There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
The senate and president are directly elected. Who the f**k voted for the European commission and Jean Claude juncker?
The elected EU Parliament and the elected national leaders choose the EU Commissioner.
The British Prime Minister is also not directly elected, and the House of Lords isn't elected at all.
But this is a different point from your original post, which was about what the voters have to do to effect a change, and in reality that's more about how many checks and balances the system has.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
That would backfire. I am confident that in that scenario the PLP would put their personal views aside and back Corbyn as the elected leader.
Yes. You can't have the Tory leader dictating who is the Labour leader. Under any circumstances. Boris seems to be a fan of Executive Powers, but that is stretching it...
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
Yes. The Senate and the Electoral College are extremely undemocratic.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
It's simple. The laws of the land do not apply when you disagree with them. That is true whether the law is the one compelling you to do something you haven't done it the law governing malfeasance in public office.
Personally I think it's marvellous that we finally have a Prime Minister displaying nice Conservative values like this so that we can have The Purge on 1st November
Law breaking has become much more common recently. Cyclists in big cities go through red lights because they feel like it, and a lot of drivers do the same. Neither used to happen until relatively recently. Many drivers refuse to obey the law on not using mobile phones while driving. Not good.
Cyclists have always gone through red lights, there are just many more of them. I started driving in the 90s and on the motorway would have been a typical driver at 85mph, every day would be plenty of cars doing 90-110mph overtaking me. Nowadays when I can get up 80mph very few faster cars so whilst driving is worse today (mostly tailgaiting, not indicating and lane discipline), they are just breaking different laws now.
I think Johnson and Cummings, whatever they're else they're doing, may be trying to establish him as an "emotional Brexiter" , which we know in the past he hasn't been, because the past week's Labour attack angle on him as being untrustworthy and trying to escape the truth has been so unusually effective.
He needs to be established as definite, clear, and emotional, rather than continually self-creating or duplicitous. Following that, whatever compromises and climbdowns that need to be made won't be quite as dangerous and lethal from the Farage side.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
At the time of resignation there is unlikely to be a letter of support for Corbyn. Boris can mention the anti-Semitism and the terrorist political allies as the reasons why he won't get He can simply name Watson as the person most likely to win support from both the left of the Labour party and the moderates across parties. That is a subjective judgment and not a lie, so there are no advisors that will intervene. Besides, Johnson is her chief advisor anyway.
Is that it? Are you really trying to argue that the food standard thing was THE alternative to May's deal? All the ERG rebellions where about that? Pull the other one.
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
A republican who believes in the royal prerogative. Marvellous!
That's like saying "a doctor who believes in cancer. Marcellous!"
Royal prerogative exists today whether I like it or not. I'd rather those powers were explicitly in the hands of a PM or President, but they're not so we have to act with the situation we have today.
Does it really not occur to you that in a republic there would be provisions regulating the use of those powers, precisely so that they could not be abused in the way that is now being suggested?
A republican arguing against the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite reasonable. A republican objecting to the Queen because she might be an obstacle to the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite ludicrous.
Is that it? Are you really trying to argue that the food standard thing was THE alternative to May's deal? All the ERG rebellions where about that? Pull the other one.
This is part of it yes.
If Stormont has a lock on approving any NI-elements of the backstop that'd be democratic.
Is that it? Are you really trying to argue that the food standard thing was THE alternative to May's deal? All the ERG rebellions where about that? Pull the other one.
This is part of it yes.
If Stormont has a lock on approving any NI-elements of the backstop that'd be democratic.
Stormont isn’t be won’t in a position to make a decision for a long time.
The senate and president are directly elected. Who the f**k voted for the European commission and Jean Claude juncker?
The elected EU Parliament and the elected national leaders choose the EU Commissioner.
The British Prime Minister is also not directly elected, and the House of Lords isn't elected at all.
But this is a different point from your original post, which was about what the voters have to do to effect a change, and in reality that's more about how many checks and balances the system has.
The EU definitely has undemocratic flaws but it is hard to say any part of their system is less democratic than the House of Lords.
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
A republican who believes in the royal prerogative. Marvellous!
