Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws
A week is a long time in politics, as Harold Wilson reportedly said. This last week has been one such.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
FPT: Good afternoon, everyone.
F1: ha. What a farce.
The courts have said that prorogation this week some time would be lawful, that's not to say that an instant prorogation at the start of the week refusing time for the opposition to respond to a veto of royal assent would be lawful.
For as long as monarchists here want to keep up the constitutional monarchy pretence of having a so called democracy under a monarchy that is the only legitimate way to act.
* Kippers in disguise.
Unless the Queen wants to get involved in politics, Boris is her minister. If he advises not to give assent then that is his advice - is she going to get involved and overrule him?
If someone else in the Commons thinks assent should be given let them vote accordingly in the Commons to give them confidence.
I'd say the same about May, Cameron, Brown, Blair and all their elected predecessors.
Of course this is not the first step down this road. May's government pointedly refused to defend the Judiciary from attacks in the Leave-supporting Press.
This will continue to worsen unless the hard work of opposing it is prioritised over short-term partisan and personal considerations.
I am pessimistic.
You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/
Ultimately either the bill is watertight or it isn't in legal terms
That doesn't make the Commons and Lords mere debating chambers since a veto would be a nuclear option - and the Commons can immediately on a simple majority pull down the PM and replace them with another.
When the POTUS vetoes a bill it takes more than a simple majority to override that veto and doing so doesn't pull down the POTUS.
Privy Council meetings could be delayed, or the paperwork forgotten, but I think the process at the end of a Parliamentary session is more problematic.
What you said before was this:
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.
It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:
A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.
When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.
The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.
As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.
Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.
Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
If the PM and 2 other relevant Privy Councillors put their name down as advising her to refuse assent then why should she override them? Let the Commons advise her she should get a new PM if that is their choice.
The reality is that the only stick that the EU has to enforce compliance is monetary. If a member state does not implement the directive regarding the maximum organic compound of wire wool (a part of the broader directive on industrial emissions, 2010/75/EU), then it is possible that funding is reduced or withdrawn. This is clearly a much bigger stick for net beneficiaries than net contributors. Although, ironically, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Greeks (all beneficiaries) have IIRC the most unimplemented directives.
If royal assent is denied then Speaker Bercow would instantly grant an urgent debate. If at that point Black Rod came to demand the Commons to come to the Lords I think Speaker Bercow would absolutely refuse to do so. MPs won't calmly proceed with this ceremony, they would refuse and rightly so!
The sovereign may not be challenged in the courts; ministers may.
And in this case, would be.
What precedent or legal grounds are there to refuse assent or advise that?
Mr. B, it might be Bottas/Vettel. But the tweet makes it sound more general:
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1170343297635819520
Even if there is a loophole, and even if its use isn't a really bad look, it seems pretty clear that there are the.numbers in the Commons to depose him in necessary, and to arrange an election at a time not of the government's choosing.
Now, that may be the masterplan. But the government may have overdone the "annoying crusty old MPs" thing.
It would explicitly politicise HMQ, destroying the constitutional settlement that has governed this country.
And what for? Nothing. As you say it would lead directly to a VONC, Corbyn would suddenly look a much safer option for PM, and, when the Queen then does grant Royal Assent, you will have united both extremes in the Brexit debate into wanting to depose her.
How does that advance anyone's interests (except for Corbyn's, Republicans, political journalists and constitutional lawyers)?
The plan is divide the county more and more, spin him as trying everything to stop those dastardly traitors. His base will mostly stick with him but it does give Farage a useful line. I would not be surprised to see Farage in the Tory party and Rudd, Ellwood, Hancock having left within 6 months.
That advice is subject, of course, to judicial review.
In this case it would, and should be. This will not be the last time we have a minority government, and the rules for settling disputes between the executive and legislature appear to be in many cases, like this one, entirely opaque.
Corby holds all the cards. He is the natural & obvious successor.
HM will surely ask him -- I can conceive of no situation in which she will not ask Her official Leader of the Opposition first.
And Corby doesn't care that much if we No Deal Brexit. He can blame the Tories (the one thing he has plenty of experience in) So, Corby can dig his heels in & wait & wait & wait till the LibDems & the Independents .... wilt.
