The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
Mr. Doof, that doesn't address the point that super pro-EU types can't back the Lib Dems twice, and softer pro-EU types may very well be put off.
May be, true. Then again, you don't have to be ideologically committed to one particular outcome to want this all to just go away: https://www.justmakeitstop.co.uk/
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Stupid Man.
Rather like Blair and Iraq, he cannot admit to himself how badly he screwed up. Admitting he tried to involve the queen is to show "I did everything I could".
Majors lawyer going on the trustworthiness of team BJ, the answer to which surely, is that parliament have a duty to vote no confidence, not pass the matter to the courts
I think Cameron's revelation about the Queen is a colossal breach of trust. Anyone with half a brain can work out she'd instinctively be a strong unionist anyway.
Normally people write books to make themselves look good. Cameron is taking a, umm... novel approach based on these extracts.
Majors lawyer going on the trustworthiness of team BJ, the answer to which surely, is that parliament have a duty to vote no confidence, not pass the matter to the courts
I did point out at the time that if parliament doesn't trust Johnson surely they should either move a vote of No Confidence in him or take up his election offer ?!
Mind you we know there is only one winner when it comes to a battle between truly putting the country first and perceived political advantage in Labour MP's heads.
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
"We" have anything but total control. Parliament controls that. And against his wishes it decided that we shouldn't have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted Johnson to continue.
PS. The EU was very happy for them to stop us.
"We" as in the sense of the UK.
As for Parliament exercising its sovereignty.... well, as the old saying has it, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it"
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's).
Also imagine they had a referendum policy in these circumstances.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union in a way directed by Jo "Bollocks to Brexit" Swinson?
Presumably the Leave side would boycott it, and if they did that then most of the Remain voters wouldn't show up because there was no opposition, so it would have teensy turnout.
I mean, maybe it's the right thing to do on principle, but when you think about the practicalities it doesn't exactly scream "national healing"...
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Stupid Man.
Rather like Blair and Iraq, he cannot admit to himself how badly he screwed up. Admitting he tried to involve the queen is to show "I did everything I could".
Yet he is making himself look like a ridiculous, self-regarding cretin.
I can't get over what he's done. The rampant idiocy of it. There's nothing good about it, no upside, no gain, no positive consequence. It's a dreadful, howling error by a very very unintelligent man, whose reputation is already in the toilet. Jeez.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
SNIP
I agree. It should be noted the troubling opioid epidemic in the USA is largely to do with a misperception on the part of doctors and patients that these drugs were safe. It's a failure of the commercialised approach to healthcare. Were doctors and patients better informed -- as they are now becoming -- they would have been more leery of prescribing and accepting prescriptions of these drugs.
Legalising drugs is not the same as legitimising them. Tobacco is a good case study here, since it's legal but highly regulated, with government information and programs to help wean people off it. That, to me, feels like the sensible approach.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Stupid Man.
Book sales and his deflated ego at being seen as a sad loser.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.
However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Private Eye are saying Brenda was central to the idea to prorogue - the method of doing so cooked up a week earlier in a call between her and Boris. No guarantee brexit ends well for the monarchy.
The Queen also signed the No Deal Bill which made proroguing Parliament irrelevant anyway
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Stupid Man.
Book sales and his deflated ego at being seen as a sad loser.
I don't think it's the sales, I think you could be entirely right with your second suggestion.
These swingeing mistakes, one after the other, suggest post-Brexit Cameron is a man at sea: clueless, flailing, panicked, sad, and desperate to regain some credibility.
Yet, like a drowning man flapping at the waves, every hysterical thing he does makes it all worse. Now he's got the hatred of the Queen. Bravo, Dave.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.
However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway
Oh come now, even the BBC is admitting that HM most certainly did, and discussing it in some detail.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
The effect on Scottish independence is not insignificant, either. Why he thought this a good idea in the first place is extremely curious - but then to brag about it is imbecilic.
On balance, though, it is better if such things do go on that we should know about it.
Mr. Doof, that doesn't address the point that super pro-EU types can't back the Lib Dems twice, and softer pro-EU types may very well be put off.
I think you may just be hoping that is the case Mr Dancer. I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but I will still vote for them. The simple reason is that I do not wish to "reward" the current leadership of the Conservative Party for the direction they have taken us in, and the idiot that they have given us as PM. I cannot vote Labour as they have an even bigger cretin as leader, but I am no more in fear of an incompetent Corbyn government than I am of a no-deal Brexit leaning Tory one
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Oh god, you're defending him??
Have you read the book?
We don't have to (though I have read all the Times extracts, in their miserable witlessness). We can just watch the TV snippet:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.
Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.
This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.
Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.
Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.
Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.
So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.
Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.
His job is to report - not comment.
If Parliament were to return as a result of a ruling against the government, would it be a new session, or still the old one ?
Still the old one - as prorogation would have been deemed not to have happened.
That's what I thought.