That's like saying "a doctor who believes in cancer. Marcellous!"
Royal prerogative exists today whether I like it or not. I'd rather those powers were explicitly in the hands of a PM or President, but they're not so we have to act with the situation we have today.
Does it really not occur to you that in a republic there would be provisions regulating the use of those powers, precisely so that they could not be abused in the way that is now being suggested?
A republican arguing against the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite reasonable. A republican objecting to the Queen because she might be an obstacle to the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite ludicrous.
I'm not objecting to the Queen. Where did I object to the Queen?
There are provisions regulating use of the powers. If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.
Is that it? Are you really trying to argue that the food standard thing was THE alternative to May's deal? All the ERG rebellions where about that? Pull the other one.
This is part of it yes.
If Stormont has a lock on approving any NI-elements of the backstop that'd be democratic.
Stormont isn’t be won’t in a position to make a decision for a long time.
I don't care about that. That's the choice of the representatives the voters of NI chose to elect. If the voters of NI choose to vote for Alliance and other grown up parties then Stormont can sit.
Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi? Now I really have heard it all.
Both sought independence for their country.
But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.
Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
That's not quite true.
The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)
The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.
"Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"
Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.
The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
Can the Queen herself recommend that an election should take place if Johnson resigns and says he doesn't think any other person could command the support of a majority of MPs?
Is that it? Are you really trying to argue that the food standard thing was THE alternative to May's deal? All the ERG rebellions where about that? Pull the other one.
This is part of it yes.
If Stormont has a lock on approving any NI-elements of the backstop that'd be democratic.
Stormont isn’t be won’t in a position to make a decision for a long time.
I don't care about that. That's the choice of the representatives the voters of NI chose to elect. If the voters of NI choose to vote for Alliance and other grown up parties then Stormont can sit.
So perhaps you could explain why Stormont isn’t in a position to make a decision as you don’t appear to understand the issues there.
Can the Queen herself recommend that an election should take place if Johnson resigns and says he doesn't think any other person could command the support of a majority of MPs?
The FTPA ended hmqs ability to dissolve parliament outside its provisions
Can the Queen herself recommend that an election should take place if Johnson resigns and says he doesn't think any other person could command the support of a majority of MPs?
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
At the time of resignation there is unlikely to be a letter of support for Corbyn. Boris can mention the anti-Semitism and the terrorist political allies as the reasons why he won't get He can simply name Watson as the person most likely to win support from both the left of the Labour party and the moderates across parties. That is a subjective judgment and not a lie, so there are no advisors that will intervene. Besides, Johnson is her chief advisor anyway.
Is there any reason to believe that a prime minister resigning irresponsibly in that way - not through ill health or because he has lost an election, or even a no-confidence vote, but simply as a political tactic, in order to avoid discharging his legal responsibilities - would have any right to advise the Queen as to who should succeed?
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
Can the Queen herself recommend that an election should take place if Johnson resigns and says he doesn't think any other person could command the support of a majority of MPs?
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
At the time of resignation there is unlikely to be a letter of support for Corbyn. Boris can mention the anti-Semitism and the terrorist political allies as the reasons why he won't get He can simply name Watson as the person most likely to win support from both the left of the Labour party and the moderates across parties. That is a subjective judgment and not a lie, so there are no advisors that will intervene. Besides, Johnson is her chief advisor anyway.
But. At the point of resignation he ceases to be her chief advisor.
Can the Queen herself recommend that an election should take place if Johnson resigns and says he doesn't think any other person could command the support of a majority of MPs?
The Queen is remarkably unrestricted by legal niceties. She could declare one of her corgis as PM if she wanted.
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi? Now I really have heard it all.
Both sought independence for their country.
But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.
Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
That's not quite true.
The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)
The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.
"Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"
Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.
The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
The difference is the right to initiative.
The International Telecommunication Union may set regulations with respect to communications that we follow. But those regulations are technical, very narrow in remit and on limited areas we have chosen to assign to it.