They have to wilt because they believe No Deal Brexit is an Apocalypse.
I think there is also the manner in which drivers slowed down in an attempt to avoid being at the front of the queue.
They were warned about this before qualifying as being potentially dangerous, so, given they ignored the warning, it seems entirely sensible to have a calm look at what actually happened.
As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."
How can anyone make sense of such drivel?
Though there'd be no need for it to go to the courts if the Commons VONC Boris and soundings give another minister for HMQ to call.
This week was clearly meant to be Campaign Launch, but all the goodies have been spaffed away.
If the Commons wishes to change who HMQ's ministers are they have that right available to them. But until then constitutionally HMQ should follow the advice of her ministers. If her ministers advise to withhold assent that would be unprecedented in the modern era but in my eyes entirely constitutional.
The Commons can override it too.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
I suspect that's a widely and increasingly held view.
Just as trust in free markets took a permanent hit after the bankers were bailed out trust in politics, government, the rule of law is also in decline.
And many people are quite happy about that as long as its 'people like us' who are benefiting.
The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.
I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.
Let this be resolved democratically. Assent should be democratically given by HMQ on the advise of her ministers - if her ministers give advise the Commons considers bad then let the Commons resolve that.
We are in a desperate mess and trying to force through a no deal exit is making it worse.
The consuls (certainly at one point) did have veto power.
Tribune powers waxed and waned a bit, I think, and they did have a veto at certain points.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation
Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....
I would argue in three centuries there has been no reason for HMG to advise HMQ to refuse assent. This very bill is unprecedented so could result in unprecedented outcomes.
What has been consistent all along for the last half a century at the very least is that HMQ acts at privy council on the advice of her ministers. If at privy council her ministers advise her to refuse consent then her overriding the advice of her ministers would be unprecedented.
Which also saw them giving up being the party of strong defence, of increasing home ownership and of aspiration.
But people are always willing to ignore inconvenient things when its 'their team' in charge but love to froth away when its someone else.
Mr. Acres, is that royal prerogative a case of refusing (or advising the refusal of) assent, though?
That was royal consent, which is required for parliament to consider bills concerning the veto. Similar, but not the same as royal assent.
If royal prerogative is exercised on the advice of ministers then simply ministers not seeking to exercise that particular prerogative for a long time doesn't mean they can't in the future.
The former is used to stop debate and not allow a Bill to move through its stages .
I wish I understood what people think they are achieving when they behave like this. Surely they can't believe they are influencing public opinion? Certainly they may disrupt the discussion and confuse a few people, but is that really sufficient reward for posting hundreds of comments here, day in and day out?
Bercow apparently overrode the need for Consent. Surprised that wasn't challenged in the courts after reading that Guardian article.
It seems unlikely that the consuls had veto power in the late Republic otherwise, for example, Bibulus wouldn't have been forced to 'omen watch' in order to block fellow consul GJC.
If they're summoned to the Lords they will be in the Commons not the Lords. If they're summoned then, I see no reason the Commons wouldn't say "no, we refuse to be summoned".
Exercising the first veto in over 300 years would be controversial enough, I don't think it will be instantly followed by a prorogation order before the Commons has a chance to react.
Leavers have to realize that whilst you might think you can accept certain Johnson actions now because in your opinion the end goal is worth it what happens if you’re on the opposing side of the argument in the future on something different .
The reason the HOL filibuster was dropped is because in the future that precedent would allow future Bills to go the same way when the government might be in opposition .
I’d be a little sympathetic if there were reason to suggest Parliament was acting ultra vires. But that’s not possible in our system - Parliament can do what it wants.
I want to leave the EU. I now think we have to do this by leaving with no deal. I think Parliament has acted disgracefully. But we must follow the law. The comeuppance will or won’t come at the following election. I think it will, but only time will tell.
If Bercow shouts to lock the doors on Black Rod and refuses to open them again and MPs simply continue with the debate then that is what they do.
The Commons is independent of Black Rod. Every year the Commons slams the door on Black Rod's face to emphasise that. If Black Rod tried to override an urgent Commons debate they would just slam the door in his face and continue the debate. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/black-rod/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdIj7tcDCg