Somewhere there’s a parallel reality in which Remain won and Cameron has just handed over to Osborne. There’s are noises off about a second referendum (because of unpopular EU step A, B, or C) but despite Corbyn’s increasingly eurosceptic line as Leader of the Opposition, and a few electoral wins for the Brexit Party, Osborne is quietly confident of a fourth term.
The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.
We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.
This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.
And she is doing it by openly supporting one side. Let's face it, she is supporting this Tory government.
She isn't doing any such thing.
HMQ always acts on the advice of her PM. Always.
You can make a case the PM has advised her very badly, for which I have some sympathy, but she had no choice.
In which case, the question may well arise as to what is the point of a constitutional Head of State with absolutely no power whatsoever other than theoretical?
(a) She is a non-political unifying figure that the majority of people can support regardless of party political preference. If you want a non-partisan President you either end up with a superannuated failed politician or someone like the Queen.
...or you get someone like Mary Robinson.
Actually "someone like the Queen" gives a wide pool to choose from unlike exactly one persond determined but the first sucessful egg or sperm of the previous monarch.
Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.
Even if it was (and remember it seems legal advice was that other approaches wouldn't stand scrutiny) it has brought the Monarchy into the equation.
And that will probably do it no favours in the medium term.
I agree. Ironic that Boris Johnson has done more to jeopardise the medium term future of the monarchy than Jeremy Corbyn ever has.
Yes, as well as the coup de grace for the Union, why not add the Monarchy? This could well be our Whitlam moment that energises republicans.
Just plain silly to think it will be over then. More than that it is dishonest in promising an end to division on this subject. I believe stopping it is the least damaging at this point, but it will not be without ongoing pain and division .
As with all wars, this will only be over at the point where both sides agree to a compromise they can live with.
Somewhere there’s a parallel reality in which Remain won and Cameron has just handed over to Osborne. There’s are noises off about a second referendum (because of unpopular EU step A, B, or C) but despite Corbyn’s increasingly eurosceptic line as Leader of the Opposition, and a few electoral wins for the Brexit Party, Osborne is quietly confident of a fourth term.
Really not sure that the Tory party in anything like its current form would have survived a remain vote. My guess is at the next election the Tories would have lost so many votes to UKIP/TBP that it would have lost office and that quite a number of MPs would have followed their members out the door. Cameron was in a difficult place with a party that was so fractured there were no good options.
How about Parliament/MPs take some responsibility themselves instead of relying on others to do it for them? Who are they relying on next, the House of Lords?
Instead of attacking the Queen who is without compare in public service, especially with these third rate mps, why don't they get together and take action.
Boris has laid himself wide open to a vonc and so just do it.
Sadly the biggest obstacle which has always been, and will continue to be, is one Jeremy Corbyn, the most inept leader ever of an opposition and in charge of the once great labour party
How about Parliament/MPs take some responsibility themselves instead of relying on others to do it for them? Who are they relying on next, the House of Lords?
Just plain silly to think it will be over then. More than that it is dishonest in promising an end to division on this subject. I believe stopping it is the least damaging at this point, but it will not be without ongoing pain and division .
As with all wars, this will only be over at the point where both sides agree to a compromise they can live with.
Can Remain MPs get a Bill through Parliament next week?
They got a Bill through in a couple of days a few months ago.
But could Govt supporters in Lords delay it long enough by putting down hundreds of amendments? I know Lords can vote on closure motion re each amendment but if there were literally hundreds of amendments I would have thought it could be strung out long enough to prevent it going through next week.
Two votes needed on each amendment - the closure motion and then actual vote on the amendment - so each amendment can be made to take at least 35 minutes.
Since were sharing anecdotes today one reaction in my office was from someone saying as a Republican they are glad the queen didnt prevent it as it would mean she held actual power.
Another blamed the EU for not compromising and two others were terrified of no deal chaos.
I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.
For the moment Flint is still voting for a deal put forward to parliament. No tweets from her thus far wrt prorogation.
I will be surprised if today's news has no effect on her. The issue now goes way beyond Brexit per se - much more to do with abuse of process and failing to adhere to convention.
Agreed. That's why we've been calling for Bercow to be sacked for years. The man's unfit to be Speaker
I don't know who you mean by "we", but whether or not he is fit to be Speaker is entirely at the discretion of Parliament.
Does a new session of Parliament following porogation allow May's Shit Deal to be brought back a fourth time, over the obections of the Speaker?