The EU can initiate new laws in virtually any area using sweeping powers. In that way it is like the USA Federal Government which has used the interstate commerce clause to grab power far beyond what was originally imagined. There is no comparison between that and the ITU or other bodies.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
At the time of resignation there is unlikely to be a letter of support for Corbyn. Boris can mention the anti-Semitism and the terrorist political allies as the reasons why he won't get He can simply name Watson as the person most likely to win support from both the left of the Labour party and the moderates across parties. That is a subjective judgment and not a lie, so there are no advisors that will intervene. Besides, Johnson is her chief advisor anyway.
I think the answer lies in corbyns title the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.
Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi? Now I really have heard it all.
Both sought independence for their country.
But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.
Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
That's not quite true.
The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)
The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.
"Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"
Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.
The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
What is the sanction if a country simply doesn't implement the directives into national law? Has it ever happened?
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
At the time of resignation there is unlikely to be a letter of support for Corbyn. Boris can mention the anti-Semitism and the terrorist political allies as the reasons why he won't get He can simply name Watson as the person most likely to win support from both the left of the Labour party and the moderates across parties. That is a subjective judgment and not a lie, so there are no advisors that will intervene. Besides, Johnson is her chief advisor anyway.
I think the answer lies in corbyns title the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
A republican who believes in the royal prerogative. Marvellous!
That's like saying "a doctor who believes in cancer. Marcellous!"
Royal prerogative exists today whether I like it or not. I'd rather those powers were explicitly in the hands of a PM or President, but they're not so we have to act with the situation we have today.
Does it really not occur to you that in a republic there would be provisions regulating the use of those powers, precisely so that they could not be abused in the way that is now being suggested?
A republican arguing against the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite reasonable. A republican objecting to the Queen because she might be an obstacle to the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite ludicrous.
I'm not objecting to the Queen. Where did I object to the Queen?
There are provisions regulating use of the powers. If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.
Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!
Boris should refuse royal assent then prorogue Parliament
Is anyone still buying the line that Boris wants a deal and all this is an attempt to strengthen his negotiating position?
Yes. The EU have no reason to blink if they think the UK will blink.
You're describing your belief that it would be a good idea if that actually was Boris's approach. Jonathan was asking as to whether that actually is Boris's approach in fact. Your answer did not match the question.
I do believe it's Boris's approach.
I believe he [like me] does want an acceptable deal, and does recognise he won't get it without strength from the UK.
Ah, I see. Obviously we disagree, but that is a clear formulation of your belief. Thank you.
I just realized @HYFUD must gamed this entire purge from way back when, he's saying all the right things to be the last Tory left in the final days, when Epping is a river of blood
Is there any reason to believe that a prime minister resigning irresponsibly in that way - not through ill health or because he has lost an election, or even a no-confidence vote, but simply as a political tactic, in order to avoid discharging his legal responsibilities - would have any right to advise the Queen as to who should succeed?
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
I certainly don't think Johnson is behaving "irresponsibly" if he wishes to resign.
If MPs have taken control, then it is not unreasonable for MPs to provide a PM who wishes to carry out their wishes.
I think it will be Corbyn that the HM will send for.
The LibDems (& others) will then have to decide whether they support Corbyn or not.
Will it be "irresponsible" of them to fail to support Corbyn?
Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!
The opposition could have VONC'd or agreed an election already. It is only due to silly gameplaying they haven't.
Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!
The opposition could have VONC'd or agreed an election already. It is only due to silly gameplaying they haven't.
Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
Why do you think that? I've seen no evidence to suggest it would be possible to VONC the government if royal assent is refused immediately before prorogation.
I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up as you go along.
Is there any reason to believe that a prime minister resigning irresponsibly in that way - not through ill health or because he has lost an election, or even a no-confidence vote, but simply as a political tactic, in order to avoid discharging his legal responsibilities - would have any right to advise the Queen as to who should succeed?
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
I certainly don't think Johnson is behaving "irresponsibly" if he wishes to resign.
If MPs have taken control, then it is not unreasonable for MPs to provide a PM who wishes to carry out their wishes.
I think it will be Corbyn that the HM will send for.
The LibDems (& others) will then have to decide whether they support Corbyn or not.
Will it be "irresponsible" of them to fail to support Corbyn?
My question was whether there was any reason to think someone resigning in that way would have the right to advise the Queen on his successor. And whether there was a precedent.
Is there any reason to believe that a prime minister resigning irresponsibly in that way - not through ill health or because he has lost an election, or even a no-confidence vote, but simply as a political tactic, in order to avoid discharging his legal responsibilities - would have any right to advise the Queen as to who should succeed?
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
I certainly don't think Johnson is behaving "irresponsibly" if he wishes to resign.
If MPs have taken control, then it is not unreasonable for MPs to provide a PM who wishes to carry out their wishes.
I think it will be Corbyn that the HM will send for.
The LibDems (& others) will then have to decide whether they support Corbyn or not.
Will it be "irresponsible" of them to fail to support Corbyn?
My question was whether there was any reason to think someone resigning in that way would have the right to advise the Queen on his successor. And whether there was a precedent.
Any answers?
The FTPA has changed matters -- so I don't think the search for precedents is very enlightening.
The Queen presumably takes advice from a number of people. Johnson can give whatever advice he wants. It can be ignored, or not.
Nonetheless, I expect HM to send for Corby in the first instance.
Is there any reason to believe that a prime minister resigning irresponsibly in that way - not through ill health or because he has lost an election, or even a no-confidence vote, but simply as a political tactic, in order to avoid discharging his legal responsibilities - would have any right to advise the Queen as to who should succeed?
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
I certainly don't think Johnson is behaving "irresponsibly" if he wishes to resign.
If MPs have taken control, then it is not unreasonable for MPs to provide a PM who wishes to carry out their wishes.
I think it will be Corbyn that the HM will send for.
The LibDems (& others) will then have to decide whether they support Corbyn or not.
Will it be "irresponsible" of them to fail to support Corbyn?
My question was whether there was any reason to think someone resigning in that way would have the right to advise the Queen on his successor. And whether there was a precedent.
Any answers?
The FTPA has changed matters -- so I don't think the search for precedents is very enlightening.
The FTPA only affects the term of parliament. It has no effect whatsoever on the appointment of prime ministers.
Comments
coughcoughthreemillionvoteslessthanclintoncoughcough
The British Prime Minister is also not directly elected, and the House of Lords isn't elected at all.
But this is a different point from your original post, which was about what the voters have to do to effect a change, and in reality that's more about how many checks and balances the system has.
Boris seems to be a fan of Executive Powers, but that is stretching it...
Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
He needs to be established as definite, clear, and emotional, rather than continually self-creating or duplicitous. Following that, whatever compromises and climbdowns that need to be made won't be quite as dangerous and lethal from the Farage side.
A republican arguing against the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite reasonable. A republican objecting to the Queen because she might be an obstacle to the abuse of the royal prerogative is quite ludicrous.
If Stormont has a lock on approving any NI-elements of the backstop that'd be democratic.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1170336977964716048
There are provisions regulating use of the powers. If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.
The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)
The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.
"Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"
Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.
The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
Is there any precedent? Has anyone in the history of the office ever behaved in that way before?
The International Telecommunication Union may set regulations with respect to communications that we follow. But those regulations are technical, very narrow in remit and on limited areas we have chosen to assign to it.
The EU can initiate new laws in virtually any area using sweeping powers. In that way it is like the USA Federal Government which has used the interstate commerce clause to grab power far beyond what was originally imagined. There is no comparison between that and the ITU or other bodies.
Could be massive Aussies not having any reviews left if so. Be funny now if Smith goes LBW to a dodgy call.
NEW THREAD
If MPs have taken control, then it is not unreasonable for MPs to provide a PM who wishes to carry out their wishes.
I think it will be Corbyn that the HM will send for.
The LibDems (& others) will then have to decide whether they support Corbyn or not.
Will it be "irresponsible" of them to fail to support Corbyn?
Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
F1: ha. What a farce.
I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up as you go along.
Any answers?
The Queen presumably takes advice from a number of people. Johnson can give whatever advice he wants. It can be ignored, or not.
Nonetheless, I expect HM to send for Corby in the first instance.