleep, those little slices of death — how I loathe them.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Sensible discussion on British politics thread
by Miguelito » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:10 pm » in 'Not' Cambodia - 109 Replies
- 17237 Views
-
Last post by YaTingPom
Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:52 pm
-
-
-
Argue about Ukraine/NATO/NWO etc
by Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint » Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:24 pm » in 'Not' Cambodia - 131 Replies
- 21869 Views
-
Last post by Prahok
Tue Oct 24, 2023 4:07 pm
-
-
- 1 Replies
- 2110 Views
-
Last post by Alexandra
Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:23 pm
-
-
The (nothing) bad happens in Kampot thread
by Bong Burgundy » Sat May 27, 2023 10:48 am » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 2 Replies
- 671 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Sat May 27, 2023 4:20 pm
-
-
- 8 Replies
- 3387 Views
-
Last post by tonytonytony
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:06 pm