As the government's own submission seems to confirm: In the documents Sir James Eadie QC, for the prime minister, writes that if the justices quash the original formal order to prorogue Parliament, taken on 28 August, that would mean that Parliament would remain “in session”....
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Brexit is just a con job.
Not that bad.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
No, thought not.
PR is beginning to look good in the current climate. I have to say that, looking back, John Major looks like a political titan.
If we keep FPTP then sooner or later we are going to get a majority government that wins under 30% of the vote. Not sustainable.
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
"We" have anything but total control. Parliament controls that. And against his wishes it decided that we shouldn't have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted Johnson to continue.
PS. The EU was very happy for them to stop us.
"We" as in the sense of the UK.
As for Parliament exercising its sovereignty.... well, as the old saying has it, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it"
No your "we" makes no sense if you insert that into your original quote.
And anyway, my "we" is the people of the country who voted for the UK to leave. Your "we" is the MPs who overwhelmingly wanted us to stay in. I don't accept that they are representative of the UK on this matter.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.
Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.
This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.
Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.
Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.
Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
You are anything but a traditional Tory. You are an unquestioning cult follower of a man totally unsuitable to be PM who has supported an English nationalist policy that is anti-business and economy wrecking. You are just a very simple right winger who is far more UKIP/BNP than Traditional Tory, who uses pathetic and childish epithets as though they are insults in exactly the same way as extremists always have throughout the ages.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
Tories punch down. Always have done, always will. It's in the nature of the ideology. It's all about hierarchy. The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not. There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
Surely the most salient point to emerge from Kuenssbergtwittergate is BJ's reaction. His first, instinctive reaction to any emergent situation is just to tell a blatant lie.
Tories punch down. Always have done, always will. It's in the nature of the ideology. It's all about hierarchy. The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not. There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
Surely the most salient point to emerge from Kuenssbergtwittergate is BJ's reaction. His first, instinctive reaction to any emergent situation is just to tell a blatant lie.
Indeed, bizarre and utter pointless and counterproductive in this case.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.
Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.
This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.
Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.
Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.
Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.
Though would we necessarily be in a better place ?
I do agree that a constitutional convention would be a very sensible idea (though unlikely to be of any help for a fair amount of time).
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
You are anything but a traditional Tory. You are an unquestioning cult follower of a man totally unsuitable to be PM who has supported an English nationalist policy that is anti-business and economy wrecking. You are just a very simple right winger who is far more UKIP/BNP than Traditional Tory, who uses pathetic and childish epithets as though they are insults in exactly the same way as extremists always have throughout the ages.
I am more of a Tory than you given you are basically a free market liberal not a traditional conservative who for a time used the Tories as the best vehicle to keep Labour out and have now returned to your natural home in the Liberal Democrats
Well yes, until the prorogation we were in the midst of a parliamentary session that had lasted twice as long as the norm and the longest of any in post war history. At some point it will need to be brought to an end, unless there is never ever going to be another prorogation or indeed there is never ever going to be another Queen's speech.
And if the courts have the ability to rule prorogation illegal, do they also have the ability to rule a failure to prorogue illegal?
I can't imagine HMQ is all that delighted with Cameron over the Indyref allegations. He could easily have just said he doesn't discuss his communications with the Queen.
Quite apart from the awks of being seen to act in favour of the UK govt against one of 'her' other govts, it adds another dent to the alleged magical sanctity of 'prerogative' power, given the current unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.
I can't imagine HMQ is all that delighted with Cameron over the Indyref allegations. He could easily have just said he doesn't discuss his communications with the Queen.
Quite apart from the awks of being seen to act in favour of the UK govt against one of 'her' other govts, it adds another dent to the alleged magical sanctity of 'prerogative' power, given the current unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.
Oh, we already all knew she did - it would not have affected the vote and would have been a pointless exercise otherwise - but it's quite another thing to get the PM's eye confirmation of what happened.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
The mood music from the EU seems to be if a deal is offered it will be take it or leave it, no extension, hence the opposition will wear the blame for no deal if they refuse what is on offer at the 11th hour.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement
Like the ERG?
Much of the ERG wanted No Deal Brexit not Deal Brexit like Corbyn, karma has got him now
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
Always been [edit: recent] SNP policy to do so in the first instance. What happens later is another matter, quite literally. (Can't speak for the earlier C20. But, for instance, Mr Salmond had a ghood relationship with HM by all accounts.)
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.
However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
That speaks to your view of blackface. That is your prerogative. I'm guessing the rather young looking teacher he has his hands all over in the picture is a teacher and not one of his students.
The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.
So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.
Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.
His job is to report - not comment.
Also I don't think it was the prorogation per se that is being objected to, but it's length of five weeks.
If the government wants a new session and schedules a prorogation over a long weekend then there wouldn't be any objection. Or at least not so much. I fear for some people "prorogation" has now become a four-syllable word.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.
Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.
This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.
Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.
Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.
Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.
Though would we necessarily be in a better place ?
I do agree that a constitutional convention would be a very sensible idea (though unlikely to be of any help for a fair amount of time).