Yes. But that was not insurmountable anyway. Hence Boris being so against it he will clearly whip against, just in card someone suggested bringing it back.
Just plain silly to think it will be over then. More than that it is dishonest in promising an end to division on this subject. I believe stopping it is the least damaging at this point, but it will not be without ongoing pain and division .
As with all wars, this will only be over at the point where both sides agree to a compromise they can live with.
Not exactly how I'd describe the outcome of most wars
Somewhere there’s a parallel reality in which Remain won and Cameron has just handed over to Osborne. There’s are noises off about a second referendum (because of unpopular EU step A, B, or C) but despite Corbyn’s increasingly eurosceptic line as Leader of the Opposition, and a few electoral wins for the Brexit Party, Osborne is quietly confident of a fourth term.
Really not sure that the Tory party in anything like its current form would have survived a remain vote. My guess is at the next election the Tories would have lost so many votes to UKIP/TBP that it would have lost office and that quite a number of MPs would have followed their members out the door. Cameron was in a difficult place with a party that was so fractured there were no good options.
Cameron's best option was to have embraced the possibility of siding with Leave if the EU didn't move on his renegotiation. If he had, he would have won the Brexit vote by at least 60-40, stayed PM and turned many Remainer MPs into Brexiteers in the process.
Who knows what he must turn over in his mind, in those long days in the shepherd hut.....
Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.
Even if it was (and remember it seems legal advice was that other approaches wouldn't stand scrutiny) it has brought the Monarchy into the equation.
And that will probably do it no favours in the medium term.
I agree. Ironic that Boris Johnson has done more to jeopardise the medium term future of the monarchy than Jeremy Corbyn ever has.
Yes, as well as the coup de grace for the Union, why not add the Monarchy? This could well be our Whitlam moment that energises republicans.
When Priti re-legalises the death penalty, perhaps the guillotine will be one of the permitted methods
I still think that the thing that would come closest to keeping both sides and the most number of people content is something like EFTA with a customs arrangement. Unfortunately we seem to have gotten into a position where only extreme outcomes are now possible, with all the trouble that they inevitably will cause.
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
If that is the case then why did Boris do it other than that he wanted the outrage?
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
If that is the case then why did Boris do it other than that he wanted the outrage?
Everyone loves an anecdote. I know remainers that are well impressed with Boris after today. They want the issue resolved and they want strong leadership.
Ignore that snap Yougov poll for now and let’s see the VI polls in the weekend papers.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.
For the moment Flint is still voting for a deal put forward to parliament. No tweets from her thus far wrt prorogation.
I will be surprised if today's news has no effect on her. The issue now goes way beyond Brexit per se - much more to do with abuse of process and failing to adhere to convention.
Agreed. That's why we've been calling for Bercow to be sacked for years. The man's unfit to be Speaker
I don't know who you mean by "we", but whether or not he is fit to be Speaker is entirely at the discretion of Parliament.
I think the current speaker and the current parliament deserve each other.
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
If that is the case then why did Boris do it other than that he wanted the outrage?
Maybe he wanted to remove the possibility that he would come under pressure from hard Brexiteers to prorogue across October 31st? Because he actually really doesn’t want no deal? Or force Parliament to actually take the whole thing out of his hands before a VoNC actually forces any following election to be post Oct 31st.
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
Its robbed them of 4 days to accomplish something they haven't managed in 3 years.....
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The one thing the Queen has is enormous goodwill in the Country and admiration far beyond any of our useless mps.
Attacking the Queen will be counter productive in the public at large
And I say that as a republican who has come to admire the Queen, not so Charles and the rest
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The one thing the Queen has is enormous goodwill in the Country and admiration far beyond any of our useless mps.
Attacking the Queen will be counter productive in the public at large
And I say that as a republican who has come to admire the Queen, not so Charles and the rest
How come her interventions always help Conservatives ?
If MPs want to prevent no deal via an election - they can do it next week. If they want to do it via legislation and/or some VoNC followed by some theoretical GoNU they can do it - post October 14th.
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
Its robbed them of 4 days to accomplish something they haven't managed in 3 years.....
On one level I agree but on the PR level - it's far worse than that.
No. Parliament is due to go on a three-week conference recess anyway in the second week of September and there had been suggestions MPs would vote against holding this recess, or any attempt to extend it. However, proroguing parliament is not voted on by MPs so cannot be stopped in this way.
I still think that the thing that would come closest to keeping both sides and the most number of people content is something like EFTA with a customs arrangement. Unfortunately we seem to have gotten into a position where only extreme outcomes are now possible, with all the trouble that they inevitably will cause.
I largely agree with that.
I think it’s pretty clear that the option with the best chance of keeping the European issue on the back burner for a while would have been Cameron’s deal. Following an undefined vote to Leave, any specific option was destined to provoke outrage from people who wanted Leave to mean something else.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The one thing the Queen has is enormous goodwill in the Country and admiration far beyond any of our useless mps.
Attacking the Queen will be counter productive in the public at large
And I say that as a republican who has come to admire the Queen, not so Charles and the rest
How come her interventions always help Conservatives ?
Judging by this forum it is far from helping the conservatives, but of course time and the polls will tell
Yet another complication in respect of tomorrow's hearing will be that it is generally not competent to interdict (grant an injunction against) a completed wrong. If the Queen has already granted the prorogation I think it is arguable that the Courts can't do anything about it. The petitioners may be able to argue that the wrong is not completed until Parliament is actually prorogued but it is a further hurdle, no question.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The queen never overrules a Governor-General though. There have been Governors-General that have done far worse, such as condone the overthrow of elected governments by force and invite another country to military invade, and she has not tried to stop them.
Yet another complication in respect of tomorrow's hearing will be that it is generally not competent to interdict (grant an injunction against) a completed wrong. If the Queen has already granted the prorogation I think it is arguable that the Courts can't do anything about it. The petitioners may be able to argue that the wrong is not completed until Parliament is actually prorogued but it is a further hurdle, no question.
Are Her Maj courts going to overule err her Maj ?!
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The queen never overrules a Governor-General though. There have been Governors-General that have done far worse, such as condone the overthrow of elected governments by force and invite another country to military invade, and she has not tried to stop them.
So, why the f**k do we pay her to be there ? She should spend her time finding out what her sons are up to - particularly, one of them.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
I notice you didn't answer my previous question.
She acted on advice of her Prime Minister. Would you be saying the same thing if she had refused Corbyn's advice?
Yet another complication in respect of tomorrow's hearing will be that it is generally not competent to interdict (grant an injunction against) a completed wrong. If the Queen has already granted the prorogation I think it is arguable that the Courts can't do anything about it. The petitioners may be able to argue that the wrong is not completed until Parliament is actually prorogued but it is a further hurdle, no question.
Are Her Maj courts going to overule err her Maj ?!
I would imagine that the form of the order is going to give the senior counsel involved in the case a fairly sleepless night.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The queen never overrules a Governor-General though. There have been Governors-General that have done far worse, such as condone the overthrow of elected governments by force and invite another country to military invade, and she has not tried to stop them.
So, why the f**k do we pay her to be there ? She should spend her time finding out what her sons are up to - particularly, one of them.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The queen never overrules a Governor-General though. There have been Governors-General that have done far worse, such as condone the overthrow of elected governments by force and invite another country to military invade, and she has not tried to stop them.
So, why the f**k do we pay her to be there ? She should spend her time finding out what her sons are up to - particularly, one of them.
because its better than paying that useless tosser Prescott to be a President
I just get the feeling that Boris, and more likely Cummings, are running rings around their opponents who seem to be in total fury, probably as they cannot be sure how to stop him
Boris has certainly set the agenda and I just want to see his opponents table a vonc next week and take it from there.
In the absence of that they are all anger and no plan
It might be so that it is all constitutionally above board. It has a chance of success. But it looks very very bad and not just the usual suspects given how some prominent people were against proroguing in this way.
But enough for one day. Hopefully today has clarified to MPs that half measures are over and to stop hoping the queen or the courts will spare them the hard calls. It's on them and they have more options than they admit, they just want avoid some.
It’s pretty easy to answer that one - he was clearly discussing this in the context of pro-roguing Parliament across Oct 31st to force no deal Brexit. Nobody was saying having a recess for summer holidays, or a recess for the Party conferences was outrageous even though both caused the loss of far more time for scrutiny than this. And is almost totally concurrent with the latter.
The suggestions that Boris might prove somewhat cowardly and completely indecisive in office have proven somewhat wide of the mark. Reckless and foolhardy remain open for debate.
The measures were devised by the prime minister’s senior aides who have spent the summer in their Downing Street bunker wargaming how to respond to potential parliamentary manoeuvres by MPs determined to block no-deal. The rebels, by contrast, spent the August holidays debating whether they would back Ken Clarke as a potential caretaker prime minister in an unlikely government of national unity.
Number 10's prorogation plan was ready to go and put into action on Tuesday evening, just hours after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn agreed a pact with the so-called Remainer “rebel alliance” seeking to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
The Queen has form. She allowed, through her Governor General, Harper [ a Conservative ] to prorogue Parliament so that a VoNC could not be tabled. She allowed her Australian Governor General Kerr to sack a Labor Prime Minister. And now helped a Conservative Prime Minister. Coincidences ?
The one thing the Queen has is enormous goodwill in the Country and admiration far beyond any of our useless mps.
Attacking the Queen will be counter productive in the public at large
And I say that as a republican who has come to admire the Queen, not so Charles and the rest
There is an element of truth in that.
The constitution requires her to be pro whichever rogue happens to be occupying the office of PM. And the current occupant is an absolute pro rogue.
If the Queen has no scope for taking any alternative action / taking any decisions whatsoever it does rather beg the question of what is the point of having her as part of tbe process?
Let alone all the rest of the Royal Family.
It's a heck of an expensive operation just to have some people to promote charities and supply "entertainment" for the media.
Comments
You see dissolution as insurance against it ever happening again.
That's a statement of undeniable fact given their respective actions vis a vis parliament.
Actually "someone like the Queen" gives a wide pool to choose from unlike exactly one persond determined but the first sucessful egg or sperm of the previous monarch.
Boris has laid himself wide open to a vonc and so just do it.
Sadly the biggest obstacle which has always been, and will continue to be, is one Jeremy Corbyn, the most inept leader ever of an opposition and in charge of the once great labour party
Thank you Boris Johnson and Brexiteers.
PS - Has always amused my friends that one of life’s Cavaliers is a Roundhead.
NB Churchill for a while campaigned in politics as a Constitutionalist. Time for a revival?
They got a Bill through in a couple of days a few months ago.
But could Govt supporters in Lords delay it long enough by putting down hundreds of amendments? I know Lords can vote on closure motion re each amendment but if there were literally hundreds of amendments I would have thought it could be strung out long enough to prevent it going through next week.
Two votes needed on each amendment - the closure motion and then actual vote on the amendment - so each amendment can be made to take at least 35 minutes.
Another blamed the EU for not compromising and two others were terrified of no deal chaos.
Who knows what he must turn over in his mind, in those long days in the shepherd hut.....
And retrospectively ?
What does the prorogation prevent them from doing that they couldn’t have done anyway?
Other than express “outrage” obviously.
https://twitter.com/SteveBarclay/status/1166734464208293888?s=20
Ignore that snap Yougov poll for now and let’s see the VI polls in the weekend papers.
Coincidences ?
Attacking the Queen will be counter productive in the public at large
And I say that as a republican who has come to admire the Queen, not so Charles and the rest
We need to talk about the monarchy and their relationship was the Nazis.
https://twitter.com/derekmeers/status/1166728921053827073?s=21
https://twitter.com/SirSocks/status/1166738979833679873?s=20
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1166739397884203008?s=20
Can MPs vote against prorogation?
No. Parliament is due to go on a three-week conference recess anyway in the second week of September and there had been suggestions MPs would vote against holding this recess, or any attempt to extend it. However, proroguing parliament is not voted on by MPs so cannot be stopped in this way.
LOL
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1136610833750994951
She acted on advice of her Prime Minister. Would you be saying the same thing if she had refused Corbyn's advice?
That is the point.
Boris has certainly set the agenda and I just want to see his opponents table a vonc next week and take it from there.
In the absence of that they are all anger and no plan
But enough for one day. Hopefully today has clarified to MPs that half measures are over and to stop hoping the queen or the courts will spare them the hard calls. It's on them and they have more options than they admit, they just want avoid some.
Number 10's prorogation plan was ready to go and put into action on Tuesday evening, just hours after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn agreed a pact with the so-called Remainer “rebel alliance” seeking to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
If No Deal is as bad as feared then support for the monarchy will collapse whilst the Queen sits in one of her many palaces whilst her people suffer.
She is our Marie Antoinette, 'let them eat sovereignty' she said today.
The constitution requires her to be pro whichever rogue happens to be occupying the office of PM.
And the current occupant is an absolute pro rogue.
Let alone all the rest of the Royal Family.
It's a heck of an expensive operation just to have some people to promote charities and supply "entertainment" for the media.