We would be in a place of clarity where one individual didn't have the right to rewrite the rules on a whim. That is a better place
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
And Scottish independence the other one (not big enough for everyone, alas).
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
No....asking Mother to self-destruct is the only way. The Alien found its way into the escape shuttle.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
It was only a matter of time before your next volte-face.
It’s getting worse....”Don’t abuse our politeness and don’t abuse Lady Hale’s patience”....
Oh my. I feel ill on his behalf at that. He’ll have waking nightmares about that for the rest of his life.
It was his inability to change tack that was so surprising, he just kept on keeping on despite constant interventions about the irrelevance of his arguments
The mood music from the EU seems to be if a deal is offered it will be take it or leave it, no extension, hence the opposition will wear the blame for no deal if they refuse what is on offer at the 11th hour.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
The future of the EU still rests with Germany and its attitude to the weaker members of the Eurozone. Will they create a banking and fiscal union in time to handle the next big crisis?
Brexit is just a sideshow - which is one reason the EU are so frustrated with it.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
That makes Ed Davey Herr Flick and Cable general von klinkerhoffen
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
Do you espouse such divisive views on the doorstep in Epping Hemnall @HYUFD? I feel you are probably a very different guy IRL?
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
Reply....
You are quite right, Mr Dancer, when you write about individual electors and their restricted opportunities of voting twice.
However, I think you also need to take into account the business community, whose interests have been pretty well wrecked by the Conservatives`self-indulgence and short-sightedness. The investment banker community, hedge fund managers and other spivs and chances will love the uncertainty that the Conservatives have given them to gamble with the country`s future.
But while the Conservatives may be flush with donations from these chancers, the business community, who prefer certainty and stability, may well turn and take a second look at what the Lib Dems are offering. After all, the Lib Dems did give them five years of stable government during the Coalition years. And now they are being given the chance to put an end to all this Brexit nonsense, just like that.
Comments
https://www.justmakeitstop.co.uk/
The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.
So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.
Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.
His job is to report - not comment.
Dissolution transfers power to the electorate
Prorogation transfers power to the executive
Admitting he tried to involve the queen is to show "I did everything I could".
Congrats on your order btw.
Mind you we know there is only one winner when it comes to a battle between truly putting the country first and perceived political advantage in Labour MP's heads.
As for Parliament exercising its sovereignty.... well, as the old saying has it, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it"
I mean, maybe it's the right thing to do on principle, but when you think about the practicalities it doesn't exactly scream "national healing"...
I can't get over what he's done. The rampant idiocy of it. There's nothing good about it, no upside, no gain, no positive consequence. It's a dreadful, howling error by a very very unintelligent man, whose reputation is already in the toilet. Jeez.
However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway
These swingeing mistakes, one after the other, suggest post-Brexit Cameron is a man at sea: clueless, flailing, panicked, sad, and desperate to regain some credibility.
Yet, like a drowning man flapping at the waves, every hysterical thing he does makes it all worse. Now he's got the hatred of the Queen. Bravo, Dave.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588
Why he thought this a good idea in the first place is extremely curious - but then to brag about it is imbecilic.
On balance, though, it is better if such things do go on that we should know about it.
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.
This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.
Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.
Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.
Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.
As the government's own submission seems to confirm:
In the documents Sir James Eadie QC, for the prime minister, writes that if the justices quash the original formal order to prorogue Parliament, taken on 28 August, that would mean that Parliament would remain “in session”....
And anyway, my "we" is the people of the country who voted for the UK to leave. Your "we" is the MPs who overwhelmingly wanted us to stay in. I don't accept that they are representative of the UK on this matter.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He's a real weirdo.
https://twitter.com/dww_994/status/1046845138142736384?s=20
You've had enough already today.
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
I do agree that a constitutional convention would be a very sensible idea (though unlikely to be of any help for a fair amount of time).
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
And if the courts have the ability to rule prorogation illegal, do they also have the ability to rule a failure to prorogue illegal?
https://twitter.com/nickboles/status/1174243881552175105?s=21
Quite apart from the awks of being seen to act in favour of the UK govt against one of 'her' other govts, it adds another dent to the alleged magical sanctity of 'prerogative' power, given the current unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.
That should screw Mercedes nicely
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article200568418/Gruene-bei-38-Prozent-in-Umfrage-in-Baden-Wuerttemberg-Neuer-Rekordwert.html
https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/1174648470571028480?s=21
I'm guessing the rather young looking teacher he has his hands all over in the picture is a teacher and not one of his students.
If the government wants a new session and schedules a prorogation over a long weekend then there wouldn't be any objection. Or at least not so much. I fear for some people "prorogation" has now become a four-syllable word.
I take it youve stopped reading Wings over Scotland then ?
And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
Plenty of scope for further advance there it would seem.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Welcome back!
The government is always to blame.
Brexit is just a sideshow - which is one reason the EU are so frustrated with it.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition